Youtube offered yet another medium-read imbecile to the sacrificial alter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FC3RnU1Es
Per usual, no clicking. I'm not going to grant a play-by-play this time, as this guy is exceedingly long winded and plays the YouTube game of making something that would take 3 mins to discuss take 16 mins. Let me hit the Cliff's Notes. During which I will be actively rebutting:
-----
He thinks there has been a problem with D&D since it's inception. This problem is that combat is boring as you just roll damage until someone falls down.
-----
This "problem" exists in WotC versions of D&D far worse than TSR versions, which include OSR versions that are TSR derivitive. Easy explanation: This is just the HP Bloat issue dressed up a different way. Let's look at the toughest Red Dragon that exists in each edition:
Toughest Red Dragon:
OD&D & AD&D Ancient 11HD (8 pts/die) = 88HP
AD&D2E Ancient 23 HD (d8) = 92-93HP (average), 184 HP max
3E: Great Wyrm: 660 HP
5E: Great Wyrm: 870 HP
As there are more tiers in WotC D&D, if I were to be charitable we could build those tiers logically in older editions. In OD&D and AD&D it might go up to 10 points/die meaning 110 HP. In 2E it would go up to 25 HD which would be 100-101 HP (average), max at 200 HP. So yes, not substantially changing results.
So what have we learned? HP bloat has become untenable in the WotC editions, and anyone with an above room-temperature IQ should be able to see it from the above listed differences alone. This is not a unique issue with only Red Dragons, I picked this monster because it's a near-end level boss for each edition and iconically so. This bit of homework if done by the video person would substantively refute his idiotic argument against "all editions" and "50 year mistake" handily, as it's really only a 25 year old mistake, specifically the WotC years.
-----
He nonsensically explains how HD works IE that it's an explanation of how many Dice must Hit a monster before it dies. Like this needs explanation to anyone other than paste-eaters who play 5E.
-----
Got a little more narrative with this note, so no notes on this note.
-----
He explains how combat "feelings" work with a completely horseshit "Emotional Trajectory" chart that may actually explain how paste-eaters who play 5E feel about extended combats.
-----
Some notes here. This sort of thing only exists for people who haven't played D&D long and don't play often. Combat is a procedure, it's not meant to be emotionally gratifying. It can be scary, and it should be tactical, but in the end feeling something emotional out of a combat is relatively antithetical to playing the game.
-----
He says that class features actually make this issue WORSE. Which I can sorta agree with, in so much as it is a problem in WotC D&D variations. Mostly complaining regarding front-loading abilities vs the DM's programmed responses to people front-loading their abilities.
-----
I think more of a problem with all the front-loaded abilities and DM's having programmed responses is that the game can then play itself and no longer requires players. Making decisions is the player's portion of the game. The game system's portion is seeing how those decisions shake out.
-----
He thinks this was worse back in the OD&D days because all weapons did a d6 damage and monster had random HP.
-----
As I explained earlier, HPs were quite a bit lesser then. The math actually worked out in OD&D because one hit was meant to be one killing hit, and a hit die was meant to be a quantification of how many killing hits a monster could take before dying. In many ways this absolves OD&D. You know exactly what you're getting into when you set most monsters down on the table, other than a Dragon as they had special HP rules. Most monsters it was "this is roughly how many hits I have to do/how long I have to focus on this one monster" represented in one number. Owlbears were 5 HD +2 HP (~17-18HP), meaning it would take 5-6 good swings (and even more bad swings) to kill it. Nowadays with all the multi-attacks and damage multipliers and etc all of this nuance has been lost. That's why your current Owlbear has 59 HP. Who knows if it will take four rounds of combat to kill it or just one? It's all dependent on action economy and player resources/builds. That's why D&D has devolved into a trash game. HP Bloat issue is a microcosm of the entire system falling on it's face.
-----
He thinks the early D&D "solutions" for this "problem" were that DMs circumvented the rules and fudged, killing monsters early etc.
