So what are you saying you want me to do? Now that you have cleared up what you intended to comment on first place it is very clear that it was just a potential misunderstanding from my part. Isn't it?
[Ari Marmell's blog] To House Rule or Not to House Rule
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
So what are you saying you want me to do? Now that you have cleared up what you intended to comment on first place it is very clear that it was just a potential misunderstanding from my part. Isn't it?
Mark Hope
Hero
Not to mention the speed of that track.
That a farmboy who picks up his father's sword can be fighting gods in the span of a few months if he adventures nonstop, which many groups do.
D&D has always stolen from current pop culture sources around it. Gary nabbed the Monk from the show Kung Fu and Psionics from Firestarter, and there was no apology about it.
... What does any of this have to do with Houserules again? Why are we arguing editions again?
Well, to get it vaguely back onto house-rules, slowing the rate of xp acquisition is a house-rule that we toyed with from time to time, for exactly the reasons you're mentioning here. A campaign that takes characters from farmboys to godslayers in mere months of game-time has a certain appeal, but at the same time we found it strained belief. If you want to have a game that allows characters to grow into greatness over the course of their lives, while still adventuring regularly, you need to do something about how they acquire xp. Pathfinder has a "slow xp" option, something that has been used in the past. There's also the angle that you can do away with xp entirely and just level the PCs when you want them to level. This kind of thing, imho, goes right to the heart of the discussion, in that you're abandoning balance and doing it "by the book" in order to craft a specific feel for your game. You could take it to the point of not even giving balanced xp awards to the PCs at all, but just levelling them as and when you see fit.
I addressed something and you replied back. Perhaps I did not get what you were trying to say but anyway I believe I was trying to make my case clear. In fact your mood seemed like passive-aggressive to me, but it really does not matter. Now, while you still fail to reply to my argument you say that I thread crap with an edition rant -and ironically my comment was about your comment of using 3.x edition in front of 4e criticism. This is weaseling to me.
Imaro
Legend
Actually aren't you talking mythology as opposed to swords & sorcery?
One of the things I find that kills S&S gaming for me with 4e (besides a non-gritty feel to the mechanics)... is the underlying focus on team-based tactics. S&S vary rarely, if at all, features a party of diverse characters who must work together to overcome challenges. S&S is the genre of heroes, who may choose to work together, but are fully capable of handling a multitude of challenges on their own... I don't find this at all to be the type of style 4e encourages and sometimes it feels as if it even forces an oposite style on the group. I guess this is one of the reasons I found 3.x/Pathfinder to be a better engine for S&S as far as this aspect was concerned. YMMV and all that of course.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Like I said above: I'm happy to discuss how 3e and 4e differ regarding house ruling, and I've got a bit of experience with that.
What I'm not willing to do is participate in a flat-out edition war. They're boring.
If you characterize yourself as a thread-crapper, that just reinforces my desire to NOT participate in your topic derailment.
Ciao, -- N
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Cartoons & prime-time network stuff sure sounds "lowest common denominator" to me.True, but by the same token it almost emotes pity from me when I see a doctor who can't enjoy House, MD or E.R., or a Nascar Driver who can't enjoy a Speed Racer cartoon without critiquing them.
Hmm, I wonder if -- in the Future -- we'll see entertainment tailored to specific professions and/or skill sets. Like, a medical show where the writers assume the entire audience has a working knowledge of anatomy, drug effects, and so forth.
Cheers, -- N
Ahh ok, whatever. could have been as you say.
Now if you please respond to what the "other than combat", "lots of scenes" and "doing it wrong" meant. And yeah, in thread context as you say: 4e and house ruling and all that.
mach1.9pants
Hero
but this does not mean that people cannot criticize 4e for entirely focusing its whole gameplay aspect on a battlemap trying to achieve the things that you can do perhaps better without a battlemap
4E does not focus "its whole gameplay" on the battlemap. Example: Skill Challenges.
4E does not focus "its whole gameplay" on the battlemap. Example: Skill Challenges.
BryonD
Hero
yep...
Interesting thought. In a handful of decades we have come from three networks to having a Golf Channel. If the next 50 years were to hold that pace then it would be pretty precise.
BryonD
Hero
Yes, actually. As a lawyer, I can't stand most legal dramas on TV as a consequence. Some of them are ok. Glenn Close's Damages, for example, comes to mind as one of the best ( but then it reminds me of why I got out of practice in a big firm in the first place.)
<snip>
As a rule, when it comes to enjoying packaged entertainment, ignorance is bliss.
Right, but I think you are being consistent with my position here.
Legal dramas tend to try to present themselves as realistic.
You may be an exception, and I certainly won't speak for you, but I'd be willing to wager that you may dislike a very well written law drama due to your knowledge of the legal process, but you would probably find it much easier to enjoy an equally well written and possibly even less plausible legal drama if that show featured blatant larger than life or even supernatural elements.
And if you are an exception, then ok, you are an exception. I'll still stick to my generalization.
As I said, context is everything.
Similar Threads
