|
If I may quote "Even this powerful spell does not negate the shock of the experience".
*SIGH*
I miss rules such as this...
It may be considered "unfun" by today's standards, but this rule for example just made sense...
I mean, getting beaten to the point of unconsciousness is a fairly traumatic experience, and I think that the game should reflect this; not that I've personally had this particular displeasure, I'm just saying...
|
If I may quote "Even this powerful spell does not negate the shock of the experience".*SIGH*
I miss rules such as this...
It may be considered "unfun" by today's standards, but this rule for example just made sense...
I mean, getting beaten to the point of unconsciousness is a fairly traumatic experience, and I think that the game should reflect this; not that I've personally had this particular displeasure, I'm just saying...
I hear ya. A Wizard at the front in 1e/2e usually meant a dead Wizard, a Warrior who blindly went after a Wizard usually meant a dead Warrior. I too can't work out why this was a bad thing?
S.
PS: I'll be back... Meaning I'll see about finding the negative hp rule in 1e, I hope.
True, but the statements are very different. The claims about killing goblins are simple and utilize fairly universal terms that everyone can understand and agree upon.However, the first statement tries to use simple, ambiguous terms to express a very complex concept. It's lazy communication. "Real D&D" is not a universal or well-defined term. In fact, it likely has a different meaning for each of us.
That is self evident.
which to you means: D&D is defined as a table top RPG which uses a class system in which the classes offer not only different abilities and problem solving options, but also cater to different play styles.
Correct.
The fighter classes, for example, offer mostly physical, direct, often violent means of overcoming obstacles and those options remain fairly constant at all levels. The fighter classes are also very simple to play and require little or no resource management. The magic using classes, on the other hand, offer a variety of problem solving options in that magic is the ultimate toolbox, and the mage’s range of options continually expand as the game progresses until a point wherein the magic user becomes nearly unstoppable.
Incorrect. That is not what real D&D means to me (Since you are drawing on assumptions.) I never played in a D&D game where this was true. So if the new edition of D&D fixed this, it was not a problem I felt needed to be fixed.
Magic users require strict and meticulous resource management in order to perform effectively.
Very Much correct. two out of three isn't bad.
Fourth edition breaks from this paradigm by structuring every class the same. All classes receive powers with the same basic structure, i.e., roll to attack – upon a successful hit deal a base amount of damage – add an additional effect appropriate to the class such as healing, additional damage, battlefield management, etc. Also, all classes are balanced effectively and are at roughly the same power level over the course of a campaign. As such, the fourth edition structure represents a different and undesirable system, and I prefer the previous paradigm.
Correct. So 75% really isn't bad judging me by one simple statement.
The reader applies their own definition of “real D&D” as they interpret that statement...
Correct.
D&D is defined as a class-based medieval fantasy tabletop RPG that provides a means to generate shared stories and adventures revolving around exploration, fantasy combat, fantastic locales, political intrigue, dungeon crawling, good vs. evil and the grey area between, a monstrous ecology combined with a dark ages style earth-like society, etc.
incorrect. The equiptment section includes technologies of the late middle ages known as the High middle ages. The above statement defines the purpose of D&D quite well. So good job!
It appears you included the following clause in error. It did not seem to fit with the paragraph in which with only minor errors you well defined the purpose of D&D. It reads as follows:
Therefore, this person is simply adverse to any change, stubborn, whiny, unable or unwilling to adapt, hates any kind of progress whether for good or ill, is probably a power-gamer that’s pissed about losing access to all of their broken combos and builds, and is simply bitter and in denial about the real reason they dislike the new edition. Or is a troll.
There is no evidence for the above. You did an adequate job at judging what I felt was real D&D up to 75% accuracy. Yet this last segment quite easily fails under scrutiny. Perhaps the person is adverse to change in the way D&D plays. That hardly makes them adverse to ANY kind of change, that is rather harsh.
If they were stubborn that would imply they were UNREASONABLY willing to change to the rules. Resistance to a paradigm shift in design is completely reasonable.
Whiny is completely subjective, and perhaps you are misrepresenting the significant protest to the paradigm shift. Wizards of the coast is not perceiving the protest as whining as was evident from Mr. Mearls Gencon panel and his current ruminations.
You are correct in that many people were unwilling to adapt though they were completely able to do so. There is however no reason to adapt to a product that one does not like. It is much better to stick with the one they like. Much to WOTC's dismay I fear.
