D&D 4E 4e: Death of the Bildungsroman

I agree with :

Hussar said:
Magic in the game though has to be a tool. It's not a plot device. It's no different than a weapon in the hands of a fighter type. It's going to be used and used as often as possible.

Whether it can be used once a day or once a minute, it really doesn't matter.

But I don't agree that the reason is :

Hussar said:
But, those stories always end. They don't tell you what happens when the protagonist figures out that there are a hundred and one uses for this helmet that makes him invisible. Because that would spoil the story.

This seems like a Simulationist-by-habit "RPG are by definition open-ended like the real world".

It is simply because D&D is about facing off challenges in great numbers with a wizard team member.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

skeptic said:
This seems like a Simulationist-by-habit "RPG are by definition open-ended like the real world".

It is simply because D&D is about facing off challenges in great numbers with a wizard team member.

You know, life would be much, much easier if you stopped seeing everything through the lens of G/N/S wackery.
 

hong said:
You know, life would be much, much easier if you stopped seeing everything through the lens of G/N/S wackery.

Yeah, it's much better to have hundreds of different threads arguing about rules details than simply saying I prefer G over S and vice-versa.

The most important thing RPG theory does is to identify different answers to the "What an RPG game is about ?" GNS/BigModel may not be comprehensive, but at least it give us tools to discuss RPG at a more interesting level than rules implementation details.
 
Last edited:

Not to degrade all the interesting talk that's gone on for 5 pages, but there's a very simple answer to his question.
two said:
Do I have to create an artificial level 0?
To which the answer is: Yes, unless there are rules for Level 0 in the DMG; and?

If you want to start your players out weak, then start 'em weak. Many 3.x players started at 3rd level specifically because they wanted to avoid the Bildungsroman effect (heck, the "you meet over beers in a tavern" intro to a campaign is a cliche specifically because many people want to skip the Bildungsroman part and get right to being heroes and smashing things). These people didn't whine about how weak 1st level characters were, they just took steps to counteract it and went merrily along. If you want to go the other way and put in some houserules to re-introduce Bildungsroman, then nobody's going to stop you (except, possibly, your players).

The question is, then, are you so arrogant to think that if people don't hew to your chosen style of game they're doing it wrong, and therefore the choice of the 4E designers to skip Bildungsroman is bad, or are you just whining about the lack of something you can easily bring back in?
 

I don't see the problem in comparison to previous editions. The 3e fluff text described 1st-level player characters as full-fledged adventurers, trained in their craft. If you REALLY wanted to go from peasant-to-immortal (a very overplayed plot line, by the way) in 3e, you would've had to start off as an NPC class.
 

I'm worried that the OP may be doomed to a great deal of disappointment with D&D in general, because no edition of D&D has ever supported Bildungsroman as part of the default setup. (Some attempts at level 0 have come close, but since that may still exist in 4E for all we know, it is not relevant to the discussion, which has up until now been specifically aimed at use of first level characters.)

A first level fighter is not a farmer stepping off the farm for the first time. He is proficient and trained in almost every single weapon and armour type known to man with the exception of a few, mostly oddball weapons that most soldiers would never touch. He can go toe-to-toe with critters that kill the peasants around him, and slaughter them in one blow, or in some cases more than one with a single blow!

A first level wizard has completed their apprenticeship, and is ready to set out into the great wide world to make a name for themselves. They have gone past the cantrips they struggled to master while they were mere apprentices, and have learned actual spells, spells capable of killing a man in one cast (magic missile), or killing a roomful of peasants (burning hands). No wizard in his right mind teaches that sort of spell to a raw apprentice.

A first level rogue is no raw orphan learning to pickpocket - he has mastered the basics of a variety of skills and has even learned where to strike a target for maximum, lethal effect. That's no rank amateur.

And first level clerics have progressed far enough in their training and faith that when they call upon their god for aid, they get a bona-fide act of divine intervention, even if it is just healing a wound! How many peasants can do that?

All of them have one thing in common - they have progressed past the need for an active and protective mentor. They even have starting equipment far beyond what any peasant might be expected to possess, so not only are they trained, they're also adequately equipped.

D&D is not, and never has been, a game where first level characters are the untrained everyday farmer/scullion/orphan central to the Bildungsroman genre. They are the militia member, the skillful pickpocket, the fresh graduate from the temple or the academy. They are already past the need for a full-time mentor, and have reached the point where they need real-world experience to hone their abilities and broaden their repertoire of abilities.

Yes, their power level is low compared to many of the threats they will need to rise to meet, and they may be near the bottom of the food chain for now, but they are no longer everymen.

So 4E will need level 0 rules to even come close to a Bildungsroman. If they don't exist, then house rules will be required, since third party supplements are forbidden from including rules that explain how to level up characters.
 

Darth Cyric said:
I don't see the problem in comparison to previous editions. The 3e fluff text described 1st-level player characters as full-fledged adventurers, trained in their craft. If you REALLY wanted to go from peasant-to-immortal (a very overplayed plot line, by the way) in 3e, you would've had to start off as an NPC class.

A 1st level Fighter in Basic D&D was a Vetran.

You never started as a Farm Boy. Unless you ran those "0 Level" games.
 


So what about playing in a low magic setting?

one thing 3.5 enabled DM's and PC's to do was customise their game to their playing style, if you wanted to play the Bildungsroman style you could, , if you wanted to play uber high levels you could, if you didn't like the first couple of levels b/c you may get squished you could start at 3rd or whatever

1st level characters in 3.5 would get their a** handed to them by "1st" level PC's from 4E

The power jump from Pion -> 0 level -> 1st level is huge thats if they have rules for 0 level characters

I'm hopeing that there will be rules to run low magic settings where you can't fire off MM or any spell at will (maybe cantrips) but get more encounter and daily powers

Im really looking forward to 4E but I can see the OP's idea
 


Remove ads

Top