The True Conflict

From both browsing and posting regularily on this forum for months, I've come to a conclusion, which for some may not be too surprising. It's due to this core issue that I don't expect D&D Next to achieve anything, because it's an issue that affects both the designers and the players who offer input towards the design.

Simply put, we're looking at a conflict of Tradition versus Mechanics versus Open-Ended

Tradition minded players desire things not because of adequate purpose or balance, but because it's how "the game feels". They are the type to constantly talk about needing to feel like D&D, needing to have mechanics like vancian casting and the like. These are generally the same people who prefer the excessively powerful but arbitrarily limited casters, preffering to have easy to kill wizards with interruptible spells and very limited quantity of spells, as well as starting weak, in exchange for godlike power as they gain levels.

Mechanics minded players desire things because of fun factor, for tactics and options. They prefer things to exist for a reason, not just because of fluff or due to a previous version having it. When it comes to rules, they want both balance and a clear idea of what everyone is capable of, generally with less need for DM fiat.

Lastly, Open-Ended players desire almost no rules at all, they want and expect everything to be based off of theatre of the mind, generally prefer no grid or minis, and feel as if rules only limit what they can do. This is the group I personally find the most perplexing, because the very nature of what this type of player wants goes against needing a proper system in the first place, and yet they are some of the louder members of this community. It's hard to find a topic without a "rules light" player expressing how they don't want x rule or y rule, and want it to be DM fiat and completely open. They're also often the players who think martial characters are fine due to imaginative attacks making up for a complete lack of rule creativity.

Now, obviously we have one major conflict here. You can theoretically mix tradition with mechanics or open-ended setups, but mechanics and open-ended styles inherently don't work together. One side wants a system, the other doesn't. And this is where I feel the need to make a point, those of you who want rules light, who barely want a system at all, why are you here? The purpose of this is literally to design a system with rules, and you don't need any to play with imagination. So long as we have mechanics versus open-ended, nothing will ever get done.

As for tradition versus mechanics, that's more a matter of proper compromise, which seems to be part of what WotC is aiming to do, even if it isn't quite there yet. Vancian casting for example, working alongside other forms of casting. The only area where this becomes a problem, is when tradition limits balance and fun, which is often the case with martial types. So to traditional players, I ask this of you. Seeing as most of you are caster players as it is, let the mechanics players have their fun to play martial characters that have options, and you can have your vancian spellcasters. Just do not expect, or encourage imbalance, because that's when you're going to get a fight.
You can theoretically mix tradition with mechanics or open-ended setups, but mechanics and open-ended styles inherently don't work together.

One side wants a system, the other doesn't.

And this is where I feel the need to make a point, those of you who want rules light, who barely want a system at all, why are you here?

The purpose of this is literally to design a system with rules, and you don't need any to play with imagination.

So long as we have mechanics versus open-ended, nothing will ever get done.
 



Bravo.

I'm a BIG fan of systemless roleplaying.  I love putting myself entirely into the hands of a Storyteller and enjoying pure roleplaying without any mechanics to frack things up and equally love having players put themselves into my hands as a Storyteller and watching the roleplaying which evolves.

But that's not what I'm looking for from D&D as a player OR as a DM.

There is a reason we have Dungeon Masters and not Storytellers in D&D, and mechanics are a big part of that.

If you WANT a systemless game backed up by a few mechanics then by all means "rule zero" out everything you don't want from D&D, but PLEASE stop trying to make the rest of us abandon the mechanics we want or the balance we need from those mechanics.

There WILL BE a "rule zero" for you to point at for any player who tries to argue, but if there's no rule at all for me then only one of us gets what we want.

Next is supposed to be about ALL of us getting what we want.           
I get what you're saying, but I think you're making a few too many assumptions. 

It doesn't seem likely to me that traditionalists are in favor of quadratic wizards, as much as they are not willing to sacrifice creativity in the name of balance.  Having priorities does not mean thinking that balance is bad, and I'm sure we'd get a lot of people in favor of class balance with open-ended spells if we could only come up with a real solution for that.

It's also probably a mistake to assume that traditionalists generally play casters.  Personally, I enjoy the "basic attack" type fighter because I already have plenty of other things going on that I need to manage: action economy, weapon types, positioning, ranged options (especially when considered along with the action economy).  Adding maneuvers or spells or anything on top of that could get pretty overwhelming.  (Contrast with spellcasters, who generally only need to manage action economy and spell economy; it takes a different type of player to enjoy that.)  So far, I'm entirely in the cold on this front of D&DN.

