• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
The argument from popularity continues to not impress me.
It isn't an argument from popularity. It is an argument from economic reality. It is an argument from statistics.

We are talking about a product of a business. The things in the game should match the target audience, and do well for the business that creates it. When you are looking at what seems to be the largest economic success in gaming in decades, making it better would be hard. And it just happens that your pet peeves would be the things that would do that? Isn't that... rather unlikely, statistically speaking?

The quality of a game design element does not stand separate from the players it serves. It may be the elements and design you want are awesome... in the right product. And that product may not be D&D.

And I also think even some of the most interesting aspects of the play test were kept in an undeveloped form instead of used as a direction to accomplish more with.
Have you considered the idea that D&D is not the game to "accomplish more" with? That D&D ought to be, and for the health of our hobby really needs to be, a sort of good, solid, but bog standard game, and that "accomplishing more" is for games focused on other, smaller niches of gaming desire?

D&D is a game accessible to pretty much everyone in the market. It is not the best at most things, but it may be the best collection of second-best parts we are likely to get.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
It isn't an argument from popularity. It is an argument from economic reality.
The person I last talked to about this has an economics degree (though not an advanced one) and he likes D&D rather broadly 4e and 5e (doesnt care about my criticisms either) = he rejected the idea that the games quality or any particula change between the editions themselves resulted in the rise in popularity citing the right time and in the right place for cultural shifts. OK I admit it also got a bit odd about current psychology trends and the most social game for anti-social cliques in an age of rising antisocial memes. OK admitting I didnt follow it too well.

Too many factors involved was really the gist. Do you really think with how markets work this is something we can know?

To be clear I am not arguing with economic success you are merely trying to assert it means something you cannot prove it does.... nor that it really has anything to do with features that bother me and not better marketing choices and cultural climate.

This thread is arguably about 4e and potential development before its design paradigm was ditched and sorry but what i see as failings in the eventual design direction D&D took seem a pretty natural element of that. Especially since the thread branched into all the 5e focused off topica on this thread.

D&D is a game accessible to pretty much everyone in the market. It is not the best at most things, but it may be the best collection of second-best parts we are likely to get.
"may be" and maybe that is just what it is now I didnt expect to ever find D&D attractive enough to bring me back even in the mid 80s other games were pulling me away yet 4e brought me back. Dresden Files/Fate was a close second when 4e came out. They might even make a 6e I like more too who knows.
 
Last edited:

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
I believe that several features of Fifth Edition's design are responsible for its widespread appeal. I do not believe that speaks to design quality. It is a strong design that consistently delivers the experience it was built to deliver. I absolutely believe experience is the right word here. The designers were much more concerned with the cultural experience of Dungeons and Dragons then building the best game possible. Do not get me wrong here. I happen to believe they still built a fairly good game.

One of the design features that has led to the game's mass appeal is that focus on the cultural experience of Dungeons and Dragons. This could be seen pretty readily in the play test surveys. There were not many questions that were concerned with quality of game play, decisions, or difficulty. The overwhelming theme was if it felt like Dungeons and Dragons. Overwhelmingly they want things to feel familiar and comfortable, not just for existing players, but also for returning players. They want new players to feel like they are taking part in something ancient with a storied tradition.

Juxtaposed against this was Fourth Edition's approach. It was more like Marvel's Ultimate universe. It had an attitude and an edge. It was not your father's Dungeons and Dragons. It was your Dungeons and Dragons. Everything was different. The classes were different. The races were different. It was visceral and violent. The world was on fire. From a marketing standpoint this was a misstep, but it allowed for what was at that time some pretty compelling and innovative game play.

Another feature that has really helped the appeal of Fifth Edition is that it does not really reward deep engagement.

The difference between more skilled and less skilled play is fairly marginal when compared to other versions of the game. As a casual player you can sit down with a Champion Fighter and perform nearly as well as the more advanced melee classes like the Monk or Paladin. Neovancian casting is more fluid and forgiving to players. The Concentration mechanic and generally low rate of interactions between spells and other abilities serve to make playing a caster for the first time an easier experience.

