So, it seems the new trump card for any discussion on here is going to be "Because it was that way before"
If things didn't change, we'd all still be playing the original rules.
So think before you rebutal with "I've been playing this game for X decades, and so that's how I've always seen it."
There are lots of examples of where some rules have been one way for decades and now are different. Instead, try coming up with either evidence or a logical reason why you think it's that way.
Dane_McArdy wrote:
Some grognards need a time machine instead of a new edition.
mellored wrote:
Tradition does have its place though. Why six abilities, classes, and hit points in D&D? Because that's the way it is. I would've said Vancian magic but well, AEDU (4e) took care of that 
.
Traidtion has its place but there's always room for new ideas. THAC0 was a new idea . . . once. Some stick, some don't.
Trump cards are too easy; moderation in all things, that's hard.
I think traditional playstyles are eternal. People want to play D&D in the same style they played it back in the 70's and 80's. For me though that does not mean the rules have to be identical. They at least need to offer one path that focuses on achieving the same goals as before. Mainly because those goals led to fun and enjoyment. It's entertainment.
One of the primary reasons for keeping at least some mechanical constructs the same (6 Ability Scores, Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue, Dungeons and/or Dragons, Traps, Arcane/Divine Magic, etc) is branding. If you didn't have any of the things I mentioned previously in an edition of D&D, I feel you'd be hard pressed to sell it to people as "D&D". You also need to keep certain intangibles (how the game "feels" to play, supported "formats" of play, class play distinctions, etc.) in effect in order for it to be familiar to your customers.
Personally, I'm all for change and new ideas, but you can't do a sea-change between editions or you'll hemmorage players usually. This isn't always the case, mind you. Sometimes the new additions to something will outweigh the negative reaction to the changes by the "old guard." As a video game example, Resident Evil 4 was drastically different from it's predeccessors but is lauded as one of the best in the series because of the improvements it made in various areas.
5E by it's design is actually in an interesting position however. Between the open playtest, and the desire to make smaller "modules" possible and encouraged, it looks like they are practicing a form of Agile Management/Design. If they are smart, they will create a swath of modules and encourage players to do so as well. They will then monitor what modules take off, what doesn't, what segment is using what module and come to some conclusions. They will adapt as they go along. This will be more useful in the long-run than even the playtest, because you can see what people are and are not willing to pay for.
Then, in hopefully many years down the road when they are looking to make 6e, they will be in a position to make the big changes. They will be informed about what changes will be received well and what won't.
At least, that's my hope. Personally, I am digging 5e for it's more "traditional" style of play but with modern quality of life enhancements.
Still seeing people trying to flank or worried about shooting into melee or worried about running circles around an enemy. Not just because every other edition did it, but the vast majority of other games do it too. The thing is the reason a lot of things used to be that way, or are that way huge numbers of other games, is because it makes a lot of sense. Of course the 5E guys didn't see it that way and now we have threads on delay with 20 different people scratching their head and coming up with house rules. 5E certainly won't be the most houseruled edition as previoous editions would have many spells or feats houseruled, and 5E simply has less feats and spells to be houseruled, but it definetly is going to be the system with the most house rules for the core mechanics.
I thought the new trump card was, "It objectively sucks because I subjectively don't like it!". If anything, that's the thing I see around here far more than, "Cuz tradition!".
"Cuz tradition" is just a simplistic argument from precedent.
As such, it's a worthy argument (albeit in a weak form) and it demands examination.
Precedent & tradition inform current practices, either by ratification or departure. So I find it's always important to examine this argument, look and see what we're getting by sticking with tradition, look and see what we're getting by dropping tradition, and evaluate whether either lives up to your values and principles.
Summ. Tradition alone is sufficient reason to reexamine something; not always sufficient reason to keep doing what we've been doing.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Dane_McArdy wrote:
mellored wrote:
Far too much looking back in the design of this edition and the devs allowed the old grogs to hold far too much hostage. As I said before there are some players who needed a time machine more than a new edition and because these people had too much say it was detrimental to the game.
Or...
