A Question of Character...

[The_Fan]

An odd tendency I've noticed is "can't" gaming. People who seem obscessed with what people CAN'T do.

On the one hand, they think that fighters CAN'T have cool maneuvers and over the top powers. Then they want the option to play a rogue that CAN'T be stealthy. It's like characters to this mindset are more defined by their limitations than their abilities.

 

[Imban]

Er, yeah? Characters are equally defined by their limitations and their abilities. A character based off of Conan is capable of wielding weapons with great proficiency and shrugging off blows that would fell lesser men and whatnot, and is not capable of casting fireball, or flying without wings under his own power, or doubling his physical size by drawing on latent primal energy within him.

 

[Lizard]

I managed to play the same character in RttToEE, RttToH, NWN1, NWN2, Jade Empire and Guild Wars. Converting to 4E should be a piece of cake.

But all those people saying 4e is "too video gamey" don't have a leg to stand on, right?

I'd be happy just to recreate my first 3e character -- a half-orc barbarian sorcerer. Surely, there's no reason I shouldn't expect to be able to do that, eh wot?

 

[Lizard]

It's why when we only had 11 channels of TV, we could always find something to watch, but now that we have 200 cable channels we feel like there's never anything good on.

You must have had 11 waaaaayyyy different channels than I did...

Currently, rather than 'nothing being on', I have to delete half the stuff on TiVo just to have some hope of maybe watching the other half, not to mention the stuff I get from Netflix, or download...

Choice is good. People who can't handle choice should, I dunno, be Amish or something.

 

[The_Fan]

Er, yeah? Characters are equally defined by their limitations and their abilities. A character based off of Conan is capable of wielding weapons with great proficiency and shrugging off blows that would fell lesser men and whatnot, and is not capable of casting fireball, or flying without wings under his own power, or doubling his physical size by drawing on latent primal energy within him.

But they don't define it by what the character CAN do. They look at the rogue and say "it can't be a detective/swashbuckler/club-wielding goon." They don't look at it and say "it can be a dungeon delver/back-alley enforcer/wily trickster."

 

[Henry]

So, basically the topic of this thread is "I shall preen about my consumer preferences"?

This post is like a plate of cold, congealed stupid.

Guys, let's not jump to insults, please. Grossout and Imban, for two examples, were able to state opposing points of view without using inflammatory language. E-mail me if this is a problem, and report posts if you find something offensive enough to retaliate on. Thank you.

 

[hong]

But all those people saying 4e is "too video gamey" don't have a leg to stand on, right?

Right. I miss my mouseover tooltips.

 

[Imban]

But they don't define it by what the character CAN do. They look at the rogue and say "it can't be a detective/swashbuckler/club-wielding goon." They don't look at it and say "it can be a dungeon delver/back-alley enforcer/wily trickster."

Well, okay. Say I really wanted to play an Aasimar in 4e on release. For obvious reasons, I can't do that. I'm not going to look at the game and say "I can play a Dragonborn." as a result. I'm going to say "I can't play an Aasimar." It just doesn't work the other way.

In other words, the people who the rules have shipped with stuff for are going to say "it can be what I want" and the people who the rules haven't are going to say "it can't". I don't really think people are looking at this in fundamentally different ways, unless they're looking at it in ways incompatible with logic.

 

[Campbell]

Well, okay. Say I really wanted to play an Aasimar in 4e on release. For obvious reasons, I can't do that. I'm not going to look at the game and say "I can play a Dragonborn." as a result. I'm going to say "I can't play an Aasimar." It just doesn't work the other way.

In other words, the people who the rules have shipped with stuff for are going to say "it can be what I want" and the people who the rules haven't are going to say "it can't". I don't really think people are looking at this in fundamentally different ways, unless they're looking at it in ways incompatible with logic.

I think his larger point was that people are not really saying "I want to be an archer who is part of the local militia. Let's see if there's a way for me to make it work in the rules." Instead they are saying "I can't make a fighter who is an archer."

 

[Bluenose]

But all those people saying 4e is "too video gamey" don't have a leg to stand on, right?

I'd be happy just to recreate my first 3e character -- a half-orc barbarian sorcerer. Surely, there's no reason I shouldn't expect to be able to do that, eh wot?

Considering you wouldn't have been able to do that in any edition earlier than 3e, I'm not sure why you think it's likely you should. All the other editions have changed basic core classes and races, after all.