The metagame is not the game.

A couple of thoughts from my end.

Number 1, remember the game is about fun and not about system mastery. People should be able to play D&D without having the feeling that it's a TON O' CRUNCH game. To many people a huge ruleset is not fun, it limits creativity. I find it really arrogant for you to put your type of fun over other peoples type of fun, and to tell them to go find something else. This isn't a board game. TTRPGs may have evolved from war games, but there is a reason they are considered different things. Imagination is as much a part of D&D as much as rules are. That why it's called a role playing game.

Number 2, there are also plenty of games with huge amounts of crunch, so why don't you go play those games? Try some of the more complicated board games like Talisman or Twilight Imperium. Or if all you really want to do is play with numbers, go do math.
My two copper.
You can theoretically mix tradition with mechanics or open-ended setups, but mechanics and open-ended styles inherently don't work together.

One side wants a system, the other doesn't.

And this is where I feel the need to make a point, those of you who want rules light, who barely want a system at all, why are you here?

The purpose of this is literally to design a system with rules, and you don't need any to play with imagination.

So long as we have mechanics versus open-ended, nothing will ever get done.
 



Bravo.

I'm a BIG fan of systemless roleplaying.  I love putting myself entirely into the hands of a Storyteller and enjoying pure roleplaying without any mechanics to frack things up and equally love having players put themselves into my hands as a Storyteller and watching the roleplaying which evolves.

But that's not what I'm looking for from D&D as a player OR as a DM.

There is a reason we have Dungeon Masters and not Storytellers in D&D, and mechanics are a big part of that.

If you WANT a systemless game backed up by a few mechanics then by all means "rule zero" out everything you don't want from D&D, but PLEASE stop trying to make the rest of us abandon the mechanics we want or the balance we need from those mechanics.

There WILL BE a "rule zero" for you to point at for any player who tries to argue, but if there's no rule at all for me then only one of us gets what we want.

Next is supposed to be about ALL of us getting what we want.           


You could technically rule 0 in all the mechanics you want as well.
My two copper.
It's not even numbers or crunch, it's options. This is one of the areas where I feel like 4E failed most, while they gave options, they were drowned out by numbers and designed in such a way to not allow creativity. The real point of mechanics isn't system mastery, but being able to play what you want to play because the mechanics support it, and having creative choices. In that sense, as I noted, a traditional style and mechanical style can go together just fine, so long as there's some compromise.

As for assumptions over traditional players preffering casters, it's less of an assumption and more of an observation, in all of the various D&D boards I've seen, this one included, the casters are at the very least more vocal, and often the ones who want powerful and creative options themselves(fly, for example), but are unwilling to compromise to allow noncasters to have equally compelling choices.

Lastly, as for rule 0ing in more rules into the nearly ruleless system that open-ended players want, that's asking for a completely different thing. An open-ended player, since imagination is all they apparently need, can simply ignore rules, but a mechanical player would need to not only come up with rules, but come up with them in a balanced format. In other words, you're looking at little work, versus literally designing your own system. D&D first and foremost is a system, and should be designed as such, people who don't want tules in the way don't need to use the rules, in fact people have been doing that for years anyway.
And the solution is that Next is a system-of-systems.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
You can theoretically mix tradition with mechanics or open-ended setups, but mechanics and open-ended styles inherently don't work together.

One side wants a system, the other doesn't.

And this is where I feel the need to make a point, those of you who want rules light, who barely want a system at all, why are you here?

The purpose of this is literally to design a system with rules, and you don't need any to play with imagination.

So long as we have mechanics versus open-ended, nothing will ever get done.
 



Bravo.

I'm a BIG fan of systemless roleplaying.  I love putting myself entirely into the hands of a Storyteller and enjoying pure roleplaying without any mechanics to frack things up and equally love having players put themselves into my hands as a Storyteller and watching the roleplaying which evolves.

But that's not what I'm looking for from D&D as a player OR as a DM.

There is a reason we have Dungeon Masters and not Storytellers in D&D, and mechanics are a big part of that.

If you WANT a systemless game backed up by a few mechanics then by all means "rule zero" out everything you don't want from D&D, but PLEASE stop trying to make the rest of us abandon the mechanics we want or the balance we need from those mechanics.

