D&D 4E 4e: Death of the Bildungsroman

[I'm A Banana]

Why can't this zero-to-hero thing be handled by some sort of Flashback mechanic?

Basically because this is a game, not a narrative?

So flashbacks are largely unfullfilling when the outcome is a foregone conclusion in a game environment wherein chance and choice alters the potential outcome?

And since Conan was never really a Zero, it's not a good illustration of such a device, even if it was effective in a game?

 

[Scribble]

Basically because this is a game, not a narrative?

So flashbacks are largely unfullfilling when the outcome is a foregone conclusion in a game environment wherein chance and choice alters the potential outcome?

And since Conan was never really a Zero, it's not a good illustration of such a device, even if it was effective in a game?

So what you're saying is that the game should account for everything?

So we should be able to play d20 I just Popped Out of Mommy?

At some point, as it's in the end a game, there has to be a deviding line. a point where you say this is where my character starts.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

I disagree. 3.x did have (reasonably good) rules for balancing an encounter to a party. The problem was that a level 1 party had so few hp that one unlucky crit could outright kill a character. While the game ought to be challenging, it's no fun to die on the point of a crappy goblin's arrow in the first round of the first combat of the campaign (which has actually happened to me on more than one occasion... I have terrible luck as a player). It's hardly unrealistic, but it tends to suck the fun out of the first game session and often sets a poor tone for the rest of the campaign (at least in my experience).

So, the DM didn't ignore the crit after they saw the monsters were a bit overpowered for your party?

In other words, the DM in question seems more interested in applying the rules evenly than making sure people were having fun. Again, not a problem with the rules, just their application.

Easier than trying to balance 0-level class abilities would be a 'no crits for monsters' ruling until the party was around 3rd level or so. Similarly, arrows only do 1hp each until the party is a bit stronger.

I'm still not seeing a problem with the rules themselves, just with the DMs, and sometimes players that don't want to retreat.

There are times when four ogres means 'run', not 'bonus XP'.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So what you're saying is that the game should account for everything?

So what you're saying is you like straw men?

So we should be able to play d20 I just Popped Out of Mommy?

So should we be able to have a conversation about this?

At some point, as it's in the end a game, there has to be a deviding line. a point where you say this is where my character starts.

You're not telling me anything new here.

 

[Lacyon]

So, the DM didn't ignore the crit after they saw the monsters were a bit overpowered for your party?

The problem is crits when the monsters aren't overpowered for your party.

 

[Scribble]

So what you're saying is you like straw men?

So what you're saying is you like ignoring an argument by calling it a strawman?

So should we be able to have a conversation about this?

Yes... you're saying (at least it appears to me) essentially that backstory is a bad way to handle things your character did before he or she entered the ongoing story.

I'm saying that this is a bad way of looking at things, as at some point we have to draw the line. Yes, granted playing a character from the moment of birth is an exageration, but the point is valid.

WOTC drew the line saying your characters are heros for the sake of letting you start out with some moticum of ability to survive aside from player luck. If you want to say your character started as a pig farmer with no skills or abilities fine, just do it as a backstory.

What about if you die durring the adventure and roll up a new dude at say level 5... backstory is how most people handle the reason this newly created character is level five... should we have to play a solor character for 5 levels instead?

 

[Storm-Bringer]

The problem is crits when the monsters aren't overpowered for your party.

And that prevents the DM from ignoring the crit?

 

[Rex Blunder]

I think the argument is, "a system where the DM doesn't regularly have to fudge (4e) is superior to a system where the DM does regularly have to fudge (3e)".

(I don't necessarily ascribe to this view. I am totally excited about 4e, but I also love 3e. And 1e. And basic. (And I suppose 2e probably isn't as bad as I remember...))

 

[Lacyon]

And that prevents the DM from ignoring the crit?

No, it just means that the DM has to bypass the system to achieve the desired results.

I keep reading in other threads about how the fact that you can change the system doesn't reflect on whether it's a good or bad system. Something like that, anyway.

Not that I have a problem with ignoring the rules when doing so leads to more fun. I'd just prefer to do it less often.

 

[Fifth Element]

Except, that isn't a problem with the rules. That is a problem with the DM.

No, it's a problem with how swingy low-level play can be in previous editions. One solid hit, from any opponent, and you're down.

Easier than trying to balance 0-level class abilities would be a 'no crits for monsters' ruling until the party was around 3rd level or so. Similarly, arrows only do 1hp each until the party is a bit stronger.

If there's nothing wrong with the rules, why are you suggesting using different rules for low-level characters?

What if the DM is relatively new as well, and doesn't know that he has to change the rules while the characters are 1st level?

I don't see the problem here: you say the DM has to know not to use the rules as written to help low-level characters survive (and if they don't, it's the DM's fault, not the rules). 4E changes low-level play so that the characters can survive without DM fiat.