D&D General Why the resistance to D&D being a game?

[overgeeked]

I built out a spreadsheet to determine if there was anything I could improve upon in my rotation in WoW, for a specific boss fight with a given duration of the encounter...

Serious business.

A quick search for a rotation or a rotation mod would do. No need to do the math yourself.

 

[Scribe]

A quick search for a rotation or a rotation mod would do. No need to do the math yourself.

This was the old days, pre Elitist Jerks.

 

[overgeeked]

This was the old days, pre Elitist Jerks.

Ah. There are others, but yeah. When did you start? I was late to the game. I started at the tail end of Burning Crusade.

 

[Scribe]

Ah. There are others, but yeah. When did you start? I was late to the game. I started at the tail end of Burning Crusade.

Vanilla, clueless as can be.

 

[overgeeked]

What? No! That's abnegation, not immersion. Immersion is about embodiment, not flow.

Not according to anyone I've read or watched on the topic. Abnegation and submission are about game as mindless past time. Accepting that it's boring and being okay with that. Things like grinding. Flow is basically the opposite of that. Riding the line between too challenging and too boring and being completely mentally engaged with and focused on the game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm not going to deny that simulationist tend to pooh-pooh game balance, but that's just one part of anti-game sentiment, and I'm really not seeing why I would have seen quite so much of it at various times if it was only amongst that group (which I haven't seen all that much of after the 80's--I'm not sure I'd actually run into anyone who was focused on it other than maybe on a societal level for decades until I got on this board).

You can go find it today, in force, on any board where older editions of D&D are favoured, and many (though not all) places where OSR games are favoured.

It's not hard. And no, it's not just "pooh-pooh"ing balance, it's an objection to any element that even smells to them like it's game rather than a simulation. But there is a weird double standard in that basically anything from 1E or earlier is fine, and not game-ish in the way is disliked, however little sense that makes. But it's not an even an edition-based sentiment - the quite a number of 5E players who feel this way. I've been coming across this the entire time the WWW has existed, so since about 1992/3.

(The one thing I have seen gradually "die a death" is the once-popular idea of "system doesn't matter", which even in 1993 seemed wildly erroneous to me, but which was once an extremely popular idea, especially when generic systems were actually quite popular, as they were in the '80s and '90s (GURPS, Champions, etc.).

There may not be a lot any more, but I'll flat out say if you didn't hit many in the 90's, you just weren't in the right places.

Sure, but where was it? Because it wasn't RPG.net or Shadowland.org for example. Nor here (albeit obviously the earliest forms of this place were in what 1999/2000?).

Sorry, but no. The people I'm talking about were anything but imaginary, and I'm frankly startled if you never hit any of them. I'm not sure I'd describe them as "sneering aesthetes", but they were a real and extensive subgroup at least at one time back when I was on USEnet.

Well I definitely wasn't on USEnet significantly, so sure.

Also, when was the last time you saw any of these people? 10 years ago? 20? 30? It'd be like finding a living fossil long thought extinct today, imho.

 

[ECMO3]

I think the OP is referring to arguments about design aesthetics that seem "gamey" to some people. It pops up from time to time in the martial/caster balance discussions. There will occasionally be people arguing that, for example, you can't give martial classes abilities that reset on a long rest or short rest or whatever, because it's not "realistic" to have abilities with limited uses.

Realism doesn't come in to it for me and "realism itself is a silly argument when you are throwing around fireballs and talking to Elves. Fantastic, spectacular "things" should come from spells or magic powers. For me this is thematics and it is the main reason why I don't like all the weapon abilities in the ONE playtest. If you gave those to casters as spells or even cantrips I would be fine with them.

Thematically, martial abilities should be limited and weak compared to magic, and a PC who purposely decides to forgo magic should be limited and weak to a PC that doesn't IMO.

Choices have consequences, and that is true in any game. Comparing this to chess - In Chess the Amar opening (Kh3) is factually weaker than moving a pawn to set up the Queens Gambit. It just is. We don't give extra abilities to Chess players who choose to do that just to make it equal.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Thematically, martial abilities should be limited and weak compared to magic, and a PC who purposely decides to forgo magic should be limited and weak to a PC that doesn't IMO.

What theme is this reflecting?

I mean, it's obviously not generally true in any era of fantasy literature, it's not true in fantasy movies, it's not true in fantasy videogames, it's not true (generally speaking) in fantasy TT RPGs, it's not true in fantasy wargames, so what theme exactly are you referring to?

You're acting like this is self-evident, but it isn't. No genre or media of fantasy reflects that trope - the ones which come closest also make casters extremely weak and limited in a way they totally are not in D&D. Sword and sorcery, for example, often has casters who can do things no mortal man could - but equally they are hopeless in combat in most cases, hiding behind summoned monsters or henchmen and immediately dying to a single blow from a mighty-thewed warrior. They can't generally do anything like fireball or magic missile or shield, for example. Let alone Fly or Stoneskin or Globe of Invulnerability.

I mean, you're saying this is what, the default theme of all fantasy:



That's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Do you have that evidence?

 

[ECMO3]

What theme is this reflecting?

Magic is supreme, physics breaking and magical.

I mean, it's obviously not generally true in any era of fantasy literature, it's not true in fantasy movies, it's not true in fantasy videogames, it's not true (generally speaking) in fantasy TT RPGs, it's not true in fantasy wargames, so what theme exactly are you referring to?

I think it is generally true in just about all of those. It is generally mechanically true in video games and generaly thematically true in most movies and literature.

Evidence:

Literature:
1940s - Gandalf and Saruman are more powerful than any of the martials in that adventure. Bilbo gets magic and is able to do truely amazing things with it.
1970s - Elric's sorcery and his magic sword are more powerful than his martial abilties (and he is genrally a martial in a low magic world even)
1990s - Raistlan elevated himself to literal God status through magic
2010s - The power displayed by Gromph, Pickel and the young Ivonnel eclipse anything the martial companions of the hall can do and when they do match up against magical foes it is usually by leveraging magic.

Movies:
DNDHAT - All of the spectacular achievments are done by magic. Literally turning an entire city into undead, the timestop spell, the resurection. Guile and wit play a part to help carry the day for the mundane characters, but Holga isn't doing anything that is even close to what is done by Sofina, Simon or Doric.


Can you provide a single example in movies or literature where martials can do things physically that rival what casters of equal level can accomplish? Even one example from fiction?

 

[Incenjucar]

Magic is supreme, physics breaking and magical.



I think it is generally true in just about all of those. It is generally mechanically true in video games and genrrally thematically true in most movies and literature.

It is common, but it is also common that skill can overcome power.