Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)

[Water Bob]

hiya billd91,

i believe RC was just assisting me trying to get Water Bob to see its use was actually already in existance before 2edADnD.

It should have been clear to you that I knew it existed before 2E AD&D.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Quick question for some of the more experienced players in this thread, but it is completely off topic. Seeing as I've a relatively gamer still (I'm 25), I'm looking to the local experts on this one.

Has D&D always been about "heroes" or just "adventurers"?

I see a lot of people talk about the game being about "heroic fantasy" and I was just curious is that's been the trend since the beginning of D&D or not, or if it was something that was added along the way.

Thanks for the replies (if I get any )

As always, play what you like

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Quick question for some of the more experienced players in this thread, but it is completely off topic. Seeing as I've a relatively gamer still (I'm 25), I'm looking to the local experts on this one.

Has D&D always been about "heroes" or just "adventurers"?

I see a lot of people talk about the game being about "heroic fantasy" and I was just curious is that's been the trend since the beginning of D&D or not, or if it was something that was added along the way.

Thanks for the replies (if I get any )

As always, play what you like

Adventurers. Whether or not they are heroes depends upon their actions, not their stats.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Has D&D always been about "heroes" or just "adventurers"?

Depends on what the players wanted. Some versions have had more options for one side or the other, though. And some things that people wanted haven't really been possible without house rules or outright and frequently applied fiat, in a given version.

You'll also get disagreement on where, "Joe was really clever and thus saved Thud the Barbarian and made it to 5th level!" transitions into "Joe was really lucky" or "Joe pulled a power gamer trick" or "Joe got the DM to save Thud's behind" or even "Joe maniputated and built his token Thud to have a decent chance of success."

But D&D has usually claimed a patina of "heroic fantasy" in the main versions, or at least the anti-hero versions, such as emulating Cugel the Clever. (Not so much in certain settings, off the main branch.) Thing is, in most versions, D&D hasn't consistenly delivered on this heroic fantasy patina. So lots of people naturally went with what it did, instead of what it implied that it did, and sometimes that was playing an "adventurer" that turned out to be the third hood the left, killed by the Gray Mouser--instead of the old Mouser himself.

 

[rounser]

4e takes more cues from OD&D and Basic, which were open about the weirdness of D&D; giant bees, sentient jelly, and big flying balls with eyes. I linked Rythlondar awhile back and I think it's rather relevant; those guys didn't make or try to simulate "a fantasy world." It's pretty barebones, and everything that exists in the game exists for the sake of adventurers (usually for them to kill).

I don't know where this wishful thinking meme is coming from, but weird monsters are not equivalent to 4E's more extreme suspension of disbelief destroying, meaningless-in-all-but-a-metagame-sense mechanics. Every edition has weird monsters, from flail snails to stwingers. Not every edition has rules that reflect nothing but a design convenience, though, to the degree that 4E does.

If 4E really were some second coming of OD&D and Basic, I'd probably like it. As it exists, it's a long way both philosophically (e.g. borrowing ideas from MMORPGs, M:tG, and GW) thematically (e.g. more Airbender and less Conan) and concretely from that, from the mechanics (e.g. magic system, "healing surges", miniatures pushing powers) to the implied setting (confected stuff like eladrin and dragonborn versus elves and dwarves).

IMO it's a stretch to suggest that games which actually are directly on the D&D family tree, like 2E and 3E, containing much the same devices it did such as a near identical implied setting and macro rules constructs like the vancian magic system are somehow more divorced from OD&D and BECMI than what is effectively a new game based on D&D, but departing from much of what is associated with D&D over several decades.

 

[Jimlock]

But I'm not holding my breath.

Me neither, but I'm afraid that the ship has already sailed.

 

[catastrophic]

That doesn't follow - you cannot sway those with a more rational view without a rational argument. And you don't offer a rational argument, you offer unsupported assertions.

Actually it's not a matter of swaying them, or convincing them, it's a matter of giving them a starting point for a more rational assesment of the issue.

Second, you assume that the concepts i'm summarising are not of rational merit, but anyone who has a rational view of game design knows that, for instance, 3e fighters are garbage. I can refrence that, and rational, informed people probably know what i'm talking about, or can ask about it. My assertions are supported by the fact- you're just not willing to recognise that, or aware of it.

