Quote from: tuypo1;806643on this matter ive got to agree with Arohtar im pretty sure most people refer to becmi as od&d and the original red box as the red box but maybe thats just me

Then how do you refer to actual OD&D?

Quote from: Arohtar;806632I will accept a change to spectres. I WANT a change to spectres because the raw version is too powerful. I still think my criticism of the raw spectre is valid though.

No, it is not goalpost shifting, because my goal right now is to explain why my "If I was a dragon, I would like to kill..." comment does not mean that I as as person want to kill (as tuypo1 claimed). And the reason is that I was thinking of an evil dragon which is the kind I prefer.

The fact that my comment implicitly referred to an evil dragon, does not imply that the raw spectre is not too powerful.

If I claimed that some inconsistency was not there "because I only consider evil dragons", I would agree with you, but right now we are (sadly) not discussing the real subject (inconsistencies, implausibilities in the game), only whether I need mental treatment.

OK, thats a fair enough point.

Gygax answer all of your question in his initial introduction.

QuoteThese rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!

In short the answer to your questions are your to answer. If you feel that a world with spectres will led to a world with nothing but spectres then omit them. Or make it the central theme of your campaign.

Understand my answer are not THE answer. They are just a answer a way to make what you call flaws plausible in a setting.

Quote from: Arohtar;8065581) In D&D (the Expert Rules) a spectre can only be hit by magical weapons, it is close to invisible, it can fly faster than a running horse, it can kill any normal human with a single touch (double energy drain) and the victims rise the next night as new spectres. Since the spectres are presumably evil monsters that would love to kill as many humans as possible, I find it totally inconsistent that the fantasy world is not populated by spectres instead of humans. With the stats given, the spectres wconquer the whole world very easily.

Spectres are not the only supernatural entity in a D&D world. Among them are the gods who endow cleric with their power and who are able to perform Divine Intervention.

Quote from: Arohtar;8065582) Why build expensive castles? As soon as the opposition includes high lever magic users, the castle offers no protection. Its walls can be circumvented with fly, invisibility and teleport, and its garrison can easily be wiped out with fire balls (if not possible in a single day, kill a few soldiers every day with a fire balls and keep going until they are all dead). In a world with such powerful assassins I see hiding as the only possible defense. Sitting on a throne in a castle is being a sitting duck to any magic user. As soon as his whereabouts are known, a fighter is of course easy prey to any magic user who knows 'fly' and 'fire ball'.

Men are cheap, magic-users are not. Magic-users are a scholarly profession who need to eat, sleep, and be clothed while learning to cast their first 1st level spell. Even with no other special reason this fact along will make magic-users rare in the medieval economy of D&D.

Even powerful magic-users need to sleep, eat, and rest. Powerful magic users have other interests than their spells. But that not reason why you don't see wizards going around knocking down castles. It because the moment they decide to rule that is their focus. The moment the rod of rulership is taken up what time they have to study and advance in their art?

A distracted magic-user will lag behind his rivals who do spend their time studying and eventually become vulnerable to their power. Plus since mages are people and by and large do not want to live in rat race likely they have figured out how to use mundane law, society, and custom so they can live in peace to pursue what they really find interesting.

And because these issues doesn't change the fact at horde of goons can formed to take your shit. There is still a need for castles.

Quote from: Arohtar;8065583) Why do humans behave as if they are on top of the food chain if they are not? In a world with dragons humans would be animals of prey, living underground as mice, only coming out at night.

I would say nothing in the D&D roster is on the top of the food chain unless perhaps the tarrasque but even that is more something that is a force of nature. And even a tarrasque has a weakness. And that the  key just about everything bad has something weak about them. Something that can be turned into its own kyrtonite. Why? because it is a fantasy game steeped in fantasy tropes.

Quote from: Arohtar;8065584) Why does every fantasy world village contain ten farmhouses and an inn? How many people travel through this small village in the hills? How many people live in the village?