There WILL BE a "rule zero" for you to point at for any player who tries to argue, but if there's no rule at all for me then only one of us gets what we want.

Next is supposed to be about ALL of us getting what we want.           


You could technically rule 0 in all the mechanics you want as well.



How does that make it a system for both of us?

You want no mechanics, which is simple and easy to do.

I WANT mechanics, which are complex difficult and hard to do... even if you ARE an RPG designer.

There is no way you can seriously claim that these are balanced options.       
It is a mistake to assume the "open-ended" people do not want system.  They simply want an open-ended system.  Just like asking an open-ended question is not at all the same as "Just say something; we'll figure it out as we go."  An open-ended system still guides and balances, and it can deeply satisfy the mechanical-minded.  What it doesn't do is say, "You get this story or that story.  Pick."  Nor does it say, "We'll just tell it like it happens and not worry about numbers."  An open-ended system for D&D would be deeply crunchy, but people would get to decide for themselves what the crunch sounds like.
It is a mistake to assume the "open-ended" people do not want system.  They simply want an open-ended system.  Just like asking an open-ended question is not at all the same as "Just say something; we'll figure it out as we go."  An open-ended system still guides and balances, and it can deeply satisfy the mechanical-minded.  What it doesn't do is say, "You get this story or that story.  Pick."  Nor does it say, "We'll just tell it like it happens and not worry about numbers."  An open-ended system for D&D would be deeply crunchy, but people would get to decide for themselves what the crunch sounds like.



I think you are describing a different group of players/DMs to the OP.

The people you are talking about are being great on these boards, supporting optional modules and advocating for modularity.

It's the "no rules is good rules" crew who are being the "problem" here.   
It is a mistake to assume the "open-ended" people do not want system.  They simply want an open-ended system.  Just like asking an open-ended question is not at all the same as "Just say something; we'll figure it out as we go."  An open-ended system still guides and balances, and it can deeply satisfy the mechanical-minded.  What it doesn't do is say, "You get this story or that story.  Pick."  Nor does it say, "We'll just tell it like it happens and not worry about numbers."  An open-ended system for D&D would be deeply crunchy, but people would get to decide for themselves what the crunch sounds like.



I think you are describing a different group of players/DMs to the OP.

The people you are talking about are being great on these boards, supporting optional modules and advocating for modularity.

It's the "no rules is good rules" crew who are being the "problem" here.   



Exactly.
Can you point out a post like that to me? I don't think I've seen anyone on these boards promoting no system.
My two copper.
Yeah, seems like a strawman to me.  Anyone who truly felt that way would not argue at all, because it wouldn't affect them.  You probably need to go back and reread the posts of those people on the assumption that they are saying something very different from "no rules is good rules."  As well as with the assumption that the mechanics-minded aren't the only ones who are concerned with "the fun factor."  Tradition-minded folk experience the fun-factor when combining different traditional elements; that is in itself a game.  Theatre-of-the-mind folk get the fun-factor from different combinations of story elements.  Both sources of the fun factor can be emphasized through crunchy mechanical systems that interact with one another.  And so both will be concerned with the mechanical fun-factor.
I get what you're saying, but I think you're making a few too many assumptions. 

It doesn't seem likely to me that traditionalists are in favor of quadratic wizards, as much as they are not willing to sacrifice creativity in the name of balance.  Having priorities does not mean thinking that balance is bad, and I'm sure we'd get a lot of people in favor of class balance with open-ended spells if we could only come up with a real solution for that.

It's also probably a mistake to assume that traditionalists generally play casters.  Personally, I enjoy the "basic attack" type fighter because I already have plenty of other things going on that I need to manage: action economy, weapon types, positioning, ranged options (especially when considered along with the action economy).  Adding maneuvers or spells or anything on top of that could get pretty overwhelming.  (Contrast with spellcasters, who generally only need to manage action economy and spell economy; it takes a different type of player to enjoy that.)  So far, I'm entirely in the cold on this front of D&DN.


Hear, hear!

I fall pretty squarely into the Traditionalist camp, and I seldom play anything other than heavily-armoured Fighters.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

I'm in agreement with Burrytar.