I am interested in learning of people that are uninterested in progress. If the new D&D rules were progress I would be very interested in them. They did not however improve the game they just made it different. That is an important distinction. I believe with Pathfinder slowly becoming the world's most popular fantasy RPG that to label the new edition of D&D as progress is a misnomer.
It is funny you note power gamers. The power gamers of my group insist I switch to the new D&D. A power gamer can find a a so called broken combination with any system. In fact when designing rules for the Larp organization I am in, I let the power gamer loose on the rules to see just how they could be exploited.
True though many players are bitter that WOTC catered to one narrow vision of play style. It appears they learned from their mistake judging from the Legend Lore articles.
Well the OP was certainly a troll so this is yet another area upon which we can agree.
It’s not the reader’s fault that statement is likely to be misinterpreted. The writer ought to know better. If a writer is too lazy to say what they mean or too inept to say it effectively, they shouldn't blame the reader when they get their head bit off.
Statements could be misinterpreted. That is true. There are times that a writer clumsily composes an idea. However, if a reader cannot read a statement and recognize it as opinion or fact, that is a problem with the reader.
Long and detailed response...
Where I used the word "you" I meant "hypothetical person who might use or interpret such terms" not "you" as in "Mournblade94". In fact, I specifically adjusted the last paragraph to avoid such confusion. It seems I should have gone back and fixed the rest, as well. The whole spoilered scenario referred to a hypothetical situation that represents what, in my opinion, commonly occurs in edition war threads.
Apparently, there are times that a writer clumsily composes an idea...
If I may quote "Even this powerful spell does not negate the shock of the experience".*SIGH*
I miss rules such as this...
It may be considered "unfun" by today's standards, but this rule for example just made sense...
I mean, getting beaten to the point of unconsciousness is a fairly traumatic experience, and I think that the game should reflect this; not that I've personally had this particular displeasure, I'm just saying...
I'd rather toss this sort of thing into the DM/players court rather then deal with it on an official rule type level. I find to many 'flavour' rules can clutter up the game and some of them can get in the way of play for some groups while being fine for others.
A good example is the rule in 1E where you had to where a helmet as every 5th attack was to the head. At the table the rule was practically irreverent since you got the appropriate helmet along with the armour though I suppose if you found a magic item that was a hat or some such the rule would suddenly apply. The main place I found it really applying was with the characters views of their character - Those in leather viewed themselves as dashing Errol Flynn types and the leather skull cap just did not fit into the image same could be true with any character - often the head ear clashed with their view of how their character looked and it seemed like such an otherwise irrelevant rule - you can't have your character running around the game according to your vision of the character because you have to where very specific types of hats or the system will punish you.
I can believe that there are groups out there who can't stand all these half naked people running around with swords and for that group rules saying you need to be in X armour and that includes all the under padding etc. But this group should look to their DM to add in such rules rather then have the game try and cover everything imaginable.
|
|
...or the system will punish you.
That's kind of my point. I understand that by today’s standards, this is seen as "badwrongfun" or whatever, but I never saw it as the rules punishing anybody. It was just the rules of the game, and you worked within those confines...
Want a half-naked warrior? Fine, but there are consequences...
Want to play a dark elf? Fine, but there are social consequences in game...
I guess it's because I've never stopped seeing the game as a simulation. In life, we can't always ignore something simply because we don't like it, and while D&D has never been a perfect simulation, it was little rules like these that helped keep the realism...
From the AD&D Players Handbook, page 40.
"Spells of any sort must therefore be selected prior to setting out on an adventure, for memorization requires considerable time. (Your Dungeon Master will inform you fully as to what state of refreshment the mind of a spell caster must be in, as well as the time required to memorize a given spell.) As a rule of thumb, allow 15 minutes of game time for memorization of one spell level, i.e. a 1st level spell or half of a 2nd level spell. Such activity requires a mind rested by a good sleep and nourished by the body."
So based on that, a wizard (which starts at 11th level magic-user) would take 12 3/4 hours to memorize all spells from nothing, and an archmage (an 18th level magic-user) would take 34 3/4 hours.
Edit: And from page 105, "Damage is meted out in hit points. If any creature reaches 0 or negative hit points, it is dead. Certain magical means will prevent actual death, particularly a ring of regeneration (cf. MONSTER MANUAL, Troll)."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So based on that, a wizard (which starts at 11th level magic-user) would take 12 3/4 hours to memorize all spells from nothing, and an archmage (an 18th level magic-user) would take 34 3/4 hours.
100% correct. It makes sense why the Towers of High Sorcery fell in Dragonlance.
