Clerics can't heal (NPCs)?

[GnomeWorks]

My milieu is bigger than yours.

...or is it?

You don't care to flesh out anything beyond what your players are interacting with. I disagree with that particular approach, and prefer to have a world that is active outside of the player's immediate influence.

I think that would imply that my milieu is bigger than yours.

 

[hbarsquared]

First - Khur/Chris Sims

Thank you so much for joining this thread for some enlightening revelations. I know there is a lot of negativity toward 4E, and this thread is no exception, but I wanted to express my gratitude for what you and WotC is doing, as well as coming down into the trenches to help those of us that are interested in what you have to say. Thank you.

Second - hong

You are my favorite poster.

Third -

If you are not the protagonist in the story of your own life, something is wrong.

This is why PCs follow different rules than NPCs. The setting exists solely for the benefit of your gaming group.

If you want your NPCs to have class levels, 4E does not prevent you from dong so. If you want to have NPCs exist solely for "roleplaying" purposes, with no stats or mechanics, 4E give you the tools to do so. If you want NPCs to simply fill their role in the story centered on the PCs, you can.

In real life, you never know the "mechanics" of everyone else, and only barely of your self. Do you know what the stranger across the street, your best friend, you mother, your wife, is thinking? Do you know their memories, every aspect of their history? Do you know how they will react in any situation, know what they will say before they say it? Do you even know these things about yourself?

Real life is composed of NPCs with no stat blocks, anyway. And from a certain perspective, the universe, and all the people in it, exist solely because you, yourself, is conscious of it. Why should not a roleplaying game be different?

 

[HeinorNY]

The world should feel alive. It's more immersive and more interesting, that way. The games should rightly focus on the players, but that doesn't mean that there aren't things happening elsewhere.

I agree, but IMO that's the DM's job and not the Rule's job.

The players can't see the Hobgoblin thug-captain-general stats, all they have is what the DM tells them. It's how the DM impersonates and plays that NPC that makes him memorable and important to the story, not the rules.

And from the DM's perspective, my perspective, it won't be the stats that will make that NPC/monster feel "alive" to me, but how the players interact with it and consider it "real". When you realize that the players are not really talking to yourself but to the NPC that's in your mind, and that they are looking at you but actually seeing the NPC you described to them, that's when that NPC is "alive".

Most of my memorable NPCs had a couple of stats or absolutely no stats et al, but the players still remember them, their voices, their personalities, their traits, etc even after decades.

Some won't share my this thoughts, but I believe most will. And I hope 4E will fully, honestly and openly support this way of thinking/playing.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Let me see if I can be more specific. Based on the little I know about 4e, you might have, say, a Hobgoblin Grunt -- a level 1 soldier. You might also have a Hobgoblin Commander -- a Level 6 elite soldier (Leader). The grunt has 2-3 attacks/abilities which define him. The Commander, likewise, has 2-3...maybe 4...abilities which define him. But, one presumes, at one point, the Commander was a Grunt...so what happened to those skill/powers/talents/etc?

Sometimes, other times the Commander used to be a level 2 Elite Soldier, which can be created from the the stats of the level 6 stats if necessary.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well you can still run those campaigns, it is simply as far as mechanics/PCs know only what they are currently seeing is real and exists.

It is like, I know for a fact that everything around me is real and only thing that I know is happening and exists is what around me. The next city over there could have been a fire that burnt down half the city, or a mother had 12 children till I read about it or see it for my own eyes it doesn't exist as far as my knowledge is concerned.

 

[Mouseferatu]

To my mind, the quantum world where only what the PCs are watching exists is a boring one, one I can neither play in nor run. I expect my DMs to run a living world, where my actions *matter to the world*, but do not *define the world*; I try to give my players a place where saving the world matters because the world feels worth saving.

Having played in both editions currently under discussion (as well as most prior ones), I cannot begin to fathom how the above has anything to do with the 3E vs. 4E debate. I, too, prefer worlds where the PCs' actions matter, and things may happen "off-camera." But that has zero (0) intrinsic relationship to the complexity of NPC building, or whether PCs and NPCs are built with the same rules.

 

[GnomeWorks]

This is why PCs follow different rules than NPCs. The setting exists solely for the benefit of your gaming group.

That may be your take on it, but it is not mine.

The setting is a thing unto itself; it is a project apart from the players and their game. When the players seat themselves at my table, they are attempting to immerse themselves in the setting. It is not their plaything; it is something they must interact with. There is give-and-take in both directions: they benefit from the setting, by having an evening of entertainment, while the setting is enriched by their interaction with it.

And from a certain perspective, the universe, and all the people in it, exist solely because you, yourself, is conscious of it. Why should not a roleplaying game be different?

Solipsism. Tasty.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That may be your take on it, but it is not mine.

The setting is a thing unto itself; it is a project apart from the players and their game. When the players seat themselves at my table, they are attempting to immerse themselves in the setting. It is not their plaything; it is something they must interact with. There is give-and-take in both directions: they benefit from the setting, by having an evening of entertainment, while the setting is enriched by their interaction with it.

You can still create an immerse environment and setting, just you don't need to figure out and tweak mechanically every, single npc or monster. Hell it makes it so you have that much more time to create rich and deep dialogue, interesting characters, settings, etc. to make the game even better.

 

[hbarsquared]

In advance, I apologize for any tone. I like philosophical arguments, and I mean the following solely as a debate, and do not mean any insult.

The setting is a thing unto itself; it is a project apart from the players and their game. When the players seat themselves at my table, they are attempting to immerse themselves in the setting. It is not their plaything; it is something they must interact with. There is give-and-take in both directions: they benefit from the setting, by having an evening of entertainment, while the setting is enriched by their interaction with it.

This is wrong. Unless you believe every creative endeavor never actually originates with its creator, but is instead a portal to another universe in which Elizabeth and Darcy well and truly exist.

The setting is created by the DM and the players (and the game designers, and novelists, etc). It is not a thing unto itself, it is not a project apart.

It is, by definition, their plaything.

 

[Campbell]

The question is to what purpose the setting outside the PCs' sphere of influence evolves. Is the setting an end or is its development a means for another end ? In short: does the setting serve the needs of a game or does the setting have intrinsic value beyond the game ?