RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There, that wasn't so hard. House ruled in 15 sec. :)
Yes, of course. That's 95% of the problems most of us have with our games... but where's the fun in a quick and simple solution? :)
...in that it's quick and simple? :P
Well, as long as you're allowed to enforce your home rule in RPGA play, sure.
Pfah. My apologies for the snide tone.
My actual point is that there's more to discussing any problems in the rules-as-written than hand-waving them away with house rules.
For example, it's been suggested several times in this thread that the price change in plate armor is a (necessary) result of re-aligning in-play value of the armor in 4th Edition.
My instinct suggests otherwise:
This is because, in my opinion, there ought to be some sense of danger and excitement in a battle, and one of the ways of achieving that is to build "regrets" into the system. I'd want players to be thinking "This battle would be a heck of a lot less dangerous if I had [thing I don't currently have]." The player characters ought to be hungry for the best stuff. And the best stuff should have an opportunity cost. The best weapons in D&D 3.5 required a feat to use without penalty. The best enchantments for weapons were terrifically expensive.
In 4th Edition, there's very little reason not to take a suit of full plate. That's probably the best choice, and it's economical.
But that's just instinct. A discussion about armor prices can generate insights into 4th Edition's principles regarding loot.
But we won't get there by snapping our fingers with house rules, nor by deriding previous editions' failure to implement full-blown economics systems.
Oh, and incidentally, folks, Powers of Faerun and Cityscape both have rules political and economic systems.
Scott- Your arguments are not having the effect you would wish. You are trying to invalidate over 30 years of gaming that WE HAVE DONE. It isnt 'revisionist history' when we actually did play those types of games.
You certainly may have played those games. That wasn't what I was challenging. It was the perception that D&D has ever, from a design standpoint, been focused on putting forth a realistic economy. There are those in here who have said that economic realism was abandoned in 4th Edition. I say it was abandoned well before 4th Edition.
The primary issue here is Your games have revolved around High Fantasy, and so to you 4e is just an expansion on that view...
That may be so.
for a lot of us, D&D used to support a Low Fantasy type of genre as well, where the farmer became the hero. Yes the economics of D&D was a bit of a reach, but a DM could, with some extrapolation, come to grips with it. I know I did for many many moons...now if all you've ever played is 3.0 or 3.5 then you would have a point that the economics were suppressed even further. But, as many of us used our economics models from earlier editions...which could be used because the whole system hadn't been turned on its ear...It could still be done.
And perhaps you're right. But if you had to create economic models to manufacture the sort of realism you desire in the first place, perhaps you could try creating a new one for 4th Edition. Consider it a challenge to be overcome, perhaps?
With 4e the whole system has changed and is now more of a Diablo world than anything else...where you go dungeoning, cast your return portal...rest recharge, and jump back in where you were.
I haven't gotten that impression at all from playing. It seems more like D&D than anything else. And what you describe has always been possible in D&D with the ever-present teleport spell. Are you sure you aren't just looking for comparisons to Diablo because it suits your argument, even though the analogy may not fit beyond a superficial glance?
The economics is non-existent,
The economics were always non-existent. What you always had in D&D was simply a list of prices. That's not an economy. At all.
the world ecology is non-existent,
The world ecology is purposefully generic in order to support the DM's ability to develop his own game world. You will begin to see a lot more of what you call "world ecology" when campaign settings are released.
the socio-political elements are non-existent....
Again, for the same reason.
this is why the forgotten realms was nuked the way it was in favor of the points of light type campaign...
because someone, somewhere, decided that it wasn't fun to try and play a make believe game in a make believe world, and try to make believe it was real....
I don't believe that was ever the goal in designing the new edition of D&D. Putting that forth as a truth doesn't do this discussion any service.
well for some of us, that is where the fun lies.
I think if you try, you will find that it's still quite possible to imagine your D&D game as a real world. It requires a little imagination, yes, but then again that was always the prerequisite for Dungeons & Dragons - imagination.
could that be why we dont care for 4e?
Yes, quite possibly.
We, who like our game worlds to have some semblance of reality mixed with the fantasy elements.....dont want to JUST BE HEROIC....we want the role playing to be as important as the roll playing.
