Plate armor only costs twice as much as leather armor. The insanity of 4e's economics is mind-boggling.
Every day I find something that demands house-ruling back to some semblance of sanity.
Not to say previous versions were going to win any awards, but there was a valid attempt to compromise between playability and realism. 4e doesn't seem to even care.
Just sayin' :(
welcome to digital-game influenced pen & paper
I'm not saying whether the influence is generally good or generally bad, but the effect you mentioned is certainly a side-effect.
Yes, let's begin criticizing WotC on their decisions for how much things cost in a made-up fantasy world created to allow people to sit around a table and slay fairy tale dragons on the weekends.
If you find yourself troubled by the price points of your local fantasy general store's leather armor as compared to their plate armor, you might want to consider not taking a game so seriously. It's a game. The prices are where they're at for balance.
welcome to digital-game influenced pen & paper
I'm not saying whether the influence is generally good or generally bad, but the effect you mentioned is certainly a side-effect.
What? Why in the world would you immediately assume that because they started balancing the price points of equipment appropriately for their utility, that suddenly that means they're being influenced by digital games? It's not evidence of anything more than an interest in creating a mechanically-balanced system, which all games should be striving for.
As an owner of the 4e Core box set, and modules #H-1, H-2, I completely agree. Indeed, it seems as if they've "candified" the entire game to a point where it no longer even *feels* like a real D&D game.
As to how much WOtC cares-look at what they've done to Forgotten Realms-Spellplague!
Demented & Maliciously plotting the doom of PC's since 1978.
teknomancer
It feels exactly like D&D, speaking as someone who's been playing and running it for a few months now.
|
It's not evidence of anything more than an interest in creating a mechanically-balanced system, which all games should be striving for.
That point is entirely debatable. Some people want role first, game second.
But given that plate mail is not as powerful in 4th as in previous edition (for good or ill), your point is valid that this is balancing within the 4th Edition system.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Plate armor only costs twice as much as leather armor. The insanity of 4e's economics is mind-boggling.
Every day I find something that demands house-ruling back to some semblance of sanity.
Not to say previous versions were going to win any awards, but there was a valid attempt to compromise between playability and realism. 4e doesn't seem to even care.
Just sayin' :(
Let me poor you a nice big glass of Kool-Aid. You don't have to drink it, just sit there and listen for a second, but keep in mind, it's right that waiting for you.
I think the complaint you have is that it is ridiculous that plate armor would cost only 2x what leather armor costs given that plate armor in the real world is much more expensive to make. But let's forget the real world for a minute. We live in a world where people wearing no armor whatsoever can be really hard to hit. We live in a world where advanced pre-industrial metalworking technologies exist in the form of magic. We live in a world with an arbitrary and irrational economics system, a world where the invisible hand of the market moves with a mind of its own and is not bound in any way, shape, or form by individual or mass psychology.
Ah yes, the Kool-Aid. It looks tasty, does it not. Have a sip. Consider what I have said. Perhaps the assumptions underlying the complaint are themselves questionable. I'm not saying you have to drink all the Kool-Aid. Just a sip.
Plate armor isn't as good as it's real-world counterpart; leather is better; training trumps them both. Metalworking may be cheaper. I'm not sure it's entirely unreasonable that the prices would be different than in a world like ours.
Hmmm....sugary goodness.
In case there is any doubt, the above is meant in a friendly way. I can see the complaint, but I think it's possible to get comfortable with the pricing without resorting immediately to the argument that the pricing is driven by the needs of the game rather than the need to create an accurate similation. You just need to bend your assumptions a little bit. We've been doing it for a long time now in this game (e.g., why can't my 1st edition wizard ever learn to use a sword?), but there's some new stuff in the edition that's going to require some new flexibility and creativity with regards to realism.
Hence the Kool-Aid.
It's not evidence of anything more than an interest in creating a mechanically-balanced system, which all games should be striving for.That point is entirely debatable. Some people want role first, game second.
If the make-believe pricing of your make-believe armor in your make-believe fantasy world is hindering to you properly role-playing your make-believe character whose purpose in life is to slay make-believe dragons, you're doing it wrong.
