Cross-posted from my Blog...

It occurs to me as I play PF/3.5 as written that my preferences for a less grid/movement/tactical game come not only from a preference for a certain style of play, i.e. narrative v. tactical, but perhaps primarily derive from how I define character classes.


My preferences for character classes go back to the original Red Box stuff, where you had a guy who swings a sword, a guy who steals stuff, a guy who can pray and have actual miracles occur as a result, and a guy who can use magic.  I like those 4 archetypes because they are very basic, and because (outside of the magic and miracles) they represented what an ordinary guy Western Europe in the middle ages could do.  


For example, a guy in the middle ages who was a warrior swung a heavy piece of sharp metal.  The more he swung it and prevailed in combat, the better he got at swinging it.  The guy who steals stuff had to rely on his physical body to move around silently, and his wits to determine if there were traps, or people he didn't trust.  The more he was successful, he became more experienced, and became better at doing what he did best.


The rules of Basic D&D let me determine if an ordinary guy who fights with a sword or steals is successful at what he is trying to do.  In other words, you have an average guy who is good with a sword.  He is not supernaturally strong, nor does he have any powers a guy in Western Europe in 1345 AD wouldn't have had. He is not as strong as a giant, nor could he ever grow to be.  If I wanted to determine if that guy in a magic free world swung his sword and hit something, the rules of D&D Basic Set give me the ability to do so.  They don't give me any rules for something an average Western European in 1345 AD couldn't do.  This is the natural world, the same one we all live in today. The rules for these two character classes just describe what we can already do in the natural world, both then and now, and help us adjudicate chances for success.  You could run a game of D&D set in the medieval European world of Earth using the Red Box rules for fighter and thief and its combat rules.


That's the base of the game.  Let's call it the natural world.


Then you have the overlay of magic and miracles on top of it. Let's call this the fantasy overlay, level 1.  In addition to being able to wield a weapon and wear armor, a guy can also cause miracles to occur, as a result of the direct intervention of a deity he worships. Another guy can also tap into mystical forces which are real, and cause fire to spring from his hands and burn his foes. They both tap into the forces of the supernatural.  Certain elements of fantasy books, magazines and movies of the time were basically added to the natural world, and we now have normal people living in the natural world, some of which have the ability to do the fantastic, or tap into the supernatural.  In all cases though, the magic or miracle was something that was outside of you. You were a normal man who was able to tap into something outside of yourself and make it affect the world around you. The character wasn't himself magical, fantastic, or supernatural in any way.  


Next we have supernatural creatures added into the combination of natural world and fantasy overlay 1.  Let's call this fantasy overlay 2.  Some of the less fantastic creatures can be played as classes, and some are there to interact with in other ways (mostly just to kill and take their stuff).  Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, etc. represent classic fantasy creatures, with rules which determine their ability to do things in certain circumstances. These races are not as powerful as most of the other fantastic creatures, but are more numerous.  They are inspired from classic mythology and other fantasy elements of the time when the rules were written.  The rules describe how the abilities they were portrayed as having in mythology or in the literature of the day function and interact with the natural world.


There was a strict division in the classes humans were able to play.  You were one of the 4, and there was no overlap in abilities.  You were either someone who fought, stole, used magic, or caused miracles to occur.  


Again though, until we added the fantasy layers, the rules represented reality and how to deal with real life situations that would have occurred in 1345 AD or 2009 AD, assuming we stole without the use of technology and fought with medieval weapons in 2009.  The classes represented that reality.


Classes in later editions don't start off in the natural world.  They are inherently supernatural, jumping right into, stemming from, and are an inherent part of fantasy overlay 2.  How else do you describe a race/class combo that can teleport at will?  Or push a dragon a distance just by using a power?  Or a swordsman who can target, mark, curse, put an oath on, or otherwise affect his foes magically before he even swings a sword? Or heal himself at will?  Is this ability inherent in everyone who lives in the land? Making them all supernatural? Or can it be learned?  Making humans all latently supernatural? Are these people even human anymore?


