D&D 4E The "We Can't Roleplay" in 4E Argument

[Ryujin]

Her contemporaries would disagree with you. As would, I guess, anyone who considers her a saint today.

Of some interest might be Joan of Arc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which gives a crude overview of Joan of Arc's visions.

Possible interesting reading here: Lancelot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "A knight who is false cannot best a knight who is true" or the way that the pre-modern mind conflates spiritual and physical properties, I fear that Lancelot will always seem merely a strong and talented man.

RC

Given the Beatification of Joan of Arc, I would have to agree. I had forgotten that there were also miracles attributed to Lancelot, so I'll have to withdraw my comment regarding him also.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Her contemporaries would disagree with you. As would, I guess, anyone who considers her a saint today.

Of some interest might be Joan of Arc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which gives a crude overview of Joan of Arc's visions.

And some people believed the recent prophecy about the end of the world. Was that a point, an attempt to start a religious flamewar, or merely a statement that different people have different understandings of the world?

If you cannot wrap your head around the idea that "A knight who is false cannot best a knight who is true" or the way that the pre-modern mind conflates spiritual and physical properties, I fear that Lancelot will always seem merely a strong and talented man.

And if you can wrap your head round that and that the proof of the pudding is in the eating then Lancelot still comes out as a 3.X fighter. (In 4e he's probably a Cavalier of Valour, but 4e classes are much more archetypal).

 

[Ryujin]

And some people believed the recent prophecy about the end of the world. Was that a point, an attempt to start a religious flamewar, or merely a statement that different people have different understandings of the world?

And if you can wrap your head round that and that the proof of the pudding is in the eating then Lancelot still comes out as a 3.X fighter. (In 4e he's probably a Cavalier of Valour, but 4e classes are much more archetypal).

Religious or not I would say that if you aim to recreate a "legendary" figure, then you have to be true to the "legend."

 

[Neonchameleon]

Religious or not I would say that if you aim to recreate a "legendary" figure, then you have to be true to the "legend."

Do you try to stay true to the legend or the figure? I'd go for the historical figure in a world with grit, the legend in one where the whole situation was larger than life.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And if you can wrap your head round that and that the proof of the pudding is in the eating then Lancelot still comes out as a 3.X fighter. (In 4e he's probably a Cavalier of Valour, but 4e classes are much more archetypal).

I'm glad you used the word "probably" in your parenthetical statement. If you had used that in your earlier statements (except the one about Lancelot not being one of the Grail Knights) you would have come out better.

Sure, you could model Lancelot as a 3.X fighter. You can also model Blackbeard as a 3.X fighter, or Archilles, or Beowulf. You can also model Lancelot as a 3.X paladin, or a 1e paladin, etc. Depending upon the angle one takes, you can model a lot of historical, mythological, folkloric, or literary characters in a plethora of ways.

None of them is "the right way".


RC

 

[Redbadge]

Exactly. In a 3e campaign one of the ongoing story arcs, for my many multi-classed fighter/monk/rogue/kensai was the creation of a masterwork bow. The character had a maxed-out craft/bowyer skill, but I don't think that we made more than 3 rolls, on that skill, in 15 levels of play. I might as well not have had the skill, and yet at level 14 I had role-played my way to a masterwork MAGIC bow, made of a rare, special wood that I had spent at least a little time trying to source, then craft, at every level of the character.

It's "role", not "roll" play.

But just in case you need it, 4e has just the book for you (as well as the poster you replied to).

 

[Raven Crowking]

But just in case you need it, 4e has just the book for you (as well as the poster you replied to).

Yup. It's a good thing that WotC never insults earlier editions, or those who criticize its current one.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm glad you used the word "probably" in your parenthetical statement. If you had used that in your earlier statements (except the one about Lancelot not being one of the Grail Knights) you would have come out better.

And that one I stand by. Sure, Lancelot quested for it. As did just about all the rest of them. But Lancelot failed. The Grail Knights I take to be the ones who actually succeeded (Gawain, Percival) rather than the entire Round Table - every single Knight of which set out on the quest. But again interpretations differ - he certainly had stories about his quest written and got further than most. (And why do I always forget Bors?)

And the statement I was replying to was one stating it was puzzling why I'd model them as fighters - I then presented a defence of why I would do this. If you chose to ignore context that I've actually quoted then no wonder you get a specific impression.

The other thing about modelling is that it's one of these cases where there's no one right way. But there is certainly a wrong way. If you were to model Lancelot as a Wizard you'd get laughed at both for what they can't do and what they can.

 

[Ryujin]

And out comes the April Fools Day poster again

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yup. It's a good thing that WotC never insults earlier editions, or those who criticize its current one.

lol, seems to me they're making fun of THEMSELVES.