This sort of complaining is akin to a DM describing the enemy fortress in detail and then staring agape as Player X begins ranting about how the enemy fortress could never be structurally sound in real life, and how this realization has completely ruined the immersion for him and as a result he doesn't feel like the game is worth playing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It's not evidence of anything more than an interest in creating a mechanically-balanced system, which all games should be striving for.That point is entirely debatable. Some people want role first, game second.If the make-believe pricing of your make-believe armor in your make-believe fantasy world is hindering to you properly role-playing your make believe character whose purpose in life is to slay make-believe dragons, you're doing it wrong.
This sort of complaining is akin to a DM describing the enemy fortress in detail and then staring agape as Player X begins ranting about how the enemy fortress could never be structurally sound in real life, and how this realization has completely ruined the immersion for him and as a result he doesn't feel like the game is worth playing.
You're pissing in the wind, my friend. The basic assumptions underlying your arguments are not accepted here and aren't going to be accepted, no matter how long you argue or how forcefully you present them. You would better serve your cause by ignoring the cheap shots that will be made (constantly) and sticking with the people that are reasonable and willing to engage in a conversation (and I mean that as no slight to Jal Dorak, who is as far as I remember, generally a reasonable person, I'm just not sure you'll get the best side of him with your current approach).
The path you are walking does not lead to vindication; it leads to acrimony and flamewars. It would behoove you to avoid it.
What? Why in the world would you immediately assume that because they started balancing the price points of equipment appropriately for their utility, that suddenly that means they're being influenced by digital games? It's not evidence of anything more than an interest in creating a mechanically-balanced system, which all games should be striving for.welcome to digital-game influenced pen & paper
I'm not saying whether the influence is generally good or generally bad, but the effect you mentioned is certainly a side-effect.
Game balance. Hmmm.
Some people find fun games which are mechanically balanced, whilst others enjoy games which assist them in suspending their disbelief for their style of play, whatever that is. Are the two entirely contradictory? Probably not, but in some cases game designers seem to focus on designing a system which focuses on one entirely (although not necessarily deliberately) at the expense of the other.
I'm having trouble understanding how make-believe price point A in a fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it is better than make-believe price point B in a different fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it. They're both equally arbitrary, except one also happens to follow game balance.
|
I suppose if this was medieval simulation gaming based on historical accuracies (which also can be inaccurate), than I think this take on the 4E system is a valid problem. Also, for those that want to see D&D as a plausible haze between real history and some elements of fantasy, I myself, have a hard time considering 4E.
By the sounds of the "points of light" idea and the many fallen civilizations, I am sure there are places to pick up plenty of souvenirs and sell them, melt them or buy them. Not a fan of that idea, but that one would band-aid the economical bit. If I was playing 4th Edition, I would take the "Humans on the brink of extinction" perspective, but I have said that already. Road warrior D&D.
Cheers,
Zuxius
|
|
I'm having trouble understanding how make-believe price point A in a fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it is better than make-believe price point B in a different fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it. They're both equally arbitrary, except one also happens to follow game balance.
In previous editions, plate mail was special and expensive, and only prestigious warriors could afford it, which fits some peoples models of medieval fantasy.
In 4th Edition, you can afford it at first level, which makes it more commonplace.
And as per Sebastian's comments, I didn't mean for my comment to be snarky by being terse, but I had nothing else relevant to say at the time, I just wanted to point out that invoking "game balance" as a justification is not only one-sided, but a few people here are strongly against it (myself included, but I try to be reasonable about it regardless).
I'm having trouble understanding how make-believe price point A in a fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it is better than make-believe price point B in a different fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it. They're both equally arbitrary, except one also happens to follow game balance.What I held off adding to my previous post, because I saw a long and dark road ahead, was that it is only mechanically balanced with regard to equipping for combat.
Like it or not, there is something resembling an economic system out there, with the prices of trade goods such as animal hides or bars of iron (or they will be released in some later product if they didn't make Core set I), and there will be players who will insist their right to use characters designed to exploit the economically unbalanced items.
