D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Lanefan]

But one aim of D&Dnext, as I understand it, is to divorce role from class, so that a wizard could be a striker, a controller, a leader, etc, depending on spell selection and player choices in the course of play. That is, story archetype and mechanical effect on play are being separated from one another. At that point, what is the rationale for keeping story archeype connected to spell-use mechanics?

Simplicity. And I don't really subscribe to "roles" as 4e has them, tied to classes. One's role within the party grows - or should grow - out of how you're played as a character, not what your character's mechanics are.

If the answer is "balance", fair enough, but Mearls at present seems to be promising that a Vancian wizard can be balanced with a spell point wizard. Assuming that that design goal can be achieved, why is a default mechanic required?

Again, simplicity. Call the Vancian class "Magic User", call the spell-point class "Wizard", call the spontaneous caster "Sorcerer". Three classes, three mechanics, one for each.

And yet, through the history of D&D, I see only one game world - maybe two if you count FR which is sort-of "Tolkien with the fantasy dial turned to 11" - that were really anything vaguely like Middle Earth. And, even then, Greyhawk had shades of MAR Barker in it with the "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks" stuff.

Known World/Mystara wasn't far off either. And if you start from a basis like that then the "Barrier Peaks" stuff becomes an exciting diversion instead of an expected fact of life.

Re: Drow and Elf in the same party:

And you don't see the story possibilities inherent in challenging that in play??

I see loads of story possibilities! They're all good for about one memorable session during which either the Drow kills the Elf or the Elf kills the Drow. Unless, of course, the DM is an asshat who won't allow PC-vs.-PC combat; in which case the player of the Elf (usually) gets screwed: the Drow player (usually, as it's exotic) will probably be more adamant about keeping his character in the game, so the Elf player either has to play against form whether she wants to or not, or roll up something new.

Lan-"Drow...bah! Not enough meat on 'em, and it's way too tough and stringy - must be the spider influence"-efan

 

[timASW]

My post was attempting to illuminate how Tieflings and Duergar share a unique (to all the races) biological and cultural history; their infernal bloodlines and fiendish pacts. With this comes irrevocable stigma from the greater world culture.

Demon heritage is in no way unique to those races. The numerous demonic templates show that to be a fallacy.

Also they have greatly different stories. Equating them is similar to saying American southerners and modern Muslims have a "unique understanding" of each other because they both owned African slaves.

They both made a deal with the devil, they both expected great riches and power from it and both are now essentially caste based societies that gained nothing at all from their pact with evil.

Does your average man in Georgia have any real unique cultural insight to people in Iran? No they dont.

It doesn't matter what people "talk about" or "how long ago stuff occurred". I'm not sure why you brought that about. We were talking about shared history and how that shared history does, or does not.

It absolutely DOES MATTER. When a character is using something thousands of years of old and irrelevant to the campaign as a justification. If its a long time ago and no one talks about it and then this one player, out of the blue decides to make ANCIENT HISTORY as his prime motivation then yes it bears scrutiny.

I dispute that and attempted to display my reasoning; They share infernal bloodlines, a cultural history of fiendish pacts, and visible, physical marking from their fiendish heritage which indelibly marks them and brings stigma from the greater culture...and with it the natural kinship possessed by a universally maligned people (justly or unjustly)..

Deep gnoes are a secretive underdark race. No one knows what the hell they look like and only evil underdark races and adventurers encounter them.

Furthermore before 4e they did not look different and so had no mutations to justify. So kick 4e to the can where it belongs and that is not an issue.

And everyone has fiendish pacts. That is not unique. Nor was it ever part of the deep gnome story before 4e. If 4e did that all. I ditched it as a bad bet before they got to deep gnomes.

 

[timASW]

What? Are you saying I've said that "The DM should say yes?" What in the world are you talking about? I've never said anything of the like.

You have said exactly that numerous times.

perhaps you have played with all your players for a decade (or more) but most of us start a campaign with at least half of it being people we have never met or exchanged more then an email or two with.

Most of us dont get to go to an online gamer group and say "hey, I'm a DM. Lets get 6 or 7 people together and chat about how we would like a campaign to run. And then we will all magically agree on whats best. "

And then give the DM a month to come up with a campaign for this cutesy little democratic campaign.

And hopefully everyone's schedule still works for it (it wont) and you have enough people left 2 months after your little gaming equality pow wow to actually play.

And then your first session is making characters (because ya know, 3 or 4e)

And so if you plan to play twice a month 3 months after your little pow wow maybe we're actually playing a campaign.