Because it not possible, practical or desirable to fully fleshed out every last detail of a entire fantasy world. Tolkien doesn't do it why should Gygax and Arneson be held to a higher standard. The products focus on what interesting to adventurers. And this includes villages with ten farmhouses and an inn.

The other remaining two dozen villages, hamlets, and farms in the area are ignored or only given a line of stats.

Quote from: Arohtar;8065585) Why raise armies? 1000 normal men are insignificant compared to a magic user with fly, invisibility and fire ball. The magic user's ability as an assassin would exert much more military pressure on a decision maker than an army of ridiculous normal men with swords and shields. In other words: the military confrontations that mattered, would be between powerful individuals, not masses of men or goblins. (Everybody knows that goblins are only there for the show, but the men would not matter either).

See the above commentary on magic-users. Mages have better things to do than to try become king of the world.

To wrap this up, your post just show that you are what Gygax said in his intro, a wargamer with no imagination. As such D&D is not the game for you.

Quote from: TristramEvans;806644Then how do you refer to actual OD&D?

i just call it the red box but the more i think about it the more i realise the way i do it is a bit silly

Quote from: Ravenswing;806591Arohtar, I'll give you an answer that someone gave me on TBP a few years back: are you just now realizing that "D&D Fantasy" is its own genre, and that there are many elements that are just plain implausible?

There are castles, not because the economic cost of building them is at all sensible in a world of high magic, but because we're conditioned to think that "medieval" = "castles," and that's what the creators deliver.

There are small hamlets with (Color)(Animal)(Inn Synonym) -- as well as many other trappings of D&D Fantasy -- because we're conditioned to view low-tech settings through the lens of 1940s-1960s Hollywood.

And so on and so forth.  Merrie Olde England, with wizards and dragons bolted on, has been the expected paradigm for the hobby's history, and the traction the trope has is obvious by reason that most groups don't use the Tekumels or Gloranthas as settings.

I agree with this entirely. I think the problem with the original posters whole line of critique is that it assumes realism is a value in it's own right that to which everyone subscribes.

Quote from: estar;806646Gygax answer all of your question in his initial introduction.



In short the answer to your questions are your to answer. If you feel that a world with spectres will led to a world with nothing but spectres then omit them. Or make it the central theme of your campaign.

Understand my answer are not THE answer. They are just a answer a way to make what you call flaws plausible in a setting.




Spectres are not the only supernatural entity in a D&D world. Among them are the gods who endow cleric with their power and who are able to perform Divine Intervention.



Men are cheap, magic-users are not. Magic-users are a scholarly profession who need to eat, sleep, and be clothed while learning to cast their first 1st level spell. Even with no other special reason this fact along will make magic-users rare in the medieval economy of D&D.

Even powerful magic-users need to sleep, eat, and rest. Powerful magic users have other interests than their spells. But that not reason why you don't see wizards going around knocking down castles. It because the moment they decide to rule that is their focus. The moment the rod of rulership is taken up what time they have to study and advance in their art?

A distracted magic-user will lag behind his rivals who do spend their time studying and eventually become vulnerable to their power. Plus since mages are people and by and large do not want to live in rat race likely they have figured out how to use mundane law, society, and custom so they can live in peace to pursue what they really find interesting.

And because these issues doesn't change the fact at horde of goons can formed to take your shit. There is still a need for castles.



I would say nothing in the D&D roster is on the top of the food chain unless perhaps the tarrasque but even that is more something that is a force of nature. And even a tarrasque has a weakness. And that the  key just about everything bad has something weak about them. Something that can be turned into its own kyrtonite. Why? because it is a fantasy game steeped in fantasy tropes.



Because it not possible, practical or desirable to fully fleshed out every last detail of a entire fantasy world. Tolkien doesn't do it why should Gygax and Arneson be held to a higher standard. The products focus on what interesting to adventurers. And this includes villages with ten farmhouses and an inn.

The other remaining two dozen villages, hamlets, and farms in the area are ignored or only given a line of stats.



See the above commentary on magic-users. Mages have better things to do than to try become king of the world.

