Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 6210165" data-attributes="member: 48965"> Hasn't it been claimed that cure light wound wands, scrolls and potions essentially serve the same purpose as healing surges... so really if the DM wants to have this in a pre-4e campaign it's trivially easy... Again, with the exception of some "gotcha" monsters and some variation with the math (which even 4e is not totally absent of) weren't HD/CR already present and used as rough benchmarks for difficulty?  On top of that earlier editions had attribute checks, and/or DCs which allowed a DM (If they wanted to) to predict the range of difficulties in tasks their players could handle and run their game with those values in mind?  Perhaps the math has been refined and I guess that could make it easier but earlier D&D already had the tools you are talking about. The classes of BECMI and AD&D 1e, the kits/skills and powers, etc. of AD&D 2e and the feats/prestige classes, etc. of 3.x and higher all alow this (and this is before we look to the OGL for 3.x which gives even more mechanics to serve these purposes.  Again standard DC's and monster level/roles through classes/etc. are not new. Previous editions had non-combat resolution mechanics in the form of skills, NWP's, attribute checks, etc. Let's just say I consider this bull.  A fighter PC in 4e is no more "inherently located" than a fighter in any other edition... What does this even mean?  As a DM you can focus on building your setting however you want... I think most people running a D&D game focus on conflicts and use inbuilt conflicts as the skeleton for details in play... or are you speaking to the whole "make-it-up as we go along" subject that arose earlier in this thread?... as to the "vibe" that's such a vague statement, I don't even know what to make of it.  To address the above, let's be real... D&D has always had explicit if not implicit underpinnings for Level appropriate challenges all the way back to the 1st level dungeon being easiest and difficulty increasing as one traversed higher levels... D&D has moved towards a more codified non-combat resolution system (including extended skill checks in 3.x) from the beginning... encounter based play actually started with 3.x and 4e is wishy washy as to the role of the DM so no, I don't see a strong  "indie" influence in the broad view of these things.  now I do think they took indie inspiration in how they were presented and how they were expected to be implemented and this is where, IMO, 4e fell flat for many.  Instead of providing tools and getting out the way, 4e tried to (abysmally IMO) tell DM's how to specifically use these tools (in a pseudo indie way) and fell on their face for may of the inconsistencies, weird contradictions, etc. that arose for many either because of the inherent tension between the mechanics, explanations and actual results... or the simple fact that many didn't want to play in this particular style.  as I said before I still believe that you and many others who run 4e in an "indie" style either resolve the contradictions and problems by taking advice from other games, ignoring it or adding to the game.I'm curious... have you read the 3e books or actually played 3.x yet? I know in past conversations you tended to base your 3.x knowledge on rolemaster (which while it may have similar underpinnings is not 3.x and especially not 3.x with the various options offered by the OGL.</blockquote>

Verification