The Beliefs, Instincts, Flaws, and Traits generally reward light characterization instead of deep protagonism. Like Fourth Edition before it Fifth Edition continues the trend of reemphasizing alignment and removing character constraints. This includes things like Dexterity to damage, rage having no meaningful downside, no penalties to attributes, and special ways to guarantee sneak attack damage.

This is helpful for players who just want to go on adventures and is less intimidating for new players. To that end the Organized Play experience for Fifth Edition is extremely streamlined. It is pretty much pick up and play. Scenarios are resolved in a couple hours and are generally tuned to err towards success with maybe a hiccup or two along the way.

The thing I find most interesting about Pathfinder 2 is that it has doubled down on deep engagement and difficulty. It kind of feels like it is trying to be the Dark Souls of the table top scene by rewarding deep engagement in both lore and game play. It has doubled down on things like encumbrance, alignment, spell preparation, monster immunities, and deep interactions between mechanics.

In many cases it has even gone further. Champions come in three varieties : Paladin (LG) , Redeemer (NG), and Liberator (CG). Beyond their alignment requirement each has a specific code with a matching set of Anathema, actions which can result in the loss of certain abilities until they have the Atone ritual performed on them by another member of their clergy. Champions and Clerics both have Anathema that depend on the god they serve. Barbarians also have an Anathema based on their Instinct, the source of their rage.

Pathfinder's new Bulk system brings encumbrance back as an expected part of play. Some classes even have trouble starting play unencumbered if they neglect strength in character generation. Exploration is also a big part of play with skilled use of Exploration activities having a strong impact on success in combat encounters. Things like searching specific areas both in and out of combat is an expected part of play.

While martial characters are only about as complex as a Battle Master the 3 action economy has put skilled play on the map for martial characters. Skilled use of actions, new martial focused consumables, special actions, combat maneuvers, and the like are necessary to succeed. Casters have had their spell lists revamped to build risk back into playing a spell caster. Now there are always a range of possible outcomes for any given spell and even effects like Nondetection, True Seeing, Remove Disease and the like require countering rolls. Timing and risk management are now a big part of playing a caster.

Monsters now usually have a wide range of immunities, resistances, weaknesses, and unique mechanics to contend with. Some like the hydra even have special ways you need to kill them. There is an increased emphasis on learning the monsters and becoming skilled at killing individual monsters again. They also inflict some pretty nasty long term consequences again.

Because of these features I am pretty sure that while it will find an audience it will never have the mainstream appeal that Fifth Edition does, but that does not mean that Fifth Edition is the better game. The more appealing game sure, but mass appeal does not have a lot to do with quality. Moldvay B/X is a far better designed game than Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, but AD&D had more mass appeal.

Again not saying Fifth Edition is a bad game. I think it's a pretty good game. So is Fourth Edition. So is Pathfinder 2. Fifth Edition would not be this popular with a discerning young audience if it was not good, but appeal is not just based on design quality. There are a lot of other factors that go into it.
 

Hussar

Legend
If it was subjective the DC would change depending on the character?/level?/... well something, in my example it doesn't change. Your inability to grasp that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Because determining whether it's appropriate to roll and determining the DC are two different steps.

Lol... The beauty is as long as the book states that the DM determines if a roll is appropriate or not before determining a DC... you can run your game in the world of Happy Days and I can run my game in a world where some kind of tool is necessary to pick locks and neither of us is having badwrongfun.
That seems like a pretty finicky line to draw. "Oh, we're not changing the DC, we're just saying that because you don't meet my requirements, you can't actually make a check". How is that not a subjective DC?

It's nothing to do with badwrongfun. It's everything to do with your mischaracterization that this is somehow objective. It's not objective if the DC changes from Impossible to Possible based entirely on whether or not the DM feels like it.

It's very subjective.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
That seems like a pretty finicky line to draw. "Oh, we're not changing the DC, we're just saying that because you don't meet my requirements, you can't actually make a check". How is that not a subjective DC?

It's nothing to do with badwrongfun. It's everything to do with your mischaracterization that this is somehow objective. It's not objective if the DC changes from Impossible to Possible based entirely on whether or not the DM feels like it.

It's very subjective.
It's really not... unless everything is "subjective" since the DM is the one setting the DC's in the first place. n fact your definition of "subjective" means I would have to run an entire game without deciding a single DC since otherwise it would be subjective... do you see how absurd that is?