I played a Mage (he was actually a Mage i.e. 16th level) and virtually never had a whole compliment of spells - unless just leaving town/homebase. Was that a problem, nope. It was very unlikely our DM was going to let us rest in a dungeon for days and days to the casters to get tooled up. So you picked what you could based on what the party was willing to risk time-wise. Likewise as healing was a little harder to come by not everyone was on full hp's either. If my spells were low it was usually me last in line for healing...
I know it's being stuck in the past and that waking up with full everything is the accepted norm, but I do miss the living on the edge.
Adventuring is now a sport that comes with pads.
I would love to see the 5th edition D&D have options that recreate with unified mechanics this feel. Plus of course options for the 'ding' generation.
This would be D&D on the 'hard setting', would also differentiate it from the more 'reset before every encounter/day' style play of both 4e and PF.
S.
PS: 2e went easy on casters and reducing learning to 10 mins/spell level.
Long and detailed response...Where I used the word "you" I meant "hypothetical person who might use or interpret such terms" not "you" as in "Mournblade94". In fact, I specifically adjusted the last paragraph to avoid such confusion. It seems I should have gone back and fixed the rest, as well. The whole spoilered scenario referred to a hypothetical situation that represents what, in my opinion, commonly occurs in edition war threads.
Apparently, there are times that a writer clumsily composes an idea...
Very much fair enough, and I apologize for any misunderstanding.
Personally we have handwaived it in EVERY edition to being one nights rest get back spells. I honestly enjoy the rest for 8 hours get full hps etc feel of 4e because nothing bogged down a game like resting in a locked room frightened for your life for 18 days to get healed up enough to run from a dungeon full of kobolds. This wasn't always the case but if someone didn't play the short straw (cleric) then a week or two hiding in a closet hoping they don't catch you it is... Yea I enjoy those times when my pc is frightened that he may be discovered, but I prefer that when stealthing or dealing with more powerful enemies rather than mooks...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, that was one of the strengths of 1e. Take A4, In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords. A relatively high level party gets captured, the wizards have no access to their spell books, and no one has equipment. CoDzilla was a few editions away. One of the scariest encounters is fighting a bunch of half starved kobolds for a rusty dagger and some bone tipped spears. A party of seventh to eighth level characters are forced to think before tackling some lowly "mooks".
So, basically, what you're saying is, if your characters are challenged by something that you think is beneath you, it isn't "fun". Wow.
I think that's the sense of entitlement a bunch of us old school guys don't understand. Some of us think it's completely awesome to run into Tucker's Kobolds. Gives us a sense that there isn't really any fodder in the game. That anything, under the right circumstances, can be a challenge and no one should just assume that a race that has managed to survive any period of time hasn't figured out ways to deal with their more powerful rivals.
Oh, well. Different times, different sensibilities, I suppose.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, well. Different times, different sensibilities, I suppose.I've said this before, sometimes I feel as if we [grognards] are a dying breed...
I think part of the difference in newer players want to play characters that are heroes right out of the box. Some of us older players want to play characters that become heroes (or die trying).
To me (and this is just how I like to play, not any screed about "One True Wayism(tm)"), I like to feel like my character actually dodged death and earned his right to be counted amongst the greats. If I feel like I can't actually die, I feel cheated. I'm glad I found a DM that rolls out in the open, so I know if I survive, it was through my planning (and a degree of luck), and not because I'm a plot device.
YMMV and all that.
|
|
I look forward to killing you soon! ;)If I feel like I can't actually die, I feel cheated. I'm glad I found a DM that rolls out in the open, so I know if I survive, it was through my planning (and a degree of luck), and not because I'm a plot device.
YMMV and all that.
Hehehehe :-)
I look forward to not crying about it and calling you a bad DM!
So, basically, what you're saying is, if your characters are challenged by something that you think is beneath you, it isn't "fun". Wow.
I think that's the sense of entitlement a bunch of us old school guys don't understand.
I'm going to say this, I feel somewhat insulted by this. First off I have been playing one version or another of the game for many a year. There is no "Entitlement" here, just tired of starting over many times because a nonsensical encounter killed a party of heroes. "Gee guys I know you have slain Jabborwocks and Terrasques, but that kobold just got a lucky crit in"
I have my grognard moments as much as the next guy, but I want the Illiad not Saw 33. I want heroes being heroic not dealing with the minor crap like hiding in the closet like a peasant. If a hero is to die, make it count for something...