To wrap this up, your post just show that you are what Gygax said in his intro, a wargamer with no imagination. As such D&D is not the game for you.

I do not think it is fair to dismiss people who want consistency as wargamers with no imagination. You yourself tried to deliver explanations for several of my paradoxes, proving that you do not like inconsistencies yourself. So no, pointing out inconsistencies is not a sign of lack of imagination, only of logical thinking. I agree that it is easier to be imaginative if you do not worry about consistency. Then all kinds of "amazing" events can happen all the time, which might be interesting to a self-absorbed DM who just wants to shove his own story down the throat of the poor "players", but if you want to present a world that intelligent players find it interesting to interact with, you need consistency.

The spectres were only an example (yes, there are more such monsters). I just remembered the spectre as a monster I thought was too powerful. But let us continue with that example. Let's say the characters got experience with spectres - the players essentially learning the contents of the monster desciption. If one of the characters then thought: "Holy shit. These monsters are tough and contagious. What will happen if they reach the nearest village? I am the lord of these lands. It will be a disaster. It is a threat to the whole world". Is the player then a wargamer asshole? Should he instead think: "Oh, never mind. The DM is not going to let that happen. It is not part of the story. These monsters of course only appear in this particular location at this particular time for plot reasons". I think that is boring. I have several times heard people explain away events that were plausible in the game setting with "Ah! That's never going to happen because the DM will not allow it". "Yeah, it seems as the spectres would easily be able to kill the neighboring town, but of course the DM will not let that happen because the DM wants to keep the town as it is". What an explanation.

So when the imagination is not consistent, I think it is cheap imagination, and the object of this thread is to find examples of inconsistencies and laugh at them. My numbered examples were just examples. Please find more and post them. Something you find ridiculous in the game because it should have a consequence that is not there. I can't be the only one that has felt this. Stop being so defensive. Attack! I want to hear some criticism.

I agree about "In short the answer to your questions are your to answer." I know. The object of the thread is to identify more questions that need to be answered.

Whilst the OP is obviously very trollish there is a grain of truth in it Ravenswing's answer is sound, Estar's is also okay but he is presenting his justifications as canon which is a little OTT.

Answers like an army of high level fighters would stop the wizard don't fly because its more key to D&D that most soldiers are low level and high level folk are rare.
Spectres as written could easily take over the world, but so could vampires, phantoms, liches, ghosts etc ... so some setting details like restricting undead to a haunting etc are great ideas.

Dragons can take over cities easily, so the DM needs to decide why they don't. Is it because there is a balance between good and evil dragons? Is it because Dragons can't be arsed to go out killing folk?

Most of this stuff is down to the DM creating a consistent setting. The one thing that D&D didn't do very well was to explain the importance of this. A small amount of thought to establish the setting and its limits can solve all these issues. Early D&D spent relatively little effort on the setting. I guess that is partially commercial, there was a setting that they wanted you to buy. The DM is actually encouraged to allow all the classes, races that are published the idea of creating your own setting and then tailoring the classes, races monsters etc within that isn't really part of the D&D paradigm. I think 5e might be the first core D&D rule set that actually lists some of its races as optional.

Quote from: Arohtar;806657I do not think it is fair to dismiss people who want consistency as wargamers with no imagination. You yourself tried to deliver explanations for several of my paradoxes, proving that you do not like inconsistencies yourself. So no, pointing out inconsistencies is not a sign of lack of imagination, only of logical thinking. I agree that it is easier to be imaginative if you do not worry about consistency. Then all kinds of "amazing" events can happen all the time, which might be interesting to a self-absorbed DM who just wants to shove his own story down the throat of the poor "players", but if you want to present a world that intelligent players find it interesting to interact with, you need consistency.