No. There is no economic system in D&D. And no, there are no trade goods in the first core set. In fact, I doubt very much that an attempt will ever be made to create an economic system. The game developers have made it very clear that this is D&D, not Run-A-Fantasy-Trading-Cartel. The PCs are supposed to be out slaying dragons and saving maidens, not negotiating the latest price on their shipment of locally-grown apples. DMs should be actively discouraging players from trying to mess with the game's monetary system in any way, and if it becomes a problem the DM's job is to take the player aside and make it clear that everyone is there to adventure, not sit in town while someone tries to squeeze a few gold out of the market.
I'm having trouble understanding how make-believe price point A in a fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it is better than make-believe price point B in a different fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it. They're both equally arbitrary, except one also happens to follow game balance.In previous editions, plate mail was special and expensive, and only prestigious warriors could afford it, which fits some peoples models of medieval fantasy.
In 4th Edition, you can afford it at first level, which makes it more commonplace.
Because in 4th Edition the PCs are already heroes at 1st level. The average commoner still doesn't own jack.
Yes, plate mail can only be afforded by prestigious warriors.
Like the PCs.
|
The PCs are supposed to be out slaying dragons and saving maidens, not negotiating the latest price on their shipment of locally-grown apples.
i am SO glad you have made me see the light! wow, i had NO IDEA i wasn't playing d&d for THIRTY YEARS! thank you!
just out of curiosity, who, exactly, made you arbiter of how ALL PEOPLE should want to play d&d?
just asking...
|
|
No. There is no economic system in D&D. And no, there are no trade goods in the first core set.
actually, there were quite a few trade goods in the 1e core set, and a lot of treasure in 1e was luxury items and trade goods...
you know, people have been playing d&d for a long time, and not everyone played "save the maiden from the dragon". some played "feudal lord making treaties and managing the estate", "thief desiring to run the guild and playing politics and intrigue", "priest trying to convert the masses to banjo the beneficient", whatever...
it is quite presumptuous to think only you know how to play correctly...
The PCs are supposed to be out slaying dragons and saving maidens, not negotiating the latest price on their shipment of locally-grown apples.i am SO glad you have made me see the light! wow, i had NO IDEA i wasn't playing d&d for THIRTY YEARS! thank you!
just out of curiosity, who, exactly, made you arbiter of how ALL PEOPLE should want to play d&d?
just asking...
Calm down. That kind of sarcasm is unacceptable from someone over thirty.
I was simply reiterating what the game's designers have said about their philosophy in creating 4th Edition. D&D's focus has always been on adventuring. Economics was always an afterthought, and was never executed well. On top of that, most players had no interest in playing the market when they could be going out and adventuring instead.
Now, if you are the sort of player who would rather stay in town working on those apple prices instead of playing the hero and adventuring, there are a number of games that aren't D&D that I could recommend to you. Just don't try going out and adventuring in them.
No. There is no economic system in D&D. And no, there are no trade goods in the first core set. In fact, I doubt very much that an attempt will ever be made to create an economic system. The game developers have made it very clear that this is D&D, not Run-A-Fantasy-Trading-Cartel. The PCs are supposed to be out slaying dragons and saving maidens, not negotiating the latest price on their shipment of locally-grown apples. DMs should be actively discouraging players from trying to mess with the game's monetary system in any way, and if it becomes a problem the DM's job is to take the player aside and make it clear that everyone is there to adventure, not sit in town while someone tries to squeeze a few gold out of the market.<Mischievous aside. I recall long and eloquent posts from 4E proponents stating that the game is about not getting in the way of players doing something they considered necessary for fun!>
Except when it creates an un-fun environment for the rest of the group (for instance, when one member of the party decides that playing an evil character to screw with the party would be fun for him). The philosophy is a little more nuanced than you're giving it credit for.
No. There is no economic system in D&D. And no, there are no trade goods in the first core set.actually, there were quite a few trade goods in the 1e core set, and a lot of treasure in 1e was luxury items and trade goods...
you know, people have been playing d&d for a long time, and not everyone played "save the maiden from the dragon". some played "feudal lord making treaties and managing the estate", "thief desiring to run the guild and playing politics and intrigue", "priest trying to convert the masses to banjo the beneficient", whatever...
it is quite presumptuous to think only you know how to play correctly...
