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

[Oofta]

I thought I did but perhaps I was too vague. To me the most important D&D tradition is that you're an "[insert race/lineage] [insert level][insert class/subclass]" and that that is defining thing that's immediately going to tell people about how your character plays and and what they're about.

This is pretty different to a lot of other TT RPGs. Class, race, and level.

Beyond that I think there's a hell of a lot that's kind of up for discussion whilst potentially still being D&D. I'd love to see HP increase but by a much smaller amount per level, for example.

Stat-wise, I could honestly see losing Constitution. Not because I hate it, but because it doesn't add much. Almost everything it's for you could use STR for or just remove from the game. So I'm guessing I'm finding that the six stats tradition doesn't matter or that be equally happy with one of those stats changing.

I'm old enough to remember when they had sub-abilities that split up things like strength into brute strength which added to attack and damage and an aspect of strength that leaned more into the endurance side of things. So everyone just maxed out their brute strength (or whatever it was called, too lazy to get my book).

I think the 6 ability scores are one of the traditions that work, although dex in the current iteration is far too good. I guess if we got rid of con people would have a reason to invest in strength.

I guess I was just trying to point out that I don't envy the developers because there will always be compromises. One person's tradition that makes the game what it is will be another person's sacred cow.

Bonus tradition I like: the relative lack of gunpowder. Which is really odd considering the technology level required for things like plate armor, I think it makes the game more fantastical.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's some value in that, but I like the development that players have more choice in how they want to fill those niches. Need a lock picker? Don't need to be a rogue - you could be a sorcerer with a criminal background and you still free the rest of the group up to develop their characters to fill other niches needing to be filled.

Yep. I totally get that too. All comes down to preference.

 

[BookTenTiger]

It is simply a matter of product consistency.

If cocacola or pepsi decide they need a sales boost and change their flavor to banana, it's not cocacola or pepsi anymore. Can be a new good drink but not the same.

If D&D drops too much of what distinguished it from other RPGs then it becomes another RPG. Can be a new good RPG but still one of the many other RPGs.

It's ok for D&D to evolve and generate new variants. But when it strayed too far from itself it failed.

It's interesting comparing the idea of Tradition or consistency to a sports team, where the players and management change, but people stay loyal to the team.

 

[Scribe]

It's interesting comparing the idea of Tradition or consistency to a sports team, where the players and management change, but people stay loyal to the team.

Many teams maintain a connection to the 'tradition' of their most successful play style, or at least they pay lip service to it.

"We are the Steelers, you better tighten your chinstrap when you come play us." kind of thing.

 

[payn]

It's interesting comparing the idea of Tradition or consistency to a sports team, where the players and management change, but people stay loyal to the team.

As a fantasy football guy, I no longer have loyalty to any team. Its very liberating. Im starting to get that way with TTRPGs too.

 

[overgeeked]

It seems to me that when you started doesn't determine what you like about the game.

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

I, and others around here, also started in the early 80s, and like the modern game just fine as D&D.

Good for you. I don't and there's also "others around here" who feel as I do that started around the same time I did.

The Immortals set came out in 1986. Going to godlike power is not "modern".

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. The Immortals boxed set was an optional add on to the BECMI line. Where you already had to be something like 30th level to even possibly hear rumors about immortality being an option...after hearing that rumor you'd have to go on a long multi-level quest specifically to seek out a path to immortality and an immortal patron who'd maybe grant you immortality if you passed all the right tests. Then...maybe...you'd become a god. So after a long string of incredible luck (reaching ~30th level in the meat grinder of old-school D&D), actually becoming an immortal was DM fiat from start to finish. Whereas in the modern game you're a de facto god if you reach level 16-17 in the standard level progression of 5E.

 

[Sacrosanct]

As an aside, and on a somewhat related note, when I asked Frank Mentzer a while ago what's the one thing he would have changed about BECMI, he said to cap it at level 20. 36 was way too much, and sort of ridiculous.