There seems to be a logical disconnect here. You don't want to be heroic, and instead want the role-playing to be as important as the roll-playing. The assumption being that heroism is roll-playing while role-playing is everything else?
Role-playing is still just as critical to D&D as it ever was. In fact, it's arguably more important now that skill challenges and quests provide experience rewards that are not tied to killing monsters. No longer is role-playing simply "decoration" on a system designed to facilitate combat. Now it has its own stage, supported by the rules.
I agree that 4.0 no longer has DnD atmosphere or "feeling" at all, It's a vanilla video game on paper. Existing only to please the masses. The reason is because of all that money from video gamers that Hasbro is missing out on because you know, Times they are a Changing! People can't be bothered anymore by things that don't go boom. Oh and don't forget that modern trendy new gamers are influenced by not only video games but by anime and movies where power creep has left them unimpressed by regular RPG's on paper. Sword +4 Oh hummm, where's that blasting chi balls power and flying around and stuff. Well you get the idea right?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
And again, every time I've seen this argument rear its ugly head it's turned out to be completely unsupportable.
There, that wasn't so hard. House ruled in 15 sec. :)
Yes, of course. That's 95% of the problems most of us have with our games... but where's the fun in a quick and simple solution? :)
...in that it's quick and simple? :P
Well, as long as you're allowed to enforce your home rule in RPGA play, sure.
Pfah. My apologies for the snide tone.
My actual point is that there's more to discussing any problems in the rules-as-written than hand-waving them away with house rules.
For example, it's been suggested several times in this thread that the price change in plate armor is a (necessary) result of re-aligning in-play value of the armor in 4th Edition.
My instinct suggests otherwise:
** spoiler omitted **
There's little reason not to take plate mail...if you're a paladin. If you're anything else, you need to spend a feat (or two or three) on proficiency first, or take that hit to your attack rolls and Reflex defense.
|
|
As I put in my post, however, there are no rules for it. So any actual rules need to be invented by the GM or Players...just as with 4e. Likewise a list of commodities needs to be done by the gm or players, decisions on supply and demand, market variables, seasonal changes etc etc....Just to point out....pages 139-140 of the 3.5 DMG is about economics. It gives no real formula for altering the baseline 'economy', but it does discuss coinage, taxes, moneychangers and supply and demand. I have seem and used in 3.5 the idea of supply and demand to increase rates for various items from metalwork to grain. It helps to build a better sense of realism in my games even if it isn't entirely accurate or infallible.
3.5 Player's Handbook 112 has some trade goods. Additional books were put out to help flesh out the bare-bones ideals such as the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide. Sure there isn't a real system for adjusting the economy of an area or game but I really don't think that is a feasible requirement on a game system. If I make metal inaccessible in a certain town due to outside sources how would any system be able to tell me what a metal spoon would be worth? Or a sword? Heck the sword could go for 5000gp if I wanted it to. Darksun is a good example of a campaign that utilizes alternate economic systems.
|
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.
That's a non-argument. Of course it's a game, but in a game where your alter-ego slays fairy tale dragons, you need to have a semblance of verisimilitude to allow you, player, to feel like you "are" your alter-ego.
This threshold of verisimilitude will vary from player to player. Just negating that simple fact by calling anyone that doesn't share your threshold "misguided", "too serious" bordering on the "moronic" doesn't solve anything. Maybe you need to realize people don't have to share your opinions on something as subtle as how one feels about a shared fantasy.
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.If the DM has to actively discourage players from what they want to do, and take them aside and make it clear to them that they can't do anything other than what he says they are there to do, I think he's missed the entire point of the game, which is to *have fun.*
My example was made in the context of a game in which most of the players are interested in adventuring and one player instead is trying to turn ladders into 10-foot poles in an effort to game the D&D price table. In such a case, a single player's desire to cheat the monetary system is hindering the rest of the players' ability to enjoy the game.
If 'having fun' entails setting up a trading house, stewarding a sacred grove, negotiating a tricky alliance, navigating the streets of Sharn looking for a story to publish in the Inquisitive or wrangling a herd of temperamental rothe through the wild underdark while trying to stay ahead of them durn no-good Derro cattle-russlers, then that's not wrong.