The number doesn't change (and thus the DC doesn't change) but your ability or inability to make a roll to achieve said DC can... it isn't that hard of a concept to grasp so I'll try one more example but beyond that I don't have enough invested in trying to get you to understand to keep going with this conversation...especially since, as you haven't addressed when you've been mistaken or wrong in our previous exchanges in this thread, I don't think this will be any different.

cliff face X is a Very Hard climb... the DC is 25. However your character has been dumped at its base with arms and legs bound and no equipment...

You state..."My character climbs the cliff face."

As DM I rule a roll to climb the cliff face is inappropriate and impossible for your character. Did the DC change...nope it's still a DC 25/Very Hard cliff face in the game world and barring some drastic change in the fiction it will always be an objective DC 25 cliff face. However, I've ruled your character cant make the roll to achieve it because his legs and arms are bound (apparently in your game irregardless of the fiction, method or whatever if you can roll a 25 you should be able to climb the cliff face.... I gues the bound character does it Fonzie style :rolleyes:) that's not how I run my game. The cliff face has an objective DC but your character is not guaranteed a chance to achieve said DC. They are 2 different axis
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I am considering the flexibility of using Dex or Strength for any Martial Attack Power too. More bigger backgrounds too. -- I know not exactly a system feature but.

Pathfinder 2 split out skill feats I am wondering if they solved anything interesting with that or if that is just the utility power system of 4e with a different name
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Generally there are no clear dividing lines between class feats and skill feats. Both have options that are primarily used in Exploration Mode and Encounter Mode. Encounter mode, initiative, and action economy are also not just used for combat encounters. They can also be used for social encounters, handling traps, and action scenes like chases. Some encounter mode feats are designed more for social encounters. Some things like Demoralize are useful in both social and combat encounters.

Generally the only thing that separates a class feat from a skill feat is that a class feat reinforces the themes and core competencies of that class while skill feats extend on a skill's uses and themes that go along with it. For Rangers feats can include things like snares, monster knowledge, and tracking as well as combat and action adventure oriented abilities. One of the Hunter's Edge choices is actually oriented to exploration and social encounters. Some skill feats like Titan Wrestler are exclusively combat oriented while some like Swift Sneak are useful in multiple modes of play and encounter types where some like Impressive Performance are exclusively not combat oriented.

In general there are no lines.
 

Hussar

Legend
It's really not... unless everything is "subjective" since the DM is the one setting the DC's in the first place. n fact your definition of "subjective" means I would have to run an entire game without deciding a single DC since otherwise it would be subjective... do you see how absurd that is?

The number doesn't change (and thus the DC doesn't change) but your ability or inability to make a roll to achieve said DC can... it isn't that hard of a concept to grasp so I'll try one more example but beyond that I don't have enough invested in trying to get you to understand to keep going with this conversation...especially since, as you haven't addressed when you've been mistaken or wrong in our previous exchanges in this thread, I don't think this will be any different.

cliff face X is a Very Hard climb... the DC is 25. However your character has been dumped at its base with arms and legs bound and no equipment...

You state..."My character climbs the cliff face."

As DM I rule a roll to climb the cliff face is inappropriate and impossible for your character. Did the DC change...nope it's still a DC 25/Very Hard cliff face in the game world and barring some drastic change in the fiction it will always be an objective DC 25 cliff face. However, I've ruled your character cant make the roll to achieve it because his legs and arms are bound (apparently in your game irregardless of the fiction, method or whatever if you can roll a 25 you should be able to climb the cliff face.... I gues the bound character does it Fonzie style :rolleyes:) that's not how I run my game. The cliff face has an objective DC but your character is not guaranteed a chance to achieve said DC. They are 2 different axis
No, instead I rule that the PC has disadvantage (at least) for trying to climb with bound hands, and possibly smack in a -5 just for kicks. Ends up probably being impossible, but, then again, maybe not. Even with simple disadvantage, a DC 25 is more or less impossible, so, end of story.

I just don't pretend that it's somehow "objective" for me to rule that way.

Nor do I keep finding corner case examples in order to try to "prove" my point. My point always was, character tries to run up the wall parkour style. You've ruled that doing so requires proficiency in acrobatics, and regardless of the character's actual score when making an unskilled attempt (possibly assisted with any number of options) it is impossible for the character to do that. Instead of actually addressing my point, you've gone off and talked about bound captives, breakdancing and various other non sequiturs.

