Mundane vs. Fantastical

[pemerton]

Thanks Pem, for summing up what I was trying to say earlier in this thread.

No worries.

 

[billd91]

While I may be painting with a pretty broad brush, aren't you guys doing the same? You're claiming that people didn't play the way I'm proposing. Based on what? Personal experience?

See, here's the difference: We aren't telling you that your play style didn't happen or is badwrongfun, we aren't even implying it. We're saying that these other play styles did happen because we saw them happening and participated. We're saying that your play style wasn't universal.

So yes, in effect, there are people who didn't play the way you're proposing and we are basing that on actual experience.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's as may be, but there's no actual support in the rules for a more mundane game.

Some actual rules support is usually better than some theoretical rules possibility.

Moreover, the GSL as-is contains language specifically forbidding 3pp from publishing such a (much needed, IMHO) varient.

RC

 

[Hussar]

See, here's the difference: We aren't telling you that your play style didn't happen or is badwrongfun, we aren't even implying it. We're saying that these other play styles did happen because we saw them happening and participated. We're saying that your play style wasn't universal.

So yes, in effect, there are people who didn't play the way you're proposing and we are basing that on actual experience.

Are you honestly going to claim that a no caster, no non-human party was anything other than an extreme rarity in any edition of D&D?

While, it may be true that "my playstyle" wasn't universal, I'm thinking that it was a heck of a lot more common than what you're referring to.

How's this for a test? Show me a D&D setting, whether TSR/WotC or 3rd party that's low magic/mundane and I'll match it with two settings that are not. We'll see who runs out of settings first.

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).

Just a quibble, but it's two levels. By third, you're able to take several times the punishment that a town guard could take. That's stretching the point don't you think? Two whole levels out of 20 where you have a mundane campaign? And, even then, it's not really mundane at the vast majority of tables.

Then again, I suppose if we define warlocks and elves as mundane, then I suppose it could be pushed further.

 

[LostSoul]

That's as may be, but there's no actual support in the rules for a more mundane game.

There's no fluff support.

The rules, I would think, should work just fine.

 

[I'm A Banana]

There's no fluff support.

The rules, I would think, should work just fine.

Not really.

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.

There's two ways to make this more mundane. The first is to cut out PC powers so that they are more in line with basic effects. This, I'm fairly sure, will wildly unbalance the game when you go up against a group of kobolds with only basic attacks, and, moreover, gets rid of character options, which are a lot of fun to have.

The second is to give NPC commoners abilities that are similar to PC powers, so that every town guard has the Fighter class template (for instance). This gets more than a little wahoo as now every priest in the temple can heal people back from the brink of death and blast holy light out.

This only addresses "wahoo" powers, and doesn't address things like death and dying and healing surges, either, all of which can become fairly important when it is key that your PC feels like any other member of this fantasy world.

Those are pretty fundamental rules issues in 4e. Dismantling the powers system alone would throw things at least a little off.

There's also the missing mundane systems like craft skills to account for.

That's not to really say it couldn't be done, especially by a clever and observant designer (especially one working outside WotC for a 3pp, with no concern about brand identity). But that is to say that 4e still doesn't have support for it. 3e may have only had two levels of support (though, again, that varied -- in Eberron, you feel pretty mundane for about 4 levels because NPC's do have class levels that are above yours. And after about level 7, you feel more wahoo, because they don't! E6 pretty much has the idea that there are 6 levels of "mundane-ish" in a PC, and to stop regular advancement after that!), but it was something, and something that 4e distinctly lacks.

 

[LostSoul]

Not really.

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.

All you need to do is refluff what a farmer is.

Drunk Farmer = Bugbear Warrior (Brute 5)
Change morningstar to cudgel.
Change skullthumper to drunken smash.
Change predatory eye to sucker punch.

There. 1st level PCs are well beneath a common NPC.

 

[Switchblade]

PSS. Put another way... it's not the number of dragon encounters that matter, it's whether your dragons seem grounded.

Am I the only one who got a vision of a dragon on a therapists couch having a midlife crisis?
"I look at my horde and the virgin sacrifices and think "is this all their is to life? Where did it all go wrong?"
Or a dragon doing yoga-esque exercises and "grounding his worries"

Oh. Just me.

I'll get my coat

 

[Mallus]

Oh. Just me.

Don't worry, it's not just you. While that wasn't exactly what I meant, I have to say, a dragon in therapy could totally happen in my current 3.5 game.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

LostSoul put it well. I myself prefer low-power games, and that is how I play 4e as well. I can play 4e and have the characters with no need for new rules or anything, feel like they are still weak characters and very much still under the restraints that we ourselves feel and are far, far from hero-level status.

It is all in how one describes, plays out and populates the world. A level is completely abstract, damage amount is completely abstract, so much of D&D from the beginning is completely abstract that is extremely easy to alter the feeling of it.