That's great for 1st Edition. I was referencing the first core set from 4th Edition.
And every one of the above examples you showed off can be easily handled without a robust economics system that very few games would actually benefit from (and that would sacrifice actual gameplay balance to boot).
Please stay on topic.
Sigh......(has Paizo messageboard flashback from 2005)......sigh......sniff.....
Counterpoint regarding BGII being much more awesome and you are stupid for not admitting it!Meh. Double post.
Mutters things about Baldur's Gate, from Black Isle.
Tangent about how playing BG1 and BG2 back-to-back in the same engine is the only real way to play the game. ;p
Ummm, I'm not sure it interferes with the fun of the rest of the party when one PC comes up with an 'armour recycling scheme' abusing the prices via whatever method is applicable, and shares the loot around his fellow PCs, meaning they all get to soup up their gear above their level.Except when it creates an un-fun environment for the rest of the group (for instance, when one member of the party decides that playing an evil character to screw with the party would be fun for him). The philosophy is a little more nuanced than you're giving it credit for.No. There is no economic system in D&D. And no, there are no trade goods in the first core set. In fact, I doubt very much that an attempt will ever be made to create an economic system. The game developers have made it very clear that this is D&D, not Run-A-Fantasy-Trading-Cartel. The PCs are supposed to be out slaying dragons and saving maidens, not negotiating the latest price on their shipment of locally-grown apples. DMs should be actively discouraging players from trying to mess with the game's monetary system in any way, and if it becomes a problem the DM's job is to take the player aside and make it clear that everyone is there to adventure, not sit in town while someone tries to squeeze a few gold out of the market.<Mischievous aside. I recall long and eloquent posts from 4E proponents stating that the game is about not getting in the way of players doing something they considered necessary for fun!>
Not only does it disrupt game balance and make it more difficult for the DM to design appropriately challenging encounters, but it also forces the DM to pause the game in order to deal with something that a single player is doing. It's happened in games I've played in before, in fact. It's not all that fun to sit there and wait for it to be resolved and goes a long way towards killing the momentum of a game. All of these are things to be avoided.
|
|
I was simply reiterating what the game's designers have said about their philosophy in creating 4th Edition. D&D's focus has always been on adventuring. Economics was always an afterthought, and was never executed well. On top of that, most players had no interest in playing the market when they could be going out and adventuring instead.
Now, if you are the sort of player who would rather stay in town working on those apple prices instead of playing the hero and adventuring, there are a number of games that aren't D&D that I could recommend to you. Just don't try going out and adventuring in them.
my original post in this thread was eaten, but in it i pointed out that a lot of the "you're doing it wrong" bs is why we're having all the problems in the first place, like the annoying frenchie telling me i havent been having fun for thirty years. the balance of that post was a plea for everyone to get over the edition wars crap.
however, i did take umbrage with your general tone of "anyone who doesn't want to just slay dragons" isn't playing d&d right.
the last serious campaign i ran started out with adventuring, and morphed into the players having "real" responsibilities, playing politics, manipulating economies for world shaping reasons, all within the context of a d&d game. and it was FUN. players would call me at all hours with plots to manipulate the price of rantian wheat to undermine the commish territorial ambitions on henecia. or plots to discredit the scion of a particular noble house to ice a planned wedding that would strengthen the alliance between two noble houses who were rivals to the pc's family.
there are as many different styles as there are gaming groups, frankly, and if they want to use the mechanics of d&d as the backdrop for their gaming experience, so be it. and, if someone has a problem with the way 4e does things, maybe the 4e people should just have a little understanding that the new edition does turn a lot of 34 years of d&d style on its ear and that some people are either going to take a minute to warm to it, or may never warm to it.
and, believe it or not, some people liked that first level characters were not much better than a commoner in earlier editions. it made achieving heroic proportions feel like more of an accomplishment.
|
|
I'm having trouble understanding how make-believe price point A in a fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it is better than make-believe price point B in a different fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it. They're both equally arbitrary, except one also happens to follow game balance.In previous editions, plate mail was special and expensive, and only prestigious warriors could afford it, which fits some peoples models of medieval fantasy.
