The End of 4e D&D.

[A Man In Black]

Now let's be honest. If you play something based on WW2 your chances of accomplishing anything that fucking matters at all is as close to zero as possible without actually being zero. Because there are millions of people involved in WW2, and only a handful actually accomplished anything. The rest either simply did their jobs, if they were lucky or died in the trenches if they weren't.

The cold war, by definition is a fucking stalemate. Guess what? You're not accomplishing anything.

You might actually do something in the wild west but all it takes it for a pissed off drunk to bust a cap in your ass to get an instant game over.

This is so wrong I think it just gave me cancer.

[Ice9]

Hmm. By Roy's definition, isn't playing 5th level D&D when you could be playing 50th level D&D a waste of time? For that matter, isn't playing D&D at all when you could be playing Nobilis a waste of time?

I mean, obviously those people who run pre-Epic campaigns are just scared of the options and freedom a level 100 party would have.

[virgil]

Now let's be honest. If you play something based on WW2 your chances of accomplishing anything that fucking matters at all is as close to zero as possible without actually being zero. Because there are millions of people involved in WW2, and only a handful actually accomplished anything. The rest either simply did their jobs, if they were lucky or died in the trenches if they weren't.

The cold war, by definition is a fucking stalemate. Guess what? You're not accomplishing anything.

You might actually do something in the wild west but all it takes it for a pissed off drunk to bust a cap in your ass to get an instant game over.

This is so wrong I think it just gave me cancer.

It's so wrong I think it gave my brain a tumour.

[Maj]

Now let's be honest. If you play something based on WW2 your chances of accomplishing anything that fucking matters at all is as close to zero as possible without actually being zero. Because there are millions of people involved in WW2, and only a handful actually accomplished anything. The rest either simply did their jobs, if they were lucky or died in the trenches if they weren't.

The cold war, by definition is a fucking stalemate. Guess what? You're not accomplishing anything.

You might actually do something in the wild west but all it takes it for a pissed off drunk to bust a cap in your ass to get an instant game over.

This is so wrong I think it just gave me cancer.

It's so wrong I think it gave my brain a tumour.

If one person can't find a scenario that would have changed the course of WW II (Operation Valkyrie) and revisit it in a game, no one else must have that ability, either.

That's kinda the whole reason why someone would choose to play a game at all, so they have more options than they do in the real world.

Are you the President? Are you the CEO of a major company? Are you a general? Are you a civil rights leader? A black belt in a martial art? An actor?

Roleplaying games are about being able to play a character. That doesn't mean I have to be magical. Jet Li is a bad ass, and in order to be as bad ass as he is, I would have to spend years studying. And if my chosen occupation is doctor, lawyer or Indian chief, I'm not really going to have the option of going outside and getting all ninja assassin on your ass.

Uncreative DMs are uncreative - regardless of magic levels. You might have personal preferences for genre - I don't like high-tech sci fi, the American Civil War era, or primitive tribal settings - but that sort of discrimination is more akin to food dis/likes than creative ability.

Tom Clancy has made more money than you will ever see in your life proving you're wrong before you even made the argument.

Hell, let's extend that to the entire fiction section of literature.

You must have a miserable, boring life if you don't see the potential for adventure and excitement in the "mundane" world.

Hell, let's extend that to the entire section of entertainment.

I would love a game where I get to be Brenda Lee Johnson (The Closer), Neal Caffrey (White Collar), Fiona Glenanne (Burn Notice), or Eliot Spencer (Leverage). I want to be able to solve crimes and trick the perpetrators into giving full confessions, or be a master forger who can smooth my way into just about any situation while making off with [men]'s panties (figuratively speaking) and famous art, or be wild and crazy with the explosives while helping people solve problems the police can't handle, or be a total combat bad ass while simultaneously being a country singer and gourmet chef.

[theye1]

Now let's be honest. If you play something based on WW2 your chances of accomplishing anything that fucking matters at all is as close to zero as possible without actually being zero. Because there are millions of people involved in WW2, and only a handful actually accomplished anything. The rest either simply did their jobs, if they were lucky or died in the trenches if they weren't.

Wrong war, Retard.

[RobbyPants]

I'm sure there were some trenches in WWII, but I tend to think of the first World War when I think about trenches, too.

[Zinegata]

WW1 style trenches were not widely used in WW2, but the concept of "entrenchments" remained in WW2, and its continues to be important to this day.

