billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
So because some elements are expressly gamist, they all have to be?
Why must numbers go up?
- Thread starter Meatboy
- Start date
So because some elements are expressly gamist, they all have to be?
Hussar
Legend
No, of course not. But, OTOH, criticising one edition for doing exactly the same thing as every other edition doesn't seem too fair. Every edition of the game has placed the good of the game first. That much has never really changed.
I think what Husar meant was "a good of D&D as a game, opposed to D&D as a simulation or a story". It seems that this is what majority of gamers seek, judging from how many people buy and play D&D.
It's obvious that it is impossible to create a game that gives enjoyment to everyone. That's why there are thousands of various RPGs. People who don't like a strongly gamist, combat-focused style, or who prefer more variation (like me), just play different games.
It's obvious that it is impossible to create a game that gives enjoyment to everyone. That's why there are thousands of various RPGs. People who don't like a strongly gamist, combat-focused style, or who prefer more variation (like me), just play different games.
Doug McCrae
Legend
It's a question of basic approach. Are you building a fantasy world that makes sense and then turning that into something that works as a game? Or are you starting with your crazy funhouse dungeon where the easy monsters are at the top and the hard ones at the bottom and then coming up with some half-arsed explanation, like 'a mad wizard did it'?
Historically D&D has taken the second approach. That's how Gary and Dave started in the early 70s. It's how new DMs always have to start. It's the approach 4e embraces.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Or the game world has areas which are war torn and nasty where a typical guard is 13th level and other parts where its been largely peaceful for many years the typical guard is 3rd level ... and the pcs "coincidentally" enter the game in the latter area.... where even as beginning heroics they are the equal of the guards. .. and travel to the other place is long and hard in itself.
The degree of "reasonable coincidence" vs "nonsense" involved is largely dependent on DM narrative ability ... Check out where Bilbos adventure began... it wasn't set in a beleaguered Gondor under the attack of Nazgul. And before encountering a Dragon he "coincidentally" acquired an uber potent artifact... not yet burdensome or awakened of course because he doesn't have a team of higher level heroes to work with.
Hussar
Legend
Steenan has the right of it.
Throughout it's history, D&D has never billed itself as a world building game. People play it that way, but, D&D itself has always focused on the game end of things and not the world.
Sure, there's been this or that that spoke to the larger world, but, as Doug McCrae points out, it's mostly window dressing laid over top.
Just to give a very basic example. What edition of D&D has a functional economy? After all, this is one of the most basic elements required of creating even a basic simulation of a nation. Yet D&D's economy has never been even remotely anything other than a convenient way of keeping points for the players.
Again, why should one edition be called out for doing the same thing every other edition has done?
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
It's not that simple. While no D&D game has had a functional economy built in, 1e at least recommended that the DM find ways to make it feel real, which gives them another way to interact with and have an effect on the fantasy environment through the establishment of strongholds, the hiring of craftsmen, etc.
I'd dispute that the economy has never been more than a way to keep points for the players.
As far as calling out the edition, I don't see much value in giving any single aspect of a game a pass simply because other aspects of the game take the same approach. I didn't with 1e, 2e, or 3e so I don't see why I should with 4e either. For my money, retrofitting the environment because you want a level appropriate difficulty is ass-backward. I prefer to set my non-combat (and some of my combat) challenges by induction rather than deduction. And if the PCs find the challenge easy because they're well developed for it, great. They should feel proud of their foresight and prudence.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Agreed. The fundamental issue of the endless escalation has almost nothing to do with the
in-game economy and everything to do with a game designed to provide a challenge to a set
of probabilities on a sheet of paper rather than the person participating.
It is a simple MMOism.
I want the game world to be populated by a large number of boars.
A boar doesn't represent much of a challenge to a high level PC.
I want the PC's to be challenged by boars throughout their careers.
I shall make boars level appropriate to the PC's to achieve this.
So in order to keep the math in the range we want it, there are now boars running
around that can kill owlbears, wyverns, and manticores.