But oh, some people didnt like what got made. Sure we all talked about it. Maybe there was even a vote. But some people lost. And they said they would play anyway....

But it took so damn long to build your custom campaign that the people who lost kept looking online for something that met what they wanted more. So they dont show up.



And thats why this whole crappy idea of "let everyone do whateve the hell they want and I'll just make it work" doesnt actually work for 90% of us GM's.

 

[timASW]

I am Manbearcat of Enworld and am of sound mind. I am a whiny munchkin and I don't know how to play RPGs!

Now if I can just remember that the next time I consider advocating for my/our playstyle!

You have taken the first step to recovery. Only 9 more and your done being a munchkin.

 

[Manbearcat]

@timASW

Got it. You've now convinced me. I'm delusional at what has transpired here (or a liar...maybe both). pemerton's player's character background could only have been the thin veneer of a lame excuse for "munchkinism for kewl powerz". My playstyle is illegitimate. 4e belongs in the can.

Thank you for the education. We're done here. Conversation over.

 

[timASW]

@timASW

Got it. You've now convinced me. I'm delusional at what has transpired here (or a liar...maybe both). pemerton's player's character background could only have been the thin veneer of a lame excuse for "munchkinism for kewl powerz". My playstyle is illegitimate. 4e belongs in the can.

Thank you for the education. We're done here. Conversation over.

Unless you happen to be Pemerton you dont have one shred more insight then me.

So yes thank you for backing the hell off of defending things that arent yours to defend and creating those defenses out of the the whole cloth you spun from your butt.

 

[pemerton]

Deep gnoes are a secretive underdark race. No one knows what the hell they look like and only evil underdark races and adventurers encounter them.

<snip>

And everyone has fiendish pacts. That is not unique. Nor was it ever part of the deep gnome story before 4e.

I think you're confusing deep gnomes (svirfneblin) with grey dwaves (duergar). As best I recall, in AD&D duergar worshipped the evil dwarven god Abbathor. In 4e they worship Asmodeus and other devils.

When a character is using something thousands of years of old and irrelevant to the campaign as a justification.

Huh? What makes you think it is irrelevant to my campaign? Pacts, myths and otherworldly loyalties are central to my campaign - the drow cultist, the paladin, the fighter-cleric, the ranger-cleric and the invoker are also defined, in part and in differing ways, by their loyatlites within the cosmological struggle.

Here is a nice description, by another poster, of the heart of 4e (at least as I run it):

I tend to view 4eC as a visceral game about violently capable individuals who set out willingly or not to irrevocably enact change in their worlds who end up becoming mythic figures in their own right. This is highly reinforced in the assumed setting of the game with the backdrop of the Dawn War, tales of the fall of civilizations, and highly active Gods, Demon Princes, Primordials, etc. 4eC presents a world on fire in desperate need of heroes. Thematically it strikes the same currents that Greek Myth, the Diablo games, and Exalted does though tied to a more mortal perspective.

Of course to really embrace these aspects players need to be able to shift between awareness of the game's narrative to engaging its combat encounter mini-game while remaining focused on the underlying fiction. 4eC asks a lot out of the players, but I find the relatively unique combination of satisfying my narrative jones while engaging my tactical/strategic mind incredibly refreshing.

In this sort of game, that you're descended from a people who fell after making a deal with the devil isn't irrelevant. It's crucial!

If its a long time ago and no one talks about it and then this one player, out of the blue decides to make ANCIENT HISTORY as his prime motivation then yes it bears scrutiny.

As I said upthread, I dont know what sort of game you run, as I've never seen any actual play posts from you (and you've not pointed me to any).

I'm getting the impression, though, that it's pretty different from mine.

You have taken the first step to recovery. Only 9 more and your done being a munchkin.

Yet only one of us (and not me) has to worry about players lying about their rationales for PC builds and interest in the game.

 

[pemerton]

Unless you happen to be Pemerton you dont have one shred more insight then me.

I'm not sure that's true.

creating those defenses out of the the whole cloth you spun from your butt.

As I posted upthread, [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is pretty much spot on. The story logic of the PCs I described isn't that mysterious.

 

[timASW]

Manbearcat[/MENTION] is pretty much spot on. The story logic of the PCs I described isn't that mysterious.

k. they're total munchkins then as he said. righty-o kiptan.

 

[Obryn]

I'm still left curious as to how something like Warforged and Tieflings can't be in D&D, but crashed spaceships, gelatinous cubes, Remo Williams monks, baby balrogs as PCs, and mechanical robot submarines can be.

It's like, only letting one group of people who sat around and thought up cool stuff dictate what cool stuff is everyone else is allowed to think up.

-O