Also in the future please refrain from assuming my "entitlement" please. I don't know you're gaming pedigree and you shouldn't assume mine.
|
|
Um, sure. So, basically, you want to plan when your character dies, to ensure it's at the most dramatic moment. Cool.
I want to play a game. That uses dice. That generate random numbers that dictate the success or failure of my character's endeavors. And, sometimes the underdog does get a lucky shot in. It happens.
What I don't want to play is The Iliad. It isn't drama created, it's drama planned. By saying it is only appropriate for character death in situation "a", and not situation "b", you're telling me you don't want to play a game. See, I like a little suspense in my games. And, to me, that suspense is created by the unknown (fate, i.e. the dice).
Personally, I feel like I've accomplished more (and created a better story) if I know my character managed to survive through a combination of good play and luck rather than a bunch of DM fiat perpetrated in the name of "story". There's no real dramatic tension if you have plot immunity from "mooks".
If you don't want to die at the hands of a random peasant or some mooks, why even have them in the game? Just remove them all together. Or hand wave the encounters. Otherwise the whole dice rolling part is just an illusion, there is no real purpose if there's no chance of a random "non-heroic" death occurring. Seems kind of pointless to me.
Anyway, again, YYMV and all that. I just don't see the point of playing a game where the outcome is predetermined and the dice only mean something if the encounter is properly dramatic or heroic.
Edit: And Saw 33? Really? Try Wild Bunch or Pulp Fiction (one of the main character's death was really random. Coming out of the bathroom? Awesome!. Oh, and quite a few main character types died pointless deaths in Greek Tragedy. Read some once in a while if you don't believe me...
If you don't want to die at the hands of a random peasant or some mooks, why even have them in the game? Just remove them all together. Or hand wave the encounters. Otherwise the whole dice rolling part is just an illusion, there is no real purpose if there's no chance of a random "non-heroic" death occurring. Seems kind of pointless to me.
Anyway, again, YYMV and all that. I just don't see the point of playing a game where the outcome is predetermined and the dice only mean something if the encounter is properly dramatic or heroic.
I think what Stewart trying to get across that it's not very fun hiding in a closet, waiting for your HP to get higher just to run back to town or be dragged down by a bunch of lowly Kobolds. I tend to agree with him that it's not very fun, heroic, or even lively game-play to cower in fear due to the rules making it hard for you to re-join the adventure. Nothing about the game is making this "predetermined" as the Kobolds still have to hit with thier attacks, deal enough damage, etc.
Where the problem lies is with not enough character control. This mean, that while the Mage might be without his spellbooks and the fighter without his weapons, other things can be gained to supplant these aspects which fuels character motivation to go through the adventure even at the cost of these things. By taking away these control-factors due to what some book or page of the DMG says definitly doesn't entice me to keep going.
|
|
Different game, different times. The reason there's a whole "OSR" right now is because a lot of people want to get back to the roots of the game, when players were expected to actually husband their resources and use their heads to get out of trouble. Going "nova" got a wizard killed, ten times out of ten. Spells back then were pretty powerful, and fighters were potent, so wizards could be more careful and pick their spots where they just ended an encounter.
The other expectation was to not get yourself stuck in the closet situation in the first place. Normally, that only happened when the players bit off more than they could chew and refused to use hit and run tactics to overwhelm enemies. In other words, poor playing under the assumptions of the game then.
Oh, and another assumption of the old game was having a cleric. If that's the "short straw" option for some people, maybe they didn't have enough imagination, or enough team spirit, for the old game. Because, you know, having a cleric solves the "hiding in the closet" think pretty quickly.
|
|
the wizards have no access to their spell books, and no one has equipment.
You Sir are a BADWRONGFUN player/DM if you subscribe to taking away the ONLY thing that makes a PC worth playing - their gear. I'm just glad you can't surgically removes Feats!
Madness, pure madness.
In seriousness (unlike the above), such a game would be a lead-balloon under the latest rules that assume the wealth whatever table worth of magic kit AND designed monster challenges around this. With my 1e DM cap on, if my big bad guy knew a wizard was in the party - removing spell books only makes good sense...
|
Oh, and another assumption of the old game was having a cleric. If that's the "short straw" option for some people, maybe they didn't have enough imagination, or enough team spirit, for the old game. Because, you know, having a cleric solves the "hiding in the closet" think pretty quickly.
Pssh, not with my old DM. Two clerics weren't enough to support our nine man party after getting beat down by random encounters. :/
|
|
I didn't write that, actually.