The spectres were only an example (yes, there are more such monsters). I just remembered the spectre as a monster I thought was too powerful. But let us continue with that example. Let's say the characters got experience with spectres - the players essentially learning the contents of the monster desciption. If one of the characters then thought: "Holy shit. These monsters are tough and contagious. What will happen if they reach the nearest village? I am the lord of these lands. It will be a disaster. It is a threat to the whole world". Is the player then a wargamer asshole? Should he instead think: "Oh, never mind. The DM is not going to let that happen. It is not part of the story. These monsters of course only appear in this particular location at this particular time for plot reasons". I think that is boring. I have several times heard people explain away events that were plausible in the game setting with "Ah! That's never going to happen because the DM will not allow it". "Yeah, it seems as the spectres would easily be able to kill the neighboring town, but of course the DM will not let that happen because the DM wants to keep the town as it is". What an explanation.

So when the imagination is not consistent, I think it is cheap imagination, and the object of this thread is to find examples of inconsistencies and laugh at them. My numbered examples were just examples. Please find more and post them. Something you find ridiculous in the game because it should have a consequence that is not there. I can't be the only one that has felt this. Stop being so defensive. Attack! I want to hear some criticism.

I agree about "In short the answer to your questions are your to answer." I know. The object of the thread is to identify more questions that need to be answered.

if the player decides that the specters are a massive threat he is free to fight against them and he will most likely be successful maybe the gm will then make them a threat but in the end you are acting like things are a bigger threat then they are

Quote from: tuypo1;806665if the player decides that the specters are a massive threat he is free to fight against them and he will most likely be successful maybe the gm will then make them a threat but in the end you are acting like things are a bigger threat then they are

See that is illogical.
If you play Spectres as written and make them desire to take over the world so they become a threat akin to how the OP described them. Then the PCs are basically fucked unless you parachute them in at 13th level or something.
Imagine a zombie movie but replace the Zombies with Spectres.... doing a 2 level power drain on a hit.... hmmm.... you better have a GM supplied anti-spectre McGuffin or hopeless.

Quote from: Arohtar;806585Or why did Frodo and his company not just ask the big eagles to fly over Mount Doom so they could drop the ring into the lava?

That was Gandalf's plan, and what he told them to do, but [strike]Tolkien was being paid by the word[/strike] nobody else had Summon Eagle on their skillbar, and if anyone wanted to learn it they'd have had to restart the entire Epic Raid chain.

Quote from: Arohtar;806585Something like that, yes. Or why did Frodo and his company not just ask the big eagles to fly over Mount Doom so they could drop the ring into the lava?

Tolkien himself provide the answer to that: 1) the Eagles weren't willing to do that and 2) they would have been torn to shreds by the Nazgul's winged beats the moment they got within sight of Mordor.

It was only after the human armies had lured all the badies out of Mordor and Sauron was destroyed that the eagles dared to enter.

Quote from: Arohtar;806605I agree with what you are writing. I did not just discover the implausibility. I has always buggered me. I no longer play, but felt like ranting about it, and I thought it could be fun to collect more examples of implausibilities.

All well and good, but seriously, man, this is the moral equivalent of bitching and moaning that Nazism is a hell of a way to run a government.  I did ranting like that in APAs in the 1970s, and sooner or later you just have to get past it.

Yeah, your laundry list is accurate: those things make no rational sense.  No, I'm not going to join those who attempt to come up with farfetched rationales.  I recommend playing one of the many RPGs and with one of the settings that are far more rooted in verisimilitude, or else house rule/create settings to match your preferences and prejudices.

this might be my foreignness showing but what the fucks an APA

Quote from: tuypo1;806686this might be my foreignness showing but what the fucks an APA

Amateur RPG publications produced, once upon a time, on a mimeograph machine.

Quote from: Arohtar;806617The range of the fire ball is 240', and the maximum range for a long bow is 210', hence the wizard is able to stay above the range of the arrows.

Fly doesn't come with an altimeter, i.e. the wizard won't really be able to skim along just out of range of a bow (or ballista) and just in range of his fireball.

It's been a long time since I played OD&D. Does Invisibility stay active and up while the wizard is attacking? (If so, then Runequest had a nice fix. Invisibility is broken once the magic user attacks.)