Absolutely not, you're right.
If the DM has to take players aside, he's already made an awful mistake, in that he forgot to ask his players, his *friends,* in many cases, what kind of game they wanted to play.
I apologize, the way I put it must have been rather unclear. I was talking about just that sort of situation, where the DM's friends are interested in playing a game involving adventure while one of them is attempting to do something very different.
If the game can't support more than one style of play, a style quite similar to that of Warhammer Quest (a damn fun game, I must admit!), then this is a *huge* downgrade from what it grew into back in 2nd edition, when they started introducing settings like Birthright, Dark Sun, Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, Council of Wyrms, Ravenloft, Planescape, etc. where 'enter room, kill goblin, collect XP' became only a *part* of the game-playing experience.
And that certainly holds true for 4th Edition. The focus, however, remains on epic adventure. Yes, other campaign settings might have placed emphasis elsewhere, but in that case you really can't start attacking 4th Edition for not having those emphases when it's only been out for a couple months. If there is enough demand for these things, Wizards will see that it happens. We've already been promised a return to some long-neglected campaign settings once Forgotten Realms and Eberron are taken care of (and there's already been a Dark Sun teaser article in Dragon).
Um....could this whole thread have been avoided by simply telling the OP to price the plate armor as he saw fit?
Not really. I implied in the OP that this was going to be (yet another) house-ruled item. I was simply bemoaning the fact.
I wonder what WotC's motivation was for the decision. More specifically, I wonder if they care so little that they wrote down any values that came to mind. Interestingly, cost is very roughly 10 x (armor bonus - check - speed).
A little more realism wouldn't have killed them, and it wouldn't have killed the game.
And don't get me started on carrying capacity... >:o
|
There's little reason not to take plate mail...if you're a paladin. If you're anything else, you need to spend a feat (or two or three) on proficiency first, or take that hit to your attack rolls and Reflex defense.
But let's be honest here, for most of the people desiring plate that is hardly a major hurdle. A fighter spending 50 gp and taking the appropriate feat has not really sacrificed much to gain some great benefits.
Plate is much easier to obtain now and I am not sure how balance has anything to do with it. How is nabbing plate at 1st level somehow more balanced?
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.That's a non-argument. Of course it's a game, but in a game where your alter-ego slays fairy tale dragons, you need to have a semblance of verisimilitude to allow you, player, to feel like you "are" your alter-ego.
This threshold of verisimilitude will vary from player to player. Just negating that simple fact by calling anyone that doesn't share your threshold "misguided", "too serious" bordering on the "moronic" doesn't solve anything. Maybe you need to realize people don't have to share your opinions on something as subtle as how one feels about a shared fantasy.
Are you sure you're quoting me? Yeah, the serious thing, sure, but moronic? If you use quotation marks in that manner, it implies that the person you're referring to actually used those words in those contexts. I understand that the opinions of others can sometimes be irritating, but putting words into others' mouths doesn't achieve anything.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Skill challenges really have nothing to do with role-playing. If anything, they are slightly opposed to it, since they tend to turn diplomatic situations into a flurry of die-rolling. Story awards (quest rewards, in other words) have been in the game since at least 2nd edition, by the way - and actually, so have rewards for using skills.
There's little reason not to take plate mail...if you're a paladin. If you're anything else, you need to spend a feat (or two or three) on proficiency first, or take that hit to your attack rolls and Reflex defense.But let's be honest here, for most of the people desiring plate that is hardly a major hurdle. A fighter spending 50 gp and taking the appropriate feat has not really sacrificed much to gain some great benefits.
If by "great benefits" you mean a +1 AC bonus and a -2 penalty to his physical skill checks. Absolutely.
Of course, those "great benefits" don't actually sound that awesome to me. At all.
The economics were always non-existent. What you always had in D&D was simply a list of prices. That's not an economy. At all.
Yep.
But the price lists used to have some level of believability to them. That appears to be disappearing -- which is actually the point of the OP.