That I know HD. But A4 (and other TSR published adventures) gives an insight to 'original' purpose of the D&D game. It was, as you have said, about the RL humans controlling their characters that gave success (ok not always) NOT the rules written in the books - Feats + Gear = da win.
S.
|
|
Where the problem lies is with not enough character control. This mean, that while the Mage might be without his spellbooks and the fighter without his weapons, other things can be gained to supplant these aspects which fuels character motivation to go through the adventure even at the cost of these things. By taking away these control-factors due to what some book or page of the DMG says definitly doesn't entice me to keep going.
I'd like to see what page in any DMG recommends being a dick. Even Gygax at his worst never recommends screwing over players just to screw them over. There was a plot specific reason for the events in A4, which made the capstone adventure in that series pretty awesome. Still didn't change the fact that rash parties would die, and smart parties would have a much better chance of survival. They just had to use their heads instead of their character sheets.
I think a balance needs to be struck. Combat should be dangerous, and death should be a real possibility. But if every fight, against mooks or otherwise, leaves the party hiding out for a week on the mend, I'm going to get tired of it. There should come a point where I get to start playing Conan and stop playing Anne Frank.
|
|
Oh, and another assumption of the old game was having a cleric. If that's the "short straw" option for some people, maybe they didn't have enough imagination, or enough team spirit, for the old game. Because, you know, having a cleric solves the "hiding in the closet" think pretty quickly.Pssh, not with my old DM. Two clerics weren't enough to support our nine man party after getting beat down by random encounters. :/
By the luck of the random dice gods (using 3d6 in order) I had a 1e Paladin (yes, all bow before me). I got to 4th level and was killed my a random encounter giant bat. I could say stupid game, but the fact was I was in a cave in a fantasy world. Caves have bats, fantasy worlds have big bats - fair enough. To this day I think we could have gotten away with less than the 2 deaths (party of 5) if only I hadn't charged...
Pointless death can be fun too.
|
|
Oh, and another assumption of the old game was having a cleric. If that's the "short straw" option for some people, maybe they didn't have enough imagination, or enough team spirit, for the old game. Because, you know, having a cleric solves the "hiding in the closet" think pretty quickly.Pssh, not with my old DM. Two clerics weren't enough to support our nine man party after getting beat down by random encounters. :/
You're supposed to avoid random encounters...
;=)
|
|
I didn't write that, actually.
That I know HD. But A4 (and other TSR published adventures) gives an insight to 'original' purpose of the D&D game. It was, as you have said, about the RL humans controlling their characters that gave success (ok not always) NOT the rules written in the books - Feats + Gear = da win.
S.
Well, yeah. Because it's a game. Driven by probabilities that can be mitigated by player thought and action. From 2.5 to 4.0, player has been replaced by character. Much less need for thought when a d20 roll can do it for you.
|
|
I think a balance needs to be struck. Combat should be dangerous, and death should be a real possibility. But if every fight, against mooks or otherwise, leaves the party hiding out for a week on the mend, I'm going to get tired of it. There should come a point where I get to start playing Conan and stop playing Anne Frank.
Again, the only reason this would happen is a) poor play (using up resources to the critical point and not getting out when the getting is good) or not having a cleric (you know, having to hide one night max). And if every fight leaves them like that, they need to take a hard look at their tactics, their resource management, party composition, and their DM. Not every fight is the Battle of the Bulge. Not even in real life.
|
|
Oh, and another assumption of the old game was having a cleric. If that's the "short straw" option for some people, maybe they didn't have enough imagination, or enough team spirit, for the old game. Because, you know, having a cleric solves the "hiding in the closet" think pretty quickly.Pssh, not with my old DM. Two clerics weren't enough to support our nine man party after getting beat down by random encounters. :/You're supposed to avoid random encounters...
;=)
Can I add when you can't avoid them, try to avoid miscommunication and NOT charge while the rest of the party has decided discretion is the better part of valor.
|
|
AD&D had some very specific ideas on what kind of resources should be present to ensure party success, one of those being access to healing in the field. If the biggest complaint about the old game starts with "we don't want to be stuck healing for a week" and ends with "we hate clerics", there's a disconnect. If that's the gripe with the old game, I feel justified in calling that a bogus indictment of he game, and a misunderstanding of how is was designed to be played.
It isn't "one true wayism", it's the equivalent of someone playing chess, hating queens and never using them, then wondering why they always lose.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the difference in newer players want to play characters that are heroes right out of the box. Some of us older players want to play characters that become heroes (or die trying).
