Barastrondo
First Post
I could write a treatise on wyvern use. On the other hand, they weren't gold-colored, and mages were never involved, so it would be pretty irrelevant.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
A Wrought Iron Fence Made of Tigers
- Thread starter I'm A Banana
- Start date
I could write a treatise on wyvern use. On the other hand, they weren't gold-colored, and mages were never involved, so it would be pretty irrelevant.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
This is confusing, I think I figured out why.
Its very different to say:
1) the mechanics don't support story
vs.
2) the mechanics don't support the story I want to tell.
As some of posters above touch on: 4E mechanics support all kinds of stories, and have a sort of cinematic quality. I think that specific mechanics have all kinds of little things in them to bring certain kinds of charecters and situations alive.
A very typical teifling build is one where, if you piss the teilfing off, he will set you on fire. This is story. This is not just abstract mechanics. Or a elf ranger who uses, yes, a bow, (and from the mechanics it will be a bow), uncanilly moving through heavy forest and somehow hitting when she should miss. (and then being able to use those skills in other terain). A treck across the desert that drains healing surges and brings the party to the edge of death, negotiations with an eladrin sage where training in the arcane is key to success, bugbears that combine brute force with cunning and deadly tactics, a ritual where a coven of witches opens a portal to the shadowfel....and I could go on, and on, and on.
And this is all coming from mechanics. Its basically right out the books.
Its very different to say:
1) the mechanics don't support story
vs.
2) the mechanics don't support the story I want to tell.
As some of posters above touch on: 4E mechanics support all kinds of stories, and have a sort of cinematic quality. I think that specific mechanics have all kinds of little things in them to bring certain kinds of charecters and situations alive.
A very typical teifling build is one where, if you piss the teilfing off, he will set you on fire. This is story. This is not just abstract mechanics. Or a elf ranger who uses, yes, a bow, (and from the mechanics it will be a bow), uncanilly moving through heavy forest and somehow hitting when she should miss. (and then being able to use those skills in other terain). A treck across the desert that drains healing surges and brings the party to the edge of death, negotiations with an eladrin sage where training in the arcane is key to success, bugbears that combine brute force with cunning and deadly tactics, a ritual where a coven of witches opens a portal to the shadowfel....and I could go on, and on, and on.
And this is all coming from mechanics. Its basically right out the books.
1Mac
First Post
Re: Monster mechanics are a bunch of numbers that don't tell a story.
I would say no. Some examples off the top of my head:
Kobolds being "shifty"
shadow bat's flyby and hide
powers that activate when the monster is bloodied
aura of fear/fire/etc.
All of which, in addition to being mechanical, communicate something narrative about the monsters, respectively:
"Annoying little buggers."
"What the hell keeps attacking us?"
"Great, now we've just made it mad!"
"I am in terrified awe at how scary that thing is."
Mearls had a recent podcast somewhere that touched on this aspect of 4e monster design.
I would say no. Some examples off the top of my head:
Kobolds being "shifty"
shadow bat's flyby and hide
powers that activate when the monster is bloodied
aura of fear/fire/etc.
All of which, in addition to being mechanical, communicate something narrative about the monsters, respectively:
"Annoying little buggers."
"What the hell keeps attacking us?"
"Great, now we've just made it mad!"
"I am in terrified awe at how scary that thing is."
Mearls had a recent podcast somewhere that touched on this aspect of 4e monster design.
Goumindong
First Post
So, lets get this straight.
1. DnD 4e shares a design choice with some JRPGs
2. Some JRPGs have plot holes
3. Therefore DnD 4e supports plot holes
Man what? This is lunacy, every single one of the points is unrelated.
Whether or not plots co-inside with the mechanics of the system has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the person designing/writing/developing/creating the plot.
E.G.
I am going to start a level 10 DnD 3.5 pathfinder game. The plot will be about how a nervous former airline pilot saves the lives of an airplane full of people who come down sick with food poisoning. Oh noes, Pathfinder 3.5 is a terrible system that supports plots that don't follow with the system! No, its only because the DM decided that "heroic fantasy" was a good choice for the plot of National Lampoons "Airplane"
1. DnD 4e shares a design choice with some JRPGs
2. Some JRPGs have plot holes
3. Therefore DnD 4e supports plot holes
Man what? This is lunacy, every single one of the points is unrelated.
Whether or not plots co-inside with the mechanics of the system has nothing to do with the system and everything to do with the person designing/writing/developing/creating the plot.
E.G.
I am going to start a level 10 DnD 3.5 pathfinder game. The plot will be about how a nervous former airline pilot saves the lives of an airplane full of people who come down sick with food poisoning. Oh noes, Pathfinder 3.5 is a terrible system that supports plots that don't follow with the system! No, its only because the DM decided that "heroic fantasy" was a good choice for the plot of National Lampoons "Airplane"
Fallen Seraph
First Post
Japanese Role Playing Game. So stuff like Final Fantasy.
Nope. Chromatics. Hate 'em.
I'm not going to derail this thread with it, but basically, I feel that "fire dragon" is thematic- "red dragon" is childish. And while a fire dragon might be red, and a red dragon might have the attributes that a fire dragon would have if it existed, this isn't necessarily true for other dragon types that have never been invented because of the needless symetry and focus on monochromaticism.
Basically, I paint, and I like to use more than one color.
Hussar
Legend
Heh Cadfan. I seem to recall that particular rant.
At the end of the day, it depends on what you feel the role of the rules should be. Are the rules something that informs the world that the PC's act in, or are they a collection of mechanics for resolving events?
I come in on the latter. I think rules are there solely for resolving conflict (and by conflict I mean any event in the game where failure is a possibility, not just combat). I don't need the rules to tell me how the world looks or operates. That's my job as the DM.