Skill challenges really have nothing to do with role-playing. If anything, they are slightly opposed to it, since they tend to turn diplomatic situations into a flurry of die-rolling. Story awards (quest rewards, in other words) have been in the game since at least 2nd edition, by the way - and actually, so have rewards for using skills.
You're encouraged to ask players how they are making use of each skill when they participate in a skill challenge, encouraging them to role-play the encounter and every once in a while throw a die down to see if they were successful or not. In fact, players are required to justify use of a non-primary skill in a skill challenge with an appropriate explanation of exactly how it is being used.
If your diplomatic situations are turning into nothing but a flurry of die-rolling, consider taking a look at the suggestions for how skill challenges are designed to be run in the DMG.
And again, every time I've seen this argument rear its ugly head it's turned out to be completely unsupportable.
That is a presumptive statement of the highest order.
I have seen cogent, thoughtful arguments (and some not so much) supporting claims on both sides of these debates. You have chosen to accept only one side's arguments -- that is not the same thing as unsupportable.
For example, it's been suggested several times in this thread that the price change in plate armor is a (necessary) result of re-aligning in-play value of the armor in 4th Edition.
My instinct suggests otherwise:
In 4th Edition, there's very little reason not to take a suit of full plate. That's probably the best choice, and it's economical.
But that's just instinct. A discussion about armor prices can generate insights into 4th Edition's principles regarding loot.
I'll bite...
1st consideration, only Paladins start with proficiency with Plate. Everyone else has to spend feats to get it. So it's not only the money cost, it's also the Feat cost. (Since you get more feats, both costs are relatively negligible, I admit.)
2nd consideration, Plate has 1 more point of AC, the same -1 speed penalty, and -2 Armor check penalty over the Scale the Fighter can wear for free. It's 2 points of AC, same -1 speed penalty, and -1 Armor Check Penalty over Chain. But, it's also 2 Feats if you're a Cleric or Warlord.
FWIW, the Heavy Shield with it's +1 AC and Ref over a Light Shield also has a -2 Armor Check penalty. So, if you're a 1 hander and shield guy, taking the Scale and Heavy Shield gives the same AC (19) as the Plate and Light Shield, has the same Armor Check Penalty (-2), and gives you a +1 on your Reflex Defense.
Sure, the Pally (or Fighter if he spends a feat) can load up with the Plate and Hvy Shield for a 20 AC, but good luck climbing out of the pit trap or sneaking up on anything with the -4 Armor Check Penalty.
Plate is an incremental cost increase, because as I hope I've shown, it's only incrementally better.
So, in that regard, it seems to be priced well.
But, yeah, upon first reading, it was definately a thing to make you go WTF.
|
|
Are you sure you're quoting me? Yeah, the serious thing, sure, but moronic? If you use quotation marks in that manner, it implies that the person you're referring to actually used those words in those contexts. I understand that the opinions of others can sometimes be irritating, but putting words into others' mouths doesn't achieve anything.
You just forgot the "bordering" here. Quotation marks can serve different purposes than straight quotes. I understand my own argument may be irritating to you, but you really haven't answered it, here.
|
|
Let's remind ourselves that this is a game where in its previous incarnation (3.5E), you can essentially initiate an infinitely profitable business by buying cows en masse and transmuting them to salt to resell back at the market. Alternatively, if you wish to stay within the core rules, you can just spend your waking hours conjuring walls of iron or stone for your legions of contractor smiths and architects.
I want to know who does things like this? I have gamed with a good number of people in my time and the current group I work with has been together for nearly ten years, some came in later. There are about 14 of us. I have never seen this done. Of course, I wouldn't classify any of my players are power gamers/munchkins/etc. so maybe that is the issue.
I am not doubting it happens all the time, I just can't imagine looking at the game that way.
There's little reason not to take plate mail...if you're a paladin. If you're anything else, you need to spend a feat (or two or three) on proficiency first, or take that hit to your attack rolls and Reflex defense.But let's be honest here, for most of the people desiring plate that is hardly a major hurdle. A fighter spending 50 gp and taking the appropriate feat has not really sacrificed much to gain some great benefits.If by "great benefits" you mean a +1 AC bonus and a -2 penalty to his physical skill checks. Absolutely.
Of course, those "great benefits" don't actually sound that awesome to me. At all.
