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

[Mecheon]

All three of those things are 4e-isms, not representative of all of D&D.

I hardly think its a 4e-ism. Its how the game's always been like this because its genre fiction and not trying to emulate real life, even back in AD&D. Like, I'm not even counting the "Rules as written, your regular fighter dude can easily just recruit the services of an elephant-eating giant bird", per Rocs being on early D&D fighter follower tables. This this sheer strangeness has always been in the game. Its never tried to be realistic. 3E's cats as murderous buzzsaws who exist to slay people is another good example

Also it was a few pages back but that "Fists can only do subdual" damage post? Not only is that unrealistic (You absolutely can just punch someone the wrong way and they will die), but I scoured the entire AD&D players handbook and cannot find any mention of that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I hardly think its a 4e-ism. Its how the game's always been like this because its genre fiction and not trying to emulate real life, even back in AD&D. Like, I'm not even counting the "Rules as written, your regular fighter dude can easily just recruit the services of an elephant-eating giant bird", per Rocs being on early D&D fighter follower tables. This this sheer strangeness has always been in the game. Its never tried to be realistic. 3E's cats as murderous buzzsaws who exist to slay people is another good example

Also it was a few pages back but that "Fists can only do subdual" damage post? Not only is that unrealistic (You absolutely can just punch someone the wrong way and they will die), but I scoured the entire AD&D players handbook and cannot find any mention of that.

I acknowledged that. Apparently people aren't allowed to make mistakes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, it is not arguable! Sorry. The only way you can argue things like this is to utterly tromp any sort of verisimilitude utterly into the dirt. Which is exactly the problem with the whole line of argument! You want to have your cake and eat it too, and you cannot. And that in a nutshell is why I won't play that way.

Well, then I guess you're right. Have fun playing whatever it is you play.

 

[pemerton]

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 prefer player options that are supposed to be roughly equivalent, equally viable, etc to be mechanically on a par.

How that is done mechanically, and how that relates to the fiction, can vary.

In my second long-running Rolemaster campaign - which followed on one where, after about 10th level, all the players drifted to playing casters - we reduced the power of spell users (by reducing available spell points) and buffed warriors (by increasing the range of fighting style-type bonuses). The rough intention was that, in sheer power, a nova-ing caster was comparable in effect to a warrior. It worked, more-or-less.

In 4e D&D, we had no issue with this. The fighter was a mad powerhouse alternating between his axe-headed polearm and his massive Dwarven maul. By epic tier, his jumping distance was around 50' I think. One time he jumped onto the back of a white dragon, pinned its wings, and rode it down before jumping off at the last minute.

Burning Wheel and Torchbearer are pretty much the opposite of this - neither warriors nor wizards are gonzo. As I posted in another recent thread, in eleven session of Torchbearer the only magic-using PC (an Elven Dreamwalker) has tried to cast a spell once (and failed, hence summoning an evil spirit instead of conjuring a floating disc); otherwise she contributes by reading runes, tricking the gullible, healing, and generally being useful. She will be the first of the PCs to reach 4th level.

I will agree that a direct hit by a fast travelling 2-ton boulder also feels like it should be lethal to an unprotected mere mortal, no matter how Conan-esque they are. Is there a mechanic that has the boulder hit in that way and not, say, just go grazing (relatively) gently past then?

If the boulder more-or-less fills the corridor, and the PC is at a dead end, don't they (at least by the rules) still get a Reflex save, get to use Evasion if a rogue, etc?

 

[pemerton]

For 1e we have it on some authority (the author's) that the isn't simulating things and that your character is just dead. For other versions, who knows.

There is no rule to that effect in AD&D. The poster who spoke about Gygax - @Gronan of Simmerya - used to play at his table, at least in the early/mid-70s.

 

[Azzy]

Good for you. Please be clear about your personal opinions.

If you want a reality simulator, you should know by now that D&D has never been one and that you're better off seeking a different game.

 

[Azzy]

Those aren't as edgy as you think they are. Not everyone plays as casual a game as you seem to.

I'm sure that there are more casual players than there are hardcore players. Not everyone makes a game their lifestyle.

 

[Minigiant]

There's another part

Recognizing, playing, and designing D&D as a game can result in recognizing that your realism or narrative preferences make bad gameplay or isn't fun.​

It's the old "wizard with 1 spell and 3 HP" problem. It might makes sense in your idea of the story or reality. But few people see this is fun. So enforcing it makes you unfun unless you are one of themost convincing salesmen on Earth.

Just a quote of my post to reiterate the last couple topics in this thread.

Many D&D people are fans of ideas that make for worse gameplay.

Sometimes things that are objectively worse on their own.

Sometimes things that are objectively worse unless you change something else they like.

People just don't like reminders of that.

 

[Aldarc]

There are ways within D&D's basic framework to make damage and healing more realistic. 5e just doesn't care about them.

D&D, in general, doesn't care about it. Gary Gygax wasn't too fond of realism or the appeals thereof for game rules, to put it mildly, and he thought that people who wanted realism out of D&D should look elsewhere for their gaming needs. That's probably even more so true now.

I kinda get the impression that you are trying to turn D&D into a game that it is not and never was rather than reading about the sort of game that D&D 5e is trying to be.

 

[Aldarc]

Two words, "I think" or even "IMO" would have fixed this whole argument.

I have seen Umbran say more than once to people in threads for some time now that a lot of hostility would never happen if you just imagine each post having an implied "I think" or "In my opinion" regardless of whether it's stated or not. Not gonna lie. That has stuck with me.