General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
If someone with a modern education went far into the past they could contend with any sorcerer on the basis of knowledge and theory. Social mobility used to be a big part of Americas' self image compared to what used to be called the old world. It appears to me that this trend has come full cycle. Now people dream of being married into royalty, getting lucrative jobs serving the oil rich, and being "discovered" by some existing authority.
A character made in 4e is best served by viewing how they can contribute to the group they belong too. That sense of belonging seems to be the guiding star unto itself. One can be part of a great team and do amazing things. Never mind that that team will only go on adventures that are provided for it. Defining it's own adventure or quest seems to be extinct.
Look at player expectations. If the tomb of an ancient sorcerer is opened they fully expect it to be more powerful than any one of them alone. Ancient knowledge is easily accepted as more valid and more powerful than our own. If that sorcerer befriends the party, rewards them for helping, and sets about subjugating the medieval population for a new monolith project the party has no problem with it. Particularly if the promise is that upon completion the sorcerer will be able to share the most powerful spell of their lost civilization with the party.
And if that spell came at the cost of thousands of lives in forced labor, the monolith dominated the country side, and turned out to be a minor first level spell? What then. But 4e DM's would never do that. They would introduce some super spell off the level charts at a new level of power. The idea that some geeky repressed person trapped under the status quo is the source of the most powerful spell is gone. Players will assume the person is secretly receiving instructions or that they dug it up somewhere.
In fact what is the best promotion that a 4e party can offer any NPC. That's right. Membership in the group. Nothing more. No longer are the phrases like "king maker", "discoverer of", and "inventor" heard. But I bet you they can talk for days on end about how things are fine they way they are, and one should learn to appreciate what they have, and even that these thoughts are dangerous and I should be stopped.
Is this based on actual play you've experienced? DOesn't sound like any games I've run in any edition in terms of player's expectations. Then again, as a long time reader of Elric and a certain tome he sought with numerous answers to all questions only to have it crumble in his hands... perhaps I'm the odd bird out.
I read his post twice and I had the same response both times, "Huh?"
__________________ Veronica: Where's your brother?
Dick: I think he took Ghost World up to his room. They're probably up there making love. Or playing Dungeons and Dragons. Or both, at the same time. They're both, like, 12th-level dorks. I'm just sayin'
It seems to me that your post mixes up a number of ideas:
1. Older editions encourage the PCs to develop and grow in power as individuals and to become leaders (directly or indirectly) of groups, 4e encourages the PCs to develop and grow in power as a group, or through reliance on existing groups or powerful individuals.
2. Older editions encourage the PCs to develop and invent new powers (e.g. through spell research), 4e encourages the PCs to discover ancient secrets instead. The implication here is that in older editions, the future is always better than the past, while in 4e, the future can never be as good as the past.
3. All the above is a reflection of the current state of society, in which people try to get ahead not through their own efforts, but through patronage from those in power.
While I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, I do feel that the element of spell research (or power research in general - no need to leave out the martial power source) is something that the 4e rules do not really address. Individual DMs can always allow it if they want to, of course, just as individual DMs could also develop adventures and campaigns where the PCs can rise to lead countries, empires and world- (or plane-) spanning organizations.
Your example doesn't having any bearing on edition; powerful wizards controlling things (and meddling in the affairs of adventurers) is as old a dirt, and fully functional in OD&D. Similarly, 4e Pcs are just as capable of creating a new spell/ritual, staking out a keep and calling it home, or discovering the lost tomb of Nosugref like anyone else.
Perhaps you'd like to explain your point a little more clearly?
And if that spell came at the cost of thousands of lives in forced labor, the monolith dominated the country side, and turned out to be a minor first level spell? What then. But 4e DM's would never do that. They would introduce some super spell off the level charts at a new level of power. The idea that some geeky repressed person trapped under the status quo is the source of the most powerful spell is gone. Players will assume the person is secretly receiving instructions or that they dug it up somewhere.
In fact what is the best promotion that a 4e party can offer any NPC. That's right. Membership in the group. Nothing more. No longer are the phrases like "king maker", "discoverer of", and "inventor" heard. But I bet you they can talk for days on end about how things are fine they way they are, and one should learn to appreciate what they have, and even that these thoughts are dangerous and I should be stopped.
I'm afraid I just don't see it. First, If there's one pretty big similarity in OD&D and 4E, it's the shared absolute NECESSITY that both games engender about needing to be part of a cohesive unit. If some wizard goes off adventuring by himself, or some fighter goes off into a dungeon without the thief to handle traps and info gathering, they're both dead of acute stupidity. Gary's main tenet is that no PC is an island, and while you can advance quite far with a bit of luck and craftiness, most adventurers stand to die if they forge their own path. Even the great Mordenkainen got his butt turned to stone when he went off adventuring and had to get his apprentice and a cleric to come back and pull his fat from the fire.
Second, I see plenty of freedom between the lines of those 4E rule books to craft baronies, duchies, and Mage-holds, build your own destinies, and become movers, shakers, and leaders of men. But just like in OD&D, it's not set down in the rules, it's more between you and the DM. Now, Basic/Expert/Companion/Master D&D had more rules on that aspect, but to me, codifying them made them more limiting than less, and practically requiring it of adventurers after a point was kind of unfair.
So, as I said, I see more similarities in those points than any difference.
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
If someone with a modern education went far into the past they could contend with any sorcerer on the basis of knowledge and theory. Social mobility used to be a big part of Americas' self image compared to ...
My thoughts are best expressed by paraphrasing a line from Jerry Maguire:
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
Location: “Over the Hills and Far Away” - (TDY in Florida - "Home" is Michigan)
Posts: 1,547
What a depressing commentary.
Everyone has a system that best "fits" them, for whatever reasons. Myself included. But I'll be the first one to admit, no system is inherently better or worse when it comes to creativity and imagination. It seems that everything described in the OP is less about mechanics than it is about limitation of imagination.
I would suggest that if you're a player in a game that inspired this post, leave post haste. If you are posting from the standpoint of a DM, then I would ask; "Why would you want to purposely limit yourself from resources of inspiration and imagination just because of non-preferred mechanics?"
4E isn't my preferred system either, but then again neither is OD&D. But I've found inspiration for my games (with my preferred system) in both of those systems and many others. Even some systems not originally developed for running D&D style fantasy. No system is perfect. That includes every edition of D&D.
Most definitely play/DM in the system that best fits your play style. But plot, story, campaign world and characterisation are all completely seperate from mechanics. Mechanical systems (which is all that 4E and every other edition is) are nothing but tools to adjudicate action. Nothing more. The rest is all up to you, regardless of system.
__________________ Mark "El Mahdi" Armstrong - Semper Operor Verus
". . . after all, that is why we're here. Kill the last bad guy and then there's cake." - Major General Jack O'Neal
"Don't Just Do It, Just Do It Right!"
"Right, without Reason, is unmitigated Foolishness."
"If you make a mistake, Acknowledge It, then make it Right."
27
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