In 4th Edition, you can afford it at first level, which makes it more commonplace.
Because in 4th Edition the PCs are already heroes at 1st level. The average commoner still doesn't own jack.
Yes, plate mail can only be afforded by prestigious warriors.
Like the PCs.
Exactly. You are quite correct. The 4th Edition design philosophy does encourage this notion. It is also why I don't play 4th Edition - the difference between "heroes" and "adventurers" (to me, adventurer implies you had to earn you keep in blood and sweat).
Returning to the original argument, plate mail is a complex, finely crafted item taking years of training and preparation to complete. It is vastly different from stitching together leather into armor. There is a rational reason to have such an item be affordable only by the most wealthy of individuals. If a farmer has a choice between saving for a year for leather, or saving for 2 years for plate mail (abstract example), they should choose plate mail, by all real-world logic. Whether or not magic can create such an item on a whim is irrelevant to the argument, because the economy is not entirely dependent on magic, only enhanced by it - there are still smiths around who need to make a living.
If plate mail is affordable to PCs, it is affordable to other people as well - whether or not they can wear it. That diminishes some of the aura around plate mail, as a standard for heroes. It creates a nouveau-riche feel to the world, with poseur middle-class merchants buying plate mail and pretending that makes them noblemen.
*At least, to my grognard sensibilities it does.
I was simply reiterating what the game's designers have said about their philosophy in creating 4th Edition. D&D's focus has always been on adventuring. Economics was always an afterthought, and was never executed well. On top of that, most players had no interest in playing the market when they could be going out and adventuring instead.
Now, if you are the sort of player who would rather stay in town working on those apple prices instead of playing the hero and adventuring, there are a number of games that aren't D&D that I could recommend to you. Just don't try going out and adventuring in them.
my original post in this thread was eaten, but in it i pointed out that a lot of the "you're doing it wrong" bs is why we're having all the problems in the first place, like the annoying frenchie telling me i havent been having fun for thirty years. the balance of that post was a plea for everyone to get over the edition wars crap.
however, i did take umbrage with your general tone of "anyone who doesn't want to just slay dragons" isn't playing d&d right.
the last serious campaign i ran started out with adventuring, and morphed into the players having "real" responsibilities, playing politics, manipulating economies for world shaping reasons, all within the context of a d&d game. and it was FUN. players would call me at all hours with plots to manipulate the price of rantian wheat to undermine the commish territorial ambitions on henecia. or plots to discredit the scion of a particular noble house to ice a planned wedding that would strengthen the alliance between two noble houses who were rivals to the pc's family.
there are as many different styles as there are gaming groups, frankly, and if they want to use the mechanics of d&d as the backdrop for their gaming experience, so be it. and, if someone has a problem with the way 4e does things, maybe the 4e people should just have a little understanding that the new edition does turn a lot of 34 years of d&d style...
I think it's safe to say that, as D&D games go, yours is a unique case. It simply does not make sense to create an entire economics system to satisfy the wants of a handful of groups who have chosen to step away from the focus of the Dungeons & Dragons game and towards a more simulationist playstyle when it would detract from the experience of many, many more gaming groups who play D&D in a more traditional manner.
|
|
I think it's safe to say that, as D&D games go, yours is a unique case. It simply does not make sense to create an entire economics system to satisfy the wants of a handful of groups who have chosen to step away from the focus of the Dungeons & Dragons game and towards a more simulationist playstyle when it would detract from the experience of many, many more gaming groups who play D&D in a more traditional manner.
But efforts have been made to move AWAY from the previous gameplay experience, in your words, to a more balanced mechanic. The argument is not for MORE simulationism, just the status quo and questions as to why that had to be changed to something some people enjoyed and could work with. In other words, there was some kind of economic model, but it has been diluted so much as to be unrecognisable.
