|
It feels like 4e stuff was like, the beginning of weird nerd unionization, where nerds learned they could band together and bully companies directly using the internet. It seems more the genesis of "we can go online and send death threats to creators in an organized way" than the genesis of that being deployed against minorities specifically.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
It doesn't help that the edition warring used a lot of regressive language about preferring the old days to modern times, because that's just how things were supposed to be, which has a lot of uncomfortable parallels. Basically, if a group is loudly and aggressively regressive about one relatively harmless thing like tabletop games, I wouldn't be surprised if they were loudly and aggressively regressive about other, less innocuous topics, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
To be clear, I find any attempt by marketing to weaponize fandom and culture wars as extremely distasteful, whether it's Epic Games' 'Free Fortnight' campaign or Disney's #CaptainMarvelChallenge. To bring it back to RPGs, Hasbro retweeting that D&D reflected the queer experience of making a found family in a world that rejects you despite being pretty not so great on LGBTQ issues sort of underlined the point for me. Corporations and Brands aren't your friends and they sure as hell aren't your allies, even if they say things that I agree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:To bring it back to RPGs, Hasbro retweeting that D&D reflected the queer experience of making a found family in a world that rejects you despite being pretty not so great on LGBTQ issues sort of underlined the point for me. gently caress that's slimy even if it's true, which it isn't. Found families are a theme in RPGs in general, from JRPGs to Pathfinder, and not to restate your point but the fact that queer D&D is a thing sure as hell has nothing to do with Hasbro. But I came in here to give a shoutout to the video game Vampire: The Masquerade: Night Road: What if Our Video Game Touched on Leftist Ideas Instead of Having Video. I'm not the person to properly critique the way it handles power dynamics (there's probably something interesting to say about how the game interrogates anarchism as an actually viable solution to colonialism or just another vector for it or what) but I think it's got more going for it than a lot of games this thread talks about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 01:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It feels like 4e stuff was like, the beginning of weird nerd unionization, where nerds learned they could band together and bully companies directly using the internet. It goes back farther than that, sadly. Edition warring among nerds has been a thing since the 1980s, it just happened in magazine columns. The first organized death threat campaign against people working on D&D that I can think of was actually started by a woman of colour - the infamous Winterfox (see https://fanlore.org/wiki/A_Report_on_Damage_Done_by_One_Individual_Under_Several_Names) started going after the writers of D&D novels on the old WotC forums, leading to the books section of those forums being shut down and many of the authors just quitting online communities in general. But yeah, the vast majority of D&D poo poo was just rules tribalism. It wasn't until really, really recently around the time of 5e that diversity and inclusion became big culture war issues in the RPG scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 01:58
|
|
|
Arivia posted:It goes back farther than that, sadly. Edition warring among nerds has been a thing since the 1980s, it just happened in magazine columns. More into the internet era: Specifically, the complaints about 3e were almost exactly the same as the complaints about 4e, all about it trying to be dumbed-down, balanced, like a video game, throwing away all sorts of proud tradition. There was even a Pathfinder analog then with how HackMaster used AD&D material under license for what was a bit more tongue-in-cheek parody of older versions, but still definitely a draw to angry grognards who couldn't cope with losing THAC0. It's just that it was before "real" social media, so the internet drama played out on smaller and less organized forums and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 02:09
|
|
|
I really take issue with the idea that it makes you like a reactionary to not accept the obvious mechanical superiority of 4E. I was not a big D&D guy beforehand and when I played some competently-DMed 4E and thought it was kind of flat and lifeless it's seen as politically suspect. My politically suspect RPG of choice is, of course, classic Deadlands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
Arivia posted:It goes back farther than that, sadly. Edition warring among nerds has been a thing since the 1980s, it just happened in magazine columns. I think awful obsessive fans have existed for decades, I think there was a more recent shift to scary online bullying campaigns from hundreds of people targeting individuals
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
