D&D General Why is tradition (in D&D) important to you? [+]

[UngeheuerLich]

True git off my lawn. Impressive.

I hope that was not a response to me, because it was under my post.
If it is, I don't know how you read that into my post...
Maybe I explain.
I agree with Oofta that 4e was rushed out too much. And it deviated too much from what people expected from DnD coming from 3e.
Sloppy editing, need for huge amounts of errata from day one. And way too many feats too fast. I only used online tools to always be up to date.
And that was actually the original intention: digital distribution with constant rules updates. That was never fuly realized due to tragic circumstances.

Apart from that, 4e was a great game. I did have a lot of fun for a while. But there was just a bit too much revolution. No matter how good some designs were, people were not ready for that amount. And on top it changed our playstyle by having such dynamic combats.
In a way it was an evolution that began in tge transition from 2e over combat and tactics to 3e and then 3.5. The use of the grid and combat maneuvers to fully utilize it. We were able to ignore the change up to 3.5 (although it was getting harder and harder) and in 4e we were fully battle map. And for our way of playing that just meant the dead for our adventures as we were happy playing out one combat per session not making real progress in the adventure.

So... after that preamble:

What broke too much with tradition (my guess) :

• 30 levels instead of 20
• no 9 spell levels
• fighers actually doing interesting things (which is the reason the battlemaster maneuvers got relegated to subclass... :/)
• monsters devided into minions/normal/elite/solo and standardized roles that had more or less fixed base stats
• hp and healing surges.
• rituals?

I reiterate: those were mostly great ideas and I am glad those found their way into 5e in some form. But the appeal of 5e is that it enabled more traditional play with modern rules. Hopefully 5.5 will revive more 4e Ideas in some way, as 4e is now also tradition, so anyone can play as the wish.

 

[Lyxen]

4e indeed had a great many ideas, but honestly, for our tables, it's not the fact that it broke tradition that killed it.

• 30 levels instead of 20

BECMI had 36, AD&D had unlimited for at least some classes and heavy variability for others, so ? No tradition broken here for me.

• no 9 spell levels

No spells at all, actually, and that was a bit more problematic for us.

• fighers actually doing interesting things (which is the reason the battlemaster maneuvers got relegated to subclass... :/)

And there we get into the core of the problem for us. They were doing interesting things technically by pushing figurines on a grid, and for us, this is not what the game is about. D&D is not a boardgame.

• monsters devided into minions/normal/elite/solo and standardized roles that had more or less fixed base stats

Smacked way too much of a MMORPG, which D&D is not.

• hp and healing surges.

These were great.

• rituals?

And these were brilliant.

I reiterate: those were mostly great ideas and I am glad those found their way into 5e in some form. But the appeal of 5e is that it enabled more traditional play with modern rules. Hopefully 5.5 will revive more 4e Ideas in some way, as 4e is now also tradition, so anyone can play as the wish.

As you can see above, the problem with 4e for us was not about tradition, it was that it tried to bring too much of wargaming / boardgaming and MMORPG into the game. Although we could keep our preferred playstyle with 3e (with difficulty at high level because the rules became so dense), we could not with 4e, which was way too rigid in its implementation, despite a lot of good ideas.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As you can see above, the problem with 4e for us was not about tradition, it was that it tried to bring too much of wargaming / boardgaming and MMORPG into the game. Although we could keep our preferred playstyle with 3e (with difficulty at high level because the rules became so dense), we could not with 4e, which was way too rigid in its implementation, despite a lot of good ideas.

If you call it tradition or too much wargaming/mmorpg is more semantics in my opinion.
Of course DnD had its roots in wargaming and mmorpg in DnD, but as DnD 3.5 and beyond were more based on ADnD than DnD I'd say, 20 levels for example are tradition (at least for me and probably most groups that adopted 3e and 4e).

I also couldn't and still can't see the mmorpg similarities, but that is for everyone to decide for themselves. What was and still is problematic is people trying to tell others how to play.
I think however that it is wotc's responsibility to balance tradition with innovation. And they just missed the mark with 4e while still bringing the game design forward. 5e rules would have been totally different if they had not learned from 4e (including how to deal with forum critics who are speaking for the majority while being the minority).
5e brought over a lot of game designers from 4e: perkins, mearls, crawford. And they did a terrific job.

 

[Lyxen]

If you call it tradition or too much wargaming/mmorpg is more semantics in my opinion.

Not really. The way the game is designed influences how you play it, it's obvious (for example the 3e/4e design mandates detailed - and therefore long - tactical combat played on a grid). And each of us has a preferred playstyle. Whether it matches or not has absolutely no relation to the "tradition" of the game.

For example, 5e violates a lot of traditions compared to AD&D, but it matches it in playstyle.

Of course DnD had its roots in wargaming and mmorpg in DnD, but as DnD 3.5 and beyond were more based on ADnD than DnD I'd say, 20 levels for example are tradition (at least for me and probably most groups that adopted 3e and 4e).

And here you see the problem, for me, 20 levels has nothing to do with tradition. It's something that that young whippersnapper of 3e brought, and that I never respected anyway (since we did epic play both before and after lvl 20).

I also couldn't and still can't see the mmorpg similarities, but that is for everyone to decide for themselves.

Perfect balance for classes, spread among trees, with a few choices at each level along different lines ? The classes and powers were designed for a MMORPG. And don't get me wrong, it had a lot of advantages, in particular in term of balance, and in particular between traditional casters and non-casters.

