Now I made a "superhero systems do high fantasy better than high fantasy based games" thread a while ago...

You still had casters bitching when supps like PoW were released.

I argue a large part of the issue is where full caster players get the majority of their fun/satisfaction from: upsetting the vast majority of obstacles with straightforward and effortless application of their spells, and lauding the shear ease of such success over the heads of their martial peers.

The problem with PoW was that it made martials feel like they weren't mundane, if you buffed the combat manouver system, added really good feats exclusive to martials, and merged spell casters you could fix the problem with out alienating the 3.5 player base

I never really understood this, for PoW or 4e. Then again, it might be because I came to D&D from other RPGs, rather than the reverse? The idea of non-magical characters having abilities tied to a resource management system just never seemed strange to me.

But Martians aren't mundane in vanilla D&D 3.PF user. That's why they have access to large HP pools, and supernatural/extraordinary feats and class features.

A man who can single handily go toe to toe with an ogre without magic items is not mundane in any way.

This. I've literally never seen this weirdly stark mundane/notmundane divide anywhere but 3.pf. Myths, novels, movies, games, I can't recall another system/setting that inspires the same STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM principle over a guy with a sword doing weird shit.

In hindsight, yes, it would have been more commercially successful. That doesn't mean it made sense that everyone reeeee'd over literally "it's not 3.5".

martials not Martians. Fucking autocorrect.

Darkest dungeon is a game, it has very low verisimilitude. Idiot.

It's funny that you act like that means anything.

haveyoutriednotplayingdnd.tiff

Dungeons and Dragons is a game, it has very low testosterone. Faggot.

It doesn't. 2e still has overpowered, do-all casters and all martials can do is get more attacks.

Its funny that you act like it doesnt. Darkest dungeon is designed around strategy game mechanics, which do not share the same priorities as an RPG. The reason people dont want healing surges and sensu beans in their games is the same people wouldnt want something like that in their fiction: because they're not children.

Martials are still relatively competitive in 2e, since mages are weaker and the XP scaling favours martials the majority of the game. They also get more side benefits like followers, and the general lighter and more improvisational approach of the system fills in the gap a bit. It still isn't great though. The combat is more fast than it is deep.

Dungeons and Dragons is a roleplaying system. You could no more compare it to Darkest Dungeon than you could compare it to checkers: it bears only a passing resemblance in its design priorities.

Ahh, so you believe your taste is objectively correct. Well, we're all willing to wait until you mature a little bit and realise you aren't special.

No, Dungeons and Dragons is a Roleplaying Game. The Game bit is important too, right alongside the Roleplaying bit.

I take it you don't read much.

Fiction, especially fantasy, is full of situations where a character gets back up and keeps on keeping because they either found an internal reserve of energy (second wind) or because someone give them words of motivation.

For the sensu beans: mythology is fucking chock full of healing foods you cock sucking troglodyte.

See rune quest, more realistic than DnD, martials can still do more things than full attack and aren't worse than casters, there are options to fix caster supremacy in both high and low realism games, it's just that 3.PF doesn't have them

No, I just believe that a narrative should have diagetic justifications for things that happen, and that scarcity is important.

Try actually arguing rather than just dropping trou and shitting on the thread. You may learn something.

You aren't going to win with that argument he's just going to yell at you about realism

That's sort of what this thread is about, this weird idea that as soon as you name your sword attack it's magic and only casters can use magic.

Beyond that, problem for who? I see a shitload of bitching about 4e martials not being martials, but weirdly it's never from their perspective. eg "EVERYONE IS CASTERS NOW BOOO" rather than "Well shit, I just want to play a guy who hits things." So... is this a problem with people wanting to be mundane, or people wanting OTHER people to be mundane, as sayeth >atmospheric gritty Lovecraftian dungeon crawler
>very low verisimilitude
fite me

Bad fiction, sure, which can often include myths. Many mythical cycles and epic poems are celebrated as prototypes, but rarely are the lauded as masterpieces.

So, no, you believe your opinions are correct, and you're just here to be an asshole about it to other people. Fuck off.

No, I understand that some people like different things. The only aspect of this that's at odds with your own opinion is that I think people who need their heroes to dust off all the damn time are children. Which they are. Which you are, in fact.

Part of why the martial/caster divide is so pervasive is because it plays directly into the "Revenge of the Nerds" fantasies pushed in geek culture.

Man, fuck geek culture.