Then you don't completely understand 4e as strongly as you think you do. +1 is a nice bonus to AC, period, end of story. Bonuses to certain values (defenses/attack rolls) is a great benefit. That's why a feat like human perseverance is quite nice when it comes time to roll saves. A +1 bonus can be quite significant.
Once you start obtaining magical armor the cost of one feat seems like nothing in comparison.
You are so ready to lash out at everyone that you are running in circles, making unfounded claims, and going out of your way to alienate people as opposed to making them understand your point.
And you never answered my questions. How is lowering the cost of plate a balancing factor?
Oh dear.
Your position seems to be that plate is now so easy to obtain that there is no reason for a fighter to not buy it.
My position is that yes, there are a number of very good reasons for a fighter to not buy plate. In order for a fighter to wear plate mail effectively, he has to spend a feat, 25 gold pieces, and suffer a -2 penalty to all his physical skills. All for a paltry +1 to AC.
Really, it's fine for you to question my knowledge of 4th Edition's balance mechanics. We're all relatively new to the system.
And no, Alleyn, I'm not in any desire to "lash out". I simply want you to understand that there are some significant drawbacks to going through the effort of being able to use plate mail, and that it isn't quite the awesome that you make it out to be. It is a valid choice for a fighter interested in absorbing the enemy's attacks, but hardly necessary or even ideal.
Yes, lowering the cost of plate is a balancing factor. Plate mail does not provide a large enough comparative benefit to justify making characters spend an amount of gold on it well in excess of their first couple of magic items.
|
Come now, let's debate this silly topic another day. Come on over and enjoy some cake, drink, and song.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
If your diplomatic situations are turning into nothing but a flurry of die-rolling, consider taking a look at the suggestions for how skill challenges are designed to be run in the DMG.
What I'll consider doing is running them like I do now in 3rd edition - by taking into account what the players say and do, and letting that drive the action.
That would be roleplaying. 4thE skill challenges are just a mechanic, not roleplaying.
|
|
And no, Alleyn, I'm not in any desire to "lash out". I simply want you to understand that there are some significant drawbacks to going through the effort of being able to use plate mail, and that it isn't quite the awesome that you make it out to be. It is a valid choice for a fighter interested in absorbing the enemy's attacks, but hardly necessary or even ideal.
Yeah, I was being pissy. No need for me to be rude. I was going to edit my response, I deleted it instead.
I still think +1 is a little more than paltry. But, I think Alex did a good job of exploring that line of thought more deeply and there are better ways of acheiving that edge without going to plate. So I concede the point in that regard.
|
|
If your diplomatic situations are turning into nothing but a flurry of die-rolling, consider taking a look at the suggestions for how skill challenges are designed to be run in the DMG.What I'll consider doing is running them like I do know in 3rd edition - by taking into account what the players say and do, and letting that drive the action.
That would be roleplaying. 4thE skill challenges are just a mechanic, not roleplaying.
I ran a skill challenge just the other day. I was not as happy with them as I thought I would be.
I will admit I tended to ignore the social skills in 3e and used them only if it seemed necessary. Even when I did use them I gave ad hoc bonuses based on roleplaying. Players still put points in there even when they knew my stance on them. I think they did it for purely roleplaying reasons. I love my players.
Skill challenges are much more involved and not as effective as I had hoped they would be. I probably won't use them for social situations all.
What's with all the arguing over an aspect of the game that - to be honest - really isn't all that important? ...Each playgroup is different. Some might require a more "realistic" gaming experience in order to have fun. Some couldn't care less and would be enjoying themselves all the more for it.
I think there's an argument that WotC has disregarded the sensibilities of the first group. Had they priced the armor more realistically, no one would have been miffed.
Is it a big deal? No. Despite that, some feel compelled to discredit such opinions and preferences.
So I think that's why we're arguing :/
If your diplomatic situations are turning into nothing but a flurry of die-rolling, consider taking a look at the suggestions for how skill challenges are designed to be run in the DMG.What I'll consider doing is running them like I do know in 3rd edition - by taking into account what the players say and do, and letting that drive the action.
That would be roleplaying. 4thE skill challenges are just a mechanic, not roleplaying.