Again, your repeated claims to the contrary, the whole misunderstanding at the beginning was because you insisted on ignoring the point I was trying to make. And, all you've done since then is ignore the point I was trying to make in order to build all sorts of straw men. It's tiring and boring now. I'm done.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
No, instead I rule that the PC has disadvantage (at least) for trying to climb with bound hands, and possibly smack in a -5 just for kicks. Ends up probably being impossible, but, then again, maybe not. Even with simple disadvantage, a DC 25 is more or less impossible, so, end of story.

I just don't pretend that it's somehow "objective" for me to rule that way.

Nor do I keep finding corner case examples in order to try to "prove" my point. My point always was, character tries to run up the wall parkour style. You've ruled that doing so requires proficiency in acrobatics, and regardless of the character's actual score when making an unskilled attempt (possibly assisted with any number of options) it is impossible for the character to do that. Instead of actually addressing my point, you've gone off and talked about bound captives, breakdancing and various other non sequiturs.

Again, your repeated claims to the contrary, the whole misunderstanding at the beginning was because you insisted on ignoring the point I was trying to make. And, all you've done since then is ignore the point I was trying to make in order to build all sorts of straw men. It's tiring and boring now. I'm done.
Well actually the first thing you did was rule that the PC has a chance to attempt the action (if he/she didn't well then no DC would be set would it??)... then all the stuff you're talking about takes place, including setting the DC...


Anyway I guess we've reached the land of...agree to disagree... cool.

EDIT: I'm sorry I have to ask this... so according to what you are stating above... assigning modifiers to a task due to outside factors affecting a particular characters chances... is now considered setting a non-objective DC... even though it's still the same number?? What?? I can't... yeah we just are not viewing this from the same place.
 
Last edited:
The beauty is as long as the book states that the DM determines if a roll is appropriate or not before determining a DC... you can run your game in the world of Happy Days and I can run my game in a world where some kind of tool is necessary to pick locks and neither of us is having badwrongfun.
I'm just lost as to how this is any different in 5e from 4e. Here is some text from p 178 of the 4e PHB:

The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one.​

That said, I don't think that either 4e or 5e is very well-suited to running a game set in the world of Happy Days. The game elements speak of both speak to an entirely different genre of fiction.

The example you brought up was foreign to me, and, quite honestly, needlessly busy, and much more complicated than it needed to be
So I went back to my example. There's a para of scene-setting info and two paras about fallout. Here's the actual resolution:

The fighter-cleric had succeeded at Dungeoneering (the closest in 4e to an engineering skill) and Diplomacy (to keep his dwarven artificers at the forge as the temperature and magical energies rise to unprecedented heights). The wizard had succeeded at Arcana (to keep the magical forces in check). But the fighter-cleric failed his Religion check - he was praying to Moradin to help with the process, but it wasn't enough. So he shoved his hands into the forge and held down the hammer with brute strength! (Successful Endurance against a Hard DC.) His hands were burned and scarred, but the dwarven smiths were finally able to grab the hammer head with their tongs, and then beat and pull it into its new shape.​

So you're saying that the idea of making a check to work a magical forge and to keep the artificers going; of a check to keep magical forces in check; of a check for prayer (which failed); and then a check to hold the artefact in place in the forge; is "needlessly busy"? And "more complicated than it needed to be"?

How do non-combat things like this work out in your game?
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
So you're saying that the idea of making a check to work a magical forge and to keep the artificers going; of a check to keep magical forces in check; of a check for prayer (which failed); and then a check to hold the artefact in place in the forge; is "needlessly busy"? And "more complicated than it needed to be"?

How do non-combat things like this work out in your game?
This would be considered a purely non-game element taken care of in downtime ("I want to increase the power of Whelm"). Primarily because it is only 1) about increasing a single character's power, and 2) involves only a single character.

Given time constraints, we limit game activities to group activities that involve exploration, social interaction, and combat, and solo activities ("I want to increase the power of Whelm," "I want to research a new spell," "I want to build the following fortifications in my keep") are dealt with by non-game communication.

