ki11erDM
Explorer
/agree
OD&D = social mobility, 4e does not
- Thread starter Tigh
- Start date
/agree
Jack7
First Post
Somehow I doubt it CG, but it was a nice first try. Don't ya think?
I mean he was making a real effort.
I suspect though that I get some of what the poster was saying, maybe not all of it. Not sure I agree with all of it assuming I am understanding him right (not that he needs my approval or agreement). To me it sorta struck me as a stream of consciousness set of observations rather than a postulate.
But maybe that was what Tigh was doing, just making a set of observations based upon personal opinion.
That is allowed on the internet, isn't it?
Just outta curiosity killing the cat. (I don't like cats much anyway, so that's okay by me.)
Anywho I'm taking it some folks disagree with what they think he means (or maybe with what he never meant but implied anyway). Or maybe they're disagreeing with that they think I might think about what he probably was thinking whenever he thought about this kinda thing. It's all so disagreeable that now I've lost track of what I was thinking about. But anyway let's not make this about me anymore, if that's okay with everyone else, let's make this about that kinda thinking.
Yeah, I've seen that kinda thing before.
It's dangerous alright. Thinking of that kind.
I wouldn't condone it. Not by a long thought.
I've personally never lost any sleep over it, but I can see how you're playing with nitro there. Or maybe sulfuric acid.
Either way that stuff is dangerous.
Now I'm getting incensed just thinking about it.
(And by that I mean not clearly expressing yourself in a manner conducive to agreement.)
Yeah, Kren, maybe I'm not approaching this one right. Somehow getting one's blood pressure raised to the level of a cranial hematoma over a series of statements about a game when so many much more important things are going on in the world just strikes me as kinda humorous, now that I think on it. And probably a bit, what's the word, supercilious? I don't know, maybe I mean Guignoled?
Well, I gotta go folks. But I'm gonna take Kren's advice and just step off my ledge now. Nice and slow. Before I say something philistine. Hope nobody else is close to a heart attack on this one. Nothin to see here folks.
I need my tablets though.
On the up side let's just everybody remember, "The sun also rises, the sun also rises..."
By the way this was real fun.
I'll probably get spanked by the mods for saying Guignoled, and maybe somebody else will think saying supercilious is kinda pompous, but sometimes being naughty is it's own reward.
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
You're actually right and while I do think you are a little pompous you do have thought behind what you are saying. I have thought behind what I say too, but right now I am acting like a halluncinating spider monkey.
Mournblade94
Hero
This is about as incohernet as the original post.
You should read the post again.
I also felt "Huh?" on the first read, but after a second read I realized it was "Wha?".
Jack7
First Post
I'm a lot pompous. Or arrogant. Or extremely unconcerned with accepted social mores. Take your pick. According to my wife and my children and my superiors anyway, so don't sweat that part, as far as I'm concerned. I get that just waking up every day.
Anywho, I do agree it's kinda hard to parse the original post as to what exact direction or directions he's headed in.
But he's a young fella around these parts. Give him time. Let him explain a bit if he cares to. Maybe he just needs to organize his thoughts a little better in writing, which is different from speaking.
And personally I don't think criticising 4E is the same as saying you don't like 4e, or that it is useless. I don't play 4E but have adopted several of the parts and ideas into my game and setting.
Anyways I got a little time off this afternoon and I'm gonna go enjoy a coupla hours in the sun. It's just nice to have some sun. Maybe cut some grass. Been like the bloody rainy season around here.
Be nice to relax awhile.
See ya later CG.
jaerdaph
#UkraineStrong
Oh I get what the OP is saying, that's not the issue. I personally just don't like to think too hard about something I play for fun and escapism. If others enjoy doing that, by all means, please do so!
And no offense was intended towards Tigh by my comment earlier.
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Thats because it was a translation of the OP into playground speech.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
I appreciate your post, and I am going to try and go through it in small parts to try and understand it and respond. Sorry in advance for what is likely to be a lengthy reply. But, I think that's better than simply dismissing your post out of hand because it is complex.
If someone with a modern education went into the far past they still would find no sorcerers. But, assuming you mean if someone in our world went into the far past of an alternative universe where magic was real, OK I think I understand this sentence. I think you mean a modern person would, based on knowledge and theory of scientific principals, be about as powerful as a sorcerer. They would be able to put together some basic modern inventions like gun powder and the theory of the steam engine and, eventually, be able to essentially match a sorcerer for "power" in that era.
But, I am not understanding the link between this point, and the rest of your points.
