Roles - do they work?
- Thread starter Sadrik
- Start date
Jack99
Adventurer
Don't take this as more as a joke...
Snowflake.
Bad German!
No using European humor on ze Americans!
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
The Special Snowflake thing didn't seem European to me... I've never heard of it in German, at least.
Jack99
Adventurer
The Special Snowflake thing didn't seem European to me... I've never heard of it in German, at least.
Stop making this about you and what you have heard. Did your parents tell you that you were a special snowflake?
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Stop making this about you and what you have heard. Did your parents tell you that you were a special snowflake?
No, they didn't tell me, but I am. I was born on a Sunday, which supposedly means I can hear the grass grow, and I think I should possess some other supernatural abilities according to some "legends". So beware my as-of-yet-undiscovered-but-certainly-amazing supernatural powers!
ProfessorPain
First Post
Boy did this thread take a turn. Spoiled brats like edition X and independant go-getters like edition Y. Clearly this has seriousl implications for the marketing department at wizards.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
I agree with the rest of what you said, but this is really the heart of the matter. The fantasy genre has had really strong archetypes for a while. People who are used to playing very early editions of D&D are used to Thieves who used daggers and wore light armor, Wizards who wore no armor and had staffs and wands, Fighters who wore the heavy armor and fought in melee, and so on. They were archetypes that were used in Fantasy stories for a long time and the game enforced them.
I know I played D&D for a long time without ever thinking "I wish my fighter could cast spells." It never even occurred to me. Fighters fight. Wizards cast spells. If I want to cast spells, I play a Wizard.
Until 3e, the concept of being able to pick and choose EXACTLY what character I wanted to play was rather foreign to me. I didn't like the point based systems I played all that much, way too complicated to make up characters and you always ended up with a character who was unfocused and substandard most of the time. It was much more fun(for me) to say "I'm a Thief, I sneak around and stab people in the back and pick people's pockets. Now, let's see if we survive the Temple of Elemental Evil."
I think 4e is returning more to that style of play while still offering more flexibility and customization than before. If you are a rogue, you still sneak around and stab people in vital spots but you determine if you are big and strong or agile and charismatic.
I've never had a problem with this, but I approach the game from the point of view of "What options do I have?" instead of "What do I want to play?". It's more of a "Which of these themes is the most fun to play?" than "How can I twist the options in the book to make exactly the character I want?"
It is certainly true that roles in 4e are much more defined. They matter much more. Classes in 3e were more menus of powers that could be combined together to make a concept.
thundershot
Adventurer
Then there's BECMI and 1E where you don't know your class or race until you've rolled your ability scores. In order. 3E was an extreme extension of 2E's flexibility. 4E may be more limited in what you can make, but at least the gears are better oiled.
ProfessorPain
First Post
No. I don't believe that conclusion at all, but it was implied by others in a series of posts. Personally I don't think preference for one edition over another has anything to do with upbringing. I just love that people tried to sneak that ad hom in.
Similar Threads