As I wrote- if this works for you, awesome sauce. But it would be needlessly busy for my group, where I depend on my players to handle solo world-building that I can mostly just sign off on. In 99% of the circumstances, I neither need to police nor roll for what they are doing.
 

Manbearcat

Adventurer
Hmmm... @Garthanos seemed to imply that the numbers to reach a paragon level of DC's wouldn't be all that hard for a heroic 4e character to reach...

Paragon DC's...
Level 11 Easy(13)/Moderate(19)/Hard(27)
Level 20 18 25 34

Let's take a 4th level character with just the basics (No theme/background/feats/etc.)... 20 Ability (+5), 1/2 level (+2), Trained (+5)...

So to accomplish an early paragon easy task they have to roll a 1 or higher, moderate 7 or higher and hard task they need to roll... 15 or higher, not exactly beyond their ability to achieve at all.

Far end of paragon roll a 6 for easy, a 13 for moderate and they can't accomplish a hard task (though with magic and/or feats, utility powers, themes, backgrounds, etc it's probably doable... again no real hard barier mechanically.
1) The conversation is about “the dearth of conceptual non-combatant space between Heroic Fighters (those who fight Red Dragon Wyrmlings) and Epic Fighters (those who fight Ancient Red Wyrms).”

If you want to talk about the bleed between adjacent tiers, we can have a conversation about that. I have a lot to say about that, but that is a different conversation.

Can we continue this one for now?

Ok... so DM force/choice/fiat/whatever doesn' allow the PC's to choose to interact with obstacles, threats, etc. that are higher then their tier...

It seems to me that the main element in either edition preventing the lower mythic character from doing the same feats as the higher mythic character is the DM not actual mechanics
A few things here:

Force is “when a GM subordinates a players thematic/tactical/strategic choices to that GM’s own whim/will by manipulating play outcomes (through various techniques).

Fiat (as it pertains to TTRPGs) - A GM decree where system is absent/silent or a mode of GMing where system specifically requires a GM to mediate the evolution of the gamestate (both on screen action resolution and off-screen machinery), but does not provide constraining structure.

Neither of those things remotely apply to 4e non-combatant conflict resolution.

The system is not remotely silent on procedures and techniques, and the GM-side structure and constraint was one of the primary points of contention with the edition (and one of the primary pillars of the “boardgamey epithet”).
 

Manbearcat

Adventurer
One thing on “Freeform RPGing”:

In the games that I know of that are called Freeform games, there is an implicit “Structured” descriptor at the beginning of that.

“Structured Freeform”

My guess is to some of you that seems like an oxymoron.

It’s not.

The idea is that play conversation is mediated through system in particular ways, similar to how an artist may be given a few constraints (“oil on canvass”, “theme x”, “ hour”), in order to focus creativity. The playspace is contracted in a focused way and at the few, but important, parts where dispute may arise around “what happens”, the system has an answer to resolve it.

Conversation is focused around very specific ethos and procedures and, to ensure minimal intrusiveness in terms of dispute handling, “all-participant-facing” resolution methods (which are low overhead and quick in terms of handling time) are deployed.

The structure of play becomes a natural rhythm as a result. Simultaneously, the possible fictional results of an instantiation of any given situation expands.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
1) The conversation is about “the dearth of conceptual non-combatant space between Heroic Fighters (those who fight Red Dragon Wyrmlings) and Epic Fighters (those who fight Ancient Red Wyrms).”

If you want to talk about the bleed between adjacent tiers, we can have a conversation about that. I have a lot to say about that, but that is a different conversation.

Can we continue this one for now?
Sure I'll stick to epic tier. Let's look at the DC for a low epic character

Easy: 19 Mod: 26 Hard: 35

That same 4th level character can achieve the easy difficulty with a roll of 7, a roll of 14 for moderate and could probably hit hard with the help of magic...


Top Epic

Easy: 24 Mod: 32 Hard: 42

That same 4th level character can achieve the easy difficulty with a roll of 12, a roll of 20 for moderate (probably easier when everything available to a 4e character is factored in) and could possibly hit hard with the help of magic (Not certain about this but then this is the same effect the DC 30 in 5e creates)...

I think my general point still stands... these are supposed to be the feats of near gods and a 4th level character can accomplish them if given the chance to roll.