They are a mechanic designed to help adjudicate role-playing and provide a framework for determining whether the PCs succeed or fail at something. You should still be letting the PCs' actions and words drive the action - but now you have a way of their characters' skills coming into play in a meaningful, easily-understood way.
I think you'd have a hard time justifying calling the guys who make D&D novices, though.Novices and charlatans reconcept (and ruin) what they don't understand, because they will never aspire to duplicate, in their own way, the greatness of what they're reconcepting. Does this sound 4miliar?
No. It sounds bitter.
Come now, let's debate this silly topic another day.
But it's not a silly topic.
Well, it is if you think people are still debating economics in D&D -- but they aren't, really.
The topic has changed. Now it is "you are wrong, and all your reasons for thinking that way are wrong." This is always sufficient reason to keep sniping :)
What's with all the arguing over an aspect of the game that - to be honest - really isn't all that important? ...Each playgroup is different. Some might require a more "realistic" gaming experience in order to have fun. Some couldn't care less and would be enjoying themselves all the more for it.I think there's an argument that WotC has disregarded the sensibilities of the first group. Had they priced the armor more realistically, no one would have been miffed.
I don't know that it's safe to say that. Had plate mail been priced much higher but retained its stats, I doubt very much that it would be a popular choice at all. Magic scale mail would be much cheaper, and would lack the nasty -2 check penalty. It's difficult (impossible, often) to come to a decision that nobody will find offensive.
So I think that's why we're arguing :/
I thought it was because we like arguing?
My bad.
I thought it was because we like arguing? My bad.
No, I think you're right, too :)
|
|
We, who like our game worlds to have some semblance of reality mixed with the fantasy elements.....dont want to JUST BE HEROIC....we want the role playing to be as important as the roll playing.In what possible way does being heroic, or not being heroic decide whether you are 'roll playing' or 'role playing'. This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've seen on these boards. And by now I've seen a lot of them thrown out with the prevalent lack of basic reasoning skills often displayed on the 4e board.
please, when quoting me...dont take it out of context.
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?
Affordable or not, the average NPC couldn't wear plate effectively. Even within the PC classes, only a few can wear platemail off the bat. Warlords, for example, cannot wear platemail even though they could afford it.
With regard to the other claim going around that D&D has always been some kind of epic fantasy game I have to disagree. Look at the original inspirations for the game : historical medieval wargaming blended with sword and sorcery pulp fiction. The original D&D to me was a blend of Jack Vance and Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser contained in a loose framework of combat rules. 4E is influenced by something else so it has a very different feel than the early versions of the game.
As for the economics in 4E, there isn't anything in there that makes sense from a real world economics point of view, so we just try not to think too hard when playing - otherwise there is a danger that people will start mocking the rules and suck the enjoyment out of the session. For our group, 4E has become just a beer and pretzels game - not something to be taken too seriously. It functions fine and can be a lot of fun if you go into it thinking of it that way, i.e. a light hearted game not meant to be taken too seriously. This is unlike previous versions which were better able to accommodate our more serious and gritty playing styles and allow us to better immerse ourselves in the game world.
If our group were to seriously play 4E outside of "beer & pretzels" mode, we'd probably have to house rule it to death, including the economics of the game, so that we could build a campaign world that felt real enough to become immersed in.
|
|
Come now, let's debate this silly topic another day. Come on over and enjoy some cake, drink, and song.
Wait a sec isent the cake a lie?
please, when quoting me...dont take it out of context.We, who like our game worlds to have some semblance of reality mixed with the fantasy elements.....dont want to JUST BE HEROIC....we want the role playing to be as important as the roll playing.In what possible way does being heroic, or not being heroic decide whether you are 'roll playing' or 'role playing'. This is one of the most ludicrous assertions I've seen on these boards. And by now I've seen a lot of them thrown out with the prevalent lack of basic reasoning skills often displayed on the 4e board.
He wasn't taking your quote out of context. I read it exactly the same way. Did you not intend to imply that heroism = roll-playing? That's the way it came off.
|
|
Dread wrote:
We, who like our game worlds to have some semblance of reality mixed with the fantasy elements.....dont want to JUST BE HEROIC....we want the role playing to be as important as the roll playing.