I don't think this is actually a split based on editions at all. Instead I'd argue that its really a style issue. The problem is not 'hero's from the get go' but DMs that write plot elements about the hero's. In effect if every player controls a 'stable' of PCs chances are the game is going to be pretty brutally lethal.
On the other hand if your character starts out with a 2 page background and you and the DM spent an hour and forty five minutes at a coffee shop prior to the first session working out how your secretly the youngest son of the Rivenrell Merchant House who was traded to a demon when you where just a toddler in exchange for a cure for your eldest brothers ailment...well now you can bet that the DM is not out to get you before this story develops a lot more.
Its not video games or 'new players' that are the root of this - we see the beginning of this style way back in 1E with the release of Dragonlance. The real culprit here is player driven sub plots. Once the story starts to be sp3ecifically about the players and the game is being interwoven around them then their death starts becoming extremely disruptive to the campaign as a whole and they stop dying nearly so often.
Not sure what your DM does but one of the first things I do when I sit down to run a campaign is choose the lethality level. Reality is the DM controls that element of the game and can dial it forward or back at will (I don't even mean fudging - I never need to fudge). My most lethal campaign was actually in 3.5 since I choose a lethality level of 'on average one character will die per level...the other five will make it'. They did not die at exactly 1 per level - there was some clumping with half the party wiped out and some levels no one bought the farm but looking back I note that over a campaign that went to 14th level I got exactly 14 characters.
This was actually a higher lethality level then I had run in 1st and much higher then what I was doing in 2nd (because of all those plots in 2nd...did not want to kill anyone and disrupt the story).
The bottom line is that the game is as lethal as the DM decides it will be irrespective of edition. Furthermore the DM should be making that choice based on what style of game he plans to run (probably in consultation with the players). If its full of player sub-quests then lethality will need to be dialed down while a 'back to the dungeon' style game where the players themselves are not particularly integral to the plot can be one were characters die reasonably often. No doubt most DMs choose some kind of middle ground which is fine but does have some danger of getting into DM favouritism (DM does not want to kill off the player that was just possessed by the Goddess of Knowledge) so that has to be guarded against.
Um, sure. So, basically, you want to plan when your character dies, to ensure it's at the most dramatic moment. Cool.
I want to play a game. That uses dice. That generate random numbers that dictate the success or failure of my character's endeavors. And, sometimes the underdog does get a lucky shot in. It happens.
See now your completely changing what I said. I want awesome deaths not "the cat killed me" I'm not GRR Martin, and me and him have different expectations for heroes.... If I want pointless death I'll watch the news.
What I don't want to play is The Iliad. It isn't drama created, it's drama planned. By saying it is only appropriate for character death in situation "a", and not situation "b", you're telling me you don't want to play a game. See, I like a little suspense in my games. And, to me, that suspense is created by the unknown (fate, i.e. the dice).
the Dice are still there, I almost had a death in my game last night, it still happens. It just doesn't have to be pointless or so random no one knows what happened.
Personally, I feel like I've accomplished more (and created a better story) if I know my character managed to survive through a combination of good play and luck rather than a bunch of DM fiat perpetrated in the name of "story". There's no real dramatic tension if you have plot immunity from "mooks".
I find no dramatic tension if the protaganists (aka PCs) are killed by mooks all the time and the cast rotates. You end up with a recreation of Lost, where no one knows what the f is happening or why they are doing anything. Not cool. Here we disagree it seems.
If you don't want to die at the hands of a random peasant or some mooks, why even have them in the game? Just remove them all together. Or hand wave the encounters. Otherwise the whole dice rolling part is just an illusion, there is no real purpose if there's no chance of a random "non-heroic" death occurring. Seems kind of pointless to me.
Anyway, again, YYMV and all that. I just don't see the point of playing a game where the outcome is predetermined and the dice only mean something if the encounter is properly dramatic or heroic.
Well those random peasants? Basically no stats, and mooks? minions. Welcome to 4e which lets you be awesome and smash mooks who are a minor inconvience at best. Makes a guy feel like a big damn hero. The idea of a mook or peasant taking out a hero in 4e is slim to none. Makes fights awesome too, like an action movie or an epic. Works fine to me... YMMV
Edit: And Saw 33? Really? Try Wild Bunch or Pulp Fiction (one of the main character's death was really random. Coming out of the bathroom? Awesome!. Oh, and quite a few main character types died pointless deaths in Greek Tragedy. Read some once in a while if you don't believe me...
