Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7335901" data-attributes="member: 29398">XP for a thoughtful reply, even if I don't agree with some of it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />While the 4e-5e model you present does allow for jumping right into the deep end as a local hero, as it were, it also completely negates any thought of playing a character up from "nobody" to said local hero: the riskiest part of an adventurer's career.  With 4e in particular there's quite a big gap between a commoner and a 1st-level character, probably holding enough design space to squeeze three or so more levels in there. In 1e that commoner-to-1st-level gap is much smaller; small enough that it's easy to envision how the progression would naturally occur; and even more so if one incorporates 0th level as a stepping stone.I don't mind greater choice in class and race of character than raw 1e gives, and I've done away with most racial level limits (a race can either be a class or it can't) while also toning down some of the non-Human racial benefits.  I'm also more generous than 1e RAW in how many spell slots casters get at very low levels - figuring out how many they should have at higher levels remains a work in progress...I'll get it right one of these decades! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I rather loathe point-buy or array systems for reasons I've pointed out in other threads that largely boil down to preferring luck to be and remain a big factor in char gen - thus mirroring reality to some extent.I play the human MU in our game, and even though she's 10th level I think half the PCs in the party could wipe her out in a 1-on-1 arena situation, rising to nearly all of them if I lost initiative on the first round. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Here's another difference between us, then: you seem to be looking for heroic play where I'm looking for something a bit more gritty where the characters maybe end up as heroes at the finish.And in all honesty I find that the full-on logistical play only lasts for the first few levels, after which everyone (players and PCs) kinda knows what they're doing and can put it on autopilot.  Couple that in with things like Continual Light and Create Food and Water coming into play and before long the most important things remaining to track are ammunition and party/personal wealth.  But that introduction to logistics is IMO vitally important.By the late '90s 2e had really lost its way, and was drowning in bloat.  The 3e designers, backed by their customer research, realized that there was a common desire for a) simplification and integration of the rules and b) a return to good old-fashioned dungeon-crawling as a point from which to start over.  On (a) they half-succeeded: the rules became well-integrated but they sure didn't get any simpler!  On (b) they hit a home run, with this and other factors leading to a rather massive resurgence in the game's popularity.In fairness, it can also be seen as an invitation to the DM to slowly transition from a bash-and-haul type of game to something with a lot more courtly intrigue in it; though not all DMs or players would go for this. (1) is most often RPG as war - it's deadly; (2) is most often RPG as sport - we'll beat each other up on the field then all go down to the pub for a beer; and (3) is RPG as...well, kinda not much.You can't have a story without conflict, and in an RPG that conflict can only come from two places: the DM (acting as the game world and its inhabitants) and-or the other players (acting as their PCs); and as many tables ban PvP that only leaves one source of conflict. (I don't count conflict against self here - if someone wants to play out their own character's internal angst that's fine, but it's not much fun for anyone else who has to sit through it)Agreed.So, you can buy me a birthday present but only if I allow you to.  You're not allowed to surprise me without my foreknowledge. Or I can tell you to return whatever you bought me to the shop for a refund.Of course.  That's how it works. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The DM has a very different role within an RPG than do the players, much like a football referee and linesmen have very different roles in football from those of the lads kicking the ball around.  The DM and the referee are not playing the game even though they are directly involved in it; instead they are facilitating the game and making sure things stay vaguely within the rules.In an RPG the DM is in an odd situation in that she's filling the roles of both referee and opposition; and all involved just have to trust that she can do this fairly.I'm not so sure I'd say "grown up" but rather "branched out"; as "grown up" implies that what went before was childish - I hope that's not what you're trying to say. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />And one can argue that this branching out has in some cases gone so far as to produce entirely new plants, some of which aren't really growing in the RPG garden any more but are instead sprouting up out of the collaborative storytelling soil just near it. That's not abuse as I see it, it's just boring for the DM. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />By 'abuse' (as in abuse of the play-style or system) I mean it'd be very open to players making things far too easy on their PCs and, in effect, Monty Hauling the campaign.  Without meaningful opposition they could (and many IME probably would, given the chance) turn a high-risk high-reward game into a low-or-no-risk high-reward game; and providing this meaningful opposition and risk in the form of the game world and its occupants is in part what the DM is there for.They'd then get awfully bored with the whole thing and probably blame the game, but in the end it'd be a boredom they had brought upon themselves.Lan-"sure I want it all, but it's more fun if I have to fight to get it and there's no guarantee I'll win"-efan</blockquote>

Verification