Mundane vs. Fantastical

[Hussar]

No, it really doesn't take a huge amount of work at all. In fact, it's incredibly simple.

For my latest lowish fantasy game, all I did was finish the game before the PC's got above about 6th-7th level.

So, basically, to get your lowish fantasy game in D&D, it was so simply that you had to throw out 3/4 of the game?

I can do low fantasy in 4e with one house rule. All PC's must be martial source characters. Done. I can play 30 levels, not chuck out anything. Might have to fiddle a bit with some of the expected bonuses, and of course, pick and choose what opponents to use, but, that one house rule, that doesn't force me to yank out most of the rules in the book, makes a lowish fantasy game in 4e.

Which, I believe was always my point. If you have to massively rewrite your game to serve the game that you want to play, why not pick a game that works?

I also find it incredibly ironic that Raven Crowking, someone who has repeatedly stated that he needs SIX HUNDRED PAGES of house rules for his 3.5 game, would then say that it's easy to change D&D to fit a different model.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, basically, to get your lowish fantasy game in D&D, it was so simply that you had to throw out 3/4 of the game?

Like I'm seeing over in the "How Long Is Your Campaign" thread, that's not too unusual. Giant chunks of the game are going unused, by everyone. The option is there to use it if you want to, but if you use that chunk, you're ignoring the other chunk.

There's just so much *stuff* in 30 levels that it's nigh-impossible to use it all in even a game that lasts two years, even at a normal rate of advancement. 1/4th of D&D can easily keep you going for a year or more at a time, as long as it's the right 1/4th.

The purpose of the other 3/4ths is to broaden appeal, not to enhance a single game.

 

[AllisterH]

Since when did DARKSUN not become highly fantastical?

 

[AllisterH]

Right.

But, as I said above, some actual rules support is usually better than some theoretical rules possibility. 4e has no actual rules support. 3e at least had 3 levels (and, again, depending on the campaign, that could go even longer).

And again..here's where I wonder what scale you're judging 4e on.

By RAW, a guard in 4E is a standard encounter for a 3rd level PC. Previous editions, at 3rd level, a guard isn't even a standard encounter....

 

[Imaro]

First let me say "lowish fanasy" at least IMHO, doesn't mean no magic. I can't think of a fantasy S&S story that doesn't have some type of magic.

Second, if you really want a low fantay setting in 3.5 check out Dark Legacies...it's worth it alone for their take on priests and casters. In fact it's basically Warhammer for D&D.

Ah, the joys of the OGL

 

[I'm A Banana]

By RAW, a guard in 4E is a standard encounter for a 3rd level PC. Previous editions, at 3rd level, a guard isn't even a standard encounter....

A guard is also a 19th level encounter in 4e.

What's the level of the guard?

Depends on what you want them to achieve.

The guard isn't meant to simulate anything, just to fight PC's at 3rd level with a combat smackdown.

Unless you're suggesting that 4e committed the Sin of Simulation selectively?

 

[AllisterH]

A guard is also a 19th level encounter in 4e.

What's the level of the guard?

Depends on what you want them to achieve.

The guard isn't meant to simulate anything, just to fight PC's at 3rd level with a combat smackdown.

How do you figure the level of a standard guard is 19th level? Keep in mind that even in 1e, you could modify a guard to be 19th level but that's not what people would consider standard.

I think the difference is that in 4E, there's a clear difference not only between "farmer McGee" and the PCs.

There's ALSO a clear difference between Farmer McGee and Bob the bandit which I think wasn't as clear cut as before in earlier editions.

For example, we've been focusing on "what is a normal farmer like in 4E when compared to the PCs" but what about the local bandit when compared to the farmer?

To me, 4E characters start off stronger than Joe Sixpack who is a carpenter by trade but not as strong as Officer McCleary who walks his beat every day. They exist in that in-between state.

This _IS_ different than before where the PCs start off as (slightly) stronger than EITHER McCleary or Joe.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For example, we've been focusing on "what is a normal farmer like in 4E when compared to the PCs" but what about the local bandit when compared to the farmer?

The farmer and the bandit are nothing unless they interact with the PC's, and then you can't measure their combat powers unless you specifically intend them to be fought.

There are no "standard guard" stats. There are no "standard bandit" stats. There's a 3rd level guard in the MM, but 3rd level guards don't man the garrisons. A 3rd level guard might fight the PC's, but so might a 19th level guard, depending upon what the campaign calls for.

You can't compare your PC to a typical farmer or guard or bandit because the MM stats don't represent a typical farmer or guard or bandit, they just represent a singular monster option.

4e, as has often been said, isn't simulating anything.

But hey, if it doesn't cause a problem for you, if you can grok it fine, that's cool. But that's not what I'm seeing in the MM or the DMG. I'm seeing a single 3rd-level guard that the PC's fight, not a world filled with 3rd-level guards.

 

[Hussar]

The farmer and the bandit are nothing unless they interact with the PC's, and then you can't measure their combat powers unless you specifically intend them to be fought.

There are no "standard guard" stats. There are no "standard bandit" stats. There's a 3rd level guard in the MM, but 3rd level guards don't man the garrisons. A 3rd level guard might fight the PC's, but so might a 19th level guard, depending upon what the campaign calls for.

You can't compare your PC to a typical farmer or guard or bandit because the MM stats don't represent a typical farmer or guard or bandit, they just represent a singular monster option.

4e, as has often been said, isn't simulating anything.

But hey, if it doesn't cause a problem for you, if you can grok it fine, that's cool. But that's not what I'm seeing in the MM or the DMG. I'm seeing a single 3rd-level guard that the PC's fight, not a world filled with 3rd-level guards.

But, what does this have to do with the idea of fantastic vs mundane?

It's entirely the DM's job to make his setting believable. The idea that all guards are exactly the same level of competence is not particularly believable.

It wouldn't be believable for the guards in some small backwater, one horse town to be 19th level. Then again, why are the 19th level characters in this one horse town fighting guards? It would be believable that that floating outpost in the middle of the Astral Sea has 19th level guards.

Context is everything. The idea that every manticore is exactly the same as every other manticore (other than hit points) wasn't particularly true in 3e. The only problem was, it was too damn hard to adjust the stats.

 

[mmadsen]

How I'm defining "mundane" is "your character is no more powerful than an especially clever or strong farmer." That definition is key, because 4e's 1st level heroes are well beyond any common NPCs. Their encounter and daily powers, at least, are things that no basic human guard is really capable of.

I don't think that's a widely held definition of mundane. While discussing fantasy and adventuring, I would consider Lancelot, Conan, the Three Musketeers, various pirates and mercenaries, etc. all quite mundane -- their "powers" are in no way magical.

Are they skilled fighters? Certainly? Are they unbelievable? No, not at all.

Are they first-level characters? No. I don't particularly mind that 4E makes starting characters competent by default, but I do mind that they still call this first level, and there's no good way to make a character like Bilbo -- an "everyman" character who is not yet an accomplished adventurer.