The primary form of entrenchments during the Second World War was the foxhole. And yeah, lots of people died in the foxholes, although quite a bit fewer than those who died in the open because the point of entrenchments was to help protect soldiers from artillery and rifle fire.

That being said, there are tons of games (called wargames) whose entire purpose is to refight WW2. And yes, the Nazis could win in some of them.

[Roy]

I'm just going to ignore PR trolling some more, and some more strawman and respond to this.

When it comes down to it any game that doesn't have high magic (or high technology, which becomes hard to distinguish from magic after a certain point) doesn't leave a whole lot for you to do. That's kinda the whole reason why someone would choose to play a game at all, so they have more options than they do in the real world. Otherwise you could just ya know, go accomplish something outside.

The rest of the debate aside, I think this is an excellent point for consideration. Would your D&D character play a game like D&D within his or her world in their free time? If so, why?

I think that they would not, as it would be akin to Richard Branson taking time out of his busy schedule of banging supermodels, starting businesses, and being a playboy adventurer to play Life or Monopoly.

The answer of course is no. Know that comic strip where the 'fantasy game' the D&D characters are playing is obviously based on the real world? Yeah, it's kinda like that.

If you could actually fly around and cast Magic Missiles at the darkness you wouldn't need a game to do it for you. And because no one in the real world can do that, everyone that wants to has to play a fantasy game to do so.

But people totally can take part in real world plots. Even if staged (Hi Welcome, war reenactment groups) to prevent the real risk to life and limb, that's still a better fantasy than sitting around a table.

More to the point the whole fucking reason why people consider fantasy games, like at all is because most people are completely ordinary, will never be anything more, and are looking for escapist entertainment. If you have guessed by now that being a slightly different but still ordinary person is not escapism, you are correct.

Wild West: At best, you'll be an ordinary guy who is a good shot. Go buy some bullets and head to the shooting range. Then your skills will have a practical use.

WW2: Barring some 1 in a million chance, the best you can hope for is to be an ordinary guy who serves his country and comes home safely... just like the millions of others who did the same. So that's great and all when you're actually coming home after a real war, but when it's just a fantasy game it's like meh whatever, you're veteran #3,451,566. Would you like a cookie?

So aside from picking a low magic game saying some rather unflattering things about the guy selecting it, what it's also saying is that you are completely missing the point of fantasy, that point being to be significantly different from reality.

Go take a look around at any form of media that's only slightly different. At best, it might be entertaining for a few specific characters.

For everyone else? If you're in the Death Note world and your name isn't Light Yagami, L, or one of the handful of people working directly with them your experience is going to range from 'not any different than just living your life' to 'holy shit I'm a mook that can be killed on a whim for the lulz'. And if you are one of those characters, you can actually have some fun, but only in very specific ways... which means guess what? Despite the obvious awesomeness that is Death Note, it'd still make a terrible tabletop RPG. So what makes you think your shit is any better?

Now you can be a fucking retard and start randomly talking about non RPGs in the context of tabletop RPGs like Chess and herp derping about author wank and whatever else, or you can stifle your 'Roy is talking, so I am whining incessantly' instinct and get a fucking clue.

[Maj]

And if you are one of those characters, you can actually have some fun...

Um... Why would you play anyone else? Where does the notion come from that playing in a historical setting or the real world automatically nets you the most boring, nameless "character" in the suburb?

[violence in the media]

Because I can relate to Roy's point, I think that he was trying to say is that while in theory people start with the high-minded ideal of playing a game and changing history, the reality of such a game is much less grandiose than that.

It's a similar problem to the one discussed here before about how campaign worlds are static and set to preserve the status quo. You are no more likely to kill Hitler than you are to off Elminster or the Lord of Blades in many games. And that is in D&D, the game that explicity gives players ways to forcibly take the reins and monkeywrench things.

DM: The merchant is being difficult.
Player: Oh, fuck this. Dominate, asshole!

I don't doubt that exceptions exist, but YMMV.

As Maj said, uncreative DMs are uncreative. However, with the cast of characters she cited, I can't imagine a game with a robust enough social interaction system to reproduce the sorts of things that those people do in their respective shows. At best, the game is going to be magic tea party where you either almost always win (yay?) or almost always lose (boo?) depending on how the DM feels. Maybe it would help if more of these games gave out explicit abilities like "I'm Wyatt Earp--the dude tells me what he knows" as opposed to relying on a skill system?

Rounding back to Roy, I guess that is the real issue. In D&D, the players have a lot of ways to force things to happen in the way they want (generally through magic). Many games set in Ye Olde Weste or Ye Olde Historicale Warre do not afford players that same freedom. Instead, the players often get saddled with some sort of mother-may-I skill system that serves only to obfuscate the fact that they're playing MTP.

