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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5826260" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think that keeping the action resolution mechanics and the PC advancement mechanics the same means that the play has to be the same. It depends, in part, on what those mechanics are.For example, suppose that advancement at all tiers comes primarily from Quests (4e DMG) and time spent actively roleplaying (4e DMG2). Assuming that Quests, and the focus of roleplaying, are both quite different at Epic compared to Heroic tier, then the focus of the game might be quite different, with quite a different feel, even though advancement uses the same mechanics.Likewise with action resolution. If action resolution is based primarily on achieving successes in various categories of checks then the mechanics might stay the same even though the game changes dramatically, because the checks are situated in different fictional contexts, with different fictional consequences.I don't agree that 4e strips out all the things you mention. It has paragon paths like Knight Commander, and epic destinies like Legendary Sovereign and Demigod. What it is lacking is an adequate set of guidelines on how to incorporate those elements of PC build into the situations that the players (via the PCs) confront. For example, in all the material on running skill challenges and designing combat encounters, I have never seen any discussion from WotC of how paragon paths and epic destinies should be factored in.As far as mass combat and domain management are concerned, I think it's unrealistic to expect that people who are playing D&D want, at a certain point, to have the game turn into a tabletop wargame or Railway Tycoon part way through. Mechanics need to be found that make these things part of the action resolution mechanics that the players engage via the ordinary features of their PCs builds.One way to do this is through a high level of abstraction in PC build and action resolution (see eg HeroWars/Quest). Another way, which 4e can approximate to, is to tolerate a high level of abstraction in monster building. In my last 4e session, for example, the 15th level paladin fought a phalanx of hobgoblins that I had statted up as a Huge 13th level swarm with the ability to heal itself by absorbing stray hobgoblin minions.Dungeon crawling isn't mostly about mechanics. It's mostly about story. You can change the story without having to change the mechanics. D&D designers have recognised this at least since AD&D's Oriental Adventures, which keeps much of the PC build and action resolution mechanics unchanged, but clearly presents a very different story from the then typical dungeon crawl.Again, I think this is about story rather than mechanics. 4e aspires to provide the elements that will change the story as the tiers progress. There is even some sign of this in some of the modules, but on the whole they are a disappointment. But I don't think different mechanics are the answer. Better attention to story, and how a given set of mechanics can be used to support different and changing stories, is the key. It may be true that the game should change at higher levels, but it should still be the same game, with the PCs and the things they do as the central focus.</blockquote>

Verification