Ragnar34 posted:gently caress that's slimy even if it's true, which it isn't. Found families are a theme in RPGs in general, from JRPGs to Pathfinder, and not to restate your point but the fact that queer D&D is a thing sure as hell has nothing to do with Hasbro. Ooh, I'd like to hear this. I haven't played any Vampire games and I was wondering about these recent ones. I think I actually have a copy of Bloodlines in my Steam backlog.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:More into the internet era: Specifically, the complaints about 3e were almost exactly the same as the complaints about 4e, all about it trying to be dumbed-down, balanced, like a video game, throwing away all sorts of proud tradition. There was even a Pathfinder analog then with how HackMaster used AD&D material under license for what was a bit more tongue-in-cheek parody of older versions, but still definitely a draw to angry grognards who couldn't cope with losing THAC0. Yeah, pretty much every edition of D&D has had edition warring. 3E came at the dawn of the modern Internet and was ended as a product line during Facebook's heyday. This means that for a bunch of millennials it was the One True D&D, Everyone on the Internet Says So, which has led to 3E and its general design ethos hanging around like a bad smell for well over a decade. Anything previous to 3E may as well have not existed by comparison of how much it was getting talked about. (SA is a rare enclave in that most of the tabletop gamer posters are very pro-4E or at least anti-Mike Mearls and co). Web publishing, digital tools, and 3D printing caught up to gaming in the last few years, so there's been a whole new generation of gamers since this 2008 3E/4E schism with a lot more choices of what to play and how to play it. So it feels like more and more of the community is less invested in building a particular version of D&D into their ego.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 05:33
|
|
|
poll plane variant posted:I really take issue with the idea that it makes you like a reactionary to not accept the obvious mechanical superiority of 4E. I was not a big D&D guy beforehand and when I played some competently-DMed 4E and thought it was kind of flat and lifeless it's seen as politically suspect. My politically suspect RPG of choice is, of course, classic Deadlands. It doesn't, it's just that the worst fans will always be more visible in these big petty fights. There's plenty of room underneath the extremes to have your own legitimate opinions. Although there is a whole thing where often the worse of the worst fans will be on the side of fighting change and crushing the new or strange.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 05:53
|
|
|
There was edition warring between two editions TSR was printing at the same time in the 80s, BECMI D&D and AD&D. So nothing new under the sun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 07:10
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Ooh, I'd like to hear this. I haven't played any Vampire games and I was wondering about these recent ones. I think I actually have a copy of Bloodlines in my Steam backlog. Night Road is the weird one out, though. It's an almost purely text-based game except an illustration of every major character showed just once and then stored in the journal. Basically a visual novel minus most of the visuals. Bloodlines is a more standard RPG, albeit a cult classic known for good writing by the standards of the time (as opposed to the standards of this new post-Disco Elysium world we live in). I haven't played much of Bloodlines. I wrote up a plot summary and I've just realized the best way to frame it is you're stuck between the old guard of elder monster parasites versus this one new techdaddy and his revolutionary idea involving establishing vampire control of media so that vampires can "go public" and hunt more humanely, or something. He uses a certain amount of anti-colonialist rhetoric, and I think he means it at least some of the time. For reference, here's the Night Road demo, playable in browser: https://www.choiceofgames.com/vampire-the-masquerade/night-road/ You can get it on your phone or on a computer, $10 on computer, probably less on phone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 07:39
|
|
|
A lot of people bought dozens of splatbooks for 3/3.5, and then Wizards comes along and tells them "throw all of those away, here's the New Coke", but without really giving a good pitch for why it's better, and then people on several online forums, notably this one, would mock whoever said "no, I think I'm going to stick to those dozens of books I already have, that lead to games that work for me, including some ongoing campaigns, thank you very much", as if they were extremist idiots, regardless of whether or not they subscribed to anything else about this weird culture war that was built around it. But the thing about TTRPGs is that you don't need "support" to continue playing the game you want, it's not like where Everquest shuts down the servers and you basically can't play anymore unless someone gets an independent server running, whatever rights and practical issues that might run into - as long as there's a critical mass, people can continue playing, just like there are active groups now for playing AD&D 1/2, 4E, etc. This is ignoring retro-clones, some of which are still actively supported in the sense that you can buy the core books, those books might get revised, and people write modules and expansions for them. Paizo managed to onboard many of those who simply refused to go into 4E from 3.5E and were mostly comfortable with it, but there could be an alternate history where that wasn't the case, and some people would still be playing 3.5E, because Wizards are (still) not able to go into your house and make your books not work anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