I think what you mean is that rugged individualism. The ability of any person regardless of what socio-economic class they were born into to become a wealthy and successful person based on their own drive, intelligence, hard work, and a bit of luck, used to be the American dream. OK, I am with you on this, though I think it's still the American dream.
Yeah see here I disagree. I think there were always people who wanted to marry into royalty, or people who seemed to be the American equivalent of royalty. There is a reason the most eligible bachelor used to be a Kennedy. A reason the Rockafellers were considered to be a "very good family". A reason people always wanted to be invited to Hurst castle in the 1920s. People always wanted lucrative jobs, be it with the East India Trading Company, on Wall Street, with the Marconi corporation, or with a top law firm (even at the beginning of the nation), etc.. And yes, many always wanted to be "discovered" by some existing authority. As someone who lives in Los Angeles, I assure you going back to the beginning of the 1900s people moved here to be discovered by the entertainment industry. And before them, people wanted to be discovered by vaudeville or the circus. I've read some books about people trying to be discovered at the various World's Fairs as well. I simply disagree that this is something new.
In addition, there were always people who wanted to go it on their own, and succeed as independent entrepreneurs. In every generation, including today. Indeed, it is my understanding we have more small businesses and sole practitioners in the US now than ever before.
So, I just disagree. I do not think the American dream has changed much, and I do not think America has lost it's desire for rugged individualism. I do not think we are more collectivist in our thinking as a nation. I suppose we are more dependent on others at least because we're not all farmers anymore for example, and the industrial revolution sent people into cities and collectively themed factories and jobs. But that is a change that took place well before you or I were born, and which existed already at the time the first D&D rules were written.
I agree. And by implication, I agree that 4e is more group-oriented than any prior version of the game, though every prior version was still more group oriented than just about any other game.
It was ALWAYS the guiding star of all versions of the game. Indeed, it was one of the most noteworthy things about the game from the beginning - that you did not compete against other players. Always, you competed against non-players controlled by a DM. And while I agree the rules in 4e now make dependency on your fellow players even greater, I disagree with the implication that the game was ever but rugged individualism. It was always a cooperative rather than competitive paradigm, for all versions of the game. It is a defining factor of the game.
Wow, I really disagree on this one. There is nothing in 4e that tips the balance any more or less towards the DM providing adventures as opposed to the players defining the adventures or quests. All of that is, and always was, up to the group. In 1e, tons of modules were published by TSR, far more than were ever published by TSR in 3e, or 4e. Indeed, from my perspective, it was easier in 1e to have the group go on adventurers provided for them rather than have the adventures be defined by character background and goals purely because there were so many published modules that were really quite good and well written. In 4e, if nothing else because of the paucity of published adventures, I think the odds are much greater that the adventures and quests in existing games are defined more by character background write-ups and in-game events that trigger challenges and goals on the spot than in 1e.
Eventually 4e may catch up as more modules are published, but right now? I think you are quite wrong.
I am not following how this is edition-specific. In 1e, if we opened a tomb, not only would we assume it contained challenges more powerful than any one of us, but the odds were much greater it contained challenges more powerful than ALL of us combined. Because 1e tended to be a heck of a lot more deadly than 4e. That tomb might well be the Tomb of Horrors, and our party might well be doomed no matter what level we are because it's filled with truly terrifyingly difficult challenges well beyond the means of almost any set of characters.
But, as for this idea that in 4e ancient is considered more powerful than current, I guess one can draw that from the "Points of Light" assumed setting. Sure I suppose. I don't think that is drastically different than 1e Greyhawk. In 1e Greyhawk, your spells were often named for very powerful magic users of the past which implied the past had more powerful magic than the present. Some of the most powerful challenges of the world were ancient beings, often undead ancient beings. I can see that such a trend is expanded in 4e with the "Points of Light" default setting, but not drastically so. But, I do see what you are getting at.
Oh come now. Is this some slam on the decreased importance of alignment in 4e? If so, I am not buying it. In 4e, alignment may not be as critical as it was in 1e, but the default in 4e is that the players are playing good characters, and in my experience that seems to be the actual case than it was in 1e. In 1e, it was fairly common for players to play evil or at least chaotically random characters. Indeed, 1e was much more the era where it was acceptable practice for individual party members to steal from other individual party members of they thought they could get away from it. That the party would balk at the subjugation of a population to obtain power more in 4e than in 1e is silly. I think, if anything, the odds were it was the opposite.
Again, I do not see this as system-dependent. I agree with you that challenge balance was far less emphasized in 1e than it is in 4e. For example, in the 1e module Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, you definitely could find yourselves in a total party kill if you simply entered the Steading and opened the door to the dozens of giants, while in 4e the odds are such a room would be balanced as beatable by the party the module was intended for.
