I’m Thinking of Giving 4e Another Shot

[Samuel Leming]

When you have good people and good adventures, the edition becomes slightly less important. We recently gave 4E a 2nd shot and tossed the the published adventures. Our homebrew game is awesome, set in a city, filled with a lot of non-combat encounters. Much of the combat we do have is with monsters made up by the DM that are created similar to PC's and without the mountains of hit points. It's been a lot of fun.

Technically, the ruleset is 4E. We have learned to kind of forget about what we are playing, and concentrate on what we are doing. It's working out so far.

If you don’t have good people in your group it’s hard to have a good game using any system.

At issue here is getting my group to want to try 4e again.

 

[Samuel Leming]

It is also not merely the "style" but the method of play in early RPGs. It's the fundamental reason for the position of referee. I don't recall any mention at all of post hoc narration being part of (much less identified with) playing a character in OD&D, AD&D, or any other RPG rules set of the 1970s -- which, not coincidentally, did not aim for dissociation of mechanics from the world situation. This is a matter not merely of my (or S.L.'s) opinion but of historical record.

We used to frequently adlib the effects of that last hit that brought down an opponent. It wasn’t often very mature and it certainly wasn’t role playing, but it was fun.

I remember that there was a trend in the late 70’s for increased support of the world situation in new games. Chivalry & Sorcery and Runequest come to mind.

 

[Samuel Leming]

The descriptions, while not technically roleplaying, can still help to portray the personality of the character through the description of that character's actions. Is the character brave, stoic, reckless, dashing or cowardly? Those sorts of characteristics can be displayed through these post hoc "narrativist" descriptions combat actions, and pave the way for more traditional role playing later.

Perhaps what I'm saying is that you may want to reconsider your complete rejection of narrativism, SL... You don't have to use it all the time -- I don't, certainly -- but it does have its uses.

It appears that we don’t share the same definition of narrativist.

I don’t mind a bit of adlib or after the result description but a player deciding results outside the agency of his character is something I want to avoid.

People usually call me Sam.

 

[Samuel Leming]

The wealth system is better understood as an XP system for your equipment.

The problem here is that you may have to spend your wealth on things other than your equipment.

Ugh! Quote overload...

 

[malraux]

The problem here is that you may have to spend your wealth on things other than your equipment.

Ugh! Quote overload...

In 3e, it was certainly possible that you'd spend XP on stuff other than equipment, stats, etc. I don't see the problem with this.

 

[Rechan]

The problem here is that you may have to spend your wealth on things other than your equipment.

Notice that there's nothing the books detail that you buy outside of equipment.

Muchlike in 3e. Outside of "Hire someone to do something" and things like horses/carriages/clothes... wasn't much to spend cash on.

Material component costs is the equivalent of ritual cost components.

 

[illwizard]

I'll tell you something about wishlists... And before I get "Quest for it!" The system assumes that each PC has 3 items: Neck, armor, weapon. I have 5-6 PCs. If every PC is questing for 2-3 items... that means that all they are doing is questing for their equipment, because they want that equipment. Not to mention in my experience, getting players to decide on a goal themselves and pursue it is like getting a cat to take a pill.

Thanks for telling me. I wasn't going to say "Quest for it", I promise.
I suppose I can see how the normal way of giving out treasure (randomly?) could be problematic for a DM, it certainly makes it harder for the player to get that holy avenger or whatever they've been dreaming of. But with my playstyle, I don't really mind and it's even kind of cool to be surprised with whatever treasure happens to be there when you pop that chest. Also makes it much more special when you do finally find that magical sword. I still much prefer doing away with wishlists; too unrealistic for me. I'm guessing your players don't have any problems with it though do they Rechan?

 

[Rechan]

I suppose I can see how the normal way of giving out treasure (randomly?) could be problematic for a DM, it certainly makes it harder for the player to get that holy avenger or whatever they've been dreaming of. But with my playstyle, I don't really mind and it's even kind of cool to be surprised with whatever treasure happens to be there when you pop that chest.

First, I'm just not the kind of guy that likes to roll on tables to determine things. I dislike random classes like wildmages, and random effects like the Rod of Wonder. I am aware of the contradiction that we play a game with dice, thus everything is to chance, but I see the dice as a formality and necessary evil.

Second, it's not just "What item they've been dreaming about".

If you drop a magic bow into the treasure, and no one in the party uses a bow, I think only the rare player will go "I shall now start using bows even though it has nothing to do with my character concept up until this point". This is especially true since 3e, where characters would have dedicated feats to certain weapons (or have weapon restrictions in their class), and if it doesn't fit their character, they just won't use it (in 4e, only certain classes benefit from ranged weapons in the first place, etc).

More than likely, it's going to go into the "sell in town" pile. And since I don't like selling magical items... It also hurts my idea of fantasy when the PCs have a golf bag of magical weapons they carry around, for the occasion they might need that Frost weapon, or a bow.

But I've mentioned elsewhere that my idea of magical items has nothing to do with +X, and that every character should get 1-3 magical items with a thematic suite of powers, and that's it.

I'm guessing your players don't have any problems with it though do they Rechan?

I only did the Wish list with one group, because they were serious players. They knew the rules inside and out, and we were playing serious. It was just easier, for me, to do the wish list then worry over the treasure I was handing out.

My second group are casual gamers who just want to roll dice, kill things, be awesome, and barely pay attention to their class powers. I don't track XP with them - I just tell them when to level up. They don't really care about equipment, and I don't really worry about handing it out - I just give them +x item and that's the end of that.

I am having to leave both groups due to moving, so who knows about the next one.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's beside the point. If the critter can benefit from the magic & is intelligent enough to use it why wouldn't he use it?

Just to clarify - most monsters usually just don't have magic items. They sure would be useful if they had them (both ruleswise and "narratively"), and if they had them, they would be "loot" for the PCs. Those that have (that you have rolled in a homebrew random treasure table or just distributed by following the treasure parcels) magic item can benefit from them.

 

[Primal]

Or El Biggie gets shot a knee joint, it gives, and he stumbles back two squares - since he's so clearly huge, his steps are rather large, so a single staggered backstep is two squares.

Or he simply recoils in pain, because it hit a previous wound.

A rogue can't use a single dagger with Blinding Barrage, btw, unless it's magical.

He can't? So it's a dagger per enemy?

But how would you describe it when a rogue using a magical dagger attacks several incorporeal creatures with 'Blinding Barrage'? Or constructs?