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

[overgeeked]

I think if we are to refer to fiction a better example than Rock Lee is the main character of One Punch Man. There is absolutely no bs of any kind involved, and his powers are extremely grounded (in the sense that the explanation is consistent: he simply trained well).

I don't remember all his feats but I think he can jump to the moon.

But I suspect that for some reason which I can't imagine at all what it could be, all anime comparisons will be ignored.

I’m not sure how “normal person” plus “trained well” and “extremely grounded” could possible yield “jump to the moon.”

ETA: Ah, it’s satire.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

As I've mentioned frequently, I'm not actually much of a D&D fan.

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.

Well, that's pretty dumb given that the WW fans I mentioned were often decrying the gamish elements of D&D.

(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.).

I don't think most generic system fans don't think system matters. They just don't think its usually enough of a reason to use a specialized system.

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?).

I saw it on RPG.net at one time, but it was--well, a long time ago now. But USEnet and a number of places that Storyteller fans congregated (since I was actually pretty interested in Storyteller at the time) it wasn't exactly rare (one could suggest there was a lack of self-awareness there given how heavy the game elements were in ST, but that's as it is).

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.

Saw them, or know they're still in the hobby? Quite a few in the latter case (now, they may not still feel the same way; I'd like to think most people refine their views of things in the hobby over a period of 25-30 years, but some of the OSR crowd shows you can't take that as a given).

 

[Scribe]

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.

This is the most rank Wizard elitist propaganda I've ever seen.

 

[Azzy]

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.

No. That patently not so.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The only one I can think of where is both true in the lore and mechanics of the game is Dragon Age: Origins (and no other Dragon Age games).

I only play rogues and fighters in DA, and never go Templar bc gross, and IME the mages are like dudes with machine guns. Sure, they can merc a lot of people in a short time because they have a very effective killing machine, but the very well trained guys with pistols or even melee weapons that they are experts of can take them out fairly easily.

But what you don't understand, I suspect through not reading much fantasy or watching fantasy or playing fantasy games, is that magic-users often cannot do basic stuff that D&D spellcasters can trivially do. You need to accept that. Ironically the most baseline-capable casters are generally in games where the martials are incredible and superheroic.

Reminds me of Marvel, where the magic users like Strange are pretty generally competent and don’t need physical protectors, and stand next to super humans who can throw cars or who never miss with very lethal weaponry at least.

It's not even though.

It's about quadratic ANGELS. Gandalf isn't a wizard in a D&D or RPG sense, no matter how many times he's called that - he's an ultra-powerful servant of the gods who cannot be permanently killed.

Yeah the immortal magical gardener of a Valar with centuries of life as a “wizard” is more powerful than some mortal fighters and a ranger. Who could have guessed.

True. And Aragon's powers aren't from being a ranger, etc.

Eeehhh. Other than longevity, they really are trained abilities. Athlelas being more effective in the hands of a king is just folk lore, and the rest of what he does he learned from either his direct kin or from the elves of Rivendell and Lorien.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Why?

D&D is creationist. We decide what is and isn't real. We determine the thematic lines.

Why are you offering options in a game that is supposed to be cooperative and teamwork-based, where some of them are abject inferiors to others? That betrays both the spirit and the explicit description of the game. (And don't bother coming at me with competitive stuff either--competition depends even more on diverse options being comparably good and not one being obviously superior to another.)

 

[mamba]

including literature examples specific to D&D

that feels very circular… your case would be better without those examples

 

[EzekielRaiden]

that feels very circular… your case would be better without those examples

Of course, the problem is that without those examples, there isn't much evidence....

 

[ECMO3]

that feels very circular… your case would be better without those examples

If this was not a post in the Dungeons and Dragons section I might agree. As this is a post specifically in the D&D section though, the fiction examples from D&D are particularly relevant to the discussion..

 

[mamba]

If this was not a post in the Dungeons and Dragons section I might agree. As this is a post specifically in the D&D section though, the fiction examples from D&D are particularly relevant to the discussion..

no they are not, they show that D&D has done this for a long time, in no way do they demonstrate that it has to be like that, or even should

‘We have always done it this way’ is not an argument to keep doing it