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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5490348" data-attributes="member: 22424">I tend to side with Mercurius on this one: a necessary component for me to get involved in (or care about) the game is that it "feels right". It doesn't need to be 'realistic', but it does need to conform to "Hollywood logic" - sure, everything can be bigger, brighter and more exciting, but if it goes too far it becomes a cartoon. And I'm just not interested in a cartoon. Give me "Lord of the Rings", not "Bugs Bunny".This is, of course, a matter of opinion.Actually, hit points work really well with "Hollywood logic".As for levels, the beauty of a level system is that it allows the game to handle different styles (or, dare I say, tiers) of play. There's no reason the game couldn't playing within the bounds of real-world possibility in the Heroic tier (to handle the Black Company and the like), provide a hyper-reality mode at the Paragon tier (Lord of the Rings, Batman), and then a more unreal mode in the Epic tier (Clash of the Titans, 300).In fact, I can't help but think that a great many groups already play this way, by willfully ignoring the actual math in the system. I suspect many of them think about their characters as being "a cut above", not considering that every Fighter is the World's Strongest Man, every Wizard is an Einstein, every Bard is an Elvis, and every Warlord a Julius Caesar (and all this at 1st level, before they've actually done anything). But that's what the 4e rules support as written.(I further suspect that WotC could do a better job of providing adventures at all the various tiers if they adopted this model as a clear stance on what each tier means. At the moment, they don't seem to have a clear definition of Epic, and so can't seem to produce adventures for those levels.)A question for you: what level do you think Aragorn should be?Not really. The only conclusion I drew from my distaste of 4e is that I would welcome a (good) 5e.I didn't call for 5e. Indeed, I believe any 5e in the next few years would be a mistake. However, I believe the nature of their business means that WotC will one day produce 5e. When that day comes, I would prefer 5e move (back) more towards my preferences. Of course I would!I don't see why these should be mutually exclusive. Calibrate the advancement system and DCs appropriately, and then leave them in the background. The people who want to "get to the meat" can then just get on with it, while the people who like "layered textures" can scratch the surface and find that, yes, it does make sense (at least on a cursory level).Because WotC won't produce two games - splitting their market that way would be a disaster. And if there's going to be one D&D, and I'm going to face an uphill battle finding players for any game that is not D&D, then of course I'm going to fight as hard as I can for D&D to take the form that best suits me!</blockquote>

Verification