Just so you don't think I'm picking on 4e, to use 3.x examples, how can someone shoot 2 arrows at once with any accuracy in the real world?  Or not be penalized for shooting arrows into an ever-shifting melee combat?  Or not be penalized when swinging a sword at someone when you're blind?  Or hit four people with one swing of the sword with equal effectiveness?  Or trip or grapple a guy 2 or 3 times your weight? Or grow in strength to be as strong as a supernatural creature 10 times his weight?  Would a guy with a sword in England in 1345 AD be able to do that?


The reality we are starting with in the later editions is not natural, it is supernatural, or superheroic at least.  It's a world where the adventurer is not the average guy who got good with a sword, but something not human as we would describe it on earth in 2009.  Supernatural abilities are built into the class, and the class doesn't describe what a person primarily does (as in swings a sword, steals, causes miracles or casts spells), as much as it describes a list of inherent supernatural or superheroic abilities or powers that a person has. The rules no longer start with a basis of reality in the natural world. They start with a basis in a reality I can no longer identify with, either because I am not involved with or don't like the latest literary, film, or computer game influences, or because of some other reason.



I can understand that some fighters may be better with a bow than they are with a sword due to specializing in it, and that a thief may be a cat burglar rather than a pick pocket. To the extent the rules allow for such specialization, I agree with them.  But other than casting spells due to arcane study or making miracles due to devotion to a diety, I don't agree with rules which represent a reality not present in 1345 AD England.


Not surprisingly, I also don't agree with multiclassing without serious penalties.  Each profession of the four above requires much hard work and discipline to achieve mastery in.  When you dabble in two fields which each require total focus to master and get better at, there ought to be a seriously huge penalty to how fast you can achieve mastery in each (level up) when you are dividing your attention.


To the extent someone may argue that some of these classes from later editions are simply characters with multiclassed abilities integrated so as to make a new class, or a prestige class, I also call BS on it.  It has no basis in reality, because you are essentially starting as human and melding into your very being supernatural or magical abilities, so that they manifest in a sword fighter who can channel electricity bolts from their being through their sword on a successful hit.   Or who can blink in and out of a this phase of existence, like a phase spider, and strike down a foe without them seeing you coming, not due to casting a spell, and channeling energy outside of yourself, but by using energy and power you somehow have made a part of yourself.  Again, you're no longer human.


To the extent a class system is more based in the natural world, with magic or miracles being something a special class of adventurer has to cast spells to achieve, who is a normal human being in every respect other than their ability to cast spells,  I like the game system better.  Likewise, to the extent all playable races have abilities which aren't magical or supernatural (like the ability to cast faerie fire) but are rather the product of them living in a certain environment and being in tune with it due to the nature of their race (detect stonework traps), I like those races better.


Was I imprinted by my early experiences to therefore like certain editions and styles more than others?  Yup.  Obviously.  Does it matter to me what someone else plays?  Nope.  Enjoy it.  I just write these essays and experiment with newer systems to help me to better define what I like in a game, and why I like it.  There is no one game system which is inherently better than others, except on a personal level, due to personal preference.

The idea that earlier editions better model historical reality is unfounded. The cleric is based on 70's exploitation films, and how elves, dwarves and the catoblepas fit into England: 1345 is unclear. For that matter, moving beyond the mediaeval period, it was difficult to create a hero like Diomedes, Odysseus or Achilles in older editions _because_ the game lacked heroic powers (how does even a 20th level fighter do something like Achilles' shout?)

If you want to play historical, naturalistic games, I suggest you look elsewhere than any edition of D&D.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;339183The idea that earlier editions better model historical reality is unfounded. The cleric is based on 70's exploitation films, and how elves, dwarves and the catoblepas fit into England: 1345 is unclear. For that matter, moving beyond the mediaeval period, it was difficult to create a hero like Diomedes, Odysseus or Achilles in older editions _because_ the game lacked heroic powers (how does even a 20th level fighter do something like Achilles' shout?)

If you want to play historical, naturalistic games, I suggest you look elsewhere than any edition of D&D.

Either I didn't make it clear or you missed it.  Fighters and thieves in the Red Box can be set in 1345 England.  The rules can be used to adjudicate what they did back then.  Except for spells, a cleric is basically a priest in armor trained to use blunt weapons in combat.  The rules work for him too.   The magic user without spells is just someone who sucks at combat.  The rules work for him too.  He could have been an alchemist in 1345.

