1E vs Forked Thread: Is 4E doing it for you?

[FireLance]

If I could get back to the OP's point, it is seems remarkably inconsistent to say:

1. You do not like 4e because it is not complex enough for your taste, and there is little to differentiate a character of one class from another character of the same class; and

2. You would prefer to play 1e to 4e.

It seems equally inconsistent to say:

1. You do not like 4e because there are insufficient options for your character in combat; and

2. You would prefer to play 1e to 4e.

Of course, it is quite likely that anyone who has made one or both of the (1) statements above would not also have made the (2) statement.

 

[dmccoy1693]

I think you just won this thread. Now a Mod just needs to make it official.

I could do more.
[Oklahoma tune]
Greeeeeeyhawk where the orcs come fightin' down the plains!
Greyhawk where the defenseless farmer'o sure needs a he-a-ro
Where a bloodbath comes right behind the blaaaade!
[/Oklahoma tune]

 

[Hussar]

That sentence makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

Anyway, for me it boils down to this: give the player a choice to make that has cost or risk associated with it. Roll the dice only when necessary. Is the room worth searching? Do we have enough torches? Are we fit enough to handle a wandering monster? etc. That, to me, is what makes it a game: decision, risk management, a test of wit and cleverness.

As an aside: old school D&D is not really about killing things and taking their stuff. It's really only about taking their stuff... that's where the XP comes from. You're sometimes better off avoiding, tricking or negotiating with the monsters. Fighting is risky and sometimes offers little in the way of rewards.

See, I really question how risky fighting was though. Most monsters were pretty wimpy in combat. Unless the monsters had a save or die effect, which far too many did, a straight up combat monster was usually just a bag of XP waiting to get whacked. Why avoid combat?

 

[Remathilis]

I liked Remathalis' description of "Avatar play". Very old school. In my dungeons your character may get killed if you didn't pay attention in your (the player's) basic chemistry class, for example. Tricks, traps and assorted weirdness are all there to tease the brains and test the wit of the players. They're the ones actually sitting at the table, after all.

And yes, if the player is a nebbish and wants his character to be Don Juan... then he's actually playing a character who is a nebbish who thinks he's Don Juan. Which is more entertaining for everybody at the table anyway.

I'll begin this with "if it works for you, go for it. I'm not here for badwrongfun".

That said, its the antithesis of the type of D&D I like to play. I prefer escapism/Character-based D&D.

My rationale is simple; I'm playing a character in an open-ended play. I want to occasionally play a character who is smarter, tougher, wiser, quicker, or smoother than I am. I want to play heroes and villains wildly different from who I am when I put down the books and dice.

Avatar play doesn't reward this. The PC isn't a unique character, its me in drag. I'm not a smooth talker, so I can never play a Cary Ewes-inspired bard character, by that model. Similarly, barring D&Ds prime-requisite rule, if my wizard has int 3 or int 19, it wouldn't matter since its my IQ on the line, not Gozar the Dark's.

I guess that's a new-school mentality that was fostered in the "Story-first" era of second edition and expanded on in other RPGs.

If it works for you, more power to ya, its never been my cup of tea.

 

[Remathilis]

See, I really question how risky fighting was though. Most monsters were pretty wimpy in combat. Unless the monsters had a save or die effect, which far too many did, a straight up combat monster was usually just a bag of XP waiting to get whacked. Why avoid combat?

If your not afraid of combat, your DM is clearly not using monsters above your level on a regular basis.

 

[ExploderWizard]

See, I really question how risky fighting was though. Most monsters were pretty wimpy in combat. Unless the monsters had a save or die effect, which far too many did, a straight up combat monster was usually just a bag of XP waiting to get whacked. Why avoid combat?

That question depends on if you are forced to play whack-a-mole to get XP for an encounter. If negotiating terms or outwitting the monster awards XP then why bleed and expend resources on it?

 

[Korgoth]

See, I really question how risky fighting was though. Most monsters were pretty wimpy in combat. Unless the monsters had a save or die effect, which far too many did, a straight up combat monster was usually just a bag of XP waiting to get whacked. Why avoid combat?

I have not found it so. For example, a Fighter can on average withstand one hit per level he has attained before being killed. So a 3rd level Fighter can only expect to survive 2-4 hits from goblins or orcs before expiring. Fairly common monsters such as ogres do large amounts of damage (1d6+2 in OD&D, where hp are 1d6 per level for Fighters, or 1d10 in Classic, where Fighter hp are 1d8). Healing is limited, resting can be problematic... it's not hard to get killed even at fairly high levels.

 

[Tewligan]

Heck, the old editions didn't have a skill system. Any ruling of use of a skill would be a house rule no?

There was a kinda half-assed skill table in the 1e DMG, actually. It wasn't until Oriental Adventures that proper nonweapon proficiencies came about, though.

 

[Simon Atavax]

I liked Remathalis' description of "Avatar play". Very old school. In my dungeons your character may get killed if you didn't pay attention in your (the player's) basic chemistry class, for example. Tricks, traps and assorted weirdness are all there to tease the brains and test the wit of the players. They're the ones actually sitting at the table, after all.

And yes, if the player is a nebbish and wants his character to be Don Juan... then he's actually playing a character who is a nebbish who thinks he's Don Juan. Which is more entertaining for everybody at the table anyway.

The problem with "avatar play", of course, is that your players *are* assuming roles to a certain extent. After all, I doubt any of your *players* are actually elves or magic-users. And when combat happens, I doubt you adjudicate the results based on how skilled your *players* are in a street fight. You probably let their *characters* do the fighting.

So the "avatar" thing is a bit of a misnomer, I think. Even in the most "avatar" driven old-school game, there is a degree of "role-playing/character playing" happening. The question is how much.

 

[Simon Atavax]

There was a kinda half-assed skill table in the 1e DMG, actually. It wasn't until Oriental Adventures that proper nonweapon proficiencies came about, though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Dungeoneer's Survival Guide have NWP as well?