D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Hussar]

See, the trick is, NO ONE WAS EVER IN FAVOR OF GETTING RID OF TRADITIONAL IDEAS.

That was a red herring invented to argue against change.

So, yeah, like I said, this conversation was over before it even started. People will look back on the posts here with the same shame and embarrassment that surrounds things like chainmail bikinis and LGBTQ inclusion.

You say that not all change is positive. Yet, in history, not a single time when a social group became more inclusive has history not proven that to be a good thing. Not once. Inclusion is ALWAYS justified. Exclusion is never justified.

I just like being on the winning side here. Looking back through history over the past century or so, I just find it baffling that people still hang on to these view points. History will not remember those who opposed inclusion fondly. Misguided at best and outright vile at worst. I'd rather not be remembered for that.

 

[Umbran]

Misguided at best and outright vile at worst.

Mod Note:

Dude. Address the content of the arguments, not the speakers. Tone down the rhetoric, please and thank you.

 

[GreenTengu]

See, the trick is, NO ONE WAS EVER IN FAVOR OF GETTING RID OF TRADITIONAL IDEAS.

I've hardly ever in my entire life heard any idea, any, that the answer to "why" we were doing it was "tradition" that I haven't been in favor of getting rid of.

Tradition is the single worst reason to do something ever.

There was a story I heard once. There was a woman who, when she was a girl, her mother cooked a ham. And every year before baking the hand, she would cut off the ends. So when she grew up, whenever she cooked a ham she also cut off the ends-- because it was tradition. After about a decade of doing that, her mother helped her out one year and the woman went to cut off the ends of the hand and her mother asked "Why are you doing that?" and the woman said, "Because you did it every year. It is tradition." and the mother answered, "The reason I did that was because my pan was too small."

And that is how usually is with anything "traditional". It usually served some purpose at some point, but if you have forgotten what that purpose even was, if that purpose is no longer being filled by whatever it is that is "traditional"-- then its usually doing mild harm rather than any good.

So I for one am generally in favor of getting rid of all traditional ideas-- because if the ideas were actually good, actually had functional justification, they wouldn't be hiding behind the label "traditional".

Now, granted, there are cases where people have forgotten the actual utility and justification of something and just leaned on traditional and if it gets changed, maybe that could cause some negative effects. But that's just an argument for better understanding the purpose of something before you change it, not that doing things "because tradition" is ever good.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Tradition is the single worst reason to do something ever.

I wouldn't say the single worst reason to do something, but it's up there.

In general, I agree with your post. Tradition is stupid, and should be changed if the only reason we do it is because it's tradition.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, tell me, what am I demanding that is unreasonable? "Bending over backward" @Oofta? Seriously? What am I misunderstanding @Scott Christian? What point am I missing?

I am sorry you don't understand or see it. I really am. But I'm glad you "won." Please go enjoy your victory lap.

 

[Scott Christian]

And I know it was mentioned before, but this product seems to solve the problem (for now).

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

 

[Mercurius]

I've hardly ever in my entire life heard any idea, any, that the answer to "why" we were doing it was "tradition" that I haven't been in favor of getting rid of.

Tradition is the single worst reason to do something ever.

There was a story I heard once. There was a woman who, when she was a girl, her mother cooked a ham. And every year before baking the hand, she would cut off the ends. So when she grew up, whenever she cooked a ham she also cut off the ends-- because it was tradition. After about a decade of doing that, her mother helped her out one year and the woman went to cut off the ends of the hand and her mother asked "Why are you doing that?" and the woman said, "Because you did it every year. It is tradition." and the mother answered, "The reason I did that was because my pan was too small."

And that is how usually is with anything "traditional". It usually served some purpose at some point, but if you have forgotten what that purpose even was, if that purpose is no longer being filled by whatever it is that is "traditional"-- then its usually doing mild harm rather than any good.

So I for one am generally in favor of getting rid of all traditional ideas-- because if the ideas were actually good, actually had functional justification, they wouldn't be hiding behind the label "traditional".

Now, granted, there are cases where people have forgotten the actual utility and justification of something and just leaned on traditional and if it gets changed, maybe that could cause some negative effects. But that's just an argument for better understanding the purpose of something before you change it, not that doing things "because tradition" is ever good.

I agree with you in the abstract, but let's bring it down to the actual reality of the thread. "Tradition" means 45 years of D&D ideas. It is just a term for everything that came before now.