Yes what I want out of a game, where a player has spent months playing and working his butt off to build a pc up is to then kill him in a surprising and humiliating way! Actually, no I don't. Character death is easy enough to accomplish. Spending time working for something shouldn't go away because of random dice rolls. I moved on from that to be honest. Also I want Epic, not TRAGEDY. Also, while I have read my fair share of greek tragedies, but could brush up so thanks for the recommendation.
The thing is, If I want old school, crying for mommy at the site of kobolds, with my 3 hit points and crappy ac, hiding in a closet and desperately trying to get a stick to get out of a hellish warzone of a dungeon then I have those games. They were made 30 years ago and have more grit and pulp fiction feel than any modern game could want. Hell the million retroclones are mostly free and "fix" all of the mechanical problems (I say fix, because some see them as features rather than bugs, as always YMMV) I want modern games to do modern things. If I want gritty crazy I have it. There's no need to innovate it, it was done before I was born. I want new modern ways to game, and that is what I want guys like Monte Cook and the proffessionals to do for me. I want to step into the future of gaming rather than back, since I already have seen that and can find it easily.
|
|
I want new modern ways to game, and that is what I want guys like Monte Cook and the proffessionals to do for me. I want to step into the future of gaming rather than back, since I already have seen that and can find it easily.
This is the kind of statement that annoys me. Modern game? What does that mean? Monte didn't invent a new kind of statistical mathematics that can accuracy determine the probably of a 3' long piece of sharpened steel cleaving a dragon scale! He said, let's roll a die and add a number to it, and the higher the better. Wow, that's 21st century thinking. Put Gygax/Cook right in their place with their silly rolling dice and not always adding a number and not always having higher is better. I will bet real money that Monte did not and does not have a single dragon available for him to test his game theory on.
4e D&D/PF = modern game = only in the sense of the printing date.
Oh, and another assumption of the old game was having a cleric. If that's the "short straw" option for some people, maybe they didn't have enough imagination, or enough team spirit, for the old game. Because, you know, having a cleric solves the "hiding in the closet" think pretty quickly.
Its also a common Grognard thought that being a cleric can actually be fun. SOME people actually choose to play clerics. You would never know that with the rhetoric of the new wave that claims only Druid and Wizard players ever had any fun.
The thing is, If I want old school, crying for mommy at the site of kobolds, with my 3 hit points and crappy ac, hiding in a closet and desperately trying to get a stick to get out of a hellish warzone of a dungeon then I have those games. They were made 30 years ago and have more grit and pulp fiction feel than any modern game could want. Hell the million retroclones are mostly free and "fix" all of the mechanical problems (I say fix, because some see them as features rather than bugs, as always YMMV) I want modern games to do modern things. If I want gritty crazy I have it. There's no need to innovate it, it was done before I was born. I want new modern ways to game, and that is what I want guys like Monte Cook and the proffessionals to do for me. I want to step into the future of gaming rather than back, since I already have seen that and can find it easily.
I have trouble recognizing how 4e is more modern. The future of gaming and modern gaming is the video game. I see nothing more 'improved' about 4e over any game before it.
Calling 4e a modern game is a misnomer. It was developed AFTER 3rd edition, that is about it.
What you like as minions not possibly being able to hurt a PC, is one of the aspects about 4e that drove me away. That was no innovation, it was just a 'new thing'.
I have trouble recognizing how 4e is more modern. The future of gaming and modern gaming is the video game. I see nothing more 'improved' about 4e over any game before it.Calling 4e a modern game is a misnomer. It was developed AFTER 3rd edition, that is about it.
A few things about 4E could be considered "Modernized" such as Digital information in the form of DDI. Adding to that is the Character Builder, Monster Tools, and Adventure Tools that come along with it, as well as the Compendium. Later, unsure when however, we should be getting a 3D platform which could provide play from your home with the usage of say....Skype. Whether or not people like these aspects of the game is the matter for another debate, but it's hard to deny the merits of 4E's progress to fit into our social-ways of communicating.
From the actual mechanics side of the game, there are a lot of other aspects that 4E revolutionized. The first would be class's roles. While it's easily seen in previous editions what classes "jobs" were, it was still a bit of an "Up-in-the-Air" question depending on what class you were playing. If you were a Ranger, what exactly was your role? Did you fight extreamly well? No, not really. Were you a scout? Sure, up until 4th level where the Sorcerer can cast Invisibility X amount of times per day. You couldn't find/disable traps and tracking/foraging can be done by practically anyone. So, by that example, it's hard to understand what that character is going to do for the group besides being an extra body.