However, you were not talking about challenges, but rewards. It is true in 4e the rewards much more strictly match the party level than in 1e. In 1e, it was more common to find randomness in rewards. I am not sure if this was a good thing or a bad thing, but I agree it existed. Still, most of the time a first level party would never find a vorpal sword no matter what level of challenge they defeated. The disparity is there, but it was not the extreme you seem to describe.
I am not following you here. Where is there an assumption in either 1e or 4e that peons are the potential source of powerful spells more than ancient successful wizards? In both systems the odds are very high that the ancient successful wizard is the source of a powerful spell more than a peon. And in both systems, there is at least a potential path for the peon to create that most powerful spell.
Again, in no way do I follow you on this one, and I disagree. There is nothing in 1e or 4e that fosters or impinges such non-membership promotions. Both systems support joining the group or making one king, or a great discoverer or inventor. Where are you getting from the rules any tendancy towards or against any of those things? All of those are story driven and dependent on the people playing and the DM DM'ing. They seem like fairly rules-free concepts that are simply part of role playing.
Well, and this part is a bit insulting. Nobody is saying your thoughts are dangerous.
But, are you willing to admit that people who like 4e and who DO think it is a fine system as it is, and who do appreciate that system, should and can tell you that in response to your challenge to that system as inferior to your preferred system?
If someone with a modern education went into the far past they still would find no sorcerers. But, assuming you mean if someone in our world went into the far past of an alternative universe where magic was real, OK I think I understand this sentence. I think you mean a modern person would, based on knowledge and theory of scientific principals, be about as powerful as a sorcerer. They would be able to put together some basic modern inventions like gun powder and the theory of the steam engine and, eventually, be able to essentially match a sorcerer for "power" in that era.
But, I am not understanding the link between this point, and the rest of your points.
I think what you mean is that rugged individualism. The ability of any person regardless of what socio-economic class they were born into to become a wealthy and successful person based on their own drive, intelligence, hard work, and a bit of luck, used to be the American dream. OK, I am with you on this, though I think it's still the American dream.
Yeah see here I disagree. I think there were always people who wanted to marry into royalty, or people who seemed to be the American equivalent of royalty. There is a reason the most eligible bachelor used to be a Kennedy. A reason the Rockafellers were considered to be a "very good family". A reason people always wanted to be invited to Hurst castle in the 1920s. People always wanted lucrative jobs, be it with the East India Trading Company, on Wall Street, with the Marconi corporation, or with a top law firm (even at the beginning of the nation), etc.. And yes, many always wanted to be "discovered" by some existing authority. As someone who lives in Los Angeles, I assure you going back to the beginning of the 1900s people moved here to be discovered by the entertainment industry. And before them, people wanted to be discovered by vaudeville or the circus. I've read some books about people trying to be discovered at the various World's Fairs as well. I simply disagree that this is something new.
In addition, there were always people who wanted to go it on their own, and succeed as independent entrepreneurs. In every generation, including today. Indeed, it is my understanding we have more small businesses and sole practitioners in the US now than ever before.
So, I just disagree. I do not think the American dream has changed much, and I do not think America has lost it's desire for rugged individualism. I do not think we are more collectivist in our thinking as a nation. I suppose we are more dependent on others at least because we're not all farmers anymore for example, and the industrial revolution sent people into cities and collectively themed factories and jobs. But that is a change that took place well before you or I were born, and which existed already at the time the first D&D rules were written.
I agree. And by implication, I agree that 4e is more group-oriented than any prior version of the game, though every prior version was still more group oriented than just about any other game.
It was ALWAYS the guiding star of all versions of the game. Indeed, it was one of the most noteworthy things about the game from the beginning - that you did not compete against other players. Always, you competed against non-players controlled by a DM. And while I agree the rules in 4e now make dependency on your fellow players even greater, I disagree with the implication that the game was ever but rugged individualism. It was always a cooperative rather than competitive paradigm, for all versions of the game. It is a defining factor of the game.
Wow, I really disagree on this one. There is nothing in 4e that tips the balance any more or less towards the DM providing adventures as opposed to the players defining the adventures or quests. All of that is, and always was, up to the group. In 1e, tons of modules were published by TSR, far more than were ever published by TSR in 3e, or 4e. Indeed, from my perspective, it was easier in 1e to have the group go on adventurers provided for them rather than have the adventures be defined by character background and goals purely because there were so many published modules that were really quite good and well written. In 4e, if nothing else because of the paucity of published adventures, I think the odds are much greater that the adventures and quests in existing games are defined more by character background write-ups and in-game events that trigger challenges and goals on the spot than in 1e.