As an aside: Playing a general? Really? So this game is about going to a lot of meetings and getting coffee for the 4-stars? Oh wait, I'm actually commanding troops? In the field? Why aren't we playing a wargame?

[Zinegata]

Or, alternatively, people play games like WW2 shooters because they want to sort-of relive the war in all of its horror and glory.

People sometimes want to play a low-level sort of game once in a while.

[Roy]

And if you are one of those characters, you can actually have some fun...

Um... Why would you play anyone else? Where does the notion come from that playing in a historical setting or the real world automatically nets you the most boring, nameless "character" in the suburb?

Because most people are ordinary, and playing a different ordinary person is still playing an ordinary person. Seriously, it's not hard to grasp.

WW2 has Adolf Hitler, Winston Churchhill, and a few dozen other big names. You'd be hard pressed to name any of the other millions of people involved in it unless you personally knew them, or cheated and used Google.

Your odds of being anyone that matters in a WW2 style scenario is thus a few dozen:millions. Everyone else is the people who either served their country and returned home safely (great in an actual war, pointless in a fantasy setting) or the people who tried to do this, but it didn't work out and are only acknowledged collectively, as a statistic except by those that personally knew you.

And unless you're going to take Titanium Dragon grade stupidity up to 11, a few dozen is considerably less than 'millions'.

As for canon characters in D&D, eh it varies. Someone like Elminster is surrounded by wank, and empty levels. So is the rest of Forgettable Realms actually, which is why you should take the hint and forget about it.

Eberron is a lot better about this. The Lord of Blades is a 12th level character with odd multiclassing. You could probably take him, and his army on and win at level 10. The biggest obstacle to doing that is that he'd know that, and would hide from you. Now granted, the Lord of Blades is one of the smaller players there but none of the canon sorts are surrounded by too much wank.

I also find it hilarious one of the strawmen leveled against me was that this is about 'me raging against games I don't like'. No, fuck you Paizil. Fuck you for trying to dismiss facts as opinions, and fuck you for being wrong about that much.

Because you see, I said high magic or technology. Yet, I don't play Shadowrun, or Star Wars (which has other problems, mostly canon wank but also mechanics) or any of that. Even though they fit the bill.

[TheFlatline]

Because most people are ordinary, and playing a different ordinary person is still playing an ordinary person. Seriously, it's not hard to grasp.

As opposed to 99.9% of fantasy setting population? Peasants? Merchants? Cannon fodder redshirts for the dragon to eat/roast?

Adventurers in fantasy are supposed to be heroes, special, "different". Applying that "you're a hero" concept to a low magic setting is fine.

Let's not have a double standard here dude, one standard will do just fine.

[Roy]

Because most people are ordinary, and playing a different ordinary person is still playing an ordinary person. Seriously, it's not hard to grasp.

As opposed to 99.9% of fantasy setting population? Peasants? Merchants? Cannon fodder redshirts for the dragon to eat/roast?

Adventurers in fantasy are supposed to be heroes, special, "different". Applying that "you're a hero" concept to a low magic setting is fine.

Let's not have a double standard here dude, one standard will do just fine.

You've just activated my trap card!

Thank you for owning your own argument. The reason why the massive divide between peasants, merchants etc and the people that actually matter exists is because of massive power differences (magical, or technological).

You could be the most badass mother fucker in the west and still get owned by some clown kid with a knife.

You'll notice that in the first instance there's something to separate you from the Red Shirts and in the second, there's not. Star Wars actually has this problem despite the high technology, but only because of the way critical hits work. So instead of Hi Welcome, some fucker with a knife insta gibs you in your sleep, it's more like 19 Stormtroopers pewpewpew you and miss, and the 20th one puts a laser hole in your head. Either in the same battle or different battles, it doesn't matter but you just randomly fall over dead.

The only reason Star Wars doesn't get thrown in the fail pile for this reason is because it's only their critical hits that are retarded, and not all of them. It ends up in there for different reasons though.

[RobbyPants]

Levels are the other half of that equation, Roy. Technology/Magic and levels.

Red-shirts are low level.

[Roy]

Levels are the other half of that equation, Roy. Technology/Magic and levels.

Red-shirts are low level.

