NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5462315" data-attributes="member: 48965">The player does not choose whether they attain their goal of an ED or not... not unless they now get to dictate to the DM that they will live to reach the appropriate level to choose one. Otherwise choosing a pre-made and pre-packaged destiny is no different and probably less flexible than moving up into epic levels in 3.5 or choosing a sphere/path to immortality.  I call bull on this... the number of player generated hooks is in no way dictated or facilitated any better in 4e than in any other edition. Ultimately it rests on the PC's. Now if you are talking about mechanical indicators then I would admit that BECMI has less than 4e because it has a lighter set of rules, but then I would argue 3.5 definitely has more mechanical indicators than 4e does(of course whether you think that 3.x's are better or worse is another story). Of course again, the number of mechanical indicators does not in fact correlate to the number of PC generated hooks and whether or not the DM sees fit to place them in his campaign.  The metagame in 4e is gamist/tactical in nature though, based more off correct numbers and math than any type of narrative concerns... and IMO this fits about as well as simulationism when compared with the use of narrativism determining the pacing, challenges faced, etc.. Now I can understand if you enjoy gamist vs. simulationist mechanics better but claiming they objectively do this type of play better than simulationism and are on par with purposefully narrative rules, like HQ, seems quite a stretch.  IMO... no it doesn't. To me the relevant respects are that a Character can totally personalize and define their attributes in HQ without being confined by the dictates of the designers...4e is nothing like that, it is a class based system (base, paragon, epic) with narrowly defined (by class), pre-packaged powers. I also don't see how their chooice of what skill to use (which is something they have the power to decide in almost any edition of D&D) makes 4e better than any other edition at hero-questing.  And you can do that irregardless of edition is my point. The hashing out at the table and exploration of what it means to be LG in any edition is about what the players and DM (because ultimately he is a part of the game as well and whether 4e or 3e or BECMI must facilitate this particular mode of play) make of it. The difference is once we as a group come to agreement on what these alignments mean we then also have mechanical consequences and rewards to back them up... Again in 4e it is hardly worth the effort as alignment affects nothing...even if the player wants it to... by the book it affects nothing about his character mechanically... while in HQ if Lawful Good is an attribute someone has decided upon he will work out what that means with the DM (as above) and it most certainly has concrete mechanical effects in game. And honestly if we are speaking to in-game consequences...4e is no better than any other edition since this is totally dependant upon the DM.   "Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition few people are completetly consistent..." The above is from the PHB, and while I know many people have come to view alignment as this almost boogey man like entity of restrictions and boxing in... that is not how it is actually presented in the 3.5 PHB or DMG. there are no penalties for changing your alignment, the game states that actions and not words should be an indicator of one's alignment (which seems in line with your idea of defining in-play), and it encourages the DM to be an arbitrater as opposed to a dictator when it comes to alignment even cautioning against the DM punishing or changing alignments for minor and infrequent transgressions. So again, I am not seeing how this type of game is harder to play out (if the group decides this is the type of play they want to go for) with 3.5 or BECMI vs. 4e. Ok, last but not least... you're judging the whole of Planescape by one module. You realize this is like me judging the whole of the Nentir Vale's worth as a setting on KotS or even the Kobold Mansion adventure in the DMG... If you think that's fair, then so be it... and that's really all I'll say on that matter.</blockquote>

Verification