Something that 4e's designers overlooked? -aka is KM correct?

[I'm A Banana]

is KM correct?

Always. It's like the Bible. If you see an apparent inaccuracy or contradiction, it's really just your own lack of understanding of the proper way in which to understand it.

....wait, what am I supposed to have said?

What risks were you going to take would ultimately influence your further progress within the dungeon or adventure. There were more answers to this question than just one and each player had to figure out how the others react and so to provoke his desired course of action. Now, with 4e's respected encounter roles it seems this active negotiation has been lost somehow.

Do you think this is correct? If so, do you think this is important and how?

Um.

I don't think 4e's combat roles mean any sort of inherent risk-taking or option-making is lost. I do think that 4e mostly focuses tightly on individual encounters, and that a lot can be gained from widening the focus out to include the context in which those encounters occur. Part of this means that encounters become subordinate to the flow of the adventure/dungeon, which means some encounters would probably be riskier than others, and deciding between options in play may affect which encounters you ultimately deal with, and which ones you avoid.

I'm not so sure the 4e designers overlooked something as I think they may have been focused elsewhere (namely, on the combat engine).

To the more recent point, I don't think 4e has, functionally, fundamentally, messed with the notion of what your character is in D&D. Even back in the day you had "0th level characters" and 3e had NPC classes (90% of any population = commoners). D&D characters have always been monumental badasses even from Day 1. Any other way of playing was, essentially, a house rule (not that people didn't play that way anyway, and not that it wasn't a load of fun, just that the RAW didn't support it very well out of the box). 4e just makes this more so, which many see as a virtue (many who were annoyed by having to fire a crossbow as a 1st level wizard, or who didn't like the fact that a goblin could kill you by breathing hard).

Monsters got turned up a peg, too, so it's not like a 4e character at 1st level is any more epically heroic than a 3e character (forex). Your kobolds have more than 3 hp now, too. So you're still going kobolds -> goblins -> I dunno, giants -> maybe a dragon -> mind flayers -> beholders -> demons/devils -> the terrasque -> gods -> etc., or whatever. You're just doing it with more middle ground now than you were before, more freedom to fail before you die.

Which means that your lethality was toned down.

Which, in a game that is at least part storytelling, or where it takes more than 2 minutes to whip up a character (software excluded), is probably a positive thing.

Not that it couldn't swing back the other way, if we take a more gamist approach, streamline character creation, and run D&D as if it were just dungeon crawls for loot.

Though videogames generally do that thing better.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Tell me about the farmer clerics and mages eh?

I notice a LOT of people tend to confuse that whole farmer brown thing with every possible starting character as opposed to say, the fighter and maybe the thief.

Here I was indeed conflating living an "ordinary" existence with being a farm boy, aka level 1 in AD&D, where there's not much differenciating you from other characters in the world. You are leading an ordinary life, and choosing to answer the call to adventure. You go on to go through all sorts of trials, and raise in levels as you confront these different challenges and learn from them. As for a resolution, a learning experience and a return to the ordinary world to share this experience, I agree this is a flaw in the way the game's set up, regardless of editions.

In 4e, you start as a Hero. Boom. You're already there.

You choose to not see it that way, that's fine by me. You add a piece about the way Superman would fit the Monomyth? By all means, fine by me too. But "astonishingly bad"? "misunderstanding of the differences between the editions"? "not knowing what a Campbellian Hero is"? Thanks... but no, thanks.

 

[AllisterH]

Er, I'm not even sure 4e is a good example of "hero at 1st level effect".

Look at the bog standard "human" monster in 4e compared to earlier editions.

The default human "bandit" in earlier editions was a 1 HD monster as well as say the typical pirate or town guard.

In 4e, the default human pirate is a 8th level critter meaning tha tunlike earlier editions, the 1st level hero has pretty much no chance of beating down a pirate and is facing an UPHILL challenge in defeating yuor typical town guard whereas before, he had at least a 50/50 chance of being successful.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

4E 1st level characters are Naruto kids fresh out of ninja school. They barely know their ass from a hole in the ground, but they are fully trained professionals, if untested.