D&D is as the Ford Mustang. The original pony car. Then others came along and copied/improved on the concept. The Mustang continued to evolve until it was eventually unrecognizable to its roots. Over that time people fell out of love with what it had become. Then Ford decided to go back to its origins. Now we have a completely revampt and modernized throwback version of the greatest classic muscle car ever made. It has the look and feel of it's proud ancestor, but with all the modern bells and whistles of a contemporary car. And now it is once again the best there is in its class. Hands down. And a huge part of that is the important parts of it's "tradition" they took special care to go back to.
Mecheon wrote:
The reason for me being a neo grognard or whatever was I was part of the flight from D&D due to 4E. Being blunt I left the game because of that edition, took my group with me and most of the other local DMs did the same thing to the extent where you could not actually play 4E here. If you wanted to you would have to DM it and find the players.
PArt of that was we did go back and play AD&D and it turned out the game was still fun despirte some of the crappy mechanics like THAC0. We also tried out around 5 or 6 clones and ones like Basic Fanatasy and Castles and Crusades use things like ascending AC and the balance problems were not as glaring as 3rd ed and things were borked at higher levels we never made it past level 8 or so. 4Es cure in terms of balnce was worse than the disease.
The lack of feats, gonzo races, player options etc actually improved and balanced the game. PCs can't really break it if they can't build combos using feats and the only broken class as such is the wizard who is a glass cannon and is easily dealt with in various ways. In 3.5 terms the wizzard also has a level adjustment of +1 or 2 depending on the edition as a few clones fixed the wonky AD&D xp tables or we used BECMI tables and the wizard always levels up slower than a fighter. Old school playstyle was still fun and some of them had modern mechanics as well.
My 3.x players also enjoyed things like xp for gold, the relative abundence of magic items they got divourced from having to buy them. They enjoyed having decent fighters again in 2nd ed using things like kits and ye old school weapon specialization. AD&D players also came out of the wood work, I picked up around 8 in an RPG pool of players I can draw on. I "new" player I had tonight had not played since 2nd ed was new.
Put simply it was easier to find lapsed AD&D players or even BECMI players and as a DM I just told my players we are playing 2nd ed instead of Pathfinder as they knew I was getting burned out and the conversion was not difficult. 1d3 hit points per day of healing may not be much but Clerics get more spells, you can also get by without a cleric andthey liked Darksun as well even though around half of them got pasted. Bugbears only hit for 1d6 or 2d4 damage as well not 2d8+2+2d6 or some silly amount. 3rd ed players did not hate AD&D, some of the AD&D players would play Pathfinder, none of them really liked or were interested in 4E.
Going back to TSR era D&D was like a breath of fresh air. Most of the problems of 3rd ed melted away and I ruled BAB and ascending ACs into 2nd ed and played d20 based clones. Some weeks we got in 5 games as we would just pick up and play if bored and make some phonecalls. No more 4 hour pre sessions designing encounters for 3rd ed and hours designing location encounters for 4th ed. Grab old adventure, skim read it and go. Laugh at the silliness of the 1st Ed Druid getting level 3 spells at level 3 and then playing one and finding out the hard way most 3rd ed era spells do not exist and CLW is a level 2 spell.
TSR era D&D was old in terms of print date but new and shiny for most of my players who had only played 3.x based games and now I am juggling 5 campaigns of D&D at once and could join a 6th one if I wanted to. 4E tanking broke the d20 strangle hold on D&D and got people playing other D&Ds/clones locally.
Playing in a 4th level Pathfinder game
Playinging in occasional 1st ed game level 3-5
Running a 5E game level 2
Running an occasional Castles and Crusades game level 4&5
Playing in a 5th ed game, level 2
Have the option of a 14th level Rise of the Runelords game. Only 3 D&D games scheduled for this week, all 5E atm.
ChrisCarlson wrote:
5E is about being the "real D&D" again, because tradition.
Zardnaar wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
KaribouOfDoom wrote:
5e (thus far) has the best balanced of ANY edition or clone (that i've seen).
IMO, balance of editions goes..