-----
The early edition solutions were actually to have HP be high enough to make fights interesting and low enough to keep them from going on forever. Monsters had defined rules and were stuck to. Fudging is considered a faux pas.
-----
He then mistakenly says that OD&D evolved into AD&D, then AD&D2E, then 3E, completely dismissing the Basic branch of the game in spite of showing OSE immediately beforehand.
-----
This is when I know I would be making this blog post. If you're going to talk about the history of D&D, at least have an inkling as to the overarching elements of it. This screams that this dude wanted to make this video then just looked for what fit his narrative, like some other baby dick youtubers I know.
-----
He thinks there is a debate over whether D&D should be "wargame like" or "cinematic epic"
-----
There's no debate. The game began as a wargame hybrid, and only as of 4E really took heavy steps toward "cinematic epic" or whatever gay ass shit he's talking about.
-----
He argues that most D&D players want to see cinematic epic combat.
-----
I argue that most D&D players aren't D&D players anymore. They're fucking zoomer theater kids with blue hair and daddy issues. Lots of daddy issues. And as a part of their pathetic identity they attach the activity that they believe is playing D&D but is actually group therapy with heavy emphasis on the letters G, A, and Y.
-----
He then argues that D&D DMs use a 3-act structure or some japanese shit to achieve a "cinematic epic" combat.
-----
Because I don't know anything about this I have no reason or recourse to discuss it. It's a problem that doesn't exist in the games I play and therefore these solutions are unnecessary. Or, for a counterpoint, see my post on virtualized realism, which is still my GM method and rather impossible with the newer editions due to, among other things, rampant HP bloat and the PCs generally considered protagonists and the GM to have "narrative", "plots", "story", etc.
-----
He explains some other dumb ass shit that 13th Age and his own trash game uses to "fix" this "problem"
-----
No comment. I don't see the problem and therefore don't care about these "solutions".
-----
He thinks 4E tried to fix this with the "bloodied" condition.
-----
Thinking 4E did anything worthwhile is a HUGE "noob" sign on any person's back. I bet the GDP of Bolivia that that this video person began his D&D journey with 5E and has MAYBE looked at 4E and 3E but definitely not played them or any previous editions.
-----
Lastly he has a rebuttal for the argument that D&D was intended to be a wargame - the lack of a retreat rule. There's also no rule for how long a PC should dungeon delve before turning back and resting.
-----
So this gentleman is such a lame-brain that he doesn't recognize the 'player skill' aspect of roleplaying. That being, understanding when your resources are depleted and hence when you should leave the dungeon. Retreat is even more spurious, as the games do indeed include rules on movement. A better subject than "retreat" would be that the games don't include rules on how to lose pursuers. But since we have rules of monster behavior, morale, movement rate, and encounter reaction I would say in a cross-section of these and the general purpose of the encounter itself you'll find your answer. If undead are guarding a tomb, they won't leave it. If PCs run toward town, goblins won't pursue because they don't want to tangle with watchmen. Etc. Use your head for something other than a hat rack. To quote Molly Ringwald, stop being such a dumbass.
The over gamification of modern D&D is the culprit here, behind the entire video and this modern era of brainless, character-sheet-first RPG-esque group therapy sessions. The worst part is, this idiot think's he's smart and is confidently regurgitating garbage and proliferating an anti-intelligent, self-indulgent, and I'd even say harmful way to play and run games. Not in the "triggering" sense, in the sense that weakens spirit and pushes delusion as reality.
And that wouldn't be so bad, but it's also directly in opposition to the actual fun of playing D&D. Problem solving, risk/reward, turning nobody into somebody, and withstanding adversity. None of these functionally exist in the modern game, and it's people asking about a "retreat mechanic" while spooning paste into their mouths that is the problem. These same shitbirds think that having the GM on the player's side and carefully nudging them toward success isn't super obvious and patronizing.
You do indeed get what you fucking deserve. Have fun with narcissistic players and simp DMs you modern playing twats. Have fun with your three act structure and lame attempt to use mechanics to fix a people problem.