Yeah, except for that little problem of low magic/tech settings really meaning low power. Which is why you can be at the upper limits of badassness possible, and still be randomly OHKOed by mooks in your bedroom. Which ya know, is exactly the sort of thing that happens in the real world. The difference is playing 'POTUS and his entourage of over 9,000 Secret Service men and such' is considerably more clunky than just being Barack Fucking Obama. And having a fuckload of guards is about the only way you don't get mooked out.

[Red_Rob]

Roy, you're not making sense. Low magic does not always equal one hit deaths or dying because 3 people attacked you at once. That's high realism which is an entirely different thing. Most action movies are set in the real world, but I would hardly call Commando low power. There are many RPG's which don't include magic or super-tech and still manage to tell interesting stories or have the PC's not scared every time someone looks at them funny.

Feng Shui is set in the world of Hong Kong action cinema. The players will never get to annihilate cities, but a horde of mooks is going down hardcore.

Top Secret is a modern-day spy RPG in which the players never get magic powers or spaceships, but can still engage in plots to save the world.

Call of Cthulhu has PC's that are screwed at every turn, however there have been many campaigns printed for the game in which the fate of the world lies in their hands.

Darwin's World is a post apocalyptic RPG in which the players never get REAL ULTIMATE POWER, but the world is so fucked that you don't need much to crawl to the top and make a difference.

[RobbyPants]

Levels are the other half of that equation, Roy. Technology/Magic and levels.

Red-shirts are low level.

Yeah, except for that little problem of low magic/tech settings really meaning low power.

What? No, those are two separate things.

[ubernoob]

Roy, I hate to tell you this, but some people don't play RPGs to escape reality. I play RPGs because it's another way to socialize and hang out with my friends. Escaping reality is not in that. I kind of need reality (friends) to do that.

Just because you have a boring ass life doesn't mean we all do.

[TheFlatline]

Levels are the other half of that equation, Roy. Technology/Magic and levels.

Red-shirts are low level.

Yeah, except for that little problem of low magic/tech settings really meaning low power. Which is why you can be at the upper limits of badassness possible, and still be randomly OHKOed by mooks in your bedroom. Which ya know, is exactly the sort of thing that happens in the real world. The difference is playing 'POTUS and his entourage of over 9,000 Secret Service men and such' is considerably more clunky than just being Barack Fucking Obama. And having a fuckload of guards is about the only way you don't get mooked out.

As I said, "real world" thrillers laugh at your arguments, and their authors make more money than you by disagreeing with you.

PS: You're a dipshit. The reason why 99.9% of the population in a game setting doesn't matter is because they're insignificant to the plot. Plot relevancy makes you a badass, not a wand of fireballs. Generally speaking, in a fantasy/sci-fi situation, the heroes are outgunned, outpowered, and the bad guys have the mystic MacGuffin that makes them unstoppable, but the heroes triumph and beat the bad guy anyway. So in a technical sense, being *lower* tech/magic is what makes you interesting/relevant

I still think you're just trolling though.

[Ganbare Gincun]

Moving the thread somewhat back on topic: The Escapist: Complete Mike Mearls D&D 4th Edition Essentials Interview.

[A Man In Black]

Yeah, except for that little problem of low magic/tech settings really meaning low power. Which is why you can be at the upper limits of badassness possible, and still be randomly OHKOed by mooks in your bedroom.

There's no reason a low-magic game has to be low-power. Kung Fu Hustle is high-magic, Enter the Dragon is low-magic, but the "PCs" aren't terribly vulnerable in either.

[Ice9]

What the fuck, Roy? It's one thing to say that you don't like low-magic settings and would never play one. It's different - and objectively false - to say that nobody likes them, or even that "most people" don't like them.

I mean, compare the number of blockbuster action movies to the number of blockbuster fantasy movies. Or does that not count, on the basis that somehow when you translated a movie to a game, the PCs would be randomly assigned some person who appeared for three seconds in a crowd scene, instead of, you know, the protagonist types?

How about the GTA series then? The one that, according to you, was a huge commercial failure because nobody wanted to play it? Or the entire fucking realistic FPS genre? So those are niche games that nobody wants to play because they could just shoot a gun in real life? Yeah. Try making a point that isn't full of crap.

[Maj]

Levels are the other half of that equation, Roy. Technology/Magic and levels.

Well, that and... You know... Character classes.

[RobbyPants]

Levels are the other half of that equation, Roy. Technology/Magic and levels.

Well, that and... You know... Character classes.

I just meant level as an overall representation of the character's power, before you apply magic/technology. In theory, the class just tells you what options are available. Class balance is its own issue.