I mean martials in 4e do feel greater than mundane, that's not a defense of 3.PF though when more mundane systems lack caster supremacy

>I respect your opinion even though I'm going to judge you for it

Fuck off

That's part of it but non int casters are also usually more powerful than martials, and it's possible to play martials who rely on guile over raw force

You're so full of cocks you've become retarded.

I hope to God you neve breed.

You're ignoring that there are realistic systems that lack caster supremacy and have more options for martials than full attack

If you take OP at face value, he is too. He's saying that people who like high fantasy games would be better off doing away with the pretense and just playing a superhero game. He's come to one of the core criticism of 4e, among other games, from a different angle.

Only reason martials have any sort of relevance in AD&D is because combats are much faster than they were in 3rd+.

Casters are *way* better at pretty much everything. A mage with stoneskin can actually outmelee a fighter.

You seem to have a wire crossed somewhere. I just joined this discussion and have yet to say anything about problems related to caster supremacy. Unless Im missing something.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that every chapter of the Illiad, for example, is necessary and compelling? or that Beowulf isnt just a mary sue? or that Sun Wukong is a deep and well developed character?

Not really. D&D ( particularly in 3rd and 4th ed) pretty much became a party combat game with Role Playing interactions.

"Revenge of the Nerds" is a factor, but so are "white knights," in the sense that people want to play strong and charismatic protectors who will stick up for the bullied, which is where you get martials/paladins.

I also doubt "Revenge of the Nerds" is a large factor, because there are many who love the "white knight" archetype and playing it. I think the real rub comes from dissonant standards: martials are held to reality and casters aren't. Pic related.

The problem is that mages can do everything, AND combat. A simple solution would be to pair back the amount of magic that casters can use, forcing them to do things that other characters cannot (i.e. not combat). Other systems do this and it works great.

In practice, sure, but ideally thats not what they intended to make (in 3x's case anyway). The prof of that is that nobody would reflexively identify them the way you have. Granted, its what they're best at.

If you look at how the 3.PF design teams approached their systems, and they way they treated the spell as a fundamental unit of design, they had some kind of caster bias going.

I asumed that you initially joined the argument to defend how 3.PF handles martials, but if your only problem is that you don't like martials that are more than mundane than it's simply a matter of taste

Do you have a source on that? Ive always assumed that no design logic was used in 3e, and Id love to hear what they thought they were doing.

I'm not sure how you get that read from the OP. Especially since I was around for the first thread, and I'm pretty damn sure he was just sincerely curious and interested as to whether it would work better.

Although yes, 4e is a system about fantasy heroes, awesome people who do awesome things. It's a large part of why I love it, and I don't think pointing it out is a criticism. It's an expression of an alternate preference, but if the game was never trying to achieve something, you can't really complain that it fails to do so.

Thats not my argument either. Im just arguing against having mechanical features that have no diagetic grounding. Im fine with Exalted, for example, because it explains the origins of the PC's abilities and why they are set apart from mundane people.

Too gamey.

Look up the old Monte Cook ivory tower stuff. There's also little elements like the 'Spells' chapter being the largest part of the entire PHB, dwarfing everything but the magic item lists. And how the magic system applied to mortal wizards is used to represent literally all forms of special ability, with most races and creatures having their most definitive and thematic abilities generally boiling down to 'functions like x spell'.

The designers seem to think they were trying to achieve something, otherwise they wouldnt have called it Dungeons and Dragons. We dont need to go there though, because, believe it or not, thats not an argument that I feel like having: we all know eachother's points, and its always just going to be different strokes for different folks. Ironically, a stroke is just what both games have effectively experienced.

You're stating a preference for a certain kind of game design. And that's fine. But a game failing to suit your preferences is not an argument that it's a bad game or a bad design decision.

That's what happens when the only thing you're almost not awful at designing is spells. Fuck knows they had no idea how to design anything else, and that shows. It shows real bad.

Im familiar with Ivory Tower, I was hoping to hear that they employed something more principled, albeit obviously broken. Thanks anyway.

Assuming that you're making a game designed to suit and support a narrative, how is it incorrect to demand some accounting for the game within the narrative. There are no characters which fly apropos of nothing. None which can turn invisible without some manner of explanation. Why should it be then that player characters get a pass?

I agree that its a difference of opinion. Defend yours.