 

[TheSword]

Tradition is wrapped up with identity. People who commit substantial time, recourses and energy to a hobby and build their social lives around it, are inevitably going to become invested in the the game. Some people may even be crazy enough to spend several hours a week discussing it on online forums. They become familiar, conversant, perhaps even expert in their hobby and the sum total of their experience and knowledge important to them. I think this applies to fans of football teams, TV shows and as much as RPG’s.

When you start to change the things that people identify with they are liable to get defensive. Particularly when change is imposed rather than consulted upon. The traditions become things people cling to in an otherwise uncertain world. A lot of the traditions that get the most push back are the small things that people see being changed without good justification. The people advocating for the change assign the traditions no value because they don’t agree with them, whereas the people defending the traditions equate them with the full value of their experience and so there is a fundamental disconnect between those advocating for change and those being affected by it.

This is further complicated because so often changes in our Hobby are either matters of taste (how easy is it to die in combat) or social convention (the name of a lich’s Phylactery or the default alignment of an orc). The former often has no right or wrong answer and the reaction to the latter will be affected by a massive range of upbringings and outlooks on life.

Are we honestly surprised that there is resistance when a bunch of people who aren’t racist are trying to tell another bunch of people who also aren’t racist that game they’re playing and the language they’re using is racist. There is an inherent criticism in that. When the racism is only implied, requires convoluted arguments or is based on specific outlooks that the traditionalists don’t have access to then there will be push back. In some cases these justifications for change rely on scholarly work or still debated topics. For instance the issue of cultural appropriation in literature and creative works is still a hotly debated topic.

I totally understand people mean well, and of course no game company needs the permission of its customers to act. But if they want said customers to feel engaged then they should at least attempt to get buy in. I think this is one of the reasons why the 4e to 5e transition was so positive and the 3e to 4e transition was so catastrophic.

Whatever you think about Sacred Cows, they are Sacred. Change is inevitable people say, and I’m inclined to agree but the need and desire for change will be on a bell curve. Companies will never change fast enough for some people, and any change will be rejected by others. What I don’t want to see is knee jerk reactions any more than I want to see stagnation. Not everyone that shouts loudest on both sides is representative. Customers/gamers often just don’t want to feel like they’re being jerked around. One of the groups I DM for is a entirely gay fairly liberal bunch and we find ourselves rolling our eyes at some of the stuff that appears in the TTRPG news.

A strong rationale, Consultation and change at a pace people can accept is far more effective and less destructive than Twitter outrage followed by Press releases and Platitudes.

The good news is that WOC does seem more inclined to discuss things, watch and take a measured approach than it ever has in the past. I personally am comfortable with both the direction and velocity of their change.

 

[Yaarel]

As an aside, and on a somewhat related note, when I asked Frank Mentzer a while ago what's the one thing he would have changed about BECMI, he said to cap it at level 20. 36 was way too much, and sort of ridiculous.

I at least want upto level 24, for an epic "immortal" tier.

But I am getting into the approach in the 5e DMG, that grants a super-feat per level, a "boon".

The current boons are uneven in power, can benefit from calibration, and add more boons to choose from.

 

[billd91]

It's interesting comparing the idea of Tradition or consistency to a sports team, where the players and management change, but people stay loyal to the team.

In many case, when players and management change, they rarely change all at once. They gradually morph from one lineup to another. And that allows certain things like culture and relationships to be passed on from outgoing to incoming players/managers.

Being a fan of a particular team may also involve traditions for spectators too, particularly if they're your local team or alma mater. Staying for the band playing the "5th quarter", certain songs that are sung together, tailgating in the parking lot, going to the same storied stadium (with the same non-corporate-shilled name) season after season...
Similarly, some of a game's traditions may spring up at local tables and local table culture but may be derived from or fed by specific rules or rule structures just as those spectator traditions may have been fed by specific players/coaches/managers on the sports team. And, if you recognize them, you can help those traditions and practices attract people back time after time (even if your star quarterback manages to suddenly piss everyone off).