Reading about this makes me glad the internet wasn't really around when THAC0 was introduced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 13:22
|
|
|
NC Wyeth Death Cult posted:Reading about this makes me glad the internet wasn't really around when THAC0 was introduced. There was definitely shitposting about it in zines and possible Usenet/BBSes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 13:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:There was definitely shitposting about it in zines and possible Usenet/BBSes. I remember people having strong opinions about it but it wasn't like there was a lazy way they could organize around their disapproval or send Gygax recent pictures of the outside of his house in unmarked letters. Also, though, back then your choices were, like, Palladium so people had no choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 13:31
|
|
|
NC Wyeth Death Cult posted:I remember people having strong opinions about it but it wasn't like there was a lazy way they could organize around their disapproval or send Gygax recent pictures of the outside of his house in unmarked letters. Also, though, back then your choices were, like, Palladium so people had no choice. Gygax wasn't involved at that point. And there were plenty of choices during AD&D 2E. Shadowrun came out the same year, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and Rolemaster were still around and supported, plenty more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 13:36
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Gygax wasn't involved at that point. And there were plenty of choices during AD&D 2E. Shadowrun came out the same year, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, and Rolemaster were still around and supported, plenty more. ...And then proceed to tell you about their D&D hack for playing Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 14:25
|
|
|
I think that impression was strongly shaped by elements of the 3e crowd being unbelievable regressive and using editions as a proxy for culture war. More than once, in real life from actual people, I was told that 4e's attempted class balance was Socialism. This is more likely the interaction of conservative's preference for the group opinion (silent majority, etc) and how culture warriors drag literally eveything into their culture war. By the time 4e was introduced, conservative identities hinged more on what fast food and media you consumed than any informed political leanings. Of course 4e got dragged into this shitshow. moths fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Nov 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 15:08
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Yeah, pretty much every edition of D&D has had edition warring. 3E came at the dawn of the modern Internet and was ended as a product line during Facebook's heyday. This means that for a bunch of millennials it was the One True D&D, Everyone on the Internet Says So, which has led to 3E and its general design ethos hanging around like a bad smell for well over a decade. Anything previous to 3E may as well have not existed by comparison of how much it was getting talked about. 3E coinciding with rise of the modern internet doesn't get talked about enough. I always wonder if there was something about online forums and 3E's rules that lead to dissections of the rules and game design, along with character optimization and unexpected builds. So the core of 3E players learned the rules among the dozens of splatbooks which sorta leads to a sunk cost. At least from what I remember of 3E forums during the 2000s, threads about rules, character builds, and game design overshadowed people talking about their groups and campaigns. But telling stories about your current D&D campaign requires having a group and involves a lot of "you had to be there" to get the full effect. Anyways, have some complaining about 3E not being real D&D. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
I finally bothered to read the Jacobin review of The Game Wizards, and it was worse than I had assumed about the magazine. Gets basic factual errors wrong, quick to essentially regurgitate the same complaints gamers without inside knowledge, fueled by misinformation by Arneson and Gygax that is literally refuted by the work. No, it wasn't CAPITALISM that kicked them into the sidelines, it's heavily documented there that Arneson was just really unproductive and hard to collaborate with, Gygax was a self-important bully who jumped at the opportunity to throw money at a Hollywood lifestyle, and TSR under GBB was a nepotism black hole that was buckling under its own weight. Had it not been for CAPITALISM then, if anything, maybe people would just not have worked with these toxic people for as long as they did, just praised them for useful game they made and proceeded to make more cool poo poo on top of it. You really have to not read the book being reviewed to come out thinking they were victims.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
