D&D 5E Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)

[S'mon]

We aren't talking about Edwards philosophy, we are talking about who he was referencing with his original "brain damage" comment. I provided a direct quote and he clearly references games from the 70's... so what games are being referenced if not old school D&D and it's ilk??

Again what games from the 70's is he referencing then?

So expectations vs. design not matching up (though I'm not sure whether a high enough level fighter could or couldn't pull off the type of action in the Moldvay story)... that sounds like exactly what Forge theory seems to be against... am I wrong here?

Gimme the Edwards quote again please, I've not read this whole thread. I rem him calling something like Adventure Path type play brain damaging - training players to be passive I think. I guess Runequest or some linear Traveller modules could be run that way, but it only really started with Dragonlance and became dominant in the '90s. They never call pure Gamist play brain-damaging, that would make no sense within their own paradigm.

"expectations vs. design not matching up (though I'm not sure whether a high enough level fighter could or couldn't pull off the type of action in the Moldvay story)... that sounds like exactly what Forge theory seems to be against" - Yup, I think so. A high level Cook-Marsh Expert Set Fighter might conceivably pound a dragon to death over several rounds (taking tons of breath wpn dmg) but you can't kill a dragon in one blow within the bounds of Moldvay Basic D&D. You can't survive a red dragon at all, I'd say.

 

[Imaro]

Gimme the Edwards quote again please, I've not read this whole thread. I rem him calling something like Adventure Path type play brain damaging - training players to be passive I think. I guess Runequest or some linear Traveller modules could be run that way, but it only really started with Dragonlance and became dominant in the '90s. They never call pure Gamist play brain-damaging, that would make no sense within their own paradigm.

"expectations vs. design not matching up (though I'm not sure whether a high enough level fighter could or couldn't pull off the type of action in the Moldvay story)... that sounds like exactly what Forge theory seems to be against" - Yup, I think so. A high level Cook-Marsh Expert Set Fighter might conceivably pound a dragon to death over several rounds (taking tons of breath wpn dmg) but you can't kill a dragon in one blow within the bounds of Moldvay Basic D&D. You can't survive a red dragon at all, I'd say.

Here was my original post with the quote included...


That's not the original context of the "brain damaged" comment (though I find it laughable that he cites the role playing game, Vampire, that probably brought in more new blood to the hobby than any other game except D&D as causing brain damage in those who played it )... Here's the original post, it was an answer to a question of "protagonism" asked by Vincent Baker... and he's speaking of roleplaying games from the 1970's (Vampire and L5R didn't exist then) up to the 1990's.

Ron Edwards said:

My response, which is actually a diagnosis of the existing activity:
Yes, "we" are still obsessed, in the manner that you have described. It's a creative and technical illness, much in the sense that early cinema was hampered by the assumption that what they filmed should look like a stage-set, viewed front-on, from the same distance, at all times.
The design decisions I've made with my current project are so not-RPG, but at the same time so dismissive of what's ordinarily called "consensual storytelling," that I cannot even begin to discuss it on-line. I can see the influences of Universalis, The Mountain Witch, and My Life with Master, but I cannot articulate the way that I have abandoned the player-character, yet preserved the moral responsibility of decision-making during play. That's all I'll say here, and I won't answer questions about it.
More specific to your question, Vincent, I'll say this: that protagonism was so badly injured during the history of role-playing (1970-ish through the present, with the height of the effect being the early 1990s), that participants in that hobby are perhaps the very last people on earth who could be expected to produce *all* the components of a functional story. No, the most functional among them can only be counted on to seize protagonism in their stump-fingered hands and scream protectively. You can tag Sorcerer with this diagnosis, instantly.
[The most damaged participants are too horrible even to look upon, much less to describe. This has nothing to do with geekery. When I say "brain damage," I mean it literally. Their minds have been *harmed.*]
Perhaps Primetime Adventures, My Life with Master, Dogs in the Vineyard, Polaris, etc etc, are really the best available prosthetics possible, permitting the damaged populace to do X? If so, what will people with limbs prefer to use, to do X?
I don't know. I can see its parts forming, as with a mid-term embryo, but what it will be and how it will work, and who will use it for what purposes, I don't know. My current project may be right on track with it, or I may be veering off in a hopeless direction.

 

[MJS]

This is a thread I started over on the Wizards forums but unfortunately, it was hi-jacked by the usual trolls who flamed and trolled until they got the thread locked.

First of all, I'm not talking about broken mechanics. I'm talking about the myth that a lot of people somehow want all classes to be balanced when it comes to combat and damage.

Now what I am about to post is from my own experience and the experiences of those I have gamed with for many years. I have been playing RPG's for over 27 years now. I am actively engaged in Pathfinder Society and with various Cons. In all my years, I have yet to come across a player, except on internet forums, who wants this so called balance that 4th edition gave us. The people that I have gamed with do not care about DPR, nor do they measure contributing to the game with numbers. These people aren't worried about choosing that right stat line up, or that race class combo, or even that special selection of certain feats that synergize perfectly. They are also not the people who want all their abilities to equally work at optimal efficiency against everything.

These people choose classes based on a concept they have so they will choose those feats that people on these forums discourage against taking because they aren't optimal numerically. These same people don't mind when the barbarian does 56 points of damage while the rogue does 25 because they aren't in a hurry to win combat nor do they mind if the barbarian does a lot more damage.

This is how I feel about the game. Concept is what's important to me and sometimes my concept is based around combat and sometimes it's not. I have found that a heavy emphasis on balanced combat leads to option bloat. This attitude promotes the selection of feats and backgrounds that only grant a numerical combat advantage, so what we get is loads of feats and backgrounds that are considered sub-optimal and are therefore discouraged.

