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

[Micah Sweet]

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don't realize you're doing this, but you've moved the goalposts at least twice in our discussion; the previous way you did it was to talk about arguments, which I addressed. Now you want it to be about any exchange at all.

Which is it? The poster you responded to was not setting up an argument; he was making an offhand comment that they were glad your approach had not been chosen. I think expecting people to be as precise as you want under those conditions is unreasonable.

I really don't. They didn't say they were glad. They said it was good.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok, so I've lost a thread (mental, not ENWorld one) somewhere.

I know why group A doesn't want super-buffed fighters unless they're supernatural somehow.

And I know that group B wants fighters to be just as gonzo as the wizards.

I've forgotten why either group cares if there is no decent mundane fighter option, and all the good ones are supernatural somehow.

Anyone care to say if they are A or B and if they hate the balanced-with-wizards /gonzo fighters needing to pick a power source like demi-god, ancient mystic heritage, secret inner power source, dipped in Styx, blessed by the gods, etc ..?

I'd suggest that's because making them decent options requires, to at least some degree, cutting back on quite how high powered your mages are, and for various people that's a third rail for various reasons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Scratch the surface of any "realism" argument and you'll usually find something else at work, something more about gameplay.

Fighters that run out of martial juice just isn't a fun way to play a "fighter" for a lot of people. It doesn't match the fantasy of the class, it doesn't match the story told about why fighters are amazing, it homogenizes gameplay and makes class differences less relevant, it weights character builds over treasure acquisition, blah blah blah.

You're right to be skeptical of arguments about "realism" - usually saying something isn't "realistic" is equivalent to saying it's "bad" or "underpowered" or whatever. It's not really getting at the true friction point. But it gives some directionality. People who complain about "realism" often are concerned with the story they're trying to emulate with the class, and about how the mechanics of limited-use powers butts up against that story. If D&D is at its core a storytelling game (and 5e really carries that banner), the needs of the narrative must be served by the game. If it breaks the story, it won't be a good fit. By "it's not realistic," they often mean "it's not a good fit for the idea I have in my head about it, which means it's not a fun element for me as a player in this game."

An awful lot of people making these kinds of complaints are GMs though. I am. Do we also not really know what we're complaining about, or are we just lying?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ad hoc and unconscious is better than codified and assumed in this case.

Your opinion is noted. Personally, I think it leads to dishonest arguments.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suspect that statement is true for certain very busy characters, but as someone who has played through three full PF2e campaigns, let's just say I could have run off the first few levels with a single page character sheet, and this was a multiclass character in one case.

Good for you. Not my experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I really don't. They didn't say they were glad. They said it was good.

If you're not aware that in common usage "Its good that this happened" is frequently used as synonymous with "I'm glad this happened", I don't know what to tell you, man.

 

[Cadence]

I'd suggest that's because making them decent options requires, to at least some degree, cutting back on quite how high powered your mages are, and for various people that's a third rail for various reasons.

But wouldn't the really powerful anime or demigod fighters not need the wizards cut back as much?

I'm missing what the reason was we need a playable mundane option.

Is it wanting someone more relatable? Is it wanting a Conan or Boromir?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Good for you. Not my experience.

Nothing is universal, but at the very least this says that doesn't intrinsically say anything other than some people get hung up on options that don't matter.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But wouldn't the really powerful anime or demigod fighters not need the wizards cut back as much?

I'm missing what the reason was we need a playable mundane option.

I'd suggest the people who want the truly mundane options--and consider that a meaningful distinction--aren't the same people who want wuxia fighters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'd suggest that's because making them decent options requires, to at least some degree, cutting back on quite how high powered your mages are, and for various people that's a third rail for various reasons.

Or you could bring back TSR restrictions on casters, and let fighters cleave like there's no tomorrow.