I never said demihumans fit into 1345.  I said humans did.   To quote myself:

"There was a strict division in the classes humans were able to play. You were one of the 4, and there was no overlap in abilities. You were either someone who fought, stole, used magic, or caused miracles to occur.

Again though, until we added the fantasy layers, the rules represented reality and how to deal with real life situations that would have occurred in 1345 AD or 2009 AD, assuming we stole without the use of technology and fought with medieval weapons in 2009. The classes represented that reality."

I also never said anything about moving beyond the medieval period.  You introduced that.  I never said I wanted to create a hero out of that period, or a hero in general.  I never mentioned the word hero, just adventurer.  

I agree with you that a game like Red Box which lacks heroic powers can't mimic Achilles or Odysseus.  I don't like to play those kids of games. That's pretty much the overall point of my post.

Heroes v. Adventurers and the mindset the two terms indicate and how that mindset affects a RPG game is a topic for a whole other post.

If you are looking to game in 1345, play Warhammer Roleplay.  Or better yet, play Cthulhu Dark Ages.  

D&D is really great at being D&D.  Gygax was very clear that the rules don't mimic any kind of reality outside his desire to translate pulp fiction, fairy tales and Hollywood adventures into a game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;339187If you are looking to game in 1345, play Warhammer Roleplay.  Or better yet, play Cthulhu Dark Ages.  

D&D is really great at being D&D.  Gygax was very clear that the rules don't mimic any kind of reality outside his desire to translate pulp fiction, fairy tales and Hollywood adventures into a game.

For me, the older styles of the game mimic 1345 just fine.

I got to say I find it hard to imagine D&D thieves in the middle ages. Remove trap? What traps did they have in the middle ages?

@Joe: What.

Seriously, my mind melted over as soon as I read the term "fantasy overlay".

And I didn't like how he pretty much ignored Spinachat's and Pseudo's suggestions which were pretty on the mark.

I imagine there are many systems that can model England of 1345 once you exicise the bulk of their rules, character options and adversaries.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;339192@Joe: What.

Seriously, my mind melted over as soon as I read the term "fantasy overlay".

And I didn't like how he pretty much ignored Spinachat's and Pseudo's suggestions which were pretty on the mark.

Judging by the responses I've gotten so far, perhaps its just a shittily written article, trying to explain things the way my warped noggin understands them.  

Quote from: JoethelawyerThere was a strict division in the classes humans were able to play.  You were one of the 4, and there was no overlap in abilities.  You were either someone who fought, stole, used magic, or caused miracles to occur.

I have exactly the opposite problem. If a character has one ability, you can extrapolate everything else they can do in a game like that. "Hey look, he's climbing a wall... he must also be able to hide in shadows, backstab, and steal stuff."

Unrelated skill sets get linked in silly ways in a one class system. I prefer skill systems myself.

QuoteAgain though, until we added the fantasy layers, the rules represented reality and how to deal with real life situations that would have occurred in 1345 AD or 2009 AD, assuming we stole without the use of technology and fought with medieval weapons in 2009.  The classes represented that reality.

Hiding in shadows? No cover, no adequate concealment... just shadows.

QuoteJust so you don't think I'm picking on 4e, to use 3.x examples, how can someone shoot 2 arrows at once with any accuracy in the real world?

Special training for a more rapid rate of fire? I don't think the idea is that you're firing twice with one shot. Even that's a pretty cliche thing since... I dunno... one or another iteration of Robin Hood.

QuoteOr not be penalized for shooting arrows into an ever-shifting melee combat?

There's a penalty for that. And a chance to hit the wrong guy.

QuoteOr not be penalized when swinging a sword at someone when you're blind?

There's no guaruntee you're targeting the right square, blind fight or no. It's a flat 50% miss chance for most folks. Also an old trope. See Zatoichi.

QuoteOr hit four people with one swing of the sword with equal effectiveness?

Knights of Roland had folks chopping their foes in half and then chopping their foes' horses in half... I'd say the multi-foe slash up is a pretty old trope. In the rules it rarely comes to four guys.

QuoteOr trip or grapple a guy 2 or 3 times your weight?

Huge bonuses/penalties for size in the grappling system. Trying this is a great way to get pwnt in the RAW.

QuoteOr grow in strength to be as strong as a supernatural creature 10 times his weight?