Are the ideas of D&D tradition"good" with "functional justification?" As a whole, absolutely yes.

And here's the point: the ideas of D&D tradition are a vast toolbox, a grab-bag. New ideas are added, and it grows. For me, the tradition is the wide range of ideas, and my capacity to draw from them and weave them together in whatever form and fashion I prefer.

 

[GreenTengu]

I agree with you in the abstract, but let's bring it down to the actual reality of the thread. "Tradition" means 45 years of D&D ideas. It is just a term for everything that came before now.

Are the ideas of D&D tradition"good" with "functional justification?" As a whole, absolutely yes.

And here's the point: the ideas of D&D tradition are a vast toolbox, a grab-bag. New ideas are added, and it grows. For me, the tradition is the wide range of ideas, and my capacity to draw from them and weave them together in whatever form and fashion I prefer.

What makes you so sure that the ideas are "good" with "functional justification"?

We could start from the arbitrarily decided array of attributes that are treated as equal at player creation and yet have never been remotely balanced in any edition of the game-- and then everything else across the character sheet has been sometimes seemingly almost randomly just assigned one of them as being affected by it. So you have weird cases where a near-sighted acrobat is automatically a better archer than a person with an iron will and a super keen senses or that one's ability to use their physical body to put force on other objects is in no way related to their ability to resist the force that other objects put on them.

The hit point system is super wonky and no one has ever been able to properly explain or justify exactly what a "hit point" is and why one just instantly has twice as many of them when they hit that arbitrary amount of experience to get to "level 2". What even is a "level" at all?

Having heavy armor and being able to move quickly have the same affect on how you avoid damage. And yet there is something called "damage resistance" which mechanically functions entirely different from either being tough or having a layer of leather and metal protecting your body even though every narrative description of it makes it out to be exactly equivalent to those things.

Dungeons and Dragons likes to claim it can simulate a wide variety of settings, and yet inherently has a wonky and very specific magic system where one must learn spells by rote memory that are then erased from one's memory after they are cast-- and somehow you can also memorize multiple copies of the same spell. There was all of one fantasy setting created in the 1960s or 1970s before D&D that had anything like that and no other setting ever has or ever would organically have their magic system work like this. But its just sort of stuck in there as the way magic works in all D&D worlds.

And those are just the things off the top of my head. There are countless things people have pointed to over the years as just being bad design or design that doesn't match the narrative or just purely nonsense. These things are kept because "tradition". And a lot of them do have active, negative effects on the game experience. Maybe in some cases the "obvious" change would make things worse, but it certainly can't be the case for all of them.

There are times I got to wonder if players wouldn't be happy if D&D just worked as "your character is whatever you say it is, has whatever abilities you say it has and whenever you want to try to do something in the game world that would seriously affect the direction of the narrative based on success or failure-- just flip a coin. Heads, you succeed. Tails, you fail."

Because, quite a lot of the time, the rules as written just get in the way rather then enabling a fun experience.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

What makes you so sure that the ideas are "good" with "functional justification"?

We could start from the arbitrarily decided array of attributes that are treated as equal at player creation and yet have never been remotely balanced in any edition of the game-- and then everything else across the character sheet has been sometimes seemingly almost randomly just assigned one of them as being affected by it. So you have weird cases where a near-sighted acrobat is automatically a better archer than a person with an iron will and a super keen senses or that one's ability to use their physical body to put force on other objects is in no way related to their ability to resist the force that other objects put on them.

The hit point system is super wonky and no one has ever been able to properly explain or justify exactly what a "hit point" is and why one just instantly has twice as many of them when they hit that arbitrary amount of experience to get to "level 2". What even is a "level" at all?

Having heavy armor and being able to move quickly have the same affect on how you avoid damage. And yet there is something called "damage resistance" which mechanically functions entirely different from either being tough or having a layer of leather and metal protecting your body even though every narrative description of it makes it out to be exactly equivalent to those things.

Dungeons and Dragons likes to claim it can simulate a wide variety of settings, and yet inherently has a wonky and very specific magic system where one must learn spells by rote memory that are then erased from one's memory after they are cast-- and somehow you can also memorize multiple copies of the same spell. There was all of one fantasy setting created in the 1960s or 1970s before D&D that had anything like that and no other setting ever has or ever would organically have their magic system work like this. But its just sort of stuck in there as the way magic works in all D&D worlds.