And it isn't safe to assume his group is unique - a good deal of dissatisfaction with 4th Edition comes from people sharing his preferences for D&D. Many of such people are on these boards.
|
|
granted, but all i'm trying to say is, if the OP has a problem with the economics system in 4e, yuo don't have to tell him his point is completely invalid. maybe he'd prefer to play in a game like the one i ran, a bit more "simulationist" (whatever that means, they can't even seem to nail that down in the thread dedicated to that discussion) and would like to try and bend 4e into that mode. perhaps he REALLY likes the mechanics for combat, the way classes have been balanced, the powers distribution and all that, but he doesn't like the fluff that makes the game a little too game-like.
doesn't mean he plays "wrong", just means he plays "different".
I'm having trouble understanding how make-believe price point A in a fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it is better than make-believe price point B in a different fantasy world with no actual backing economic system to justify it. They're both equally arbitrary, except one also happens to follow game balance.In previous editions, plate mail was special and expensive, and only prestigious warriors could afford it, which fits some peoples models of medieval fantasy.
In 4th Edition, you can afford it at first level, which makes it more commonplace.
Because in 4th Edition the PCs are already heroes at 1st level. The average commoner still doesn't own jack.
Yes, plate mail can only be afforded by prestigious warriors.
Like the PCs.
Exactly. You are quite correct. The 4th Edition design philosophy does encourage this notion. It is also why I don't play 4th Edition - the difference between "heroes" and "adventurers" (to me, adventurer implies you had to earn you keep in blood and sweat).
Returning to the original argument, plate mail is a complex, finely crafted item taking years of training and preparation to complete. It is vastly different from stitching together leather into armor. There is a rational reason to have such an item be affordable only by the most wealthy of individuals. If a farmer has a choice between saving for a year for leather, or saving for 2 years for plate mail (abstract example), they should choose plate mail, by all real-world logic.
Okay, stop.
A farmer. Has a choice. Between plate mail and leather armor. It would require an entire year to save the extra cash for the plate mail. Plate mail that, traditionally, requires a significant expenditure of time and effort (effort that usually had to be put forth by someone other than the person wearing the armor, for logistical reasons). Plate mail that, by all accounts, would make pretty much everything in the farmer's life harder to do. Plate mail that the farmer most certainly has never trained in.
As opposed to leather armor, which is eminently sensible for a farmer living in occasionally dangerous lands, is easy to put on and remove, and doesn't hinder his day-to-day life to a ridiculous degree.
And it's your conclusion that "real-world logic" supports his decision to buy the plate mail?
If plate mail is affordable to PCs, it is affordable to other people as well - whether or not they can wear it. That diminishes some of the aura around plate mail, as a standard for heroes. It creates a...
No. Plate mail is affordable to PCs. It is not affordable to the average joe. The PCs are heroes. They wear heroic equipment.
No. There is no economic system in D&D. And no, there are no trade goods in the first core set. In fact, I doubt very much that an attempt will ever be made to create an economic system. The game developers have made it very clear that this is D&D, not Run-A-Fantasy-Trading-Cartel. The PCs are supposed to be out slaying dragons and saving maidens, not negotiating the latest price on their shipment of locally-grown apples. DMs should be actively discouraging players from trying to mess with the game's monetary system in any way, and if it becomes a problem the DM's job is to take the player aside and make it clear that everyone is there to adventure, not sit in town while someone tries to squeeze a few gold out of the market.
Exactly.
Play it the way WotC meant it to be played, because any other style of play is wrong. DMs should be actively discouraging players from doing what they want to do -- it needs to be a collection of tactical encounters, not roleplaying opportunities. And suspension of disbelief is not the designers' responsibility.
Resistance is futile...
Please forgive any sarcasm and/or snarkiness, but I think your response(s) illustrate the objection many have to 4e. The new edition is arguably a narrower view of D&D, where a lot of options and elements were trimmed away because the designers decided they were superfluous. Sorry, but if I need a one-track killing spree I'll play NWN (which, incidentally, has a more realistic economic system).