The old stories with the Paladins under Charlemagne? One guy went berzerk and started tearing up trees and such... literally disfuguring the landscape wherever he rampaged. Normal guy up until then.

And barbarian's rage doesn't go that far at all. It gives you like... +4 to strength. Human max is 18. Bump that up by 4 and you've got... what? Orc strength? Bugbear strength? Certainly not Ogre strength.

My 3.x games are hardly "superhuman." At least unless someone starts drowning in combat... which takes too damn long.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;339195Judging by the responses I've gotten so far, perhaps its just a shittily written article, trying to explain things the way my warped noggin understands them.

Made sense to me. You prefer earlier versions of D&D because, to your mind, they were more based in reality than later versions.

Of the four basic classes, the fighter and thief did not have any characteristics that were fantastic or impossible for humans of around 1345 Europe. The magic user and cleric do display fantastic elements, but these elements are outside forces the character is channelling. The character itself remains fully human. For this reason you separate these fantastic elements from others. Fantastic elements which are innate to the character or creature you place in a separate group. Unusual traits by human standards that can be explained by the physiognomy or culture of the creature are more acceptable to you than traits which can only be fantastical. Hobbits moving silently, okay. Dwarves being brilliant with all forms of stone working, okay. Basilisks turning people to stone with their gaze, not so okay.

You don't enjoy later editions of D&D as much because in your opinion even the mundane classes are not normal humans with perhaps access to external fantastic powers, but beings with innate fantastic powers. Not human, by your estimation.

The piece reads to me as a clearly reasoned and well presented explanation of your tastes. It does not attack anyone else's taste or claim special status for your tastes.

No wonder it blew their tiny minds.

Tiny minds? Fuck you, Gordon. A lot of people understood what joe was saying. My problems with it is that a lot of the things that joe said were outright absurd.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;339214Tiny minds? Fuck you, Gordon. A lot of people understood what joe was saying. My problems with it is that a lot of the things that joe said were outright absurd.

Since it's all subjective, their absurdity is pretty much irrelevant.  To address the point by point 3.5/Pathfinder abilities I listed and which were rebutted by someone above, feats bypass or give most of the abilities I listed.  I got most of the list from the Pathfinder feat list.

In any case, as Gordon put it, it was just "explanation of your tastes. It does not attack anyone else's taste or claim special status for your tastes."

To pick apart someone's subjective basis for their tastes is a waste of time.  I figured people would post replies talking about their personal basis for why they like the editions they like best. Didn't figure it would get into nitpicky fights.

I just don't dig the power level of 4E. The description of combat posted by Casual Oblivion left me cold. I've read some descriptions of 4E combats that sounded kinda of cool.....but it's not really a game for me. But then again old school play does not really inspire me either the exception being the BECMI edition of D&D and of course 3E (which I don't consider D&D but rather a generic fantasy system.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JoethelawyerSince it's all subjective, their absurdity is pretty much irrelevant.  To address the point by point 3.5/Pathfinder abilities I listed and which were rebutted by someone above, feats bypass or give most of the abilities I listed.  I got most of the list from the Pathfinder feat list.

I dunno, some things seemed disingenuous, like the reading of blindfight (even before the 50% miss chance, you've got 1/9 odds of picking the right square to attack, assuming there's even anyone there to attack).

I can totally understand that some things just don't click sometimes. For me it's the "mundane extraordinaries" being encounters/dailies in 4e. Hell, Vancian magic has never clicked with me for I'm sure very similar reasons.

And I can think of plenty of things in 3e... but usually once you get into supplements and prestige classes. Nothing irks me more than the overabundance of energy damage. Ooh... the bard might be a good core example. The idea that singing is inherently magical? WTF?

QuoteTo pick apart someone's subjective basis for their tastes is a waste of time.  I figured people would post replies talking about their personal basis for why they like the editions they like best. Didn't figure it would get into nitpicky fights.

Sure I was nitpicky, but I didn't mean to start a fight or anything. Just saying that my 3.5 games see characters falling great distances and (almost) drowning in a puddle unconscious while the party can barely hold their ground against an undead onslaught upstairs, or cielings caving in on people who are then pinned and swarmed by centipedes. Hardly the realm of "superhuman just 'cause."