Mundrial Mantis posted:Anyways, have some complaining about 3E not being real D&D. I'm in an ongoing Fading Suns game (2e, started before the newest edition came out), and the GM is definitely one of these guys. He's a really good GM! But he also kind of resents any game system after the 90s, especially 3e D&D. I also recall running into some of these people in the wild back when 3e was first coming out, just did not want to shift systems mid-campaign (which is fine!) and also got preemptively defensive about the very idea. Not to mention that a lot of people asked about Shadowrun will have serious Opinions about which edition you should be playing. The internet cast a stark spotlight on edition warring during the 3.5->4e shift but oh man it was already there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
disposablewords posted:I'm in an ongoing Fading Suns game (2e, started before the newest edition came out), and the GM is definitely one of these guys. He's a really good GM! But he also kind of resents any game system after the 90s, especially 3e D&D. I also recall running into some of these people in the wild back when 3e was first coming out, just did not want to shift systems mid-campaign (which is fine!) and also got preemptively defensive about the very idea. Not to mention that a lot of people asked about Shadowrun will have serious Opinions about which edition you should be playing. The internet cast a stark spotlight on edition warring during the 3.5->4e shift but oh man it was already there. Yup. As much as people at the 4e launch complained it was WoW poo poo for babies, circa 2000 there were a ton complaining that 3e represented the Diabloification and dumbing down of the system from 2e, as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Yup. As much as people at the 4e launch complained it was WoW poo poo for babies, circa 2000 there were a ton complaining that 3e represented the Diabloification and dumbing down of the system from 2e, as well. This is ironic because WotC released a Diablo 2 supplement for 2e in the last couple months of its life
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Arivia posted:This is ironic because WotC released a Diablo 2 supplement for 2e in the last couple months of its life And since post hoc ergo propter hoc...
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
moths posted:More than once, in real life from actual people, I was told that 4e's attempted class balance was Socialism. People getting up in arms over the balance of class power is the weirdest complaint to me. Like I can understand people being upset about the texture of the classes all becoming the same and playing about the same, but people clinging to the way that magical power is supposed to grow exponentially faster than physical classes was very weird. It seems like a weird way of fantasizing about nerds overcoming jocks more than anything else. The whole system of differing rates of growth for the classes makes a whole lot of sense with Gygax's reported unique style of playing where he'd mix around a bunch of people dipping in and out of games or taking characters between games so there'd be a lot of people at different levels playing in the same game at once and even competing for XP. But a lot of the standard way of playing became a group of mostly the same people playing as a party at around the same levels, so in that case, making the classes grow at different rates and forcing some of the group to be sidelined and unimportant seems less fun, and even the system of tracking separate XP might seem like pointless busywork for some groups. It kind of makes sense that magic power could radically change the world in a way that makes the other medieval weapons of D&D irrelevant, much like how gunpowder did, but that's not how the setting seems to be written.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:People getting up in arms over the balance of class power is the weirdest complaint to me. Like I can understand people being upset about the texture of the classes all becoming the same and playing about the same, but people clinging to the way that magical power is supposed to grow exponentially faster than physical classes was very weird. It seems like a weird way of fantasizing about nerds overcoming jocks more than anything else. Honestly the 3e level of caster supremacy was kinda unique to 3e. Before that wizards outpaced fighters at high levels and stuff, but not to the same degree. And casters were also weaker at lower levels so the idea that it balances out over the campaign was more believable. But that's part of how by the time 4e came out 3e WAS D&D to so many assumed any of its quirks presumably must have been around forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Honestly the 3e level of caster supremacy was kinda unique to 3e. Before that wizards outpaced fighters at high levels and stuff, but not to