Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5636904" data-attributes="member: 42582">Great post.I agree it's not baked in. When I started my 4e campaign, I told the players that their PCs each had to have (i) some sort of loyalty, and (ii) a reason to be ready to fight goblins. And the rules don't tell me to do this.But I think your criterion for &quot;aboutness&quot; are very strict (not irrationally strict or unreasonably strict, but very strict). A lot of other RPGs, stuck with needless combat rules and a lack of relationship mechanics, will come out as &quot;about combat&quot; only too - eg Runequest and Stormbringer and maybe C&amp;S - and others will have no stakes built in at all - maybe Traveller.I think that D&amp;D, because of it's mainstream design tendencies - even in 4e - should be allowed to get away with being a bit vanilla.And my backup argument is this: nothing in HeroQuest forces me to give my PC a relationship; it's just that the rules support this. Likewise 4e - nothing forces my PC to have a relationship, but the rules support it after a while - Questing Knight, Demonskin Adept, Warpriest of Moradin, Divine Philosopher. The only paragon path in my group that doesn't have a relatioship built in is the Battlefield Archer - but that character is also a hybrid cleric of the Raven Queen.I'll admit my backup argument is a bit weak, because WotC is a bit weak when it comes to doing stuff with the relationships and PC-embedded-into-gameworld that comes with paragon paths. But when you're playing vanilla you have to make a little bit of topping go a long way!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5636904, member: 42582"] Great post. I agree it's not baked in. When I started my 4e campaign, I told the players that their PCs each had to have (i) some sort of loyalty, and (ii) a reason to be ready to fight goblins. And the rules don't tell me to do this. But I think your criterion for "aboutness" are very strict (not irrationally strict or unreasonably strict, but very strict). A lot of other RPGs, stuck with needless combat rules and a lack of relationship mechanics, will come out as "about combat" only too - eg Runequest and Stormbringer and maybe C&S - and others will have no stakes built in at all - maybe Traveller. I think that D&D, because of it's mainstream design tendencies - even in 4e - [I]should[/i] be allowed to get away with being a bit vanilla. And my backup argument is this: nothing in HeroQuest [I]forces[/I] me to give my PC a relationship; it's just that the rules support this. Likewise 4e - nothing [I]forces[/I] my PC to have a relationship, but the rules support it [I]after a while[/I] - Questing Knight, Demonskin Adept, Warpriest of Moradin, Divine Philosopher. The only paragon path in my group that doesn't have a relatioship built in is the Battlefield Archer - but that character is also a hybrid cleric of the Raven Queen. I'll admit my backup argument is a bit weak, because WotC is a bit weak when it comes to doing stuff with the relationships and PC-embedded-into-gameworld that comes with paragon paths. But when you're playing vanilla you have to make a little bit of topping go a long way! [/QUOTE]

Verification