From my own experience, the balance issue is not an actual issue at all. I'm sure your miles may vary, and it may be an issue for you but it's not for me and the many people that I deal with.

There is a term for such people: Rules Lawyers. They are a bane to any table, and abound on forums. Fortunately, they don't get out much.

 

[S'mon]

More specific to your question, Vincent, I'll say this: that protagonism was so badly injured during the history of role-playing (1970-ish through the present, with the height of the effect being the early 1990s), that participants in that hobby are perhaps the very last people on earth who could be expected to produce *all* the components of a functional story. No, the most functional among them can only be counted on to seize protagonism in their stump-fingered hands and scream protectively. You can tag Sorcerer with this diagnosis, instantly.
[The most damaged participants are too horrible even to look upon, much less to describe. This has nothing to do with geekery. When I say "brain damage," I mean it literally. Their minds have been *harmed.*]

Yeah, he's not talking about pure Gamist play. You can tell because of the underlined bit. AFAICT Ron thinks 'functional stories' require a Dramatic Premise and to conform to conventional literary structure(!) - which his Narrativism is designed to produce. Since Gamist play isn't aimed at story creation it's not relevant.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, he's not talking about pure Gamist play. You can tell because of the underlined bit. AFAICT Ron thinks 'functional stories' require a Dramatic Premise and to conform to conventional literary structure(!) - which his Narrativism is designed to produce. Since Gamist play isn't aimed at story creation it's not relevant.

Sooo what games from the 70's is he speaking of?

Sorry but I'm not buying into these convoluted excuses for why he mentioned 70's games but in fact really only meant 90's games. First, he's speaking about protagonism which can certainly be included as a part of gamist play... On top of that his reasoning seems to be that these games without "protagonism" have harmed the people playing so much that they are "brain damaged" by the experience and cannot produce all the components of a "functional" story, in other words he claims they are literally brain damaged from their play experiences.

 

[S'mon]

Sooo what games from the 70's is he speaking of?

Sorry but I'm not buying into these convoluted excuses for why he mentioned 70's games but in fact really only meant 90's games. First, he's speaking about protagonism which can certainly be included as a part of gamist play... On top of that his reasoning seems to be that these games without "protagonism" have harmed the people playing so much that they are "brain damaged" by the experience and cannot produce all the components of a "functional" story, in other words he claims they are literally brain damaged from their play experiences.

He's talking about any RPG where players tried to use it ("drift" it) to create stories. Which some people did as early as the '70s. According to him, the games were not well designed to do that.
I hold no candle for Ron Edwards. I don't think he's a nice guy. But I really don't think he's attacking you, if you don't see RPGs about telling stories then you're not the target of his invective. But if you're convinced he is, well I'm sorry, I cannot assuage your pain.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sooo what games from the 70's is he speaking of?

Sorry but I'm not buying into these convoluted excuses for why he mentioned 70's games but in fact really only meant 90's games. First, he's speaking about protagonism which can certainly be included as a part of gamist play... On top of that his reasoning seems to be that these games without "protagonism" have harmed the people playing so much that they are "brain damaged" by the experience and cannot produce all the components of a "functional" story, in other words he claims they are literally brain damaged from their play experiences.

I have to agree with imaro. It feels like people are really going throug contortions to say that 70s to 90s doesn't include D&D to some extent. Personally, whatever game he directed the criticism toward, i am not terribly concerned about whether D&D was included or excluded from the attack. I definitely don't think Ron Edwards is a bad guy, i won't blame someone for somethig they said on the internet years ago. But I do think the brain damage comment and the essay are pretty toxic and indefensible. It is one thing to say, these folks here play games I don't like or play in a manner I don't like (to even say that perhaps their style is harmful to the growth of the hobby or something) but to say they are literally brain damaged, and now utterly incapable of producing a coherent story? I think we can all agree that is taking things too far.

 

[Mistwell]

I'm not speaking of the (correctly or incorrectly) assumed "height" of the effect Edwards is speaking to, I am looking at the actual words he wrote. It was a statement on protagonism... and I think Edwards very much intended to include early editions of D&D in his statement, especially since until 4e D&D did not provide the type of guaranteed protagonism (which I tend to associate with various low-level safety nets) Edwards is advocating for... In fact I have seen you argue along similar lines when discussing your disappointment in old school D&D not providing the type of "story" it hints at in it's opening fiction... was it Moldvay? You seem to be presenting your interpretation of his meaning, and of course trying to cast it in the most favorable light (though a state of brain damage and comparisons of child abuse are still idiotic things to tie to anyone's particular choice in game or playstyle.) as fact when his words make it clear he was speaking to D&D among other rpg's.

Of course Edwards is including D&D in his comment. I've never seen anyone attempt to pretend otherwise. He even says, in his follow-up comment to that comment, that he means "Its origins in terms of game texts are probably traceable to AD&D2". And then he mentions some other fine games, like Champions.

So he is comparing players of AD&D2 to child molestation victims, and saying they are literally brain damaged such that they are incapable of creating or enjoying a full storygame.

And someone is still trying to defend this creep?

And nobody is taking this out of context. The context is actually worse than what I am summarizing.


The Post itself on Anyway

The Post in Full context, on Anyway (Ron's comment is #14)

The thread he started about it, complete with sexual abuse analogy!

His obstinacy and refusal to retract or apologize
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18807.0

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

In all fairness, who gives a what Ron Edwards says anyway?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In all fairness, who gives a what Ron Edwards says anyway?

I wonder if you add up the "success" he had as a designer and compair it to the worst or least succesful D&D or OWOD what that would look like..