This, however, is the part where I think we agree, although this, in and of itself, would not particularly have had an impact on the way of playing, it was a huge slaughtering of sacred cows and it probably hit the traditions more than the play style.

What was and still is problematic is people trying to tell others how to play.

I'm not telling anyone how to play each version, but each edition does. Once more, if an edition spends 30 ages on detailed combat rule on a grid, and if 90% of the classes descriptions is how to apply these powers on a grid, then the game tells you to play on a grid. And that means detailed tactical combat that can last all night.

Of course, the game (after explaining to you that you must write it down first) tells you that it's customisable, but if you throw 80% of the system out of the window to customise, are you really playing that game ?

I think however that it is wotc's responsibility to balance tradition with innovation. And they just missed the mark with 4e while still bringing the game design forward. 5e rules would have been totally different if they had not learned from 4e (including how to deal with forum critics who are speaking for the majority while being the minority).
5e brought over a lot of game designers from 4e: perkins, mearls, crawford. And they did a terrific job.

On that, I agree, 4e brought a ton of innovations, some of them great, others more debatable (matter of taste), and so did 5e, again some great and still debatable.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

snip

seems you try to win an argument here. I don´t agree with your statements and you not with mine. So I´ll stop here.

 

[Gravenhurst48]

I hope that was not a response to me, because it was under my post.
If it is, I don't know how you read that into my post...
Maybe I explain.
I agree with Oofta that 4e was rushed out too much. And it deviated too much from what people expected from DnD coming from 3e.
Sloppy editing, need for huge amounts of errata from day one. And way too many feats too fast. I only used online tools to always be up to date.
And that was actually the original intention: digital distribution with constant rules updates. That was never fuly realized due to tragic circumstances.

Apart from that, 4e was a great game. I did have a lot of fun for a while. But there was just a bit too much revolution. No matter how good some designs were, people were not ready for that amount. And on top it changed our playstyle by having such dynamic combats.
In a way it was an evolution that began in tge transition from 2e over combat and tactics to 3e and then 3.5. The use of the grid and combat maneuvers to fully utilize it. We were able to ignore the change up to 3.5 (although it was getting harder and harder) and in 4e we were fully battle map. And for our way of playing that just meant the dead for our adventures as we were happy playing out one combat per session not making real progress in the adventure.

So... after that preamble:

What broke too much with tradition (my guess) :

• 30 levels instead of 20
• no 9 spell levels
• fighers actually doing interesting things (which is the reason the battlemaster maneuvers got relegated to subclass... :/)
• monsters devided into minions/normal/elite/solo and standardized roles that had more or less fixed base stats
• hp and healing surges.
• rituals?

I reiterate: those were mostly great ideas and I am glad those found their way into 5e in some form. But the appeal of 5e is that it enabled more traditional play with modern rules. Hopefully 5.5 will revive more 4e Ideas in some way, as 4e is now also tradition, so anyone can play as the wish.

I believe the true git was for me Lich, but the post was removed because I was not being sensitive enough.

 

[Alzrius]

And here you see the problem, for me, 20 levels has nothing to do with tradition. It's something that that young whippersnapper of 3e brought, and that I never respected anyway (since we did epic play both before and after lvl 20).

Actually, 20 levels was standardized back in AD&D 2nd Edition; it's how many levels were presented for each class in the PHB, with none of the Core Rulebooks having information about going beyond that particular limit (though various supplements would take the game further than this).

 

[Gravenhurst48]

This is funny. I learned what a "+" Thread meant and thought the comment was directed at me, because my posts may have not been sensitive enough, and interpreted as sniping. I wasn't, but revised or deleted my comments because whatever. I don't bash anyone unless I am bashed. But ironically enough you two posters have totally crossed the "+" threshold for a badgering debate. And honestly, I love debates and arguments and cat fights, as long as they are intelligent, meaningful, coherant, and mature, and stays on topic, which you guys are doing a fine job. I learn more and more about 4e to give it a try in a decade or so. But, here we are. Point taken, my posts were lame compared to the 4e fiasco, hilarious.
You can not expect a "+" Thread to not have any true meaningfull meat and honest potatoes without a rebuttal from someone who feels passionately opposite from someones opinion about "why tradition is important in D&D".

 

[payn]

This is funny. I learned what a "+" Thread meant and thought the comment was directed at me, because my posts may have not been sensitive enough, and interpreted as sniping. I wasn't, but revised or deleted my comments because whatever. I don't bash anyone unless I am bashed. But ironically enough you two posters have totally crossed the "+" threshold for a badgering debate. And honestly, I love debates and arguments and cat fights, as long as they are intelligent, meaningful, coherant, and mature, and stays on topic, which you guys are doing a fine job. I learn more and more about 4e to give it a try in a decade or so. But, here we are. Point taken, my posts were lame compared to the 4e fiasco, hilarious.
You can not expect a "+" Thread to not have any true meaningfull meat and honest potatoes without a rebuttal from someone who feels passionately opposite from someones opinion about "why tradition is important in D&D".

Hi, welcome.

 

[el-remmen]

My comment was not directed at any particular person, but was meant as a general reminder to all participating. I am not a mod, but I thought I'd be helpful and say something before people get booted from the thread or it gets shut down.

As for the utility of "+" threads, literally nearly every other thread on these boards is not a plus thread and these arguments have nearly daily (and certainly weekly) iterations in those threads - so just go find some other thread to argue minutia or tell people they are wrong, everyone will be happier, including yourself.