Then you have the shift of Monster design, placing tags such as Minion, Elite, Solo, etc.. which helps DMs create encounters that fit their idea of how a battle will work. Solo monsters are designed to take on multiple foes, something that only a few monsters in previous editions could accomplish. Minions were designed to give PCs the idea of mobs of foes attacking them. More so it highlights certain classes better than others. A Wizard that goes up against minions feels a bit more empowered as their spells can take out swaths of them, compared to the Fighter, who's Marking mechanic is pretty lost on 1 HP creatures. They're also designed to drain PCs of their more powerful resources, forcing PCs to re-think tactics and spell usage.
What you like as minions not possibly being able to hurt a PC, is one of the aspects about 4e that drove me away. That was no innovation, it was just a 'new thing'.
This is definitly a "YMMV" type situation. I've had minions make my PCs lives a living hell, throwing so many at them that they had to retreat. I feel it creates a more dramatic feeling as the PCs withstand the tide of monsters as they swarm the walls. One could also use "Swarm" rules for the same effect, as I've done to represent hordes of zombies. Minions just mean that they could represent a lot of monsters, but not an unstoppable horde.
It all matters on the style of game you want and the tools to do it. Minion rules, for example, are a tool for DMs to create a certain feel or scenario. It's not a "good" or "bad" rule, just an option.
A few things about 4E could be considered "Modernized" such as Digital information in the form of DDI. Adding to that is the Character Builder, Monster Tools, and Adventure Tools that come along with it, as well as the Compendium. Later, unsure when however, we should be getting a 3D platform which could provide play from your home with the usage of say....Skype. Whether or not people like these aspects of the game is the matter for another debate, but it's hard to deny the merits of 4E's progress to fit into our social-ways of communicating.
From the actual mechanics side of the game, there are a lot of other aspects that 4E revolutionized. The first would be class's roles. While it's easily seen in previous editions what classes "jobs" were, it was still a bit of an "Up-in-the-Air" question depending on what class you were playing. If you were a Ranger, what exactly was your role? Did you fight extreamly well? No, not really. Were you a scout? Sure, up until 4th level where the Sorcerer can cast Invisibility X amount of times per day. You couldn't find/disable traps and tracking/foraging can be done by practically anyone. So, by that example, it's hard to understand what that character is going to do for the group besides being an extra body.
Then you have the shift of Monster design, placing tags such as Minion, Elite, Solo, etc.. which helps DMs create encounters that fit their idea of how a battle will work. Solo monsters are designed to take on multiple foes, something that only a few monsters in previous editions could accomplish. Minions were designed to give PCs the idea of mobs of foes attacking them. More so it highlights certain classes better than others. A Wizard that goes up...
I would have to agree that the PRESENTATION of 4e with character builder, DDI, and such is certainly modern. Yet if that was included with any game out there including AD&D we could say the presentation and thus the game is modern.
At least when I think of a design as modern, I think of the improvements and betterment. Like better fuel consumption or better aerodynamics. New ways of designing houses to aid in energy efficiency and consumption. Better recoil systems and material that makes weapons lighter.
In video gaing there is a definite improvement over Intellivison Utopia to Civilization V. Or the Final fantasy series. in video games the Benefit of the modern video game vs. the original is apparent. Operations happen faster, graphics are better. I have met few people that like load screens. Faster loading times is a modern improvement, it is quantifiable. There is nothing in 4e that is a quantifiable improvement. It is just another way of doing things. In RPG's a 'modern RPG' is just another system that some people like.
Education is a good model to compare to RPG design. It has to adapt to technology, but is society really educating better than it was 30 years ago. The jury is still out on that.
4e is a different system that does some things better for other people. If it was REALLY innovative it would have improved the game for the majority. It failed to do that. Yet if the DDI was available for all RPGs THAT would be a marked improvement on gameplay, which is independent from the rules.
You can make a case for the monster labeling and character roles I suppose. That is where I have said many times the designers wrote 4e with video game sensibilities in mind. The roles mirror the roles common in CoH or WoW pretty well, but I am not sure how that has IMPROVED tabletop games in mass. it makes 4e nice for those that like it, but if it was an improvement, the market would not have fought back. Those things I suppose improve video gameplay, or help players strategize, and give developers more quantifiable variables. Perhaps 4e can be called modern because it was designed with the sensibilities that video game designers invented. I do not see this as an improvement which makes 4e any better to play over an older game.