There seems to be a logical disconnect here. You don't want to be heroic, and instead want the role-playing to be as important as the roll-playing. The assumption being that heroism is roll-playing while role-playing is everything else?
Role-playing is still just as critical to D&D as it ever was. In fact, it's arguably more important now that skill challenges and quests provide experience rewards that are not tied to killing monsters. No longer is role-playing simply "decoration" on a system designed to facilitate combat. Now it has its own stage, supported by the rules.
No, as I pointed out to cp- out of context it may look that way. The point I am making is not that you cannot role play in 4e...or that you cannot role play during a combat...which is the impetus of the 4e experience. But rather, the between combat times...the visits to town. The decisions what I do with my hard earned dinero on the adventure...the buying of a keep. the chasing away bandits and dealings with the King...I want that as well.
the rules for 4e downplay that portion of the game.
The very fact that there were rules for that portion of the game in previous editions of the game shows that it was important at one time, and was taken into consideration.
I do not argue against the fact that toleplaying is important to D&D...but that roleplaying takes a back seat...and can only take you so far when the game is 100% focused on combat...and makes the inbetween times a comma rather than a paragraph within the overall story that is the game.
My assumption, as you put it, Is that within the framework of 4e, you will see noone creating a Keep...or managing a temple....or running a guild of thieves...but rather it will become dungeon after dungeon after dungeon.
There is no assumption that Heroic gameplay cannot have aspects of role play. But, if the purpose of the game isnt the story, but the combat...even you have to admit....(well maybe, if you are honest with yourself) then role playing is less important than your statistics and what you rolled on your last d20 die roll.
As for the economics in 4E, there isn't anything in there that makes sense from a real world economics point of view, so we just try not to think too hard when playing - otherwise there is a danger that people will start mocking the rules and suck the enjoyment out of the session.
The point is that for some of us, it has always been this way. Frankly it just depends on how much you know about economics.
|
|
You know, somehow I knew you'd go here. *shakes head*
1) Please show me the rules in 3.x for roleplaying buying a keep. Or roleplaying visiting a town. 4e has the same roleplaying rules as 3e, which means...none. It has skills and systems that can be used to determine the outcome of a character's intentions, and the system in 4e is more encompasing and involving than the system in 3e, but there are no rules for roleplaying in either game, just for determining the outcome of actions and intentions. Those are not rules for roleplaying.
2) Have you read the DMG and all the work it goes to on genre emulation, skill challenges, campaign design etc? Because to say that it makes the inbetween times a comma suggests to me that you haven't. I have run several sessions of 4e in which we did not deviate from the rules but still spent the entire game roleplaying. Skill challenges actually allow more party effort towards a goal than 3e, and more things require roleplaying as opposed to a single spell/ability (how many plot ideas does a paladin's detect evil break exactly?)
How do you manage a temple in core 3e? Coz, I've just broken the rules out, and I don't see any rules devoted to the managing of a temple.
Even in 3e the assumption is that the characters are adventurers. Not administrators
I take it you havent played any earlier editions of D&D? If you had you wouldn't ask this, for sprinkled throughout the entire history of the game are many such rules...to include the original complete books that had these rules extensively...and a TSR produced book on building keeps.
Before you show your ignorance you should do some research.
and as ive mentioned before.....maybe you dont play that way...but Im absolutley sure many of us have!
|
|
Well table 3-27 of the dm guide that gives you a list of buildings ranging from simple house to Huge castle as well as providing appropriate costs would be a good place to start I think.
Please show me the rules in 3.x for roleplaying buying a keep.
Those aren't rules for buying, that's a list of costs.
How do you determine if the castle is for sale, how do you determine what the legal restrictions on castle ownership are, how do you do the negotiation for the sale, how do you determine the contents of a castle and whether they're included.
All this stuff is what the GM makes up, it's not in the rules. Roleplaying buying something is not looking at a price list and saying 'I buy x', it's roleplaying it.
The fact that there are rules covering cost and what buildings you can buy make it a lot easier than if there was nothing whatsoever covering the purchasing of buildings.