If i'm arguing about climate change, I don't actually have to prove that carbon emissions cause climate change. Rational, reasonable people accept that.

See, your assumption is that this is a two sided issue, but really, it's a one sided bash-fest, where the people who actually know about the subject being bashed sometimes state an opinion, usually to the contrary.

Moreover, rational folks will not allow you to shift the burden of proof.

And why, in this thread on this forum, does the burden of proof just happen to be on me? Because i'm making the assertion? I'm countering assertions. Where's their proof? In the essays about how gary gygax would be spinning in his grave, and how videogamey 4e is? That's proof? Oh of course, since they don't have any proof, and don't recognise any proof, the burden of evidence shifts to me?

The burden of proof is just something people throw at their opponents to appear rational.

And again, if we really got down into the nitty gritty of it, here's what would happen: 1)4e bashers would deny everything and post esays about gygaxian natualism. 2)you would ban me for edition warring 3) I would be completly wasting my time, and preaching to a choir, against another choir.

You won't sway such people by making an assertion, and claiming victory if others cannot disprove it. They know that's a weak rhetorical dodge, and reject it.

You're the one performing that dodge. Where are their facts? Where is their proof? In their hit lists about how 4e doesn't allow roleplaying? Spare me. You don't get to claim high minded ideals in this farce of a debate.

It sounds like you are engaged in a battle for the hearts and minds of hypothetical, unnamed readers, like you're trying to WIN. That's likely the root of your problem - trying to win when nobody can keep score.

No, i'm stating my opinion. And if you think that 4e bashers are not constantly lobbying for their viewpoint well. . . that kind of one sided view does not suprise me.

Actually, what I know is that both sides of the argument say we are partial to the other guys, with about equal frequency. From time to time, we've even counted the complaints. So, we have good reason to think we are fairly even-handed.

Both sides of the climate change debate claim that the media is biased towards the other side. From this then, it follows that the media is beng even handed?

If people were arguing over wether the moon is made of green cheese or not, and both sides of the debate complained on moonconent.org about the mods being biased, would that make the mods unbiased?

Your argument assumed that each side of the debate is identical, in that it complains about bias with identical merit. That's one step removed from circular logic, and none the better for it.

It's really sad that 3.X is about coming up with the most cautiously game-breaking pile of attributes, because ba ask in my day we had a word for that kind of player: munchkin. And where we considered munchkinism to be a bad thing, and harmful to the game, D&D 3.X has embraced munchkin ism and power gaming. Not surprising, since the people the designers listened to were the gamers who complained that their wizards had too many limitations.

It's also obvious that Third Edition's emphasis on giving the power gamers their design-based munchkin fantasy has massively hurt the gameplay from fighters that are useless, to arch-mages that are completely untouchable. But until Third Edition fans actually admit to the basic systemic flaws in the design of the game, 4E and the various retro editions is really the only hope for the non-munchkin crowd.

The thing is, for people who want to have cool stats, 4e has just as much of that stuff as 3e. The difference is, it's worked to get away from the system mastery traps and exploits that defined 3e.

 

[Wiseblood]

Actually it's not a matter of swaying them, or convincing them, it's a matter of giving them a starting point for a more rational assesment of the issue.

Second, you assume that the concepts i'm summarising are not of rational merit, but anyone who has a rational view of game design knows that, for instance, 3e fighters are garbage. I can refrence that, and rational, informed people probably know what i'm talking about, or can ask about it. My assertions are supported by the fact- you're just not willing to recognise that, or aware of it.

Wow. I don't think you're being rational here. You are instead observing char-op mythologies.

3e fighter is not garbage. 3e Cleric is not Superman sans kryptonite. If you were to actually look at the bigger picture here you would see what I mean.

The bigger picture being full casters are not inherently powerful. They have been allowed by poor foresight or malicious intent to have over powered spells and feats. In fights where LVL=CR of monster. The martial classes often would be 50/50 or slightly better. That is not the case with full casters after 5th level they would be in the neighborhood of 75% and top out at 95-99.99% by 20th. It is clearly a matter of broken powers and not your percieved class deficiency.