the same degree. And casters were also weaker at lower levels so the idea that it balances out over the campaign was more believable. But that's part of how by the time 4e came out 3e WAS D&D to so many assumed any of its quirks presumably must have been around forever. Also, even high-level casters in 2e had a lot of complications that 3e left behind, like spells having weird and arbitrary downsides (for example, wish aging the caster), weapon users having better initiative results, successful attacks automatically interrupting spells, hit points that were minuscule even at high levels, etc. The standardization of mechanics in 3.0 happened to coincidentally or 'coincidentally' eliminate a lot of the implicit and explicit weaknesses that spellcasters had gradually accrued over time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 20:37
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:People getting up in arms over the balance of class power is the weirdest complaint to me. Like I can understand people being upset about the texture of the classes all becoming the same and playing about the same The classes definitely don't play the same, either. It's true that all class abilities are standardised as "at-will", "per-encounter" or "daily", and the rate at which those become available is consistent between classes, but the things those abilities do differ massively between classes and give them a completely different focus. It's like arguing that a red and blue deck play about the same in Magic: The Gathering because they both use mana to summon creatures and cast spells.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Honestly the 3e level of caster supremacy was kinda unique to 3e. Before that wizards outpaced fighters at high levels and stuff, but not to the same degree. And casters were also weaker at lower levels so the idea that it balances out over the campaign was more believable. But that's part of how by the time 4e came out 3e WAS D&D to so many assumed any of its quirks presumably must have been around forever. If anything, given how rare high level campaigns are in my experience the wizard weakness at low levels was actually something of a downer for playing one since for most if not all of the game you'd be on the weak side of the equation. I think part of the goal of 3E was to make wizards have something to do at 1st level besides cast their one sleep spell then cower in the back of the party (adding the ability to use crossbows and bonus spells for high casting stat were 3E additions if memory serves?), which was a worthy enough goal. God knows I appreciate the fact useful cantrips are in all modern editions of D&D and Pathfinder, it lets you BE a wizard casting magic all the time instead of becoming useless quickly or plunking away with puny ranged weapons (say what you will about 1st levels of non-caster classes being weak in earlier editions too, they still were able to keep doing what they were meant to do the whole time instead of once a day). It's just that in fixing that but not elevating the non-casters, plus the other changes, they went from weak to strong casters in the game to OK to overpowered casters running rampant. moths posted:I think that impression was strongly shaped by elements of the 3e crowd being unbelievable regressive and using editions as a proxy for culture war. Yeah, there's always some edition friction whenever a new one comes out, but the 3.5E grognards had a much stronger group of the arguers who saw ANY kind of change as a direct insult to their existence, and that behavior definitely brought to mind a lot of the types whining about "Social Justice Warriors" and the like. The subject matter may be different, but the type of arguments sure weren't. And sometimes even the subject matter isn't different; there is sure a lot of jerkass pushback to the idea of LGBTQ people existing in D&D, and the getting rid of the "always evil ugly humanoids it's OK to genocide" thing (some it makes you wonder if they were saying "Jew" instead of "orc" at their table the way they carry on). The thing that also bothers me is it feels like the regressive naysayers got to push things the way they wanted when 5E came along. 4E was certainly not the perfect RPG, and evolved quite a bit over its lifespan like most of them, but it did continue a tradition of trying new things in response to the lessons we'd learned about game design over the years. Some work, some don't, you figure out which and improve next time. But when 5E was announced it felt like there was a definite vibe of "see, we rolled back all those icky changes you didn't like, grognards!" to the marketing. Now, thankfully in retrospect from my experience 5E has continued the tradition of trying to innovate and improve even if it did discard a lot of things from 4E as "bad" without fair analysis (though it feels a lot of the driving of change and improvements lately is coming from WoTC bringing in ideas and freshness from others like Critical Role and such). But when WoTC seemed dedicated to kissing up to the biggest jerks who were mad about any change, it was pretty dismaying at the time, and definitely brought up some parallels in modern politics (and how well letting the regressive bunch call the tune works).