And those are just the things off the top of my head. There are countless things people have pointed to over the years as just being bad design or design that doesn't match the narrative or just purely nonsense. These things are kept because "tradition". And a lot of them do have active, negative effects on the game experience. Maybe in some cases the "obvious" change would make things worse, but it certainly can't be the case for all of them.

There are times I got to wonder if players wouldn't be happy if D&D just worked as "your character is whatever you say it is, has whatever abilities you say it has and whenever you want to try to do something in the game world that would seriously affect the direction of the narrative based on success or failure-- just flip a coin. Heads, you succeed. Tails, you fail."

Because, quite a lot of the time, the rules as written just get in the way rather then enabling a fun experience.

Somehow people have learned to have fun with a really crappy game? Somehow it started a whole new hobby and inspired decades of fiction. Amazing for such a crappy poorly thought out game!

Just a 50-50 heads or tails would be as good for action resolution?

I think this is about an uncharitable assessment of a game as I could imagine. And ‘Game’ is the operative word. A game (vs. telling stories in a circle) has strictures limits and boundaries for a reason.

there are many competitors. And somehow people manage to stifle their gag reflexes and still play This one? Let’s not be silly.

Hit points are explained—as an abstraction. The game does not delve into hit and wound location by design. Its magic structure is for gameplay purposes though it’s “fiction” is as arbitrarily real as any other magic.

If the tropes and the rules don’t matter, why has it endured?

something about it has to be ok to someone. And if not, there are other games to try. Let D&D have its identity. It just works. If you want a total rewrite, why not just play another game with less abstraction and more tables, rules and consistency? They exist even now!

people want the familiar and the simpler for a blend of game and story. And they have for nearly half a century. It’s enjoyed more now than before. I just cannot get on board with the patently “total crap” assessment.

don’t think killing sacred cows matters at all? Look at 4th edition. Looked good on paper but the sales suggested some folks liked traditional elements.

the ground up approach would make 4th look like a smashing, enduring sales success.

 

[Eltab]

What makes you so sure that the ideas are "good" with "functional justification"?

We could start from the arbitrarily decided array of attributes that are treated as equal at player creation and yet have never been remotely balanced in any edition of the game-- and then everything else across the character sheet has been sometimes seemingly almost randomly just assigned one of them as being affected by it. So you have weird cases where a near-sighted acrobat is automatically a better archer than a person with an iron will and a super keen senses or that one's ability to use their physical body to put force on other objects is in no way related to their ability to resist the force that other objects put on them.

The hit point system is super wonky and no one has ever been able to properly explain or justify exactly what a "hit point" is and why one just instantly has twice as many of them when they hit that arbitrary amount of experience to get to "level 2". What even is a "level" at all?

Having heavy armor and being able to move quickly have the same affect on how you avoid damage. And yet there is something called "damage resistance" which mechanically functions entirely different from either being tough or having a layer of leather and metal protecting your body even though every narrative description of it makes it out to be exactly equivalent to those things.

Dungeons and Dragons likes to claim it can simulate a wide variety of settings, and yet inherently has a wonky and very specific magic system where one must learn spells by rote memory that are then erased from one's memory after they are cast-- and somehow you can also memorize multiple copies of the same spell. There was all of one fantasy setting created in the 1960s or 1970s before D&D that had anything like that and no other setting ever has or ever would organically have their magic system work like this. But its just sort of stuck in there as the way magic works in all D&D worlds.

And those are just the things off the top of my head. There are countless things people have pointed to over the years as just being bad design or design that doesn't match the narrative or just purely nonsense. These things are kept because "tradition". And a lot of them do have active, negative effects on the game experience. Maybe in some cases the "obvious" change would make things worse, but it certainly can't be the case for all of them.

There are times I got to wonder if players wouldn't be happy if D&D just worked as "your character is whatever you say it is, has whatever abilities you say it has and whenever you want to try to do something in the game world that would seriously affect the direction of the narrative based on success or failure-- just flip a coin. Heads, you succeed. Tails, you fail."

Because, quite a lot of the time, the rules as written just get in the way rather then enabling a fun experience.

if D&D bothers you that much, look at other games. Something will suit you - or you will figure out how to kitbash a few rulesets together and create a system that does.