You facts are subjective.

4e-3e doesn't matter much to me. I have played both and DM'ed both I'm not enamored with them.

I am holding my breath that 5e will be so great that we all will look back and say. "what were we thinking?"

 

[Eric Tolle]

You realize, I hope, that not everyone plays this way. Don't conflate a particular style of play with some overall claim about what the game is about.

Of course not- there's plenty of room for people to ignore RAW in any actual play of any rpg. You can have a heroic high fantasy version of Runequest, our a WH40K game tha explores tolerance and multiculturalism. But that really says nothing about how the rules are written, or expected style of play. The most publicized style of play is for the oozed power gamer, and that's the style of play the
RAW support.

Yeah, I knew someone was going to misuse the Monte Cook passage again.

I don't think it's a misuse of his statement at all. While in the larger D20 system mastery may only be a component (it's much less important in True20 for example), it's obviously central to the 3.X experience. When one of the base classes is little more than a trap for the inexperienced, when you get concepts like the following:

"Consider an Unseelie Fey Loredrake Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer X/Mage of the Arcane Order Y using the Greater Draconic Rite of Passage so that you're 3 Sorcerer levels ahead of your actual level. You'll need Arcane Preparation to get into Mage of the Arcane Order, and you'll want Arcane Thesis: Wings of Flurry along with lots of metamagics."

Someone who hasn't built up a mastery by studying dozens of sourcebooks and the synergy between hundreds of racial attributes, feats, powers, etc..

In fact this points out the intended parallels between mastery, sourcebooks and Magic the Gathering collectors: just like MtG players have to buy hundreds of cards to build up powerful decks, so do 3.X players have to buy as many sourcebooks as possible to get access to components to build uber-characters. Likewise, the set-up of the sourcebooks is in parallel to purchasable magic decks; you have the useless fluff no one pays attention to; the obviously useless classes and feats; the occasionally useful versions of the same; and finally, the "rare" classes, feats, templates or powers that can be used in combination with the right attributes from other books to make unbeatably powerful decks- er, characters.

And there you have the core of the Third Edition experience. This explains why True20 failed (no material for power gaming builds), and why 4E isn't doing so well (the emphasis on balance gives power gamers nothing to buy).

This also shows the problem Pathfinder faces. It's popular now as a continuation of 3.5, so power gamers feel they can use the standard builds. But if Pathfinder doesn't start giving the munchkin crowd material to build uber characters with, it's popularity will probably decline.

Finally, this is why 5E will be so problematic. Unless it gives the "build a munchkin character" crowd plenty of opportunities to demonstrate their mastery of complicated uber-builds, the gamers are the 3.X base will claim the game "isn't really D&D. On the other hand, of 5E is built to please the 3.X power gamers, then those of is who like to create simple characters and be assured of their usefulness won't buy the game.

 

[fireinthedust]

It is precisely because each class, spell, etc. was different that people played the prior versions of the game and spent so much time customizing them.

Not so. I, for one, spend my time playing earlier editions (and Pathfinder) because I like thinking about how to create objects and have them work in, basically, a simulation of a world. I also like creating games using these rules, and am informed by 4e when I do this. These are the two reasons that spring immediately to mind, and I'm sure I could find others, but I didn't start RPGs because I wanted to avoid cookie-cutter rpg classes.

That they're different is not a primary concern; certainly not one of the desires I'm conscious of (though if it's an unconscious desire for classes that play differently but mix well enough, explain that to Freud or Erickson).


I don't get the argument about cookie cutter design. The Leader role in 4e is very different from the striker, and the defender, and the controller. The emphasis is certainly different. My wizard blankets areas in small damage, while my barbarian whallops one target for big damage. Yes, they all have powers that function a certain number of times a day, but that's not a new phenomenon for anyone except spellcasters.

Example: in 3e all character actions are divided up in a round: Full-round action, standard action, move action, minor action, free action. All of them. Some are "spells", some are "weapon attacks", some are "racial/class abilities", but all are divided in exactly the same way.

Is that cookie cutter?