5e > 4e > 2e > 1e > 3.75 (Path Finder) > 3.5 > 3.0
I feel the playtest takes alot of the credit for it.
mellored wrote:
There's a reason the first thing I do whenever I purchase an RPG rulebook is start reading it, cover to cover. I don't always have 100% retention, but in particular if I'm dealing with a new edition, I want to find out what's different.
For example, one of the first things I noticed in 5th Edition is standing right next to an enemy and casting a spell no longer provokes an opportunity attack. This was major. All the silliness of the 5-foot-step/shift just to be basically functional when something saw you slinging spells and closed ranks was gone! It never made sense to me in the first place that a spellcaster using a spell whose purpose was to hurt something/someone somehow lost enough situational awareness in a fight to warrant an opening in their defenses... just because they were trying to attack the thing likely hitting them. I never really fought against it, but it was irritating in 3rd and 4th Editions to always have to use up valuable movement in those scenarios just to move 5 feet.
I think it's important to read three primary chapters in any new edition of D&D: the classes, the Combat chapter, and the Spellcasting chapter. Get those three things down, and you're typically good to sit down and play.
It's no trump card to say "That's the way it used to be", that's just a poor attempt at using logic. If things didn't change in a significant fashion, they wouldn't call it a "new edition".
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
@Dane: A game is not about logic or design elegance, it's about fun. If option A is more fun than option B, the details don't matter, you keep option A. When someone is telling you that he has been using something for decades, he's also saying that he likes how it works. There's no particular reason for liking something. Nobody is asking you to give logical reasons for liking chocolate right? So why would you expect anyone to give you a logical reason for liking some aspects of D&D? You don't need to justify your preferences.
That doesn't mean you can't change 40-year old traditions. But if you change them, you'd better make sure that the new way is more popular than the old way. If the new way is more elegant but less popular, you keep the old way. And it doesn't matter if the only reason people like something better is tradition. WoTC is a business. The community buys their games, not other game designers.
...if only Ford could make them go forward (instead of sideways) in the snow. Lol. (Lesson? Do not buy a Mustang before you get divorced and lose your winter car if you live in Wisconsin.)
+20 Car of Awesome... -45 penalty in snow
[/quote] Ahh, not enough skill points invested in: "Drive over-powered sports car in snow".......
Gnarl wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
CCS wrote:
I never suggested that Tradition doesn't have it's place. It's not tradition, but how you use it, that's the problem.
Example: Do the simple spellbooks you start off with give off a magical aura?
No.
Why?
Because tradition, I've been playing since the first rules and that's ALWAYS how it's been.
Only, no where in the rules does it specifically say they do or they don't. The only tradition here is what someone has thought for 30+ years about spellbooks.
But reading the rules, you have to expend material components during the scribing process, use special inks, it's written in the language of magic. One could just as well decide that once a spell is inscribed into a book, there is an aura of magic about it.
So in this case, Tradition is simply a way to NOT think about the question someone has put forth.
The tradition of keeping 6 stats to represent the characters abilities works, becuase it's easy to understand. We rate things all the time. How hot is a person scale of 1 - 10. The higher the better. The 6 different abilities are easy to understand.
Don't just say tradition because you don't want to think. After all, it's a game about thinking.
Speaking for myself: I wouldn't say a spellbook is magical in the traditional sense of game mechanics. I'd prolly just treat it as a bit of flavor; harmless in the sense that its a balance-free bonus.
For instance: In our 3e homebrew, the Church of the Silver Flame has a holy book (or copies thereof) that can be read in anything but complete darkness. The reader simply sees the text as if reading in the best possible ligthting conditions.
Think of it as 'glow in the dark'. It's a simple trick, a purely munane, real world effect; nobody is gonna equate it with actual magic.
To be honest I only play D&D because of the Vancian magic system, that is why I wouldn't play 4E. Vancian or Gygaxian magic is D&D for me. Do what you want with the Warlock and Sorcerer. Leave me my vancian wizard. I can't figure out the difference conceptually between Cleric and Warlock though. I listen to people complain about Fighter and Wizard power, but what I always wanted to see was a good thief (ironically 4E did that).
Dane_McArdy wrote: