what do you think is dnd tradition

[Amdy_vill]

Long-running tabletop often forms traditions, ideas the don't change between editions. so what traditions does dnd have and what are your thoughts on those traditions.

personally opition: traditions are important. the first few editions of a game feel out ideas and make traditions the following editions are about playing in the design space created by those traditions. you can have massive changes so long as the soul of the game lives on. look at fallout 1-2 compared to 3 and new vagus. they share a soul despite having such a large change.

Traditions
The 6 stats
Alinement
Martial vs. Magic
Magic items are as important as levels.
Martials use the attack action for most of their value.
Clerics are the best healers.
Druids are hippies.(Joke?)
Burning Hands requires two hands to cast.(joke? but it should)
Making everything very complicated and writing in some sort of new language that is not exactly English.
Fighters and magic swords - the basis of swords and sorcery genre
Rogues/thieves: climbing walls, picking locks, picking pockets
Monks stun with a punch
Clerics turn undead
Paldins remind the rest of the party why doing good is important
Wizards: always want to find or research one more spell
Treasure
Cursed treasure
Fireball!
Traps
Dragon breath
Slimy monsters, tentacles optional
you meet in a tavern
The DM is always right.
Magic Missile
A big table of mostly interchangeable weapons and armors.
Massive inflation of the Gold Piece.
Sleep offers no saving throw, but affects Hit Points' worth of creatures.
Fireball deals more damage than it rightly should.
The words "Roll for initiative" and "You don't find any traps."
Spell slots.
Rogues are annoying, evading bastards.
Longswords are 1-handed weapons, light armor is leather, and you can use a Rapier or Longbow without any Strength.(as a hema nerd i take offense to your comments:smallbiggrin:)
Racial ability score modifiers
All issues can the party faces can be addressed by violence.

[Man_Over_Game]

Martial vs. Magic
Magic items are as important as levels.
Martials use the attack action for most of their value.
Clerics are the best healers.
Druids are hippies.
Burning Hands requires two hands to cast.

(Some of these are jokes)

[Amdy_vill]

Martial vs. Magic
Magic items are as important as levels.

and your thoughts on those triditions.

[Man_Over_Game]

and your thoughts on those triditions.

I mean, I think most of them are stupid, but 4e has shown that not upholding a certain level of traditional DnD will be perceived as "not DnD".

We are stuck with them until they get cycled out slowly with each new version.

[noob]

Making everything very complicated and writing in some sort of new language that is not exactly English.

[KorvinStarmast]

Long-running tabletop often forms traditions, ideas the don't change between editions.
1. Fighters and magic swords - the basis of swords and sorcery genre
2. Rogues/thieves: climbing walls, picking locks, picking pockets
3. Monks stun with a punch
4. Clerics turn undead
5. Paldins remind the rest of the party why doing good is important
6. Wizards: always want to find or research one more spell
7. Treasure
8. Cursed treasure
9. Fireball!
10. Traps
11. Dragon breath
12. Slimy monsters, tentacles optional
And most importantly

You meet in a tavern ...
As to your list:
The 6 stats
Yes.
Alinement
Spelling counts. Law and Chaos are the original tradition ... rant excised
Martial vs. Magic
false. The tradition is that they have to work together or fail/die. particularly at early levels.
Magic items are as important as levels.
Nope. It's not an either or deal.
Martials use the attack action for most of their value.
Nope.
Clerics are the best healers.
Yeah, cleric as healer is a trope
Druids are hippies.
Joke
Burning Hands requires two hands to cast
not a joke, a somatic component.

[noob]

1. Fighters and magic swords - the basis of swords and sorcery genre
2. Rogues/thieves: climbing walls, picking locks, picking pockets
3. Monks stun with a punch
4. Clerics turn undead
5. Paldins remind the rest of the party why doing good is important
6. Wizards: always want to find or research one more spell
7. Treasure
8. Cursed treasure
9. Fireball!
10. Traps
11. Dragon breath
12. Slimy monsters, tentacles optional
And most importantly

You meet in a tavern ...
Is the monk thing really a tradition?
I believe basic edition did not have a monk(or at least did not have one until it got a supplement with it).

[Amdy_vill]

Is the monk thing really a tradition?
I believe basic edition did not have a monk(or at least did not have one until it got a supplement with it).

I know Od&D Ad&D, 3e, 4e, and 5e have some type of stunning strick ability for monks. bd&d was really different from the normal dnd lines. i also only think the first edition of bd&d even had a monk.

[Cicciograna]

Dungeons. Because the good ole' dungeon, even if doesn't make sense, even if diesn't have a well defined ecosystem, even if it's just a sequence of rooms, is fun.

Dragons. Because they are the quintessential majestic, powerful, awe-inspiring monster, a sure promise of a worthy and scary opponent, or a staunch and loyal ally.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is the monk thing really a tradition? I believe basic edition did not have a monk(or at least did not have one until it got a supplement with it). In that case Paladin can't be a tradition since it didn't show up until Greyhawk, nor Thief (both in supp I) nor extra to hit and damage from hight strength ... are you sure you want to go there?

Blackmoor (Supp II) introduced monks; it's before B/X, before Druids (Eldritch Wizardry), before Demons (Ocrus, Demagorgon), before Psionics.
Monks came along with Assassins. (They were being play tested before that).

Our first ever group (which started in 1975) had a guy who played one, but IIRC it wasn't his first ever character. Even Blackmoor monks were quirky, but now and again that stun was an encounter decider.

[CapnWildefyr]

I mean, I think most of them are stupid, but 4e has shown that not upholding a certain level of traditional DnD will be perceived as "not DnD".

We are stuck with them until they get cycled out slowly with each new version.

Traditions are not bad because they're traditions or "old." For example our group has some jokes that just never die, kinda like the BBEG. Tradition, but not bad.


Long-running tabletop often forms traditions, ideas the don't change between editions. so what traditions does dnd have and what are your thoughts on those triditions.

Traditions
The 6 stats
Alinement
Martial vs. Magic
Magic items are as important as levels.
Martials use the attack action for most of their value.
Clerics are the best healers.
Druids are hippies.(Joke?)
Burning Hands requires two hands to cast.(joke? but it should)

I don't think it's "martial vs magic," I think that's more of a forum thing (looking at it as a competition). Or did you just mean that you have to choose between one or the other?

Martials and "attack action" -- remember, there didn't used to be "actions." Traditionally, it was more like, "OK, now we're on a 12, what do you do, Thorfin?"

Dnd also has the traditional concept of class.

whether magic items are as important as levels is campaign-dependent, but I guess you do usually need at least a minimum of things (like a magic weapon or two). But isn't that part of the fun? gaining those things?

[KorvinStarmast]

I forgot one tradition:

The DM is always right. :smallcool:

[Amdy_vill]

In that case Paladin can't be a tradition since it didn't show up until Greyhawk, nor Thief (both in supp I) nor extra to hit and damage from hight strength ... are you sure you want to go there?

Blackmoor (Supp II) introduced monks; it's before B/X, before Druids (Eldritch Wizardry), before Demons (Ocrus, Demagorgon), before Psionics.
Monks came along with Assassins. (They were being play tested before that).

Our first ever group (which started in 1975) had a guy who played one, but IIRC it wasn't his first ever character. Even Blackmoor monks were quirky, but now and again that stun was an encounter decider.

I don't think it's far to say because something wasn't in the first editions of the game it's not a tradition. if we go by the logic the only tradition on the list would be clerics and the 6 stats as those are the only thing ever edition shares.


Traditions are not bad because they're traditions or "old." For example our group has some jokes that just never die, kinda like the BBEG. Tradition, but not bad.



I don't think it's "martial vs magic," I think that's more of a forum thing (looking at it as a competition). Or did you just mean that you have to choose between one or the other?

Martials and "attack action" -- remember, there didn't used to be "actions." Traditionally, it was more like, "OK, now we're on a 12, what do you do, Thorfin?"

Dnd also has the traditional concept of class.

whether magic items are as important as levels is campaign-dependent, but I guess you do usually need at least a minimum of things (like a magic weapon or two). But isn't that part of the fun? gaining those things?

I am just putting everything people post on the list.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't think it's far to say because something wasn't in the first editions of the game it's not a tradition. That was my point. I was responding to the challenge to monks stunning with a punch as a tradition and the basis for the challenge was "it was in a supplement."
I suspect you and I are in something like violent agreement. :smallsmile:

[RogueJK]

Magic Missile and its unerring accuracy has been in there since practically the beginning

[CapnWildefyr]

I am just putting everything people post on the list.

Then we better add mountain dew, cokes, and lots of doritos!

[Catullus64]

A big table of mostly interchangeable weapons and armors.

Massive inflation of the Gold Piece.

Sleep offers no saving throw, but affects Hit Points' worth of creatures.

Fireball deals more damage than it rightly should.

The words "Roll for initiative" and "You don't find any traps."

Spell slots.

Rogues are annoying, evading bastards.

Longswords are 1-handed weapons, light armor is leather, and you can use a Rapier or Longbow without any Strength. (die mad, HEMA nerds!).

Racial ability score modifiers (wouldn't have thought I cared about that, but suddenly it turns out I do.)

[Man_Over_Game]

Traditions are not bad because they're traditions or "old." For example our group has some jokes that just never die, kinda like the BBEG. Tradition, but not bad.



I don't think it's "martial vs magic," I think that's more of a forum thing (looking at it as a competition). Or did you just mean that you have to choose between one or the other?

Yep, that's what I meant. Spells and weapons don't naturally mix, except as buffs cast by someone else, which is kinda how DnD has always been. There aren't many instances of someone casting spells in melee, nor many instances of someone deftly buffing themselves in combat, in most versions of DnD.

[KorvinStarmast]

Then we better add mountain dew, cokes, and lots of doritos! Pizza. Gotta have pizza.

Magic Missile and its unerring accuracy has been in there since practically the beginning With the exception of Holmes basic that required an attack roll. :smalleek:

[stoutstien]

All issues can the party faces can be addressed by violence.

[JackPhoenix]

Massive inflation of the Gold Piece

Given the prices are static, there's no inflation.


Sleep offers no saving throw, but affects Hit Points' worth of creatures.

Only in 5e. It has saves in 3e and 4e, and works on HD, not HP.


Fireball deals more damage than it rightly should.

Only in 5e.


Spell slots.

Not in 4e. But that one's not D&D, so it doesn't count anyway.

[Amdy_vill]

All issues can the party faces can be addressed by violence.

this is something I have always found weird. 5e is the only edition where talking down your enemies is a core pillar but 5es core gameplay pillars outside of combat are bad. every other editions core gameplay pillars are just get better at combat.

[JackPhoenix]

this is something I have always found weird. 5e is the only edition where talking down your enemies is a core pillar but 5es core gameplay pillars outside of combat are bad. every other editions core gameplay pillars are just get better at combat.

Maybe because no other edition mentions "core gameplay pillars". Solving encounters in non-combat manner was present since forever. Whether it's awarding XP based on gold gained instead of enemies fought, reaction checks or social skills.

[noob]

this is something I have always found weird. 5e is the only edition where talking down your enemies is a core pillar but 5es core gameplay pillars outside of combat are bad. every other editions core gameplay pillars are just get better at combat.

In dnd 3.5 defeating monsters grants no xp.
What gives xp is triumphing over the encounters.
So if you got stunned by monsters and captured and that it got you closer to the relict you needed to destroy to save the world then destroy it then you actually had won the encounter with the monsters (by successfully convincing them to bring your team closer to the artefact through taking a beat down).
Meanwhile that you would try to search for the relict to destroy by killing thousands of people at random then you would get no xp no matter how tough those people are if it does not actually participates in the adventure.

[Amdy_vill]

Maybe because no other edition mentions "core gameplay pillars". Solving encounters in non-combat manner was present since forever. Whether it's awarding XP based on gold gained instead of enemies fought, reaction checks or social skills.

Core gameplay pillars or gameplay loops are the major systems the game is built around. like how 1e and 2e are built around their keep and faction systems, or how odnd had the single gameplay loop of steal gold to get XP. you can always do things outside of these gameplay loops but saying that are an important part of the game is ignoring how the game is built.


In dnd 3.5 defeating monsters grants no xp.
What gives xp is triumphing over the encounters.
So if you got stunned by monsters and captured and that it got you closer to the relict you needed to destroy to save the world then destroy it then you actually had won the encounter with the monsters (by successfully convincing them to bring your team closer to the artefact through taking a beat down).
Meanwhile that you would try to search for the relict to destroy by killing thousands of people at random then you would get no xp no matter how tough those people are if it does not actually participates in the adventure.

this is important but it's not a core gameplay loop. well, it is just the core gameplay loop of XP witch has options like combat magic and this. but its not socail interactions as a core gameplay loop its self. its like the odnd example about.

[JackPhoenix]

Core gameplay pillars or gameplay loops are the major systems the game is built around. like how 1e and 2e are built around their keep and faction systems, or how odnd had the single gameplay loop of steal gold to get XP. you can always do things outside of these gameplay loops but saying that are an important part of the game is ignoring how the game is built.

That assumes the amount of rules required for something is equal with how important that thing is to the game. That's false equivalence.

[Amdy_vill]

That assumes the amount of rules required for something is equal with how important that thing is to the game. That's false equivalence.

I would agree if most of these editions had any rules on social interactions 3e the first time social interactions got any support tho it lacks any systems outside of shopping and some cool feats that are used in combat. I wish intimidation feats and class features made a comeback.

[JackPhoenix]

I would agree if most of these editions had any rules on social interactions 3e the first time social interactions got any support tho it lacks any systems outside of shopping and some cool feats that are used in combat. I wish intimidation feats and class features made a comeback.

That's because older editions relied on player skill outside combat, not just pressing a button looking up a rule and rolling a dice. Tomb of Horrors and why it doesn't work in modern editions (it's other flaws aside) is a nice demonstration. Instead of "I roll Search/Investigate/whatever to figure out how the green devil face works", you were supposed to figure it out yourself by poking at it (and propably losing a hand or a bunch of henchmen in the process) or trying random **** until something works. Not saying it was better or worse, but there's a difference in design philosophy that has nothing to do with how much the game expects to solve everything with combat. Older editions expected you to go with more Combat as War mindset, as compared to newer Combat as Sport one. 5e's approach fits somewhere between the obsession with needing a rule for everything from 3e and 4e, and "anything goes" style of older editions.

[Amdy_vill]

That's because older editions relied on player skill outside combat, not just pressing a button looking up a rule and rolling a dice. Tomb of Horrors and why it doesn't work in modern editions (it's other flaws aside) is a nice demonstration. Instead of "I roll Search/Investigate/whatever to figure out how the green devil face works", you were supposed to figure it out yourself by poking at it (and propably losing a hand or a bunch of henchmen in the process) or trying random **** until something works. Not saying it was better or worse, but there's a difference in design philosophy that has nothing to do with how much the game expects to solve everything with combat. Older editions expected you to go with more Combat as War mindset, as compared to newer Combat as Sport one. 5e's approach fits somewhere between the obsession with needing a rule for everything from 3e and 4e, and "anything goes" style of older editions.

First off apeling to the Rules Of The Gaps doesn't help anyone. by this logic, I can say Warhammer is a game about RP.

Second, the tomb of horrors doesn't work in the new edition's note because of how it engaged with older ideas of out-of-combat interaction but because it's full of red herrings there are repeat traps the do the exact opposed to what their earlier version did. it's bad because it was intentionally made to never give any information to the players. everything the early levels of the tomb teach you gets thrown back at you but does something different now. tomb of horrors was bad then and now.

thrid, dnd has been criticized for not having social-focused gameplay for decades since games like world of darkness came out. I don't know where this retroactive idea came from. this doesn't mean you can have social encounters and fun social and RP experiences at the table. some of the best stories and RP I have ever seen have been at Warhammer tables. It does mean that it's disingenuous to say those games are about RP and social interaction.

fourth you don't need rules or roles for social interactions to be a core part of a game. your game does need to acknowledge and discuss that idea tho. the best example I can give is Chronicles of darkness a game built around Social interaction as its core gameplay loop. a game that also has almost no rules for social interactions as well. the rules that do exists are for a play that wants to play a very specialized type of social interaction, predy much a set of rules for dramatic debates or eloquent insults.

Game achieve this not by having rules but by baking RP and social interactions into who you learn the game, chapters discussing RP and playing into and against type gm note about how to set up social interactions and improv them on the fly. all things and has been criticized for not having. something being core to a game is about what's their not what's possible, and dnd has lacked any advice on making it a social game for decades, and what 5e gives is honestly bad given how gamified it is.

[Man_Over_Game]

something being core to a game is about what's their not what's possible, and dnd has lacked any advice on making it a social game for decades, and what 5e gives is honestly bad given how gamified it is.

That's how I've always felt about it. Charisma is probably the best stat in the game, for the sake of skills and other non-combat stuff.

The reason it's so good is because it's use is so open-ended, you don't really need rules or a DM to leverage it as a solution without making the game feel worse ('No, you can't use a Charisma Check to convince them, because I think that's unfair').

The opposite is not true of things like Intelligence or Strength checks.

So all that empty design space that doesn't cover what to do when the rules don't matter really only adds more value to the stuff that's allowed to use it (Charisma, Wisdom).

[EggKookoo]

I forgot one tradition:

The DM is always right. :smallcool:

Back in the day we decided we didn't like how the GM was running things. After explaining to him our position without success, we simply ousted him and installed a new one. He wasn't right.

But technically this isn't a refutation of your point because it was Call of Cthulhu, not D&D.

[Amdy_vill]

That's how I've always felt about it. Charisma is probably the best stat in the game, for the sake of skills and other non-combat stuff.

The reason it's so good is because it's use is so open-ended, you don't really need rules or a DM to leverage it as a solution without making the game feel worse ('No, you can't use a Charisma Check to convince them, because I think that's unfair').

The opposite is not true of things like Intelligence or Strength checks.

but there is nothing there no encouragement no statement that it's a big part of the game, games where it is core spend chapters in both their player's books and gm books talking about how it is important and a big part of the game. 5e has 4 pages in the DMg and 2 paragraphs per race and class.

you can say it's their but attention is never brought to it and the game is built around combat being the option, all rules are talked about from the perspective of combat. yes, it's there but its their in the same way storytelling and RP are there for Warhammer its not part of the game it's something you and your table have chosen to impose on the game.

5e is better than previous editions in the sense that it has something, but what it has is a 4-page minigame that a handful of spells reference and one class feature. It's not the core part of the gameplay the everything is built around. It's a minigame hidden away in the DMG most people don't know about.

compare this to games built around it like Chronicles of darkness, outside of the wall of merits in the middle of the books, every page is talking about things in terms of RP, storytelling, and social interaction. combat is a big part of CoD but it's not how the game talks about play. the books talk about the game in terms of RP. one of the newest books contagion cronicals is all about how to run tables with different types of monsters. this book has nearly no rules in it and what rules are there are about how the DM runs the new BBEG introduced in the book. a book for cross-play rules was one of the high-end stretch goals. this is what games that are about storytelling look like compared to games where you can tell stories.

There are also games that strike a balance between this emphasizing both combat and social, LotFR thos it still has a rules-heavy social system does this talking about everything in terms of a choice between combat and social.

[Man_Over_Game]

but ...

I'm just saying I agree.

You want your book to detail the stuff that's most important, and about 20% of the player content in the books is about talking, but there's not much detail on the subject itself. Not even something as simple as the Charmed condition outside of a combat scenario is covered.

That worked fine with an open-ended system like ADND, where you didn't need rigid rules. 3.5 did it fine by basically explaining everything with mechanics. 4e did it fine by not talking about it, because it wasn't important.

5e's mistake was trying to go back to its ADND roots and forgot why it worked in the first place. It tried to add rigid 4e combat rules with open-ended ADND creativity, and didn't explain how to blend the two. Even the mechanic that was supposed to help this (Inspiration) is forgotten by most players.

Anyway, this is a bit of a long and depressing tangent. How about them Mimics, are they annoying or what?

[Kurt Kurageous]

Then we better add mountain dew, cokes, and lots of doritos!

Late nights and basements...

[KorvinStarmast]

Back in the day we decided we didn't like how the GM was running things. After explaining to him our position without success, we simply ousted him and installed a new one. He wasn't right. What you did is "the King is dead, long live the {new} King" , so as soon as he wasn't DM he wasn't right.
(Which is of course the corralary to "the DM is always right" - if nobody shows up in your game world, how right you are is moot, and, now that someone else is the DM that someone else is always right until ... the King is dead, long live the {new} King happens again.

The Who did a fine song about this cycle (Won't Get Fooled Again). The closing words are "Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss" - which is where DMing parts from the Who's illustrative lyrics.

[Tanarii]

The DM asking Are you sure?

[NecessaryWeevil]

I wonder if a consensus on the operational definition of "tradition" would be possible and helpful.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wonder if a consensus on the operational definition of "tradition" would be possible and helpful. This is why we can't have nice things. :smallwink: "We haven't resolved the definitions" is a fine way to kill a conversation and start an argument. (In my experience)

[stoutstien]

This is why we can't have nice things. :smallwink: "We haven't resolved the definitions" is a fine way to kill a conversation and start an argument. (In my experience)
If anything the ever living pedantic conversation over verbiage is very much a d&d tradition.

[KorvinStarmast]

If anything the ever living pedantic conversation over verbiage is very much a d&d tradition.
*snort* OK, yeah, that's fair.
Wait, is that an attack, an Attack, a melee attack, a melee weapon attack? What? :smallcool:

[CapnWildefyr]

This is why we can't have nice things. :smallwink: "We haven't resolved the definitions" is a fine way to kill a conversation and start an argument. (In my experience)

Which brings us to:
Pointless and semi-pointless arguments that last what seems like hours (while the rest of the players roll their eyes) and that seem so real at the time, until someone realizes they missed a sentence in the rules, or whatever... yeah, that can be tradition too. :smallbiggrin:

[Catullus64]

In terms of sheer familiarity and persistence, one of the most time-honored D&D traditions for me is not playing D&D on D&D night, because Ben has to write his big paper, and Jane forgot and picked up an extra shift at work, and Alan couldn't find a babysitter and...

[Imbalance]

Kickass miniatures and terrain.

[KorvinStarmast]

In terms of sheer familiarity and persistence, one of the most time-honored D&D traditions for me is not playing D&D on D&D night, because Ben has to write his big paper, and Jane forgot and picked up an extra shift at work, and Alan couldn't find a babysitter and... Yeah, the scheduling DC is about a 35 sometimes ..

Kickass miniatures and terrain. How could I forget this (with my 1000 miniatures ... ) Well Played!

[Xervous]

Fighters not being allowed to have nice things or the anime accusations fly. (The fighter may also fly, but if it’s not a magic item or the wizard it’s clearly anime).

[quinron]

Back in the day we decided we didn't like how the GM was running things. After explaining to him our position without success, we simply ousted him and installed a new one. He wasn't right.

But technically this isn't a refutation of your point because it was Call of Cthulhu, not D&D.

If the GM stops being the GM when he stops being right, the original statement is still technically correct - the best kind of correct.

[Democratus]

Three core books: Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual

[benchcoat]

Traditions

Druids are hippies.(Joke?)
[/QUOTE]

My 1e experience back in the day means I still see Druids as VERY aggressive, angry hippies, Poison Ivy types, engaging in bitter personal combats to advance at the higher levels.

[KorvinStarmast]

My 1e experience back in the day means I still see Druids as VERY aggressive, angry hippies, Poison Ivy types, engaging in bitter personal combats to advance at the higher levels. our PC druids tended to be more like flower children, but we had one AD&D DM who made the BBEG (the final reveal shocked us) be a druid/ecoterrorist. IIRC, five PCs died as we ground through that campaign to discover that, in the,end we were fighting a druid who hated settlements/towns/villages/cities and technology. You might call that a subversion of expectations.

[stoutstien]

Three core books: Players Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Monster Manual

Pathfinder 2nd edition rolled them all into one frankly well put together book. Even has intuitive indexing.

[Democratus]

Pathfinder 2nd edition rolled them all into one frankly well put together book. Even has intuitive indexing.

Yep. That's why it is a D&D tradition, and this is one way that Pathfinder broke away.

I'm looking forward to my first Pathfinder 2e game. :)

[Xervous]

Yep. That's why it is a D&D tradition, and this is one way that Pathfinder broke away.

I'm looking forward to my first Pathfinder 2e game. :)

I’ll restate my warning that Paizo only knows how to add 0.25. PF2 as I understand it is a 4e treadmill where damage is the only show in town for combat and your advancement choices are not so infrequently between ribbons and actual features. Oh and the shield rules are utterly bizarre for how simple the rest of the system is. I’d like to hear more about what people find exciting in it because the last testimonial I encountered was simply illogical.

[Amdy_vill]

I’ll restate my warning that Paizo only knows how to add 0.25. PF2 as I understand it is a 4e treadmill where damage is the only show in town for combat and your advancement choices are not so infrequently between ribbons and actual features. Oh and the shield rules are utterly bizarre for how simple the rest of the system is. I’d like to hear more about what people find exciting in it because the last testimonial I encountered was simply illogical.

PF 2e is a lot closer to 5e than 4e, It does have some of the same problems 4e had, mostly a focus on action loops but 5e also has that problem tho to a lesser extent given its action system. Paizo as a company should not be boiled down to stealing ideas and slightly improving them, they have made many innovations in TTRPG tho most of these have been abanded by Paizo and have found their footing in other systems. I feel this is mostly because pathfinder is a game in the dnd traditions. Paizo has its problems but most of them are the same as wotc just with how bad each problem is being switched around.

[Bardon]

As someone who started back in 75 with the brown boxed set, I'd say the oldest and most hallowed tradition of DnD is "Pizza & Beer at every game and the DM doesn't pay". :smallbiggrin:

[TyGuy]

In terms of sheer familiarity and persistence, one of the most time-honored D&D traditions for me is not playing D&D on D&D night, because Ben has to write his big paper, and Jane forgot and picked up an extra shift at work, and Alan couldn't find a babysitter and...
Beat me to it. THIS is the THE d&d tradition. A group of people expressing enthusiasm to play without the commitment to back it up.

Another tradition I can think of is the 15 min planning session, sometimes with arguments sometimes without. All so the agreed upon plan can be thrown out the window immediately when it's go time.

[MeimuHakurei]

Martials being forced to sit in a corner and wait while the spellcasting classes do all the work.

Many will deny it, but I'm fully convinced that this is what people want when they say they want something that "feels like D&D"

[JackPhoenix]

Pathfinder 2nd edition rolled them all into one frankly well put together book. Even has intuitive indexing.

Most RPGs do, either because there's not enough content to require 3 books, or because they can't afford to take the risk of trying to sell 3 books just so you can start with a system instead of putting everyhing into one.

[stoutstien]

Most RPGs do, either because there's not enough content to require 3 books, or because they can't afford to take the risk of trying to sell 3 books just so you can start with a system instead of putting everyhing into one.

Aye. I think it was 2E that started the 3 core book concept for DnD.

[Tanarii]

Aye. I think it was 2E that started the 3 core book concept for DnD.
AD&D 1e did it.

Technically, the LBBs did it. They are player rules, monster&treasure rules, and running adventure rules. So slightly different content, since treasure was combined with monsters.

[Naanomi]

I'd suggest the tradition of being set in a complex cosmology... It isn't always the Great Wheel per se, but even when it isn't it is just replaced by something pretty large and complicated

[Tanarii]

In terms of sheer familiarity and persistence, one of the most time-honored D&D traditions for me is not playing D&D on D&D night, because Ben has to write his big paper, and Jane forgot and picked up an extra shift at work, and Alan couldn't find a babysitter and...


Yeah, the scheduling DC is about a 35 sometimes ..


Beat me to it. THIS is the THE d&d tradition. A group of people expressing enthusiasm to play without the commitment to back it up.
Oh definitely. I won't run "home games" any more, because of single-group-of-player campaigns falling apart from lack of attendance for 2 sessions in a row. It's inevitable, and seems to happen no later than the end of month 2 or so of weekly games.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh definitely. I won't run "home games" any more, because of single-group-of-player campaigns falling apart from lack of attendance for 2 sessions in a row. It's inevitable, and seems to happen no later than the end of month 2 or so of weekly games.

I guess I'm non traditional. The home games I've run have had much more regular attendance than the school club or FLGS/open table ones I've run.

As for traditions...meh. I started with 4e for the tabletop, then switched to 5e. I'd played 2e-3e through the crpgs, but that's different. So tradition doesn't mean much to me. In fact, "but in X edition" arguments that are appeals to tradition fall flat and often are counterproductive for convincing me. The past is dead, let it lie. We can learn from the past, but we are not bound to it.

[Tanarii]

I guess I'm non traditional. The home games I've run have had much more regular attendance than the school club or FLGS/open table ones I've run.
You're saying you get better attendance from a single party, than you do from an open table?

Hey, I guess miracles can happen! :smallamused:

[loki_ragnarock]

Whelp, okay:

Experience Points and Levels - If there isn't progression, it's not D&D. A points based system, that's not D&D. D&D has levels, D&D has experience points.
STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA - These are the stats, as handed down to us on a tablet from Gygax. Other stats are other games.
Fighters, Wizards, Clerics - These are the classes. They have history. If they aren't there, it's not D&D.
Elves, Dwarves, HobbitsHalflings: If they aren't there, it ain't D&D. They can be pretty warped (thanks, Darksun), they can be classes (thanks the far past)! But if they're absent it means it's a different game.
Saving Throws - Oh, man. How they've morphed! But they're still there.
Magic Swords, Magic Rings, Magic Musical Things - Loot, loot, lute!
Dungeons, Dragons - It's in the name.
Just a metric buttload of specific monsters - No beholders? Not D&D. No Flumphs? Not D&D. No Otyughs? Not D&D.

A specific individual table doesn't really need to have any of those things, but the larger game? All those are musts.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're saying you get better attendance from a single party, than you do from an open table?

Hey, I guess miracles can happen! :smallamused:

My current group has really only missed pre-scheduled dates. A couple people dropped early on (session 1, 2), but since then it's been solid. My home game before that was basically constant.

The open table I was part of had widely fluctuating attendance, which made coherence a big issue. And the school club games... Yeah. Teenagers who aren't on control of their own schedules are hard.

[Tanarii]

The open table I was part of had widely fluctuating attendance, which made coherence a big issue. And the school club games... Yeah. Teenagers who aren't on control of their own schedules are hard.
Oh yeah, you have to design an open table campaign to be an open table campaign. Even if you allow sign ups for specific stuff later on, it has to be possible for people to just drop in for a session.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh yeah, you have to design an open table campaign to be an open table campaign. Even if you allow sign ups for specific stuff later on, it has to be possible for people to just drop in for a session.

Which really cramps my personal style. I don't do grand quests from start to finish, but I do like arcs of 3-5 sessions. Frequently adventuring days take 1.5 sessions.

[Democratus]

You're saying you get better attendance from a single party, than you do from an open table?

Hey, I guess miracles can happen! :smallamused:

This seems like the norm to me. I've had regular home campaigns that went for 5+ years.

A group of close-knit friends will often find a way to make it work - in a way that strangers at a FLGS won't. :smallsmile:

[Necroanswer]

I think you guys missed some low hanging fruit:

Armor class
lots of different dice
d20's for attacks,saves (and skills later on)

[MaxWilson]

I think you guys missed some low hanging fruit:

Armor class
lots of different dice
d20's for attacks,saves (and skills later on)

If two handed swords don't do 3d6 damage to large creatures, it's not D&D.

[noob]

I think you guys missed some low hanging fruit:

Armor class
lots of different dice
d20's for attacks,saves (and skills later on)

Lots of different dice was the case since the first edition.
Early editions had thac0 which is basically ac but described in a different way so saying armor class is a tradition is true.
However there was a lot of saves that were not D20s in early editions and it got more uniform so it is not the oldest tradition either.