Not that guy but imo he has a solid argument, one of the biggest advantages TTRPG has over other mediums is the freedom and immersion they provide rather than robust gameplay, balance and enjoyable gameplay are important but you shouldn't sacrifice immersion for them

So tell me, how is a Wizard's background/justification of their powers being "studied until I gained godlike powers" except-able, but "I studied/trained until I gained godlike powers" not when it's a martial character?

That's not his argument, he could have been clearer with what his point was, but that's not his argument

Because magic is established as a THING that people can learn. If Dungeons and Dragons established some kind of weaboo fightan magics it would be fine. See my Exalted example. You're coming at this assuming I want all martials to be dirt farmers with rakes. Im perfectly comfortable with martials having a greater capacity, but they need to explain HOW that works. Whats even stranger is that they've made an attempt to do that sort of thing with monks, but they've always under performed.

Verisimilitude is subjective. I find casters being walking gods, threatened only by other casters, when compared to their relatively feeble martial counterparts, to be a massive break in immersion.

I've never had any trouble getting immersed in a system because of meta-mechanics or whatever you want to call them. I got into RPGs where they were just an accepted part of how things worked, which is why I find it bloody confusing when people flip their shit about them. Narrative currencies, per scene abilities, story powers that operate at a narrative level are things I've always been able to interact with without any negative impact on my experience of a game.

Because the in universe events are explained and supported at the time. That the mechanics and systems that govern those don't map onto them one to one isn't a bug, it's a feature. It lets you focus on moments that matter, letting you actively have a hand in pacing and guiding the story.

And, again, it isn't for everyone. I'm not saying that your preferred playstyle is wrong. But you can go fuck yourselves if you're trying to say that your preferred playstyle is somehow 'right' or superior.

That was his arguement,

But it's only compromising his immersion because of his entirely subjective feelings that "I read weird books until I can shoot lightning out of my dick" doesn't break immersion, but "I put myself through training from hell until I can shoot lighting out of my sword" does.

He wasn't defending caster supremacy though, nor was he complaining about martials being more than mundane, he seems to specifically have a problem with mechanical effects which realistically couldn't be from a mundane source being fluffed as mundane

Its less that its wrong, and more that its a poor angle of approach. Its perfectly possible to get good results from poor methods, especially with something with so many emergent properties that relies so heavily on creativity. The point is that without some kind of mapping, to borrow your term, you run the risk of creating a sequence of events that the players cannot readily grok/explain. Will they be able to some of the time? Sure. But not all of the time. Therein lies the flaw. While thats not necessarily dangerous to the immersion of seasoned players, it is dangerous to the impression of newer players, who can quickly learn to dissociate the narrative from gameplay.

>realistically

And this is why that point of view is stupid. The idea that martials have to be 100% realistic while magic can do anything is dumb. Myths and legends contains countless accounts of heroes doing impossible things just because they were that damn good, no magic to be seen.

If you read you would realize is that all he wants is a non mundane explanation in the fluff for martials with powers

The justification is left to the GM and the player, just as it is with Wizards.

We have no idea what kind of studies the wizard underwent, what discoveries they made, or risks they took. All we know is they have access to X spells, Y times per long rest, because "study"

That explanation is on par with a barbarian having rage powers because he's "super angry"

You're asking for fluf that is intentionally left open. D&D is not a White Wolf game, it's purposefully left vague so it can be molded to the needs of the GM and crew.

Monks are underwhelming because they're mechanically dependent on at least four different attributes, an are thus spread too thin.

This is close to the truth. Its less that I have a problem with it being fluffed as mundane, and more that its fluffed as nothing.

Why do player characters get healing surges (for example)? What is physically, or spiritually different about them that allows them that power?

Thats not to say Im against power fantasy, because Im fine with Exalted, because there is a line between normal people and heroes.

It's only been a problem for one group of people, in my experience. People who started with D&D.

Other systems? No issue. Heck, most new players don't even think about that until explicitly informed of it, and I don't bother because it isn't relevant. I tell them how the game works, tell them they can fluff thing show they like as long as it fits the theme is appropriate to the context, we play the game and it's great.

So fuck you and your 'poor angle of approach' bullshit. You don't like it. That is the only rationale you are holding, so quit trying to be faux-objective about it.

And if he actually read the books he would realize that the vast majority of martial powers are already fluffed/categorized as supernatural or extraordinary.

RTFM people.

Because they're the main characters of the story. It's that simple.