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Also, even high-level casters in 2e had a lot of complications that 3e left behind, like spells having weird and arbitrary downsides (for example, wish aging the caster), weapon users having better initiative results, successful attacks automatically interrupting spells, hit points that were minuscule even at high levels, etc. The standardization of mechanics in 3.0 happened to coincidentally or 'coincidentally' eliminate a lot of the implicit and explicit weaknesses that spellcasters had gradually accrued over time. Even in 2E, and 5E for that matter, one of the biggest problems is that in AD&D caster supremacy was still very real. In 5E it mostly isn't...mechanically. But in both systems, casters still have far more vectors to interact with the narrative due to the broad applicability of magic. Magic gives them more narrative agency. Martial competency being functionally equivalent to magic by virtue of it making you Hercules or a comparable figure in 4E helped balance that out some.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
I feel like nerds that play d&d like caster supremacy because they are more likely to identify with the power fantasy of having power by being good at school and smart than the power fantasy of being the ultimate jock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I feel like nerds that play d&d like caster supremacy because they are more likely to identify with the power fantasy of having power by being good at school and smart than the power fantasy of being the ultimate jock. This is a sad but often accurate generalization. Many will even argue that it’s “realistic” for the nerd to be more powerful than “some stupid jock.” These people are of course wrong because it isn’t and even if it were it wouldn’t matter. My favorite D&D character of all time was a giant half orc who didn’t even carry a weapon he was so swole, just choke-slamming hydras and pile-driving ogres while screaming, “Oh YEAH!” Many problems were solved via the creative application of flexing. His name was Oolong Grey and his life goal was to become an Earl.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:This is a sad but often accurate generalization. Many will even argue that it’s “realistic” for the nerd to be more powerful than “some stupid jock.” Honestly that sounds like the same fantasy but the other side. The wizard as ultimate supreme. The fighter as subhuman idiot jerk for comedy relief.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
Enh not really but I left out any parts about him being a well-rounded person for the sake of humor. My bad. The point was that he was doing all the same bullshit wizard narrative effects but instead of the reason being “magic” it was “he’s just that strong”.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 23:22
|
|
|
Some of it's a holdover from D&D's wargaming roots where a wizard was supposed to be a glass cannon artillery piece. You could still sort of see it in follower mechanics: Fighters, paladins, etc. got followers because as a UNIT they'd be comparable to a high-level wizard casting stuff like fireball
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 23:25
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Enh not really but I left out any parts about him being a well-rounded person for the sake of humor. My bad. I mean more that it's sort of baked deep in the DNA of dungeons and dragons that it's built from a worldview of someone who would have written D&D for the worldview of someone who would play D&D.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 23:43
|
|
|
Like the whole idea that the "default" fighter race is a half orc and the 'default" wizard race is an elf. Like both share the game balence idea of "excelling at one stat means being deficient in the other" but go about it in exact opposite ways, where the half orc is a hated minority born of rape that is genetically stupid and is unwelcome everywhere but is a perfect brute, while the elf is physically fragile but is otherwise inherently better at every single thing imaginable and heaped with bonuses on bonused to every single thing imaginable and flavored to make sure you know it's the honor student super human. You can imagine some alternate world where fantasy sports instead of war gaming lead to RPGs, where the fighter class was loved by everyone they met, had huge charisma bonuses for being attractive and a classical hero, and wizards are gross twisted elderly men who cast powerful spells but at great cost. Both those things exist in D&D at some point, but in like, add on books years later you pay extra for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Even in 2E, and 5E for that matter, one of the biggest problems is that in AD&D caster supremacy was still very real. In 5E it mostly isn't...mechanically. But in both systems, casters still have far more vectors to interact with the narrative due to the broad applicability of magic. Magic gives them more narrative agency. Yeah, that was/is really my main gripe with it. Not so much raw power, but just variety. When faced with an opponent, a magic user might trick them with an illusion, teleport past them, teleport them away, make themselves invisible to walk past, give themselves the ability to fly past, or one of a dozen other things. Meanwhile a fighter could... hit them with an axe. If they're a particularly powerful and experienced fighter, they might be able to hit them with an axe really hard, or perhaps even twice as often. Ideally, the mechanics of a game should support a character in establishing their role within the narrative, guiding them in how they approach obstacles and challenges. But the approach of old D&D mechanically pigeonholed most martials into the role of "is good(ish) at murder" and not much else, which of course can lead to them feeling useless when combat isn't regularly forthcoming. It kinda makes me wonder if/how much influence it had in establishing the murderhobo cliche. In my experience, systems that try and give all characters a similar degree of combat capability (thus avoiding the issue of some characters that do only combat and nothing else) tend to encourage players to be more creative when looking for solutions to challenges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2021 23:57
|
|