I think it's safe to say that, as D&D games go, yours is a unique case. It simply does not make sense to create an entire economics system to satisfy the wants of a handful of groups who have chosen to step away from the focus of the Dungeons & Dragons game and towards a more simulationist playstyle when it would detract from the experience of many, many more gaming groups who play D&D in a more traditional manner.But efforts have been made to move AWAY from the previous gameplay experience, in your words, to a more balanced mechanic. The argument is not for MORE simulationism, just the status quo and questions as to why that had to be changed to something some people enjoyed and could work with. In other words, there was some kind of economic model, but it has been diluted so much as to be unrecognisable.
No, there really wasn't an economic model. At all. I don't know if you understand how economics works, but the absolute minimum for something to even be considered for being called an economic system is a fluctuating economy based on supply and demand. D&D has never had that. Because D&D isn't about economics. It's about epic adventure.
D&D has never had that. Because D&D isn't about economics. It's about epic adventure.
No, it's about players having fun with fantasy roleplaying -- as they see fit.
Well, it used to be. Now it is evidently about epic adventure, and nothing else. I used to have a choice.
|
|
Okay, stop.
A farmer. Has a choice. Between plate mail and leather armor. It would require an entire year to save the extra cash for the plate mail. Plate mail that, traditionally, requires a significant expenditure of time and effort (effort that usually had to be put forth by someone other than the person wearing the armor, for logistical reasons). Plate mail that, by all accounts, would make pretty much everything in the farmer's life harder to do. Plate mail that the farmer most certainly has never trained in.
As opposed to leather armor, which is eminently sensible for a farmer living in occasionally dangerous lands, is easy to put on and remove, and doesn't hinder his day-to-day life to a ridiculous degree.
And it's your conclusion that "real-world logic" supports his decision to buy the plate mail?
And if the farmer has to go to war or fight, and has preparation, but has no combat training, what gives them a better chance of survival? Huge protection at expense of movement and combat ability which he doesn't have? Admittedly, it was a ridiculous example but the point is if he wants he can get it. In previous editions, a farmer would not be able to afford plate mail if they saved all of their money for their entire life.
I hope you meant "stop" as in an attempt to interject rather than a command?
No. Plate mail is affordable to PCs. It is not affordable to the average joe. The PCs are heroes. They wear heroic equipment.
Admittedly, I am going by the OP assertion that plate is 2x the cost of leather. I am unfamilar with equipping NPCs in 4th Edition. Exactly what prevents the average joe from buying plate if they could also afford leather?
No. Plate mail is affordable to PCs. It is not affordable to the average joe. The PCs are heroes. They wear heroic equipment.
Not that I am going to jump into this thread to refute you, others are doing that quite well enough, but I just want to be clear that you are sure that you want to make the above quote the lynch-pin of your argument?
;)
No. There is no economic system in D&D. And no, there are no trade goods in the first core set. In fact, I doubt very much that an attempt will ever be made to create an economic system. The game developers have made it very clear that this is D&D, not Run-A-Fantasy-Trading-Cartel. The PCs are supposed to be out slaying dragons and saving maidens, not negotiating the latest price on their shipment of locally-grown apples. DMs should be actively discouraging players from trying to mess with the game's monetary system in any way, and if it becomes a problem the DM's job is to take the player aside and make it clear that everyone is there to adventure, not sit in town while someone tries to squeeze a few gold out of the market.Exactly.
Play it the way WotC meant it to be played, because any other style of play is wrong.
In the sense that it's not what D&D was designed for, yes. This isn't a tough concept to grasp, nor should you find it offensive. Stop for a moment, and consider perhaps that WotC isn't out to ruin your day, and is actually trying to provide you with a fun way to have a make-believe epic adventure with your friends once a week.
DMs should be actively discouraging players from doing what they want to do
...when it interferes with the rest of the group's ability to enjoy the game. Again, this is not controversial.
-- it needs to be a collection of tactical encounters, not roleplaying opportunities.
No one has said that, anywhere.
And suspension of disbelief is not the designers' responsibility.
No, it's not. You're playing in a game where you can reasonably expect to wake up, kill dozens of monsters with magic spells and then go back to sleep to do it the next day.
Resistance is futile...