That doesnt answer my question though of why they've just given up on explaining the logic behind non-diagetic powers. Its fine (to an extent) to admit there is no excuse, which is where at least some people Im talking to have landed, but then we're having a different discussion.

Im aware of why monks are underwhelming from a mechanical perspective

I mean 4e is high enough fantasy that healing surges fit, but I can agree with your position just not your example

What's the difference between martial and spellcasters if they both have spells? How can you say they're not spells, if they are mechanically equal or very similar?

If the only difference between martial and spellcaster is that one has a sword when the other doesn't, the separation is devoid of meaning and you shouldn't try to make it. I think the problem is not people who considers that "martials" shouldn't have spells (or whater name you want to give it). The problem is people who believes that spellcasters should be weak nerds without armour and swords.

Have an all "martial" game or an all spell-caster one.

They haven't given up on explaining it. They've given it a narrative explanation. That you don't like it doesn't stop it existing.

>people who started with D&D
Thats most people these days.

How am I being faux objective when you just agreed that there was a hazard to the design? I agree that Im motivated by opinion and conviction, but at the very least I can explain why I feel that way, and why I believe that deserves to be taken into account. Im not just spitting something back onto my plate and shaking my head like a child.

Or, alternatively, you have both make use of the same fundamental set of mechanics, but in distinct and interesting ways.

Y'know, the way most successful RPGs of the type do it. Letting everyone use resources, letting everyone have cool things, but making the practical side of the mechanics the focus rather than obsessing over subsystems.

It fits the tone, sure, but the point remains that its not explained anywhere.

Im curious how you feel about DM fudging for sake of narrative then. Not even fishing for an opportunity to be confrontational. I just want a better impression of where you're coming from.

I'm fine with meta mechanics but the specific example of someone healing wounds with encouragement would be immersion breaking for me

It's because they intentionally didn't explain anything. Even magic has no actual explaination. That's the entire point, since D&D was designed to be kitchen sink fantasy.

Let me clarify then- People who started with 3.PF.

But why the hell should we let that restrict RPG design? Why should we let that define the scope of what can be done? The industry clearly hasn't, and although D&D is still the biggest it's lost market share significantly. Breaking away from the D&D model, doing things differently and exploring new options is only a good thing for the hobby. Even if some of those attempts don't work, plenty do, and we've got a wider and more interesting variety of experiences available as a result.

What is that narrative explanation then, because for the examples Ive given no explanations have been returned.

Magic is at least explained as some kind of universal force which is either harnessed or channeled.

100% okay with it. The rules are there to guide and support the GM, not constrain them. They should take action wisely and carefully, keeping the good of the group and the game as a whole in mind, which includes not fudging too much and risking losing all sense of consistency. But if they make that call, I'll trust their judgement.

He's fine with mythical heroes as well he's just has a really specific position that he communicated poorly and both of you are to antagonist to understand each other's positions

HP isn't wounds. It is, and has always been, an abstraction. It represents fighting spirit, stamina and minor injuries, with significant injuries only occurring below zero HP.

Unfortunately, despite this being the listed definition in every edition of D&D, they also fuck up and treat it as meat points on occasion, and the lack of consistency is what creates the problem.

Thats like asking why ergonomics shouldnt restrict the design of consumer products. If there is a misuse-hazard in a design then its lazy not to work out that problem. I definitely agree that things should keep moving far, far way from D&D.

Of what, exactly?

And martial powers are explained as a personal force which is channeled and released.

Are you against sorcerers and bards, since their powers come from within?

Then we're arguing on two totally different levels. I agree with you in your support of fudge-for-good, but what Im criticizing is rules and systems as written, under the assumption that newer or less creative users will employ them as written.

Nope. Ergonomics is relatively objective, based on physical factors that don't really change, although our ability to cater to them does. It's completely different to RPG design.

Now I'm confused what you mean.

Lets just do 4e healing surges for now. Why can player characters use them while commoners cannot.

Thats not quite a fair comparison since bards and sorcerers channel magic explicitly, but if you're willing to accept that explanation then we cant really continue the argument, as whether thats a cop-out is a matter of opinion.

The way DnD handles hp is bad, because of effects like poison and swallowing that only occur on hit they only make sense as meat points but I would be fine with healing moral with encouragement in other systems

And in some cases its not. We've both recognized a certain hazard in certain types of players when using artifacts with certain designed features. What makes the design and ergonomics of a game different from those in any other instruction manual?