The double standard for magical and mundane abilities

[Emerikol]

As expected, I get nothing but snarky reactions to my attempt to explain why people have an emotional attachment to D&D and that is why they fight for D&D to resemble the game they love.

Tony you have to be blind to think 4e did not massive change the game. Every single class took on the AEDU structure which alone makes the game MASSIVELY different even if nothing else changed. You can like those changes and some do but you can't deny they are major differences.

Someone asked why we fought for D&D to not continue going down the path of design that 4e represented. You can want different and that is fine. We just disagree on what D&D should be. I could argue that games using your design considerations exist out there. Massively narrative games are all over the place.

D&D for many of us was a good game until 4e. If they misfired on their design considerations then I'm glad they did because for years I enjoyed that game and many others did too. It was fun. 4e was many things but it was not fun for me.

 

[Minigiant]

Another way to go would be to have a more over prep/training mechanic for martial PCs: practice your move for a few hours before adventuring, and then perform it X times over the course of the adventure as auto-successes.

In 3.5, a DM of mine had a class and a PrC that had a feature called Signature Move. The PC could do their Signature Move and skip the attack roll and treat and attack as if they rolled a 15.

The rub was after the attack, the target had to roll a check to see if they get wise to it. If the target failed, the PC could do it again. If the target succeeded, they became immune.

PCs and NPCs could roll to learn to learn SMs and battles went fast as they just compare SMs.
Helped that is was E6 too.

 

[Savage Wombat]

It suddenly occurs to me to mention that I have a game book somewhere that sets out a very sim version of magic rules. Because it's based on how magic really works in the real world.

... Let that sink in a moment.

 

[pemerton]

As expected, I get nothing but snarky reactions to my attempt to explain why people have an emotional attachment to D&D and that is why they fight for D&D to resemble the game they love.

No. What generates critical replies is you describing people who love the game, and have been playing it for decades, as "upstarts". And asserting or implying that they don't love the game.

Tony you have to be blind to think 4e did not massive change the game. Every single class took on the AEDU structure which alone makes the game MASSIVELY different even if nothing else changed.

From my point of view 3E massively changed the game. It replaced non-sim saving throws, based around luck/divine fortune, with sim-style saving throws based around imagined physical and mental skills of the characters. Which hosed mid-to-high level fighters.

There were lots of other changes too. Monsters are completely different (being built on the PC chassis). Hit points above name level are completely diffrent, which completely changes the scaling of the game. A red dragon in AD&D has about the same AC as a heavily armoured man-at-arms. In 3E it has a +30-something "natural AC" bonus. That's a radical change, both to resolution and to fiction.

D&D for many of us was a good game until 4e.

Sure. For many of us D&D becaomse a better game with 4e. What's your point?

 

[ThirdWizard]

It suddenly occurs to me to mention that I have a game book somewhere that sets out a very sim version of magic rules. Because it's based on how magic really works in the real world.

... Let that sink in a moment.

Black Leaf?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Honestly, that's absurd. You choose your character's race, that's an in-game thing that is determined by an out-of-game factor (you absolutely cannot choose your parents!). That's just one example. You're just being selective in what you let freak you out.

Choosing your race is not something that exists in-game (barring wild magic and Reincarnation). It's an entirely out-of-game decision.

It's like choosing which movie to watch. It doesn't violate any of the internal consistency of Ace Venture: Pet Detective, if you choose to watch Groundhog Day instead.

 

[evileeyore]

Hero and GURPS are examples: you can choose for your character to be a Mage, or you can choose for your character to be a plumber, or you can choose for your character to be blind. They're not at all 'balanced' choices, but they're weighted differently - the first might cost you 60 build points, the second 3, and the last might give you 20 extra points to spend on something else.

To be fair, in both Hero and GURPS those "unbalanced" choices are completely balanced within the framework of the rules (because the costs assume a boost in character competency elsewhere).

They may not be "balanced" within the the framework of the story your DM want's to run however.

For instance in Star Wars (by FFG) every class has some combat ability. Some might be worse at it, some might excell, but every class gets some abilities useful in combat (even if it's "late in the carreer path").

That I chose at the outset to build a combat incompetent Mechanic (and have no desire to improve his combat abilities) is an "unbalanced" choice. FFG allowed for this path in it's rules, but it makes it pretty clear my choices are "dumb" based on the genre they are trying to emulate.

It suddenly occurs to me to mention that I have a game book somewhere that sets out a very sim version of magic rules. Because it's based on how magic really works in the real world.

... Let that sink in a moment.

You talking Kult there homey?

 

[Savage Wombat]

You talking Kult there homey?

Authentic Thaumaturgy by Isaac Bonewits

 

[evileeyore]

Authentic Thaumaturgy by Isaac Bonewits

Ah. HAdn't seen that before.

Kult supposedly also based it's magic system on "real world" magical traditions. But then their authors don;t have a Bachelors in Magic from Berkley.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Ah. HAdn't seen that before.

Kult supposedly also based it's magic system on "real world" magical traditions. But then their authors don;t have a Bachelors in Magic from Berkley.

Yeah, but this has "real world" magical physics.

Formula 8.9: To Throw a Lightning Bolt

Magic Point Cost = 25 x (voltage in kilovolts) x (current in amps) x (time in tenths of a second).

Which he claims is 96% energy efficient.​