Eventually 4e may catch up as more modules are published, but right now? I think you are quite wrong.
I am not following how this is edition-specific. In 1e, if we opened a tomb, not only would we assume it contained challenges more powerful than any one of us, but the odds were much greater it contained challenges more powerful than ALL of us combined. Because 1e tended to be a heck of a lot more deadly than 4e. That tomb might well be the Tomb of Horrors, and our party might well be doomed no matter what level we are because it's filled with truly terrifyingly difficult challenges well beyond the means of almost any set of characters.
But, as for this idea that in 4e ancient is considered more powerful than current, I guess one can draw that from the "Points of Light" assumed setting. Sure I suppose. I don't think that is drastically different than 1e Greyhawk. In 1e Greyhawk, your spells were often named for very powerful magic users of the past which implied the past had more powerful magic than the present. Some of the most powerful challenges of the world were ancient beings, often undead ancient beings. I can see that such a trend is expanded in 4e with the "Points of Light" default setting, but not drastically so. But, I do see what you are getting at.
Oh come now. Is this some slam on the decreased importance of alignment in 4e? If so, I am not buying it. In 4e, alignment may not be as critical as it was in 1e, but the default in 4e is that the players are playing good characters, and in my experience that seems to be the actual case than it was in 1e. In 1e, it was fairly common for players to play evil or at least chaotically random characters. Indeed, 1e was much more the era where it was acceptable practice for individual party members to steal from other individual party members of they thought they could get away from it. That the party would balk at the subjugation of a population to obtain power more in 4e than in 1e is silly. I think, if anything, the odds were it was the opposite.
Again, I do not see this as system-dependent. I agree with you that challenge balance was far less emphasized in 1e than it is in 4e. For example, in the 1e module Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, you definitely could find yourselves in a total party kill if you simply entered the Steading and opened the door to the dozens of giants, while in 4e the odds are such a room would be balanced as beatable by the party the module was intended for.
However, you were not talking about challenges, but rewards. It is true in 4e the rewards much more strictly match the party level than in 1e. In 1e, it was more common to find randomness in rewards. I am not sure if this was a good thing or a bad thing, but I agree it existed. Still, most of the time a first level party would never find a vorpal sword no matter what level of challenge they defeated. The disparity is there, but it was not the extreme you seem to describe.
I am not following you here. Where is there an assumption in either 1e or 4e that peons are the potential source of powerful spells more than ancient successful wizards? In both systems the odds are very high that the ancient successful wizard is the source of a powerful spell more than a peon. And in both systems, there is at least a potential path for the peon to create that most powerful spell.
Again, in no way do I follow you on this one, and I disagree. There is nothing in 1e or 4e that fosters or impinges such non-membership promotions. Both systems support joining the group or making one king, or a great discoverer or inventor. Where are you getting from the rules any tendancy towards or against any of those things? All of those are story driven and dependent on the people playing and the DM DM'ing. They seem like fairly rules-free concepts that are simply part of role playing.
But I bet you they can talk for days on end about how things are fine they way they are, and one should learn to appreciate what they have, and even that these thoughts are dangerous and I should be stopped.
Well, and this part is a bit insulting. Nobody is saying your thoughts are dangerous.
But, are you willing to admit that people who like 4e and who DO think it is a fine system as it is, and who do appreciate that system, should and can tell you that in response to your challenge to that system as inferior to your preferred system?
Last edited:
Gandalf would so completely annihilate Isaac Newton it wouldn't even be close. ("None shall differentiate!") Newton could probably take on the Wizard of Oz but that's because the so-called "wizard" is a bad example of his character class. In general, my money is on the sorcerer (however imaginary).
I dream about women. And an advanced electronic gaming table. And not working. Serving the oil rich sounds too much like working to me.
No, it's not. You must be thinking of dinosaurs. Those are called Behemoths now.
Or, if it's the Tomb of Horrors, it's more powerful than all of them together, plus henchmen.
Yea, just like the knowledge that built the Tomb of Horrors.
That really depends on the sorcerer's initiative roll.
They probably would receive secret instructions as to where to dig up the super-off-the-charts spell. This happens all of the time in 4e. My only problem is that there are no rules for digging in 4e.
I recently had an NPC quit adventuring with the PCs because they kept making him take the front rank. To this guy, "membership in the group" was outranked by "membership in any other group but yours".
Is this an advertisement for a Book of Paragon Paths?
I can talk for days on end about anything actually. But no one appreciates being 1st level - status quo or not. I've heard players talk for days on end about that. And about how stingy I am with treasure.
Similar Threads
