Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4038718" data-attributes="member: 2067">I cry foul at that, but more because of the aforementioned "one person isn't playing by the rules." If the DM created rules for heroes with cancer, I'd be cool with it on one level, but that would certainly change the tenor of the game to one that is, for me, skirting close to unwelcomingly realistic.Because Superman wouldn't die of Cancer, either.Not all creatures need action points. Not all creatures need heroic class levels or XP, either. These are heroic mechanics. Reserving them for elite or solo monsters and special NPC's, along with the PC's, seems entirely in keeping with the idea that there are heroes who have special powers, and then there is Joe Dirt Farmer, who is like you and me.To drive it home:Bingo. The link posted above does a great job of describing this.I'm skipping a lot of replying to the whole me-calling-things-names angle, because I basically agree. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The comparison is that the GM doesn't just have more narrative control. As you say, that's always true of D&D, and is well within the bounds of the game. The issue is that in exerting that narrative control, the GM creates events that aren't covered by the rules, and doesn't use the possibilities that the rules allow for to resolve it (including making up new rules). If a GM is still limited by describing effects in line with the possibilities inherent in the ruleset, then they are still playing by the same set of rules, just with the more autonomy than the characters. If the GM can declare certain parts of the game beyond the reach of the rules, then the GM is able to act beyond the rules, and so can spell words without using vowels and can kill knights without using the HP system.Now, maybe other players have this control, too (they can say that their uncle was a 20th level fighter who died on a horse), in which case EVERYONE can play scrabble without using vowels.Which is, I'm sure, fun for them, it's jut not my thing, because it feels like cheating to me. Even if everyone is doing it, and it's well-acknowledged, the Scrabble rules are built assuming that people use vowels, the vowels add a particular challenge (resource management and random chance) that I don't want to get rid of. I don't see how it adds to my fun so much as just makes things 'easier,' and I play games, in part, to be challenged.That's kind of stretching the analogy about as far as it will go, but I hope it gets at the trigger for this emotion in me. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's pretty close, yeah.The simple answer is that as long as the choices fall within the variance for the rules, and has no direct mechanical resolution or effect (there are no tables for eye colors, and gender is a moot point), it doesn't break anything. A character who was a human with bright purple hair and insect-like eyes who could change gender at will would probably break me. A changeling with the same probably wouldn't. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />There are rules for what happens when you fall off a horse, and "instant death regardless of level" isn't one of the possible consequences, so a character who faces instant death regardless of level from falling off a horse (but only when they're not on-stage) breaks me. A 1st level Aristocrat falling off a horse probably wouldn't. And I did say I have no real problem with groups who have fun playing Scrabble without vowels. My way certainly isn't the only way, but it's a valid way that the rules do support.We can't read the intent, only the writing. I'm happy to interpret that to mean that the dice describe what is possible, so they are the rules by which people succeed and fail and live and die. Regardless of where the 'camera' is.And that's one of the symptoms of a problem that many are having with 4e. They saw this in 3e as an improvement, as a feature, not a bug, and abandoning it hurts their play style, one in which the OP's suggestions would be largely unwelcome and not fun at all. It is evidence that in D&D as it exists now, NPC's follow the same rules as PC's, even when the lights aren't on them.For my own milage, I'd hope that 4e streamlines NPC mechanics without abandoning this entirely. SWSE's rule for nonheroic characters covers this pretty decently enough.Right. Again, intent is difficult to argue, and I have no problem with people playing other ways. I do have a slight problem with 4e (and certain supporters) telling me I do have to change the way I play in order to fully enjoy the next edition.I don't REALLY think it will do that in a major way, but if the designers agreed with the OP, it would, and that would be a problem for me.Actually, it's right before the NPC class descriptions. Which means that NPC's are supposed to advance through NPC classes by gaining XP the same way that PC's do. Presumably, since the statement isn't limited to NPC classes, they'd also progress through PC classes the same way that PC's do. There's also lines in that paragraph like "Not being adventurers, however, their opportunities are more limited" and "A commoner is likely to progress in levels very slowly" and "Most commoners never attain higher than 2nd or 3rd level in their whole lives" and "Dangerous areas are more likely to produce high-level NPCs than peaceful, settled lands."Specifically, there is an example about a commoner who fights off gnolls regularly. It's also mentioned that town guards might be slightly higher level than the rest of the population.All this strongly suggests that high-level tower-dwelling wizards faced challenges that brought them to that level, and earned XP in all the ways that PC's do. By default, this means that they killed orcs and gnolls and goblins and giants and dragons and vampires and fiends just like any PC. Even when the PC's weren't around. And they survived such adventures, presumably, because they have HP, even when they're not in the spotlight. Because the rules for PC's apply to NPC's, too, they did it within the bounds that the dice allow for. They lived by the rules, they can die by the rules.I think they realized that people don't really need four different NPC classes that go up to level 20 if NPC's don't get above level 2-3 and most are commoners. And they don't need tables to generate entire towns. 3e went too far, frequently, leaving you with a lot of useless detail, and 4e recognizes this and trims it up.I don't imagine that 4e fully embraces the case of the OP, because the designers are clever enough to realize that some people really enjoyed this aspect of 3e. They can cut it down without removing it entirely and satisfy both ends of the spectrum by finding a middle ground.There is plenty of concern about if 4e goes 'too far' in the other direction. I don't think it really will, but points like the Bugbear Strangler's ability suggest that in some places, maybe it does. That in further embracing ideas like the OP's, they have partially abandoned players like me, because I don't really have much fun in a game where everything works on different rules.</blockquote>

Verification