Please forgive any sarcasm and/or snarkiness, but I think your response(s) illustrate the objection many have to 4e. The new edition is arguably a narrower view of D&D, where a lot of options and elements were trimmed away because the designers decided they were superfluous. Sorry, but if I need a one-track killing spree I'll play NWN.
No, that is a narrow view of D&D. You are no less able to role-play your heart out in 4th Edition than you were in 3rd, or 2nd, or 1st. Anyone claiming otherwise is being disingenuous. 4th Edition D&D is not a one-track killing spree, and implying that it is does no favors to this discussion.
|
|
No, it's about players having fun with fantasy roleplaying -- as they see fit.Well, it used to be. Now it is evidently about epic adventure, and nothing else. I used to have a choice.
You know, you could be being argumentative but you really aren't.
Tat, myself, and others are saying that the system used to allow many types of playing. Scott is advocating for a single appropriate play style. It is never right to say that everyone who thinks differently from you is wrong.
D&D has never had that. Because D&D isn't about economics. It's about epic adventure.No, it's about players having fun with fantasy roleplaying -- as they see fit.
Well, it used to be. Now it is evidently about epic adventure, and nothing else. I used to have a choice.
No, I'm pretty sure it's always been about epic adventure. Saying that D&D was founded on an effort to create a system that equally supports all types of fantasy role-playing is an effort in historical revisionism.
Mr. Betts, I'd ask you to step back and consider Sebastian's words above. I played my first 4e game last night, mostly so I could give an honest opinion of the game from experience rather than "feeling." My assessment is that the game is "fun" mechanically. But the constant "you all are playing D&D wrong" blast (I and my group are one of those "unique" ones that like to do more than kill stuff to take treasure) still makes it about 99% certain I'll never bother with this edition. It'll be the first I've skipped in 25 years. Maybe you're not trying to "sell us" on 4e, but if you are truly a fan of the game then your current tactic is not helpful in building support. In fact it pretty much reaffirms why so many of us are still saying this ain't D&D.
Okay, stop.
A farmer. Has a choice. Between plate mail and leather armor. It would require an entire year to save the extra cash for the plate mail. Plate mail that, traditionally, requires a significant expenditure of time and effort (effort that usually had to be put forth by someone other than the person wearing the armor, for logistical reasons). Plate mail that, by all accounts, would make pretty much everything in the farmer's life harder to do. Plate mail that the farmer most certainly has never trained in.
As opposed to leather armor, which is eminently sensible for a farmer living in occasionally dangerous lands, is easy to put on and remove, and doesn't hinder his day-to-day life to a ridiculous degree.
And it's your conclusion that "real-world logic" supports his decision to buy the plate mail?
And if the farmer has to go to war or fight, and has preparation, but has no combat training, what gives them a better chance of survival? Huge protection at expense of movement and combat ability which he doesn't have? Admittedly, it was a ridiculous example but the point is if he wants he can get it. In previous editions, a farmer would not be able to afford plate mail if they saved all of their money for their entire life.
I hope you meant "stop" as in an attempt to interject rather than a command?
No. Plate mail is affordable to PCs. It is not affordable to the average joe. The PCs are heroes. They wear heroic equipment.Admittedly, I am going by the OP assertion that plate is 2x the cost of leather. I am unfamilar with equipping NPCs in 4th Edition. Exactly what prevents the average joe from buying plate if they could also afford leather?
The average Joe also can't afford leather.
And by the way, couldn't in D&D 3.5, either. An untrained hireling makes a single silver piece a day in D&D 3.5. He would have to buy nothing for one hundred days to afford a suit of leather armor. Two hundred fifty days for studded leather. Considering that a single mug of ale costs half of what that hireling makes each day, and a loaf of bread a fifth, it it completely unfeasible in D&D 3.5 for a hireling to ever save up enough to purchase even the most meager of armor.
The same holds true for 4th Edition.
*Tweeeeeeeeeeeet*!
Penalty!
You inserted the word "founded" and attempted to portray the issue in a completely different subtext. This would derail the discussion, were the respondent be forced to argue against a position he did not take.
Straw man argument.
10 yards. Loss of down.
Will the Timekeeper please reset the clock to 15:00?
*Tweeeeeeeeeeeett*