D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AlViking]

I am pretty certain the books are not spelling out "If you do not have the ability, you cannot do the thing". I think this was a hotly debated topic with regard to the appropriate interpretation/implementation. You clearly ended up with the hard liners on one side. Draw Steel for instance is explicitly calling out this issue presenting another valid interpretation - that the abilities allow things to be done automatically, while if you are going to do it without the ability you must resort to the more general base rules for doing so.

Indeed this schism I believe can be traced back all the way to the introduction of the thief skills.

That is this is not about ignoring rules, it is about how the players decide to interpret the rules. And flexibility of interpretation might in some cases (not necessarily in this) be desirable as a feature to allow players to tailor the experience to their tastes.

I'm just repeating what I was told and how it was used at tables I played at. If someone had a power that did X, that if anyone could do X then X as a power was pointless.

 

[Enrahim]

I'm just repeating what I was told and how it was used at tables I played at. If someone had a power that did X, that if anyone could do X then X as a power was pointless.

Yes. That is the classic argument for that interpretation. And it is absolutely a valid argument. There just are other interpretations with similarly valid arguments associated with them (Granted, there could be some abilities that has a form that makes the ability hardly worthwhile if everyone could do it via some other mechanism - but I associate that more with PF than 4ed)

 

[Hussar]

We played different games then, 4e absolutely locked you in. Powers were very specific and detailed to the point where I was told more than once "You can't do that, there's a power that allows it" or "I don't care if that should convince the NPC it still only counts as one success in this skill challenge ".

Then, quite frankly, whoever told you that was straight up wrong. The game was never intended to be played that way and there are numerous examples from the old Acquisitions Inc. plays that demonstrated exactly why this was wrong.

 

[Hussar]

I don't remember the exact details and as I've said repeatedly it probably wasn't ogre minions. But we had set up a situation were most of the villagers young and old could throw rocks from a safe position.

But why let people with actual play experiences alter your summary judgment?

So, your actual play experience that you don't actually clearly remember? That's what we're supposed to use to judge things? The same group that you just admitted didn't actually follow the rules as they were written? That actual play experience?

See, my actual play experience tells me that a 1st level AD&D fighter would win against an ogre most of the time. Certainly best of three. But, I've had two people here straight up tell me that I'm wrong and that that could never happen.

The difference is, I can actually point to the actual math of the game - fighter's with weapon specialization, the damage of a weapon, and so forth - to back up my "actual play experience". OTOH, now we have to deal with faulty memory of events from ten years ago, that may or may not have happened, in a group that wasn't playing the game as written.

Surely you can see the difference here?

 

[Umbran]

But if consistently ignoring the rules is the answer for rules I don't like (and I don't recall anything encouraging house rules in 4e), then it's still an issue with the rules.

Ah, the no-win scenario.

On the one hand, D&D has been lauded for its support of the community of house ruling.
On the other hand, D&D gets criticized if anyone ever feels a need to use a house rule.

 

[Hussar]

I'm just repeating what I was told and how it was used at tables I played at. If someone had a power that did X, that if anyone could do X then X as a power was pointless.

So, it's not possible, in your mind, that your table may have misinterpreted the rules? That all of us who are telling you that that's not what the rules say, because we also played the system for quite a while, both as players and DM's, might potentially have a better grasp on the system?

 

[Umbran]

Surely you can see the difference here?

What I see is likely the setup for an acrimonious argument.

 

[nevin]

I'm just repeating what I was told and how it was used at tables I played at. If someone had a power that did X, that if anyone could do X then X as a power was pointless.

I do think at High levels Characters need to feel like they can do things no one else can. Mythical magic Items special powers being able to call in favors from gods etc can fill that void. I think a lot of high levels games get handicapped by GM's freaking out trying to control everything and then you end up with the "I'm special like everyone else problem". I wish the rule books would warn new GMs that High level play is where the rules just break and you'll be holding your games together with super glue And duct tape, and occasionally just watching it all go wonky. And that mastering low level and mid level play is a better place to stay till you feel like you have the system completely down. I think this is true of most games not just dnd

 

[Enrahim]

I'm saying I don't want things like minions that are designed to fulfill a narrative trope while ignoring the rest of the design of the game. Either fully lean into narrative game or better support the sim side like every other version of the game.

Why are you here just contemplating 2 sides of the GNS monstrosity? How can you say they didn't lean fully into the game side?

Reading "Wizard Presents: Worlds and Monsters", it really seemed like they wanted more monsters in because it was fun, not because they were wanting to narratively represent a horde of minions (which would likely require them to up the people count with an order of magnitude at least if that had been the main motivation)

 

[cranberry]

To answer the OP. People have certain preferences, and like to stick with them.

Maybe they aren't necessarily resistant to change, but genuinely don't like the changes.