What is the essence of D&D

[Guest 6801328]

Allowing PCs to construct items short circuits the DM bottleneck.

Interesting. And anathema, as far as I'm concerned. The DM should have as much authority over the appearance of magic items, or really ANY items ("sorry, no rapiers in this world!"), as he/she does over what NPCs appear.

Maybe that's another facet that has ebbed and flowed over editions: the extent to which the rules are intended to relatively empower players over the DM.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Garthanos]

Story is what makes items awesome to me. The hover disks that they find in my game world have a story so do the Drakes they might bond with to have flying mounts. I had players who loved to create items all the way back in 1e and no guidelines for doing so. I also like the empowerment of being able to create ones more interesting than the game presents by using the existing ones as components really but to some DMs maybe that is just work?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I understand the urge. Tales of incredibly stingy DMs where nth level groups might have a few potions or scrolls between them were common even if those campaigns weren't. Allowing PCs to construct items short circuits the DM bottleneck. I find it undercuts one of my favoured aspects at the same time though.

Yeah, 3e & 4e built the assumption of magic items into the game, in part, I suppose, so you could get CR and EL guidelines that remotely worked (4e also really reduced the /impact/ of items), that included a make/buy economy, which completely undercut the otherwise very genre-appropriate idea of the greatest magics being from the past (except for artifacts, of course). I mean, the assumption had always been there, but in 1e it was the random tables were weighted for some sort of Gygaxian balance target. You could toss all that and turn on inherent bonuses (I'm sure the idea was floated sometime in 3e, but I could never find the reference), of course, and have only a very few, found items, to get back to that kind of sub-genre.
5e OTOH, goes straight there, again.

 

[Garthanos]

So, on the one hand I feel compelled to point out that this is flatly false, the classes - if you actually played them - played /very/ differently, fighters were nothing like wizards were nothing like rogues were nothing like Paladins, etc... The similarity was in structure, resource parity, and balance.

But, I have to remind myself, 'feel' is /very/ subjective. So while the similarity was only in resource management, if you focused only on that similarity, and didn't care about the differences between an exploit using a weapon vs a spell using an implement, vs a controller interdicting the enemy and a striker murdering them one at a time, then, yeah, it's a 'feel.'

In either case, though, the complaint speaks /directly/ to the Primacy of Magic, as it requires magic be /better/ - more significant, more powerful, more critical or important - and it can't plausibly /be/ that if it's on the same resource schedule as, and remotely balanced with martial.

I think it doesnt /directly/ speak to the Primacy of Magic it speaks to the /MUST BE DIFFERENT/ and classically "separate but equal" has just not worked... I know same language as more sensitive subjects (sorry @lowkey13) Now if you don't consider that resource structure better than whatever alternative is granted the non-caster classes? It could even be magic is secondary. The assumption however of empowerment by limited frequency means unless you have a structure for non-magic heroic exertion or tricks of limited frequency you get weaker less climactic non-casters.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I really think the charop mentality has pushed me to COC alot lately. I live rolling 3d6 in order, choosing an occupation, distributing skills, and seeing what happens. I almost wish they could find a way to have your starting skills distributed in a random manner also.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

That's what you mean by a range of genres? Same game, same classes, different weapons & armors (Ok, and social structures)?
That's eminently do-able from 3e on, little more than re-skinning gear is required. Mail becomes mammoth hide, broadsword becomes macuahuitl, wizard's spell book becomes cave paintings... OK, notched sticks & bones and bits of crystal for his traveling spellbook.

Steampunk's surprisingly easy if you're up for re-writing spells as technology (Myrlund famously did that back in the day, no?), easier the more amenable to re-skinning the system gets. You can go sci-fi be crossing over with gamma world with little issue.

But edition /barely/ matters in that. You had Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Six-guns & Sorcery back in the day. All the WotC eds (I'm pretty certain 5e didn't change this) let you re-skin /gear/, which is all you need to shift technology so long as you can make a case for the weapons/armor arms-race keeping pace (which is an oversimplification when you get to modern firearms, but could be fine for steampunk & sci-fi).

Era but also mystery vs dungeon crawl vs exploration. High magic vs low, pseudo medieval vs steam punk and so on.

 

[heretic888]

My tastes have changed and Fourth Edition is no longer the game for me. However, I will say this: it is not just the case that some people disliked the game, but that it become socially unacceptable to like the game to the point where I was personally subjected to harassment at game stores for trying to buy Fourth Edition books. It was almost enough to get me to leave the hobby. After Essentials hit I moved further into indie games in part to escape that climate.

It's also the case that in completely unrelated topics many people continue to slam a game that has not been culturally relevant for years. I do not think this shows a good face for our hobby. It honestly makes it difficult for me to engage in this community.

I respect those who do not like the game for whatever reason. It's the continued insistence by some parts of the community that liking or having liked the game means there is something wrong with you and you are not a real part of the community that I find distasteful.

I just wanted to chime in that this 100% mirrored my own experiences, as well. As a 4E customer, I was repeatedly harassed or proselytized to at multiple different gaming stores as well as a Barnes & Noble whenever I tried to purchase a 4E product or, in one instance, even talk about the game with my own players while in earshot of one of the Essence of D&D gatekeepers.

Things are "better now", as @lowkey13 put it, only in the sense that the gatekeepers succeeded in stamping out the edition prematurely and scaring away many people who enjoyed it. You'll notice many of the people who used to be big 4E aficianados don't post here anymore. There's a reason for that. I myself rarely post here for much the same reason.

Like you, @Campbell , it bounced me off D&D hard and I explored indie games like Apocalypse World and Blades in the Dark. I've recently returned to running 4E with a renewed sense of aporeciation coming from that perspective.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are many reasons that things were botched as you put it and contributed to economic short life including that crashing economy but I think that is tangential to why some considered it NOT D&D.

I think they really can be separated out .... but maybe not

I don't buy the crashing economy excuse as Pathfinder launched in the same conditions.