OD&D = social mobility, 4e does not

what OD&D game has people inventing crap? WTF IS THIS? It makes my head hurt like time cube or FATAL

Isn't earlier editions where basically you toadied up to the feudal leaders after you killed eneough enemies? verryu rugged indiiviulaisdisdhusd
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Once again the guy tigh produces some big question marks from me, a compalation of his post would be amusement for all....

..although maybe my intellectual capacity is unable to make the leap from ODnD=good old classless USA and 4E=ye olde worlde. Although both seem to have sons that take over the rule of the country!
 


the party can share the most powerful spelling of the civilization which is gone in completion.

Now I understand! In OD&D, you could research your own spelling. In 4E, you never end up with a power like Drawmij's Reaping Stryke -- the system just doesn't allow that kind of freedom, damn it all!
 

It must be quite hard to see that there´s an edition out there where the Player Characters arent´t the only ones who ain´t lvl zero commoners.
So not beeing the only small handfull of people with superior stats and the build-in right to rule is more freedom and social mobility than having to actually accomplish something?
 



Consumer alert: I am not trying to put words in the original poster's mouth. For one, I don't know where that mouth has been; I might catch something. No, I am trying to make sense of the post, and this is my attempt.

It is explicitly stated in the rules for 4th edition DUNGEONS & DRAGONS and "suggested" (at the very least) in 3rd edition D&D that after n sessions, a character should be x level and have y number of magic items of z magnitude.

I think what our confused (confusing?) poster is suggesting is that:

Because of this "Time you've played must equate to a certain number of levels, period" paradigm, that a 4e campaign that centered on the unearthing of the monolith in the original poster's initial thesis, that the unearthing of, through use of magic, through hunting down a spell, coercing/hiring/kidnapping someone of sufficient power to make the unearthing happen, or likewise acquiring a powerful enough magic item to do so (Mattock of the Titans, etc.) that by the end of that period, the next logical step would be that the reward for doing so would be (a) commensurately powerful magic item(s), and that conversely, in original D&D, since a DM is unfettered from such conventions, that the DM might say that the journey, was, in effect, the destination and that lo and behold, beneath the mighty monolith is a lousy 1st level spell (I mean can you imagine Q1 capping off with finding a scroll of magic missile lying in Lolth's apartments in the Demonweb?!).

Frankly, in this DM's opinion both outcomes suck. The first predicates the notion that the rules MAKE the DM give the players things based on real world time put in, and the second is just "nyah nyah I'm a dick and I can be because I'm the DM".

Note: this is my interpretation of the original post, and nothing more.

 

Wow, DD, twice in the same day I agree with you. :) That's some kinda record.

Really, in my mind, the whole "after X encounters, you should be Y level with Z treasure" isn't all that different in any edition. The only difference is the level of explicitness in the rules. I mean, a 7th level paladin in any edition is going to have some bling. You would hardly expect Mordenkainen to be walking around with a normal staff and no magic items either.

There were wealth assumptions in every edition. It wasn't until 3rd, though, that these assumptions were explicitly told to the DM or the players.
 


@TheDungeonDelver: can you pretty please not use that font? I know it is the proper old-styleez ADnD font (or close enough) but it cripples my eyes on a PC monitor- white words on black!

Obviously you can ignore me to your hearts content if that is your wish :)
 

Remove ads

Top