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

[Sashi]

Yes of course I can start them weak in 4e, I just don't want to be obliged to create house rules to do this.

And I say again: so?

This isn't the "death" of Bildungsrommen, it's the "death" of official support of Bildungsrommen by the rules "out of the box" (and even that has been debated for 10 pages by the nice people who frequent the forum).

Lots of people have game styles that aren't automatically supported under their favorite rules set. Ever tried to play Low Magic in 3E? A space adventure in Shadowrun? 4E Half-Orc barbarians are going to be way harder to put into the game than a level zero. (Half Orc Barbarian? Applies to 100% of all levels possible to play. Level Zero? Applies to 3.2%)

What makes Bildungsrommen so super special that it absolutely must be included in the game "out of the box"? Is it because it's your favorite gametype? Well that's arrogance. Is it because you don't like making house rules? That's whining.

Sure, it's loss of a possible storyline, but it can be houseruled in. Tah Dah! It's as if we're allowed to change the rules to fit what we need and want them to be only to the limits of our imaginations!

 

[Storm-Bringer]

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.

Then, avoid being hit. There are plenty of ways to earn XP in previous editions without plunging into combat all the time.

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

Point out where I said there was something wrong with the rules. I am offering alternatives ways to counteract this alleged 'swingyness'. I don't think there is anything wrong with the rules as they stand. I recall a good deal of running away and ambushes back when I started with 1st edition. And everyone had a missile weapon.

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?

Who says the DM has to change the rules?

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.

In other words, when you can't trust the DM to intervene and make sure everyone is having fun.

As I said before, a problem with the DM, not the rules.

Most of the changes I have seen previewed and proposed are exactly of this kind. Protecting the characters from the DM. Not only will the new edition fail to provide any kind of protection from the DM that is intent on killing off characters, it will encourage that very behaviour from newer DMs, because they will be even more strictly 'following the rules'.

 

[smathis]

4E Half-Orc barbarians are going to be way harder to put into the game than a level zero.

Well said.

Count me as someone who is perplexed by the degree of ire this thread has raised. It's all boiled down into two simple points...

1) D&D has always treated PCs as being "better" than common folk. No one ever started out as a farmboy in D&D using rules-as-written.

2) Hacking this sort of play into 4e will be no harder than Level Zero play in 2e or using NPC levels in 3e.

So what is all the fuss about?

Surely the bildungsroman crew have less of a beef with 4e than the Half-Orc Barbarian crew? Or the Gnome Illusionist crew?

There have been lots of viable suggestions in this thread (and others) for playing just this kind of game in 4e. And we still don't know what's covered in the DMG. They may have all sorts of awesome for starting out as Regular Joes in there.

I'm starting to feel like this is less of a beef with anything bildungsroman and more of a rationalization to hate on 4e.

 

[Dausuul]

Recalculate that without the crits.

First, it's "crit," singular. Second... why?

The orc warrior in the MM uses a falchion. 2d4+4 damage with an 18-20 crit range. One crit out of six melee attacks is to be expected. The whole point of the exercise was to demonstrate that a TPK (or at least 1-2 deaths and the rest unconscious) can quite easily result from a standard difficulty encounter in 3.X.

I thought the new edition was designed with 'complete fun' as a primary goal. If fudging a roll or two has the same outcome as more initial hit points, what is the difference? How does that make fudging less worthy as an option?

The difference is that the DM doesn't have to ignore the rules. I will concede that there will always be situations where ignoring the rules is necessary, but the fewer such situations there are, the better the rules are. Otherwise, why bother with rules at all?

If that is the ultimate solution, it begs the questions: How was that impossible in previous editions?

As a house-rule, it wasn't. Indeed, a lot of people did it. The difference is that now it's built into the system, and the system is balanced with the new rule in mind.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm starting to feel like this is less of a beef with anything bildungsroman and more of a rationalization to hate on 4e.

Nah, I think I disagree.

I see where Two is coming from. I, too, like the idea of weak starting heroes finding their sea legs and beginning the heroic journey. And mixing their metaphors, ahem. That's a really powerful theme, and it isn't as obvious in 4e as it was in previous editions.

I think you're overstating the problem, though. Here's what you need to do to run an adventure with fledgling heroes who are just starting out.

1. Halve starting hit points before adding con.
2. Remove one at-will ability and the daily ability, leaving them with one at-will and one encounter.
3. Halve starting money.
4. Keep feats, skills, defenses, and racial abilities the same.

It's super-fast, and easy to remember - but this will give you a hero who's just about the same starting strength as a 3e character. Be careful with choosing monsters so as to prevent excess mortality. After the first adventure or two, level them up to first level, and go nuts from there.

