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

[AnotherGuy]

Which is why they need the DR. The AC doesn't match the lore because of bounded accuracy. There's no way in hell a roper should be harder to hurt than an adult or older dragon.

There is far more to defense than just AC.

You just pointed out how Daenerys wouldn't have been able to do what she did with 5e dragons. And you are right.

This is the 5e dragon lore.

Agreed.
My old MMs are as valuable as the current MM.

"True dragons are winged reptiles of ancient lineage and fearsome power. They are known and feared for their predatory cunning and greed, with the oldest dragons accounted as some of the most powerful creatures in the world. Dragons are also magical creatures whose innate power fuels their dreaded breath weapons and other preternatural abilities."

Does that description sound like something that should be afraid of farmers with crossbows?

I wasn't making that argument LOL!!!.
My table's 5e dragons are feared, not only by farmers with crossbows but by high level adventurers.

 

[AlViking]

Your detailed options involve dragons terrified to take on a village(not a city, or even a town) directly. Dragons should not be fearful of farmers, and of your options and tactics indicate that they are.

My example showed that they easily take out 100 commoners that are prepped, ready and waiting in the middle of the day even using suboptimal tactics.

 

[Maxperson]

I wasn't making that argument LOL!!!.
My table's 5e dragons are feared, not only by farmers with crossbows but by high level adventurers.

Yeah. Our disagreement stems from my view that at some point magic weapons should be needed to get past some sort of DR, not about whether or not dragons should be feared by the masses.

 

[Maxperson]

My example showed that they easily take out 100 commoners that are prepped, ready and waiting in the middle of the day even using suboptimal tactics.

Because they are afraid of those commoners. A dragon should be able to land in the middle of them and leave relatively or completely unscathed. They shouldn't fear farmers.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A lot of commoners receive militia training at certain times, which means they are likely familiar with the standard issue weapons of their lord's military forces.

Though often those are toward the cheaper end, and for non-specialists are mostly melee weapons. Ranged attackers from the commoners usually were guys who had their own weapons for one reason or another (different places what this meant varied). Your typical levies were probably talking spears or axes, a basic shield (maybe) and what D&D would call leather armor.

 

[AlViking]

Because they are afraid of those commoners. A dragon should be able to land in the middle of them and leave relatively or completely unscathed. They shouldn't fear farmers.

I disagree, although landing in the middle of the commoners wouldn't make much difference. If they are designed so that a half dozen heroes can take them out then focused fire from a hundred individuals should be a threat.

Not much else to say.

 

[Cadence]

To be fair, one of the greatest advantages of crossbow is that you don't need to spend a lot of time training on them.

They are complex to build and expensive, however.

Found the first looking up tech for something else the other day, and turned up the second being curious today...

On the switch to firearms in relation to bow type...

The Interesting Reason Why Bows Were Replaced With Guns

Why do you need to upgrade your archers to musketeers in Civilization? Actually, why were bows replaced with guns? Let's have a look.

interestingengineering.com

On crossbows...

Lady Ava Deinhardt - The Crossbow: A Study of Historical Use, Cultural Impact, and the Crossbowm

I have a particular fascination with the crossbow as a weapon, and below is a class I have prepared following my research in the subject. It is by no means exhaustive, but meant to provide an overview of what a crossbow is, the parts of the crossbow, the developments in the technology of the

www.akaava.com

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree, although landing in the middle of the commoners wouldn't make much difference. If they are designed so that a half dozen heroes can take them out then focused fire from a hundred individuals should be a threat.

Not much else to say.

Why would half a dozen super powerful adventurers be the same as a hundred farmers? 5e borked dragons big time. Now they're just overgrown flying lizards.

 

[Deset Gled]

Good grief if Daenerys had the type of dragons as statted by 5e she wouldn't have been able to take over Mole's Town nevermind Kings Landing.

By most rules about fantasy dragons I've read about, the dragons from GoT are much too young to be as big and bad as they're portrayed in the show, anyway. They'd just be little cute little wormlings eating random cows and starting the occasional fire for at least a couple decades. Then again, passage of time (e.g. travel) was always a little wonky in the show.

 

[Aldarc]

Are you saying that you and those who habitually agree with your and each other's posts around here are not generally fans of what you would consider Narrativist games?

Are you trying to make me guilty by association? Is this really the argument you are trying to make in any good faith? Hopefully not because that seems like you are trying to make the argument more personal than it needs to be.

PBtA (various), MHRP, and the like? Burning Wheel maybe? Basically all the different kinds of games @pemerton likes to post about? Because it seems like you are. Which is of course perfectly valid, just like my preferences.

The explanation is likely simpler than believing that minion mechanics must be Narrativist. The commonality may simply be not valuing or being so dogmatic about the sort of Simulationism that gets bothered by 4e minion mechanics.

I say "the sort of Simulationism that gets bothered" because there are a number of Sim games (even "Process Sim" ones) out that there with rules for minions and mooks.

As far as "high-concept sim" goes, to be honest I don't really see that as sim, not like process sim (which is pretty much always what I mean what I just say "sim").

Are you some sort of Simulationist Purity Tester? If you don't see that as Sim, then that's fine. Call it Emulationism. But that's still doesn't make something "Narrativist."

That sort of genre emulation reads to me as another kind of story-based mechanic, designed to support a certain narrative.

And this reads to me that you are trying to equivocate here with "narrative" and "Narrativism" in a way that stretches the meaning of both. Respectfully, please cut it out. Trying to turn everything your dislike into "Narrativism," including Emulationism and/or High-Concept Simulationism is NOT helpful in the slightest.

Sorry I confuse that with Narrativist (to your irritation), but in my defense the terms are hard to parse and differ from their common use definitions in what I consider vague ways. Sorry again.

I don't think that the issue is with any "common use definitions" especially after so many years of being in such discussions about GNS, Ron Edwards, and these terms. Sorry, but that argument doesn't pass a basic sniff test.

So if you are going to spend your time ranting and raving against Narrativism, GNS, and Ron Edwards, then wouldn't it be wise to do your due diligence and actually know what these terms and ideas mean that you profess to hate so much any chance you can get even when it's not pertinent?

That said, I don't prefer the term "Narrativist" either. I think that the original term "Dramatism" would have been better, but as I understand it, that term had its own carry-over baggage from the previous GDS theory. I don't know the reasons why Edwards chose the term that he did. I don't care for it personally, but it is what it is. But I do try to use the term correctly in any case. I tend to think of "Narrativism" as being about play being centered around players making dramatic choices for their characters in ways that meaningfully engage with the theme and premise of play.

As a result, I don't think that Narrativism has strong opinions about "minions." Minions don’t force meaningful choices about values, relationships, or character dilemmas. They don't really test the values of player characters. In contrast, there are a fair number of Simulationist games out there that have rules for enemy minions and mooks. However, I acknowledge that such Sim games may be "Not True Simulationist Scotsmen" to you.