I would most likely be considered a "rules lite" person by the OP. (I have gotten into a number of fights on the 4e forums for trying to simplify things). However, I do want rules to provide a framework. There is a difference between melee and ranged and single target and multitarget attacks. There should be rules to reflect this. However, I want combat to be more narrative than tactical. I don't like battle grids and miniatures. It makes the game feel like chess to me.

Likewise, there should be rules governing noncombat situations. However, I think ability score checks ultimately work better than skill checks in this regard. They also can be used for a wide range of situations instead of trying to create a separate skill for every conceivable thing. 
Simply put, we're looking at a conflict of Tradition versus Mechanics versus Open-Ended


I want a compromise between these 3 positions, which is where it appears to me that 5e is heading.  Not everyone is hard core into one camp or another, there is a middle ground.
Game balance for example isn't something you can ignore at certain points in the process you have it or you don't 'tradition' on the other hand only needs to be kept in mind when you bumble onto one of the sickly sacred cows like AC, or wizards have to be generalists (for some never to be sufficiently explained reason). Nobody cares if you screw with grapple or attack of opportunity as long as you don't break the game.

So making compromises for the sake of tradition on Op attacks or grapple doens't make any sense because no one cares, but if you leave AC and Generalist wizards in you have to be very careful that they don't screw the game balance. 
To the OP, I think you're greatly exaggerating the position of the rules lite crowd (of which I am not a member, if it matters). These people don't want a system with no rules at all. What they want is a system that isn't very mechanically complex. They want just enough crunch that the system works, but they'd rather leave out alot of things that other people want to have a defined rule for.

I think the key here is modularity, and the designers of Next get that. For example, some people prefer not to have skills or feats in their game. In Next, it's very easy for those people to simply remove skills and/or feats from their games because the system isn't designed to be dependent upon them. Both groups win.
At the same time that means each 'module' has to be balanced as an individual unit. You can't have wizards rule fighters drool as a base rule and introduce balanced classes as a module.
Try some of the more complicated board games like Talisman or Twilight Imperium. Or if all you really want to do is play with numbers, go do math.



??  In what world is Talisman one of the more complicated board games? 
It's just a glorified version of Monopoly....  Roll dice, move pawn x spaces around the board, follow intructions on space/card/etc.  Repeat until someone wins.
To the OP, I think you're greatly exaggerating the position of the rules lite crowd (of which I am not a member, if it matters). These people don't want a system with no rules at all. What they want is a system that isn't very mechanically complex. They want just enough crunch that the system works, but they'd rather leave out alot of things that other people want to have a defined rule for.

I think the key here is modularity, and the designers of Next get that. For example, some people prefer not to have skills or feats in their game. In Next, it's very easy for those people to simply remove skills and/or feats from their games because the system isn't designed to be dependent upon them. Both groups win.



Some people like, when skills have an effect, for instance, that escape artist can be used to get out of a web spell or that it has been considered how invisibility works together with the hide skill and what is the spot DC for noticing an invisible creature.
I believe the true conflict is considering the literal translation of D&D rules versus abstract. You can see the same agrument come forth when discussing hit points. For those that want a literal translation of the rules will never be happy, while those the strive for a abstract translation of the rules to represent the best features of D&D will have a much easier journey. So you must consider tradition in these terms. As to open ended roleplaying, that is best handled in the theater of the mind, as long as the rules don't become too focused on complex mechanics where each round has a multitude of conditions or effects to track,
I agree that the "no rules is good rules" crowd needs to go.  Thankfully, they were never here in the first place.
I agree that the "no rules is good rules" crowd needs to go.  Thankfully, they were never here in the first place.



Apparently you don't read the forums much. There's posts fairly regularly saying stuff like "You don't need rules for that, just have the DM resolve it/use your imagination"
I agree that the "no rules is good rules" crowd needs to go.  Thankfully, they were never here in the first place.



Apparently you don't read the forums much. There's posts fairly regularly saying stuff like "You don't need rules for that, just have the DM resolve it/use your imagination"

A certain "professor" comes to mind.
I don't think it's possible to split into as few as three categories. There are multiple "conflicts".

Rules-light vs Comprehensive rules
System Mastery vs Quick Character Generation
Old-School D&D vs 3e vs 4e
Balance vs Lack of Balance
Story vs Mechanics

There are certainly others I haven't put down. The thing is, you can't necessarily identify someone's position on one conflict from their position on another. There are 3e fans who claim their game is Balanced and that it's a good thing because of that, for example. 

These, in the day when heaven was falling, The hour when earth's foundations fled, Followed their mercenary calling, And took their wages, and are dead. Playing: Legendof Five Rings, The One Ring, Fate Core. Planning: Lords in the Eastern Marches, Runequest in Glorantha. 

I agree that the "no rules is good rules" crowd needs to go.  Thankfully, they were never here in the first place.



Apparently you don't read the forums much. There's posts fairly regularly saying stuff like "You don't need rules for that, just have the DM resolve it/use your imagination"



You are correct that I don't read the forums much, certainly not on a daily basis.  But I have yet to see any post that actually says they want "no rules".  It just seems like the OP is exagerrating the effect of the "simple rules" crowd.  Of course, I could be wrong.  It's been known to happen.  
I agree that the "no rules is good rules" crowd needs to go.  Thankfully, they were never here in the first place.



Apparently you don't read the forums much. There's posts fairly regularly saying stuff like "You don't need rules for that, just have the DM resolve it/use your imagination"

A certain "professor" comes to mind.



Is there a good icon for whistling like you are innocent and pretending you didnt think of the same moniker.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

To me, it is not rules vs no rules. It is a divide of level of abstraction.

Simple rules vs lightly detailed rule vs heavy detailed rules vs more cinematic rules.

Look a Knock Down.

The Current rules is a contest between the attacker Str and the defender's Str or Dex as long as the defender is no more than 1 size greater.

This is fine for some. For others, they might want weapon type to have a factor.

Others might prefer it to be more complex and have the attacker to declare the knock down and the DM chooses which ability each character uses and have the number of legs the defender has to be a factor.

Others might want to make it more cinematic and remove the size limitation and apply a penalty.

Others might want it even simpler and just make the two roll d20's and the higher wins.

Others might want a Knock Down maneuver or specialty.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Others might want a Knock Down maneuver or specialty.


A true martial take down never excludes the attack element only a school yard punk just trips ...

Yes there is a gradient in detail desired and that is one of the elements modularity could bring if they are willing to actually keep the core part simple with appropriate sliders.

Some fok think its awesome to have complex casters and simple fighters NOT because you know jocks are dumb they ought to be simple... but rather just because it doesnt interest them and why put details in if its not what you are interested in.

That is one of the issues people have different interests... and often if something is on your list.. you want some measure of detailing.

There is a difference however.. how much of that detailing is managed by the games mechanics and how much is managed by the games players. I can have a simple knockdown assault and give it huge amounts of detail by how I chose to describe it.. without having mechanical details.

At one extreme an attack that does damage without killig can easily be described as impairing the enemies response to the next attack ... where the real physical follow through happens in fact thats kind of the core element of hit points ... that impairment can be visualized as a knockdown,

See he just got his knockdown without a knockdown maneuver.


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Which would be ok, if a tad boring, except that other classes usually have actual knockdown powers with additional penalties inflicted. BAsically the gradient has to be roughly consistent for a wide range of archetypes or it's the 3e mage love fest all over again.
Honestly I don't think its as much a problem as you might think because D&D Next has already addressed most of the issues were discussing in here.

Rules Simplicity: Given that the game is modular, any complex tactical rules will be covered in either Optional Rules or modules, which means the game will allow for both a more simple approach and a more tactical approach.

Fighter Simplicity: As above, there will be options available for both simple fighters and the current fighter we have. Expertise was already a Critical Hit that almost everyone liked, though it needs polishing, it works.

Balance: I think there is a missunderstanding here, traditionalists don't mind balance, they just don't want balance to get in the way of creativity and lore—its really a matter of prioritising. For instance, players that prefer balance want to Save or Die effects gone whereas tradtionalists (like myself) LIKE these spells. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we want casters to dominate fighters, in fact my favourite class has always been the fighter. But these spells are deeply integraded not only into D&D tradition but D&D Lore from the Forgotten Realms and other settings you may have. I recall a scene in the Year of the Rogue Dragon series where Sammaster uses Power Word Kill against a silver dragon, slaying it instantly. These are the sort of things that can't go simply because some players want 'balance'. As for giving Fighters equally destructive abilities, again I am fine with it as long as it makes sense. A Fighter can't shoot thunderbolts from his eyes or call down a whirlwind. A Fighter however, can use down to earth maneuvers — for instance, perhaps one high level Expertise maneuver for an Assassin could be something like Death Attack, which lets him do a Save or Die attack against a un-suspecting foe. And if Save or Die altogether is a problem then there can be an 'Optional Box' that transitions the attack to a Hit Point restriction.