Quote from: Arohtar;806657I do not think it is fair to dismiss people who want consistency as wargamers with no imagination. You yourself tried to deliver explanations for several of my paradoxes, proving that you do not like inconsistencies yourself.

Part of D&D strength is that it is filled with fantasy tropes straight out of the stories and movies that inspired Gygax and Arneson. It is not a vision of a single fantasy setting like Tolkien's Middle Earth. It is a mishmash of various elements and tropes. Because it is a mishmash it has the flexibility to implement a wide variety of fantasy settings. An important source of its enduring appeal. But as a mishmash it elements are inconsistent because their sources were not designed together.

What I did to reply to your inconsistencies was IMPLEMENTED D&D with a setting. A setting either omits, amends, or provides explanations for why thing are what they are.

A good example of this is ABC's Once upon a time. Which weaves a variety of Disney's version of Fairy Tale into a single coherent soap opera. It omits, amends, and provides various explanations in its setting to explain why everything from Snow White to Frozen exists in a single setting. Some are added virtually unchanged, Frozen, while other are greatly altered, Beauty and Beast.  

Quote from: Arohtar;806657So no, pointing out inconsistencies is not a sign of lack of imagination, only of logical thinking. I agree that it is easier to be imaginative if you do not worry about consistency. Then all kinds of "amazing" events can happen all the time, which might be interesting to a self-absorbed DM who just wants to shove his own story down the throat of the poor "players", but if you want to present a world that intelligent players find it interesting to interact with, you need consistency.

While consistency in my settings, Majestic Wilderlands, is something I prize. It is just a style. What tabletop roleplaying games are best at are presenting experiences for the players to enjoy. What important is that the experience that the referee is trying to present it is interesting, consistency can help that but it is not a ironclad requirement. Even I have altered elements of the Majestic Wilderlands so that the background of the more recent campaigns are not consistent with the background of the campaign as it was in the 1980s. While I use demographics in designing regions, I gloss over many of the details in play because they are for the most part unplayable. The medieval landscape is dotted with thousands of hamlets and villages and it is not practical to try to list and detail each and every one of them. Even with a single statline. Instead I edit the result into something that feels like if  you were there but still playable.

Consistency may be an important requirement for an individual like yourself. But that is on you, that is your personal requirement, not somebody's else. As a personal preference it is be noted, but it is not deserving of praise or condemnation. I mocked your imagination because you fail to understand that there are other approaches. That this was done either willfully or through ignorance.

Quote from: Arohtar;806657The spectres were only an example..... It is not part of the story. These monsters of course only appear in this particular location at this particular time for plot reasons". I think that is boring.

That fine and obviously you would enjoy a setting with a consistent background for its element. But that not a requirement for other players and referee who run successful campaigns. And for D&D itself it would be a detriment to have such specifics as it would turn it into a set of rules supporting a specific setting with specific ideas. Limiting its general appeal. Instead Gygax took the approach of implementing the spectres as they appear in the sources that inspired them. Leaving it up to the referee to use his knowledge of the sources and use their limitations or to come up with new ones of his own. Or even to ignore it altogether.

Quote from: Arohtar;806657I have several times heard people explain away events that were plausible in the game setting with "Ah! That's never going to happen because the DM will not allow it". "Yeah, it seems as the spectres would easily be able to kill the neighboring town, but of course the DM will not let that happen because the DM wants to keep the town as it is". What an explanation.

I think people who referee D&D campaigns need to think things through as to why the elements they use are there. If just to have cool things to encounter then it is best for the referee to embrace coolness and emphasis that as part of style. There are plenty of experiences that are entertaining but are total nonsense when looked at logically. The best one are the best because their creators embraced the parts of them that are fun.

Quote from: Arohtar;806657I agree about "In short the answer to your questions are your to answer." I know. The object of the thread is to identify more questions that need to be answered.

However you presented them as something as to be mocked rather than something to be explored. And your attitude is condescending to who those who run good campaigns but whose priority isn't consistency.