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

[Umbran]

Good thing I never said it did for anyone but me.

All I'm saying is that you should be open to the idea that the time you started playing is not the cause of your preference. The claim of causality does not seem justified.

I mean, you don't even need to justify your preference at all. Folks can validly like things just because. But if you imply a cause, then folks are going to look at that, and question it.

If you think they're comparable I'll go out on a limb and guess that either you haven't actually read the Immortals box or it's been years since you have. Because they're absolutely not comparable.

I don't see why not - those details do not change the fact that the game supported zero to godlike power in the past era. That's what you said mattered. But apparently, a lot else matters.

Whereas in the modern game you're a de facto god if you reach level 16-17 in the standard level progression of 5E.

"De facto god," is not a well-defned state. As if commoners in Basic wouldn't think of PCs as nigh godlike at 20th level? Or 30th?

Then, we get to consider how often anyone actually reaches level 16-17 in the modern game. Last I recall evidence from D&D Beyond and Roll20 stats suggested that characters that high are rare in actual play. And, indeed, the adventure product support for upper levels is not great.

Which suggests that going to level 16 or 17 now is just as optional as it was with the Immortal set. You seem to be faulting one game for an rarely used option, calling it "modern" when other games also had rarely used high-power options in the past.

I don't care if you like 5e or not. I just don't think this justification holds up.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

For me, tradition, in a positive sense, lies in the things that make the game feel familiar. I can pick up just about any D&D edition or derivative and know that there are going to be clerics, fighters, wizards. There are going to be dwarves, gnomes, and halflings. I will roll a twenty-sider to see if I can smack the monster with my sword (looks out the corner of my eye at DCC RPG...).

Tradition is also in the lore. It's being able to sit down and run an adventure in the city of Waterdeep, like I did for the first time in the late 80s. It's the legend of Fraz'urb'luu and how he tricked a group of adventurers into setting him free (and knowing that that story comes, not from something someone just wrote up, but that it's from an actual play event that made it into the history within the game itself). It's Vecna and Kas, Halaster Blackcloak, Lolth, and all the other big names. Now, when that lore is potentially harmful to people in the real world, I'm perfectly fine with it getting jettisoned. But at its best, it's a rich tapestry to inspire DMs.

 

[overgeeked]

All I'm saying is that you should be open to the idea that the time you started playing is not the cause of your preference. The claim of causality does not seem justified.

I mean, you don't even need to justify your preference at all. Folks can validly like things just because. But if you imply a cause, then folks are going to look at that, and question it.

Only if they're the type of person who feels the need to argue with how other people think and feel.

I don't see why not - those details do not change the fact that the game supported zero to godlike power in the past era. That's what you said mattered. But apparently, a lot else matters.

5E supports feats and multiclassing. But they're optional rules. That detail matters. Likewise here with Immortals.

I just don't think this justification holds up.

you don't even need to justify your preference at all.

Apparently I do and you're the final arbiter of what I get to like. That's cute.

 

[Blue]

Tradition ... hmm. Tradition is what makes D&D, D&D.

If there was a new edition of D&D that was out but it was classless, level-less, didn't use the six ability scores, hit points or armor class - I'd be hard-pressed to call it D&D. Regardless of how good or bad it is.

This doesn't mean those things can't change - just not all at the same time, and in measured steps. Look at casting. When I started, a 1st level Magic User was a potion bottle - cast their spell and was done for the day. Then you got bonus spells for high Int. Fast forward and now we have several typoes of arcane casters, only one with a spell book, and it's not even vancian casting, it's spell slots to cast anything you have known/prepared. And upcasting. And cantrips!

Tradition for me is also in the settings, including the default "whatever the PHB sets up". That we have halflings and dwarves. And elves - though if we ended up with just one type of elf that would upset some and not others.

I guess tradition is what defines the brand. It's not inherently good or bad within itself, it the choices that make it feel like D&D.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Because I'd rather play LotRs instead of WoW.

 

[TheSword]

Traditions should be sticky, like laws. Resistant to change and hard to move, but possible to, when there’s enough will to change. We don’t want things to stagnate but It’s hard to be loyal to something when it changes every time the wind blows in a different direction.

I saw someone in another thread demand a reason why something shouldn’t change. As if constant motion was the default state and anyone who tried to apply the breaks was behaving unnaturally.

I could as soon ask the same question of my mum to demand why she cooks a Roast on Sunday instead of paella. Or why the people from my home town have a certain accent.

 

[Cadence]

I think I want enough tradition that it feels like it's in the gradual continuation of D&D to me... whatever that means. I had no trouble playing B/X-1e-OD&D at the same table at the same time. UA coming out felt like D&D even if I didn't like some parts. 2e felt like D&D to me following late stage 1e. 3/3.5/PF felt like D&D to me following late state 2e. 5e feels like D&D to me following PF (with some tries at 4e and 13th age for comparison).

4e had a lot of things, and 13th age had a few things that felt like they broke too much of the continuity and I wasn't a fan. I wonder if they had gone right from the core three books in 1e to PF or from 1e to 5e if I would also have felt they went too far. Maybe after a 6e (and 7e) if they then stuck something 4e-ish in if it would then feel like D&D to me?

 

[Shiroiken]

The biggest advantage of tradition is being able to see the flow of the game going back to it's roots. AD&D 1E kept a lot of the same mechanics, but codified a lot of common houserules into the base game, as well as adding in things they felt were "missing." 2E made a handful of changes, particularly to the cleric class, but these changes eventually morphed into ideas for 3E (skills & domains). 5E has kept a lot of 3E's base d20 concepts, incorporating several aspects from AD&D and 4E that were liked. 4E, however, was a radical departure from tradition, which caused a large amount of the divide (I felt that 4E was an okay game, but would have done better under a different name than D&D.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Now, with that said, I'd point out that this is a (+) thread, and people are supposed to be contributing examples of traditions they value in D&D, not arguing against the concept.

Good to know. So where's the (-) thread in case someone has a different perspective and wants to have a grown up discussion about it?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Good to know. So where's the (-) thread in case someone has a different perspective and wants to have a grown up discussion about it?

I've been waiting for someone to start one!