A few things here:

Force is “when a GM subordinates a players thematic/tactical/strategic choices to that GM’s own whim/will by manipulating play outcomes (through various techniques).

Fiat (as it pertains to TTRPGs) - A GM decree where system is absent/silent or a mode of GMing where system specifically requires a GM to mediate the evolution of the gamestate (both on screen action resolution and off-screen machinery), but does not provide constraining structure.

Neither of those things remotely apply to 4e non-combatant conflict resolution.

The system is not remotely silent on procedures and techniques, and the GM-side structure and constraint was one of the primary points of contention with the edition (and one of the primary pillars of the “boardgamey epithet”).
Ok I apologize for my poor choice of words but let me make my point clear... there is no hard separation mathematically between the tasks a heroic tier character could achieve in the game and what an epic character could achieve ( except possibly at the most extreme end, and I believe even that is attainable if everything available to a 4e character is factored in).

My larger point is that I understand 4e tied certain fiction description, tropes, etc. to certain DC's... but it is only through the hand of the DM gating DC's that said fictional differences are mathematically maintained. This can be accomplished in 5e (or not if one chooses to disregard the possibility of gating DC checks) as well (and I gave examples of how earlier). The main difference I see in the two editions is that 4e has more tightly bound it's game to a specific genre with specific tropes but gives more robust advice and direction around gating (thus the claims of it feeling more restrictive and narrow)... while 5e leaves it pretty much open giving one the tools and a minimum of advice around genres and leaving it up to the individual DM to decide how said tools can be used to create said genre (thus the claims of it not being precise enough or too open in it's resolution for some).

EDIT: Just thought about it the other big difference is that 4e has DC's that are subjective (what a Hard DC is numerically changes depending on level) while 5e has objective DC's (what a hard DC is, 20 stays the same number no matter what level...though the actual check to make the DC's in both games are still subject to DM determination on appropriateness, DM set modifiers, DM set adv/disadv, and so on.
 
Last edited:

Imaro

Adventurer
I'm just lost as to how this is any different in 5e from 4e. Here is some text from p 178 of the 4e PHB:

The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one.​

That said, I don't think that either 4e or 5e is very well-suited to running a game set in the world of Happy Days. The game elements speak of both speak to an entirely different genre of fiction.
I think @Manbearcat is answering this question in our discussion and my reply to him goes more into it but in general 4e more tightly ties specific genre, specific tropes, mood, etc. through it's play procedures, mechanics and scaling DC's. While 5e doesn't (see @Hussar and his Happy Days game examples)
 
This would be considered a purely non-game element taken care of in downtime ("I want to increase the power of Whelm"). Primarily because it is only 1) about increasing a single character's power, and 2) involves only a single character.

Given time constraints, we limit game activities to group activities that involve exploration, social interaction, and combat, and solo activities ("I want to increase the power of Whelm," "I want to research a new spell," "I want to build the following fortifications in my keep") are dealt with by non-game communication.
So you weren't commenting on the approach to resolution at all? Which is what I was trying to talk about, given the topic of the thread..
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
This would be considered a purely non-game element taken care of in downtime ("I want to increase the power of Whelm"). Primarily because it is only 1) about increasing a single character's power, and 2) involves only a single character.

Given time constraints, we limit game activities to group activities that involve exploration, social interaction, and combat, and solo activities ("I want to increase the power of Whelm," "I want to research a new spell," "I want to build the following fortifications in my keep") are dealt with by non-game communication.

As I wrote- if this works for you, awesome sauce. But it would be needlessly busy for my group, where I depend on my players to handle solo world-building that I can mostly just sign off on. In 99% of the circumstances, I neither need to police nor roll for what they are doing.
As a player this is almost the exact opposite of what I am looking for in a role playing game. I want character defining moments like this to be on screen and salient to the entire group. I take a strong interest in the characters other players play. I want to know their struggles and triumphs. If someone is playing a Paladin who worships Kord I want that to be salient to what happens on screen. I want differences between characters to be meaningfully affect their interactions.

From where I stand there can be no story without protagonists. In order for player characters to be protagonists we need to know what is important to them. We cannot have that without specificity of fiction and them being meaningfully grounded in the lore.
 

Advertisement

Top