Author: Mike O'Connor (---.hsacorp.net)
Date: 05-02-2000 11:18
Kudos to you, Larry, on a sound column.
I think an excellent point was forwarded, but a key element missed in this debate of "game systems" (or in particular, "xD&D is bad because...y and z").
As evidenced in the ongoing debate between Kevin and Kenneth on this forum, there is never going to be an agreement on this topic. There are those who will curse D&D until they die (nevertheless, perhaps playing it now and then because "everyone else does"), and those who will defend it for the same timeframe. As you stated, Larry, you can't force an apple into the mold of an orange, nor the reverse. Those who argue the apple should be an orange discard the red-tinted lenses that others try to give them. And so on... However...
I do think there is a realm of reasoning behind the "anti-D&D" sentiments of the day, although forming that into a coherent argument might be a bit difficult for most (and too long to read, to be sure). I enjoyed Michael Richter's column on Pushes and Pulls, referencing Marc Miller's elements that are mentioned in the Traveller game. In fact, I think all this fuss people are arguing about (myself included, at times) regarding the D&D camp could be boiled down to a simple matter of pushes and pulls, and how game systems address them (or how they inadvertently create them). And the key extends beyond that--do the pushes and pulls remain the same, or do they change through time?
Although roleplaying games are still roleplaying games, now or back in the 1970's, I believe some elements have changed. Some like to call those changes "advancements", and I would agree in some areas and disagree in others. One common, very clear change, however, is the change in the pushes and pulls behind the systems. I'm talking about pushes and pulls that are inadvertently created by the system mechanics themselves, rather than storyline elements and the like. To me, it's an "advance" in a roleplaying concept to create pushes and pulls where character can still be heroes _without_ stepping outside the boundaries of what most of us would call "realism". It's a Diehard vs. Superman argument. One main character is a hero because he uses skill and brains to overcome the enemy, while the other is a hero because he rushes into overwhelming danger and uses "unrealistic" powers to overcome. I think where the xD&D system "breaks down", as some critics term it, is where it puts forth the mechanics that say the Diehard hero can eventually become Superman. The fact that "Level 1" characters start in the realm of "realism" and end up somewhere in the realm of "unrealism" is a root of what bothers many of the anti-xD&D folks. They are voting for the system mechanics which allow you to become a hero while remaining in a "realistic" realm.
To wit, one bullet would have killed the heroes John Wayne played, as it would kill "an old crone" sitting on her porch in a rocking chair. It was the hero's skill, tactics, and courage that made him a hero (not to mention luck)--not the fact that he could eventually take 10 bullets to the head and shake it off. And as much as designers and xD&D supporters would like to shape them differently, the reality is that "Hit Points" translate directly into a character's ability to survive bodily harm. The concept of "luck" and "skill" being part of Hit Points falls apart with a few controlled tests.
As xD&D characters begin their adventures (at "1st Level"), they are subjected to certain pushes and pulls (or limitations and freedoms, whatever you want to call them) due to the very mechanical nature of their makeup. They have a very low amount of what you call "Hit Points", and their ability to survive in combat is minimal (called "Armor Class" and "THACO"). They want to be heroes and adhere to the heroic genre of the system, but the mechanics limit their ability to do so. Quite literally, the game mechanics indicate that "one strike from a dagger" (or indeed, one good back-hand from a fighter, in the case of a mage) will kill them. They are "pulled" away from combat and "pushed" toward more menial tasks (or "less heroic" tasks) because, quite simply, any other endeavor would leave them dead. As a result, the characters are pushed more toward working problems out in a non-confrontational manner. Storyline supersedes combat. Characters are pushed to roleplay through discussions, strategies, and subverting confrontation rather than facing it with brute force. They are pushed toward taking the "Diehard" route as opposed to acting like Superman.
As characters progress, their ability to survive bodily harm increases. The pushes and pulls change. Characters find that the best way to survive is to gain "Experience Points", and thus more "Levels", and thus more "Hit Points". The "reality" imposed by mechanics at Level 1 are now replaced by the "heroic" environment at Level 10. Suddenly, Wimpy the Mage can take a back-hand from the brute at the bar, smiling. In fact, he can take several of them, when before merely one of them would have killed him. The Fighter in the group, Bore the Brutal, can now be tied naked up to wooden stakes and shot with a salvo of arrows, each hitting at a perfect "20" on the die, and walk forth from the experience rubbing his wounds. This is where, as many xD&D critics put forth, "the system breaks down".
The change we've seen (many of which are applauded as "advances" by xD&D critics) with more recent roleplaying games surround the inherent pushes and pulls created by the mechanics themselves. Most "newer" roleplaying games do away with the advancing Hit Points idea. A "Level 1" fighter in such a system has no less "health" than a "Level 10" fighter. It takes no more dagger thrusts or back-hands to slay a "Level 20" mage as it does a "Level 1" mage. The pushes and pulls that cause characters to be more or less heroic are the abilities and skills of the characters themselves---not their increased ability to bleed more pints of blood before they expire.
In short, the "newer" systems promote the idea of character "attributes" (i.e. skills, traits, abilities, powers, reputation, knacks, etc.) over inherent physical makeup (i.e. hit points). In a "newer" system, a "Level 20" fighter, if thrown off a cliff, is going to die. Just like the "Level 1" mage thrown off a few seconds before him. And just because the Level 20 fighter dies when he's thrown off a cliff doesn't mean he's not of the "hero" quality. It just means he was thrown off a cliff.
The argument you present is sound, Larry. Those who do not like the "unrealistically survivable hero" environment should not try to force the "realistic hero" environment on to xD&D. The "heroic fantasy" feel and the "realistic fantasy" feel are completely different, and one cannot be argued to be "better" than the other. Indeed, I personally find both of those "feels" to be very entertaining, depending on the mood I'm in at the time. I think the fundamental difficult principle xD&D critics have a hard time swallowing is the way xD&D starts characters in one "feel" and progresses them to another. The system promotes high level heroism, but makes it impossible for low level characters to act in that realm. The environment changes, as you've described, from being mere mortals who die at the thrust of a knife to unconquerable heroes who laugh at such a thing. To use the prior analogy, the hero from Die Hard defeats enough terrorists that he now becomes Superman. Not only do his skills and abilities progress (as would be expected), but his actual physical ability to endure bodily harm.
That, in a nutshell, is the major criticism I see coming from the anti-xD&D camp. Discussed in a logical manner, I have to agree with them.
Should we force apples into oranges? No. Should we hate the orange because it's an orange? Of course not. But when the apple turns into an orange it's a bit difficult to comprehend, and I think that is where most of the contention lies.
Best,
Mike O.
|
|
