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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aurumvorax" data-source="post: 5331255" data-attributes="member: 87266">[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] I'm not going to quote everything you wrote but a few key things:  This is personal opinion but I feel it cheapens a game when I have to tell people "That chapter on items?  Forget it, I'm not using it."  I could come up with different identify rules but that's another balancing act within 4e's strict internal structure.  Do I charge them money like in other editions?  I really don't want to because money is tighter in 4e than any other edition.  A skill check would work but frankly I never liked skills even in 2e and 3e.  In the end you'll give it to the "expert" who almost never fails and you're basically just delaying what could have been hand-waved in 5 minutes. Since this topic is about 1st edition "feel" I like it when people experiment with their equipment.  Identify was always an option in AD&D but it poisoned you making it an unappealing choice for any wizard.  You can't do this with 4e items since they're all battle dependent.  The experimentation is "I activate the item's daily power, tell me what happens?" If you want an AD&D feel the first thing I suggest is making daily powers encounter powers.  Players should want to use items because in almost every condition a PCs at-will abilities are better than an item's dailies.  I mean not being 100% sure something won't blow up in your face.  I can't interrupt an enemy's power in 4e.  I don't have to take into effect random durations for abilities like fly.  I don't have to worry about teleporting away from my destination, losing my mind when I contact an extraplanar creature, or ruining the potion in my backpack because a fireball hit me. Everything works in 4e as its intended to.  Some people like this but it goes against the 1st edition feel.     Because there is no mystery when you know how everything will work.  You know that the trap around the hall will only burn through your healing surges meaning another day to rest.  You know the monster's disease doesn't pose a real threat because you have 3 different attempts at 50% each to recover.  Magic items are already listed for the players so where's the mystery in discovering them?  Why should the DM go through the trouble of making his own magic items when their only purpose in the game is to give a +whatever bonus here and a duplicate of a common power? Magic items in 4e are completely worthless.  The Dark Sun setting is awesome because it insists on using inherent bonuses and tossing away magic item bloat.  In this way the character's powers are the highlight and they don't have to worry about treasure parcels and the like.  Their money is spent on buying supplies so they don't die horribly in the wilderness.  That's closer to the AD&D feel right there.  The change is a fundamental part of the game.  The "default" is what's assumed in in every single 4e book.  If I change one thing in 4e then I follow a domino effect for each source I use. No, I'd rather nix magic items altogether but most 4e players aren't expecting that.  Another domino effect.  I could reduce the amount monster's are worth but combat in 4e takes long enough as is.  If I change experience then I'll also have to change how parcels are obtained or just do away with parcels altogether.  This means careful management of what treasure PCs get, when, and where.  Balance is to keep the game flowing in a clear direction.  As much as I like AD&D, it's lack of clear guidelines on treasure and experience lead to the famous Monty Haul sessions or players being of vastly varying power.  If you ignore the rules then your game will fall apart.  That last statement is based on personal experience but I have yet to play a single D&D game where more than a handful of house rules didn't turn into an absolute mess. The number of games that go from level 1 to 30 is disproportionately less than games that end after a few levels.  This could be attributed to a number of reasons but I can guarantee you that people who rewrite the game find their campaigns ending a lot sooner than those that don't.  Dark Sun does absolutely nothing the game wasn't intended to do.  DMG1 already had inherent bonuses.  They removed the ridiculously retarded 3/3/3 rule and instead give an abstracted "supply" list.  They added in a couple of features from PHBIII to incorporate psionics and profane magic. I've been doing what Dark Sun has established since the game came out.  All the setting did was combine the new material made over the past 2 years in a single campaign setting.  What's your definition of few because judging by the number of points you quoted, by the number of bullets in the average poster's laundry list of ideas, by the number of times this topic has appeared since Essentials was released and Wizards teased us by reusing the Basic Set red box I'd say the tweaks you have to make are more than a few.   -Use magic items not in the PHB (count 1 point for every new item you create)-Use a system of identify that isn't "fondle object for five minutes"-Redefine the way experience points and encounters are designed-Give more oomph to spells/rituals (1 point for each spell/ritual you redesign)-Make traps deadlier and conditions more debilitating (1 point for each one you change)-Devise a system where monsters can join in a battle without lopsiding the fight and ruining the action economy-Devise a system of handing out treasure that doesn't ensure players can buy every magic foo under the sun or don't come out empty handed-Change extended rest so it doesn't instantly heal you of cancer in 8 hours That's more than a few.    Even though I can walk into town and buy food/water for a piddling amount a day and basically never run out unless the DM says "Okay, that's a enough."  The post-apocalyptic nightmare where monsters roam every corner is already what the Points of Light concept incorporates minus the stretch of desert.  Mouse Guard's similarities with Burning Wheel end at how you throw the dice and simplified combat, making up about 20 total pages.  4e's basic rules include 16 pages of races, 112 pages of classes, 14 pages of skills, 18 pages of feats, 45 pages of equipment, and 29 pages of combat.  If I wanted to make derivitive product or change the way the game plays and feels, I'd need to alter the contents of your average RPG.  But violence is often the best resort.  I gain no bonuses to my dice with talking.  Physical tests in Dogs is rewarded by adding bonuses from your items and by Dog's design the fallout for combat is more narrative than mechanical meaning it's actually better from a roleplaying perspective to approach things with forcefulness and hostility.  Your mileage varies, of course, but I'm trying to speak primarily in mechanics.  AD&D's modular design gave you the freedom necessary to say "damn the rules, full speed ahead!" Your experience in 1e was a free reign narrative and I argue that this is only possible in a game that doesn't stress so many tactical options. The Essentials Red Box perfectly encompasses everything 4e is about and I feel this closes the argument.  "Heroes don't hide, heroes don't refuse adventure hooks, and heroes throw themselves in danger" to sum the entire thing up.  Every edition of D&D ever has described the PCs as great heroes but they never said "BTW your hero is assumed to act in this manner..." until now. For example, what would happen if the same character became a half-demon in 4e?  Would you change his race into a tiefling?  Would you write up a couple of encounter powers and change ability scores around?  Or would it simply be hand waved as a cosmetic change?  In all cases but the latter, it's a major change to the way the character is run and the assumed "balance" of the game.  The DM would have more work on his hands as he ad-hocs new situations based on something that goes against what 4e assumes. -------------- This is a lot of crap and this is a very touchy subject but my question remains unanswered: why go through the effort of modifying a game to do something it wasn't designed to do? This is a difficult subject because there's no real evidence, but from personal experience I've never played in a long lasting game based on heavy house rules.  House rulings are an accepted (and expected) result of playing a game but when your rules reach a point where the resulting changes is longer than another game of the same type, just play that game! 4e is a well designed game because the designers built it around clear assumptions.  I'm not comfortable with the idea of butchering a product like Dr. Frankenstein and turning it into a shambling, mindless monster .  It might be entertaining for a few sessions but after a while I just want to play the original.  Every old edition of D&D is available in some modern incarnate that's 99% true to its source.  Give me that instead of a new car with a crappy engine inside it. I wonder what will happen 30 years from now assuming D&D is still ongoing.  Will we see topics like "4e feel with 9e rules?"</blockquote>

Verification