 

[Sashi]

But, Piratecat, you are missing the essence of Two's post (and I hate to sound facetious here, but there's really no way not to): he doesn't want to house rule. He wants his favorite way of starting the game to be the official and standard way of starting the game, and if someone doesn't like it they can house rule away from it.

This is what has me so perplexed.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Kids gloves rules are fine if you want to play that way, but my group appreciates the threat of death throughout the PCs careers (the danger of death is a large part of what makes combat fun, IMO). Just not insta-death. I can't think of anything less fun in an RPG than losing your character in a scenario that you had absolutely no say in or control over.

Aren't additional hit points the same kind of kid gloves? I don't understand how you can have 'absolutely' no say about what your character does. Any reasonable DM would allow the party to retreat safely if things were going badly. If the DM has the monsters pursue your party until everyone is dead, is that a problem with the rules?

At level 1, unless you win initiative against an ogre, you're as good as dead. Sometimes running is indeed the answer. Unfortunately the low PC hp and high monster damage of 3.x often made this virtually impossible unless the entire party won initiative (unless we're playing evil characters, most of us are not too keen on the whole leaving friends to die thing- we feel it's very unheroic).

Should a 1st level party be fighting even a single ogre? That might be the time to stop and talk to the DM about what the plans are for the campaign.

[uote]They were goblins with bows, not ogres (the CR 1/3 goblin from the MM). A bow does x3 damage on a crit, doing 1d6 normally. Rolling max, that's 18 total damage, which was more than enough to kill my level 1 wizard outright.[/quote]
Rolling max on an arrow is enough to kill a 1st level wizard outright anyway. The crit has nothing to do with it, in that case. I will grant, sitting at -2 is a bit better than -14 with the crit, but in either case, you are out with one arrow. It has been that way since 1st edition. Well, without the crits.

My DM couldn't just ignore the result since my group rolls dice out in the open, including the DM. We could all see that it was a nat 20.

Well, that is something that a group may want to talk to the DM about. There are certainly other solutions to that besides the ones I have suggested.

It wasn't my DM that was the problem (he's a fantastic DM who has allowed unconventional tactics and benefits during boss battles that were going south), it was the system. I feel pretty safe saying this since it looks like, if the same scenario occured in 4e (goblin crits a level 1 wizard with an arrow on the first round of combat), I'd have deducted the hps, maybe used second wind on my next turn, and the campaign would have continued without interruption (for me). The scenario killed me in 3.x. The scenario wouldn't have (outright) killed me in 4e. One of these seems to me to be better balanced in this respect than the other.

I don't mean to impugn your DM specifically, I am talking in generalities regarding this situation.

However, the solution proffered by 4e isn't any different than one that could be implemented in previous editions, and was the more popular, if I recall correctly. It is certainly a valid solution. My quibble is that it is not it is a bad solution, in and of itself. Combined with the other additions, however, it seems a bit overboard.

Saying that the DM can ignore the system when it doesn't work does not make for a good system. Shouldn't the rules of a game system work toward the goal of fun, even when applied "evenly"? DM fiat is fine when necessary, but I'd consider this a case where less is more.

Personal taste, I suppose. I don't want to point out badwrongfun, so don't take it that way, but I prefer to have a bit of give and take with the narrative. I can't really say exactly how much is the perfect balance at every table, but it sounds like most people have a good idea, or they would be on the internet yelling about it, like we do.

Regarding your first point, I am certain I have heard that in response to some arguments favouring 4e over previous editions utilizing the 'houserule it' counterpoint.
Not from you specifically, that I am aware of

 

[pemerton]

The OP is asking for a mechanical construct to describe the prologue to a Level 1 4E character's adventuring days. But the purpose of this construct isn't to start the character off weak, in narrative terms -- it's to make the player feel weak. I'm not convinced that you can both accommodate player weakness and narrative certainty simultaneously.

There is one way to do it: give all the power to the GM. A "solution" which D&D (especially 2nd ed) has been especially prone to adopt.

Railroading (and illusionism) aside, I take your point.

 

[Piratecat]

But, Piratecat, you are missing the essence of Two's post (and I hate to sound facetious here, but there's really no way not to): he doesn't want to house rule. He wants his favorite way of starting the game to be the official and standard way of starting the game, and if someone doesn't like it they can house rule away from it.

This is what has me so perplexed.

Yup. He's not going to get it. It's too bad for folks who feel the same way as he does, but it's not going to change. So at least he has an easy workaround if he decides that house rules are better than being unhappy about the starting power level.

 

[FireLance]

Yup. He's not going to get it. It's too bad for folks who feel the same way as he does, but it's not going to change. So at least he has an easy workaround if he decides that house rules are better than being unhappy about the starting power level.

I don't know about that. Maybe DMG 2 will have "official" rules for starting below 1st level.