Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)

[Rechan]

Even more on the particular point, the pirate's level is defined not by the pirate, but by the party.

How is this different from previous editions? The DM makes the pirate's level to be under that of the party (to present less of a threat), to make it equal to the party (to make an equal level threat) or higher level than the party (to be more challenging a threat).

The Party is in the forefront of the DM's mind.

It's a rare game where the pirate's existence is static. "He's 5 levels above us? Okay guys, let's fall back, go level up 10 levels. He stands no chance against us then."

 

[BryonD]

I see nothing that contradicts the theory that it is easier to find someone willing to DM 4e than it was to find someone willing to DM 3.x.

I don't claim to dispute this point.

But I'm not certain that the opposite is true either.
And I really am quite certain that it was not true for 3E one year after release.

Are you defending the point that

Thus, 3.5 ed was indeed THE SUCK for D&D because it was poisoning the game itself. No DM, no game.
If you do not want to face that fact *shrug*

or are you just replying out of context?

Sure, some people found 3E to be something that they got "a pain in the posterior", and some of those people can handle 4E. That doesn't make them quality DMs. Granted, "quality" wasn't part of the prior point, but it is important to me.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Why does the game have to represent the reality of the game world?

Doesn't have to be. I happen to prefer when it does, others do not. But to give an example, when the game does represent the reality to some degree, it lets PCs judge the effectiveness of various plans. If the city guard is presented as much more powerful than the PCs, then maybe we should ask them for backup when going to confront the cultists, and not assume that they are some kind of Schroedinger's Guards that vary in power depending on what the plot demands.

And if the rules are consistent, you can figure out clues from things that happen "off-screen." Not metagaming, but PCs applying knowledge gained in-game. If the game rules are NOT the reality of the world, then on what basis are PCs supposed to evaluate events? What IS the reality of the world? It can be done, I know, but it's not my preference.

 

[BryonD]

How is this different from previous editions? The DM makes the pirate's level to be under that of the party (to present less of a threat), to make it equal to the party (to make an equal level threat) or higher level than the party (to be more challenging a threat).

The Party is in the forefront of the DM's mind.

It's a rare game where the pirate's existence is static. "He's 5 levels above us? Okay guys, let's fall back, go level up 10 levels. He stands no chance against us then."

When I make a pirate that is a challenge for a 10th level party there is a reason in the story that the pirate is a challenge.

That is the difference.

The world is full of things that are much stronger and much weaker than the party and their power is not in any way a function of the party.

Again, the world is designed to be the world and then the players take on the role of their characters dealing with that. The world does not constantly morph to be a mathematically appropriate challenge.

 

[AllisterH]

You see, IME with games based around narrative, in said game the kobolds would basically have an ability called sneakiness and it would allow the DM/GM to alter the story being told in ways specifically accounting for a kobold being "sneaky" and all the DM felt that entailed within the confines of the story being told. What we get is the ability of a kobold to move 5ft at will (an ability balanced for it's role and level as opposed to it being concerned with story first)... now that could be interpreted as "sneakiness" but it could also be interpreted as many other things... it's just a mechanic that one interprets in the way you want and thus it is not narrative based but mechanics based. Or at least that is how I see it.

*looks at previous editions monsters* Given that there's nothing preventing in narrative for the 4e monster to be descirbed as sneaky in plot, I see the additional ability as a win for 4e. Seriously, at least now a player not only hears how "kobolds are sneaky" but in combat they are "sneaky"

(Personally, I don't consider them sneaky, but shifty. Sneaky is more the gnomes "fade away when hit" ability)

re: Bare chested pirate

Actually, KM, explaining how a bare chested pirate got that AC is exactly the same way that pirate with the long knife is fighting better than the PCs are.

- LEVEL.

Again, I know I keep harping on this, but why no problem with the fact that a creature is better with a weapon due to level but so much trouble that avoiding getting hit with a weapon in the first place due to level. A creature's saves ALSO go up as the creature levels so even there, in pre 3e, a bucknaked fighter is literally laughing in the face of anything that calls for a saving throw.

 

[catsclaw227]

To me, that sucks the life and interest out of the campaign world. If a pirate in a poet shirt and leather pants has an AC 21 just because of math, and if street toughs have 60 hit points just because of math, and everything is just so just because of math, then by all means, karma police arrest this man. Because it's the equivalent of someone taking a belt sander to my imagination.

Does the idea that a house cat can kill an 18 year old male with above average constitution take a belt sander to your imagination?

In my second D&D game, back in 1978, my 1e AD&D 1st level magic user with a 15 constitution ('cause that's what I rolled) had only 1 hit point ('cause that's what I rolled). He died because he was bit by a dog. He didn't get a disease, like rabies, he got bit on the leg, then the dog bit someone else before getting a longsword to the head.

A basic, average roll dog bite wouldn't kill a man immediately. Except for my 18 year old MU with 15 con.

I loved AD&D, but please don't try to argue that a game sucks because it relies on math to get the mechanics right. All editions of D&D tried to use math to get the mechanics right, some with different unrelated systems, others with unified systems. If you look at just the math, then every edition is like putting a belt sander to your imagination.

You just prefer to ignore the same with 1e (or whatever your preferred version of D&D is).

 

[Rechan]

This is an issue for me because numbers don't mean anything to me.

Nor do the numbers mean anything to me. I just don't care what method was used to create the 21. All I care about is whether it's proportionate or not.

I'd describe him as parrying or dodging.

To me, explaining the why of an AC is like explaining the why of hitpoints. Regardless of his AC, how can this barechested guy of X level take Y damage before dieing? Why can he fight the same way at max HP as he does at 1 HP? To answer all these questions, we create abstract explanations of hit points. So why is AC different?

 

[Jack99]

Are you defending the point that or are you just replying out of context?

Sure, some people found 3E to be something that they got "a pain in the posterior", and some of those people can handle 4E. That doesn't make them quality DMs. Granted, "quality" wasn't part of the prior point, but it is important to me.

I wasn't defending the point. While I rate 3.x to be the worst edition of D&D I certainly do not think it was poisoning anything. In fact, it did great things for the game and for a lot of people, I just happened to be in the minority that didn't find it optimal for my style/taste/personal preferences.

Regarding the quality DM, let's not go there, because it sounds to me that you are implying that DM's who like 4e and thought DM'ing 3.x was a chore are not good DM's.

 

[BryonD]

How is this different from previous editions?

Maybe this is a better answer:
Forget editions.

For the games I enjoy, building a pirate is priority one. Then you build a fun interaction, be it debate, battle, trade, or conversation.

As Mustrum_Ridcully decribed, in the system being discussed the AC is selected to adapt to the party, and then a veneer of pirate is piled on top. Pull of the cover and slap on an anti-paladin. It doesn't matter because the framework isn't based on what the guy is.

 

[Ariosto]

People keep using terms like 'simulationism' and 'narrativism' and clearly you're not all talking about the same thing.

Blame Ron Edwards and his Forge cohorts for their need to be so "precious".

I am not about to call my preferred approach "pervy", thank you very much.

The G, N and S words have, I think, fairly commonly understood meanings outside the ivory tower of "GNS theory".