This is the big difference. 1st level characters in previous editions had powers that blew the ordinary populace away, but they weren't competent professionals. 4E characters are.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Here I was indeed conflating living an "ordinary" existence with being a farm boy, aka level 1 in AD&D, where there's not much differenciating you from other characters in the world. You are leading an ordinary life, and choosing to answer the call to adventure. You go on to go through all sorts of trials, and raise in levels as you confront these different challenges and learn from them. As for a resolution, a learning experience and a return to the ordinary world to share this experience, I agree this is a flaw in the way the game's set up, regardless of editions.

In 4e, you start as a Hero. Boom. You're already there.

You choose to not see it that way, that's fine by me. You add a piece about the way Superman would fit the Monomyth? By all means, fine by me too. But "astonishingly bad"? "misunderstanding of the differences between the editions"? "not knowing what a Campbellian Hero is"? Thanks... but no, thanks.

Arn't AD&D characters a cut above the norm by virtue of having class levels?

 

[Odhanan]

Tell me about the farmer clerics and mages eh?

Sure.
See AD&D Player's Handbook, Cleric entry, p.20, Level 1 Title: Acolyte.
Ibid., Magic-User entry, p.25, Level 1 Title: Prestidigitator.

These are people from the mundane world who are first stepping in the extraordinary world.

As for the fighter, at Level 1 he is a Veteran, thereby implying that it is a person from the mundane world who has seen combat before. He too is stepping for the first time in the realm of the extraordinary. The Thief is a Rogue, an Apprentice. Same thing.

 

[MerricB]

4E 1st level characters are Naruto kids fresh out of ninja school. They barely know their ass from a hole in the ground, but they are fully trained professionals, if untested.

This is the big difference. 1st level characters in previous editions had powers that blew the ordinary populace away, but they weren't competent professionals. 4E characters are.

I suppose the question this prompts is this: What's a competent professional?

I mean, there's no doubting that the first level thief in AD&D is incompetent at some of his core skills; unbelievably so, in some cases. (You're far better off smashing a locked chest open rather than relying on your so-called thief!)

When it comes to skill use in 4e, your characters are much more likely to make a competent fist of it.

Combat? Now, that's another thing altogether. The difference between a 1st and 11th level character is larger than might be expected; enough so that some of my players have expressed that they don't want to play 1st level PCs again because of their limited options. It's interesting how much a difference having a few extra powers has.

Cheers!

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I suppose the question this prompts is this: What's a competent professional?

I mean, there's no doubting that the first level thief in AD&D is incompetent at some of his core skills; unbelievably so, in some cases. (You're far better off smashing a locked chest open rather than relying on your so-called thief!)

When it comes to skill use in 4e, your characters are much more likely to make a competent fist of it.

Combat? Now, that's another thing altogether. The difference between a 1st and 11th level character is larger than might be expected; enough so that some of my players have expressed that they don't want to play 1st level PCs again because of their limited options. It's interesting how much a difference having a few extra powers has.

Cheers!

Its a matter of being able to get the job done. If 4E 1st level characters are played smart, and don't get in over their heads, they can have a reasonable expectation of being able to get the job done. 1st level characters in previous editions, in the absence of DM intervention, don't have that expectation. They have the ability to potentially get the job done, but are just as likely if not more so to screw it up or get killed.

 

[MerricB]

Its a matter of being able to get the job done. If 4E 1st level characters are played smart, and don't get in over their heads, they can have a reasonable expectation of being able to get the job done. 1st level characters in previous editions, in the absence of DM intervention, don't have that expectation. They have the ability to potentially get the job done, but are just as likely if not more so to screw it up or get killed.

Hmm. I don't have that interpretation of it. I think 4e is more forgiving of a mistake (lots of mistakes, you're still dead), but well-played characters from earlier editions should still have a very good chance of surviving. It should be noted that there are significant differences between the survivability of characters in AD&D, OD&D, Basic D&D and 3E!

What's the job, btw?

Cheers!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Its a matter of being able to get the job done. If 4E 1st level characters are played smart, and don't get in over their heads, they can have a reasonable expectation of being able to get the job done. 1st level characters in previous editions, in the absence of DM intervention, don't have that expectation. They have the ability to potentially get the job done, but are just as likely if not more so to screw it up or get killed.

I think it's safe to say that your experience, if this was your experience, was distinctly anomalous. 4e isn't the first edition of D&D to have workable rules for 1st level PC's. In fact, it's the 4th (or 5th or 6th depending on how you slice an "edition").