--
Its all about comprimise and coming to a middle ground and to be honest DDN will achieve it. They always thought the Fighter would be their greatest challenge and look the Fighter happens to be the most successful class yet with their new creative Expertise mechanic. These are the sort of 'breakthroughs' the WOTC design team will come up with that will satisfy the mob - it just requires Playtesting and Patience.
I'm surprised that this thread is on its third page and no-one has brought up GNS Theory:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory

To be fair, "Traditionalist" and "Open-Ended" players as the OP describes them are distinct cultural phenomenon that aren't really what GNS was created to cover, but it seems like it's impossibe to discuss "who RPG rules are for" without someone bringing it up. I guess this time I am that someone. 
Yeah that is another element.

There is detail of mechanics. Then there is details for mechanics.

For example, a DM could describe a hit as a bash to the leg which slows the enemy down. You could abstract it as just HP damage. The loss of HP would represent the loss of mobility and the additional ease for killing strike later.

Or you can imply an actual "slowed" condition to make the slow aspect an actual mechanical representative of itself.

Then you can actual mechanicize other aspects like pain and fatigue.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

They always thought the Fighter would be their greatest challenge and look the Fighter happens to be the most successful class yet with their new creative Expertise mechanic. These are the sort of 'breakthroughs' the WOTC design team will come up with that will satisfy the mob -



Mearles is very fond of martial types ... often calling something a challenge means you also want to give it extra loving care


it just requires Playtesting and Patience.



I worry about folk here lacking the latter.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 



Tradition minded players desire things not because of adequate purpose or balance, but because it's how "the game feels". They are the type to constantly talk about needing to feel like D&D, needing to have mechanics like vancian casting and the like. These are generally the same people who prefer the excessively powerful but arbitrarily limited casters, preffering to have easy to kill wizards with interruptible spells and very limited quantity of spells, as well as starting weak, in exchange for godlike power as they gain levels.



This is utterly wrong.  Nothing about that indicates "tradition".  People can actually LIKE vancian casting and think it's the best system without wanting it due to tradition.  Same with other older rules.  People can say D&D FEELS like X without resorting to tradition.  Trying to force people who enjoy those things into the "tradition" category is garbage. 

Mechanics minded players desire things because of fun factor, for tactics and options. They prefer things to exist for a reason, not just because of fluff or due to a previous version having it. When it comes to rules, they want both balance and a clear idea of what everyone is capable of, generally with less need for DM fiat.



More garbage!  People in your "tradition" category can also desire those things because of the fun factor, tactics and options.  They aren't mutually exclusive categories.  

People can say D&D FEELS like X without resorting to tradition.


Not really... you are right about other elements there like somebody liking Vancian on its own right but the Argument saying this feels like D&D and that doesnt... nyeh.. that is just bald faced tradition.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

People can say D&D FEELS like X without resorting to tradition.


Not really... you are right about other elements there like somebody liking Vancian on its own right but the Argument saying this feels like D&D and that doesnt... nyeh.. that is just bald faced tradition.



Utterly false.  You can never link feelings about something in D&D to a particular thing, unless that person links it himself.  You don't know what I'm referring to when I say, "X doesn't feel like D&D to me."  I could be referring to something purely based on tradition, OR I could be referring to something I like for valid reasons.  It isn't your place to decide why I have my feelings.
  OR I could be referring to something I like for valid reasons.  



No you gave your reasons (no hot swapping allowed) you said it wasnt D&D like and I am saying what is D&D is defined by traditions.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

  OR I could be referring to something I like for valid reasons.  



No you gave your reasons (no hot swapping allowed) you said it wasnt D&D like and I am saying what is D&D is defined by traditions.



And that includes when I say a game that is classless wouldnt feel like D&D.(and mean it).
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

  OR I could be referring to something I like for valid reasons.  



No you gave your reasons (no hot swapping allowed) you said it wasnt D&D like and I am saying what is D&D is defined by traditions.



Wait.  You're serious claiming that you can dictate to me what my feelings are and why I have those feelings?