Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 6256849" data-attributes="member: 2205">Well, the premise of this thread is specifically asking about what can be done to bring 4e fans into Next.&nbsp; It seems that you're saying that 4e fans gonna be 4e fans, and people who are ambivalent about system might well migrate to Next based on its merits.&nbsp; That's good, and almost certainly true, but not really the premise of the thread.&nbsp; If someone's a fan of 4e, they're probably a fan of tactical battlemat combat.&nbsp; Unless they're specifically interesting in 5e as something different, Theater of the Mind won't be what they're looking for.In the bigger world of D&amp;D fandom, of course, Theater of the Mind might well be a big draw.&nbsp; Especially to those who aren't really big fans of the tactical combat game of 4e.&nbsp; But not specifically to 4e fans, I don't think.Me too!Well, in reality, I don't either.&nbsp; And although this is a discussion for another day, I'm not sure that Lovecraft very consistently had that bleak approach all the time either (although he certainly went through a phase of it.)&nbsp; I think that much of that approach is a construct of later readers and writers interpreting Lovecraft.&nbsp; Lovecraft's work went through phases, with similarities althrough, but also major differences in tone.&nbsp; Some of his later work almost leaves the horror genre behind altogether and ranges into being pure, early science fiction, for instance.In any case, yeah--I like the caustic-alien idea of monsters.&nbsp; Especially outsiders and undead, which are my favorite &quot;villains&quot; from the monstrous ouvre.&nbsp; Villains of the &quot;all too human&quot; variety give me plenty to work with on a more day-to-day basis.&nbsp; And although I call my setting a dark fantasy, D&amp;D + Cthulhu hybrid, in reality, I'm also a big fan of larger-then-life swashbuckling adventure as a major theme too.They're not completely incompatable.&nbsp; The Van Helsing movie, for example, or the Brendan Frasier Mummy series hit this combination, in many ways.&nbsp; They weren't all very good movies in other ways (the first Mummy excepted) but I often point to them as the perfect example of the tone I want to hit, at least.Or perhaps Harry Dresden but not in the modern world works too.I tend to not use the Far Realm at all, and just assume that all monsters are actually more monstrous in nature than D&amp;D often presents them.&nbsp; D&amp;D suffers, I think, from having monsters be nearly routine (especially in a dungeoncrawling environment) which, of course, makes them not really very monstrous at all.&nbsp; The focus on regular human villains at more levels, of course, means that I can make monsters more rare, and therefore really play them up as monsters.&nbsp; Instead just being a routine hazard that PCs meet on their daily commute into work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 6256849, member: 2205"] Well, the premise of this thread is specifically asking about what can be done to bring 4e fans into Next. It seems that you're saying that 4e fans gonna be 4e fans, and people who are ambivalent about system might well migrate to Next based on its merits. That's good, and almost certainly true, but not really the premise of the thread. If someone's a fan of 4e, they're [I]probably[/I] a fan of tactical battlemat combat. Unless they're specifically interesting in 5e as something different, Theater of the Mind won't be what they're looking for. In the bigger world of D&D fandom, of course, Theater of the Mind might well be a big draw. Especially to those who aren't really big fans of the tactical combat game of 4e. But not specifically to 4e fans, I don't think. Me too! Well, in reality, I don't either. And although this is a discussion for another day, I'm not sure that Lovecraft very consistently had that bleak approach all the time either (although he certainly went through a phase of it.) I think that much of that approach is a construct of later readers and writers [I]interpreting[/I] Lovecraft. Lovecraft's work went through phases, with similarities althrough, but also major differences in tone. Some of his later work almost leaves the horror genre behind altogether and ranges into being pure, early science fiction, for instance. In any case, yeah--I like the caustic-alien idea of monsters. Especially outsiders and undead, which are my favorite "villains" from the monstrous ouvre. Villains of the "all too human" variety give me plenty to work with on a more day-to-day basis. And although I call my setting a dark fantasy, D&D + Cthulhu hybrid, in reality, I'm also a big fan of larger-then-life swashbuckling adventure as a major theme too. They're not completely incompatable. The [I]Van Helsing[/I] movie, for example, or the Brendan Frasier [I]Mummy[/I] series hit this combination, in many ways. They weren't all very good movies in other ways (the first [I]Mummy[/I] excepted) but I often point to them as the perfect example of the tone I want to hit, at least. Or perhaps Harry Dresden but not in the modern world works too. I tend to not use the Far Realm at all, and just assume that all monsters are actually more monstrous in nature than D&D often presents them. D&D suffers, I think, from having monsters be nearly routine (especially in a dungeoncrawling environment) which, of course, makes them not really very monstrous at all. The focus on regular human [I]villains[/I] at more levels, of course, means that I can make monsters more rare, and therefore really play them up as monsters. Instead just being a routine hazard that PCs meet on their daily commute into work. [/QUOTE]

Verification