I think this is one of the big reasons why I don't play a lot of setting specific games for very long. Vampire, CoC, etc. They all tailor their mechanics for one very specific setting. I use D&D for all sorts of settings and campaigns. The only link between them is fantasy and fantasy is so broad that it can contain an awful lot of stuff.
So, no, I don't need the mechanics to tell me that a given monster lives in place X and acts in Y manner. That's my job. I actually had a player once tell me that I was using a creature wrong (manticore as I recall) because it was in the wrong climate/terrain. ((As I recall it was forests instead of deserts)) All because the climate/terrain line in the 2e MM said that I was wrong.
I just want the mechanics to give me the monster. I remember a fair bit of debate when WOTC previewed the Phane. People complaining that the creature's mechanics didn't inform the world that it lived in.
To me, who cares? That's my job as the DM to figure out how a Phane operates in my world. It's my world after all. Why should the MM dictate my world to me. I find it very strange, that with all the inveterate world builders there are on this site that they should so strongly desire WOTC to tell them what their world looks like.
At the end of the day, it depends on what you feel the role of the rules should be. Are the rules something that informs the world that the PC's act in, or are they a collection of mechanics for resolving events?
I come in on the latter. I think rules are there solely for resolving conflict (and by conflict I mean any event in the game where failure is a possibility, not just combat). I don't need the rules to tell me how the world looks or operates. That's my job as the DM.
I think this is one of the big reasons why I don't play a lot of setting specific games for very long. Vampire, CoC, etc. They all tailor their mechanics for one very specific setting. I use D&D for all sorts of settings and campaigns. The only link between them is fantasy and fantasy is so broad that it can contain an awful lot of stuff.
So, no, I don't need the mechanics to tell me that a given monster lives in place X and acts in Y manner. That's my job. I actually had a player once tell me that I was using a creature wrong (manticore as I recall) because it was in the wrong climate/terrain. ((As I recall it was forests instead of deserts)) All because the climate/terrain line in the 2e MM said that I was wrong.
I just want the mechanics to give me the monster. I remember a fair bit of debate when WOTC previewed the Phane. People complaining that the creature's mechanics didn't inform the world that it lived in.
To me, who cares? That's my job as the DM to figure out how a Phane operates in my world. It's my world after all. Why should the MM dictate my world to me. I find it very strange, that with all the inveterate world builders there are on this site that they should so strongly desire WOTC to tell them what their world looks like.
Carnivorous_Bean
First Post
I pretty much agree with Kamikaze Midget.
One of my major gripes with 4th edition is that the character classes are now purely wads of combat abilities, and you're supposed to just extemporize everything else.
For example, a rogue is no longer someone good at sneaking, stealing, disarming traps, disguising themselves, finding information, climbing, hiding, etc. A rogue is now "do damage, do damage, do damage" -- nothing but another variety of fighter.
In fact, everything is now a variety of fighter, variants of two basic fighters -- ranged fighter and melee fighter.
Everything is defined by combat. You often can't heal someone without smashing something on the head. There are very few class powers that you would ever use out of combat. Just looking at a 3.5 class, you perceive it as a representation of a creature which could exist outside a battle. Looking at a 4.0 class, you see nothing but a wargame piece's statistics.
Yes, I know you're supposed to add everything else in yourself. However, I can do exactly that with a game of Sorry or Monopoly. I can make up whatever individual personality and background I want for the individual pieces, there, too. But that doesn't make Sorry or Monopoly a set of role-playing rules, and to a great extent ,that's also true of 4.0's rules.
They've been abstracted to the point where they mean nothing except as a game, like the pips on dice in craps or the spades on a card in bridge. They are so divorced from representing anything that it's impossible to consider 4th edition to be a role-playing game any more -- it's an abstract wargame.
Yes, you can role-play with it, but only in the same sense as you can role-play with chess saying "hah! My pawn just took your pawn -- and that really represents him sneaking up through the bushes and shooting him with a crossbow!" That is role-playing, but it does not make chess itself a role-playing game. Precisely the same is true of 4th edition D&D.
One of my major gripes with 4th edition is that the character classes are now purely wads of combat abilities, and you're supposed to just extemporize everything else.
For example, a rogue is no longer someone good at sneaking, stealing, disarming traps, disguising themselves, finding information, climbing, hiding, etc. A rogue is now "do damage, do damage, do damage" -- nothing but another variety of fighter.
In fact, everything is now a variety of fighter, variants of two basic fighters -- ranged fighter and melee fighter.
Everything is defined by combat. You often can't heal someone without smashing something on the head. There are very few class powers that you would ever use out of combat. Just looking at a 3.5 class, you perceive it as a representation of a creature which could exist outside a battle. Looking at a 4.0 class, you see nothing but a wargame piece's statistics.
Yes, I know you're supposed to add everything else in yourself. However, I can do exactly that with a game of Sorry or Monopoly. I can make up whatever individual personality and background I want for the individual pieces, there, too. But that doesn't make Sorry or Monopoly a set of role-playing rules, and to a great extent ,that's also true of 4.0's rules.
They've been abstracted to the point where they mean nothing except as a game, like the pips on dice in craps or the spades on a card in bridge. They are so divorced from representing anything that it's impossible to consider 4th edition to be a role-playing game any more -- it's an abstract wargame.
Yes, you can role-play with it, but only in the same sense as you can role-play with chess saying "hah! My pawn just took your pawn -- and that really represents him sneaking up through the bushes and shooting him with a crossbow!" That is role-playing, but it does not make chess itself a role-playing game. Precisely the same is true of 4th edition D&D.
malraux
First Post
Did WotC issue two different 4e rule sets? Cuz that really doesn't resemble in the slightest the phb I've read.
Similar Threads
