Wire Fu Demonic Magical Superheroes

[Rechan]

I recall a specific example of this.

Friend was describing a game he was in where he was Very Frustrated. They were on a huge cliff, and the PC looked down and could see about thirty feet below him that there was an ogre standing on a ledge, picking its nose or whatever.

The PC wanted to have his fighter repel down a rope from above, surprise the ogre by wrapping his legs around its neck, and, pushing off the cliff face, try to Pull the ogre off the ledge. That would be EXCITING, and dashing, and heroic.

He asks the DM if he can do this. The DM says no, you'd have a horrendous use rope check, then you'd have to initiate a grapple with a large creature (which you're going to fail), and then you'd have to ...

So he says fine and just picks up a bow and they start firing at it and the ogre begins throwing boulders.

Another example: Return of the King, and Shadow of the Colossus. Both of these have instances where the character (the former Legolas, the latter the character) scale giant monsters so they can kill them easier. But as it stands with the rules, you'd have to make so many climb/balance/AoOs/grapple checks, it'd be... ludicrous to assume you could succeed.

So instead, you just hack at the monster's toes until it dies.

The point is, players should be Indiana Jones, or Bond, or Conan. They should be able to do huge, heroic, cinematic things without it turning the game into a rules clogged crawl. The point is these guys are PCs, they should have a Decent chance of doing the impossible. I'd prefer the game not make my only options "Stab it and move on."

 

[Reynard]

I recall a specific example of this.

Friend was describing a game he was in where he was Very Frustrated. They were on a huge cliff, and the PC looked down and could see about thirty feet below him that there was an ogre standing on a ledge, picking its nose or whatever.

The PC wanted to have his fighter repel down a rope from above, surprise the ogre by wrapping his legs around its neck, and, pushing off the cliff face, try to Pull the ogre off the ledge. That would be EXCITING, and dashing, and heroic.

He asks the DM if he can do this. The DM says no, you'd have a horrendous use rope check, then you'd have to initiate a grapple with a large creature (which you're going to fail), and then you'd have to ...

So he says fine and just picks up a bow and they start firing at it and the ogre begins throwing boulders.

Another example: Return of the King, and Shadow of the Colossus. Both of these have instances where the character (the former Legolas, the latter the character) scale giant monsters so they can kill them easier. But as it stands with the rules, you'd have to make so many climb/balance/AoOs/grapple checks, it'd be... ludicrous to assume you could succeed.

So instead, you just hack at the monster's toes until it dies.

The point is, players should be Indiana Jones, or Bond, or Conan. They should be able to do huge, heroic, cinematic things without it turning the game into a rules clogged crawl. The point is these guys are PCs, they should have a Decent chance of doing it.

The thing is, this has little to do with the rules as written and a lot to do with the DM -- or it should, as the Dm is the guy adjudicating the rules. The DM who said "No" isn't wrong if he said so because he was running a less cinematic game with a closer tie to "realism". If he did so just because the rules said so, he wasn't doing a very good job.

This issue is edition neutral. There are DM's who wouldn't allow such thing in any edition, and those that would.

 

[The Little Raven]

it is that it is certainly not intended to be the D&D that has been around for 30 years. If you're good with that, great. But you can't feign surprise when some people look at it and say, "That's not D&D and I don't like it."

Shades of 1999 and 2000, Batman!

This has been said before, about 3rd Edition.

It puts WotC in the uneviable position of having to replace half their consumer base with... who, exactly?

A new edition is primarily targeted at new customers, as fans of previous editions are less likely to make a purchase they view as "making the same purchase twice for slightly different rules."

 

[Reaper Steve]

For every person that is all excited about changing everything about the game, there's a person who doesn't want the change. That isn't a good thing. It puts WotC in the uneviable position of having to replace half their consumer base with... who, exactly?

That is a bold statement, especially without stats to back it up.
It's also not the conclusion I've drawn from observing message board discussions.

Will 4E appeal to some of the current players? Yes
Will it bring in brand new players? Yes
Will 4E alienate some people? Yes
Will some of those alienated eventually change their mind. Yes
Will 4E bring back some people who left a while ago? Yes (like me!)
Will it be 1:1 gain/loss? I seriously doubt it.
My money is on more total people playing 4E than 3E.

 

[Rechan]

This issue is edition neutral. There are DM's who wouldn't allow such thing in any edition, and those that would.

And if 4e makes doing these things easier, that's better.

I know that you can do some stuff like this in Iron Heroes, and Mearls wrote that.

 

[The Little Raven]

This of course has its own problems, but it has been discussed to death elsewhere. So rather than go into it, I would suggest everyone who can track down a copy of Best of dragon Vol II and read EGG's "From The Sorcerer's Scroll" on why D&D had Vancian Magic in the first place. it was hardly the only magic system he was familiar with from myth and literature. He chose it for a reason.

Because he wasn't capable or interested in making another one balanced with the system he was making. Just because EGG thought Vancian Magic was ideal 30 frakking years ago doesn't mean it's ideal now (especially as evidenced by his more recent games that are able to do without it).

I respect EGG, but it's been 20 years since he has had anything to do with the development of D&D.

 

[Reynard]

Shades of 1999 and 2000, Batman!

This has been said before, about 3rd Edition.

The difference was that 3e ultimate *was* D&D. Now, it isn't my favorite iteration of D&D -- what can I say, I like charts and wonky subsystems -- but what ended up in the core books, what WotC produced and Paizo produced, were *very* D&D. All the old archetypes were there. Nearly all the sacred cows were there. There were new mechanics to deal with, and things like unrestricted race/class combos were a bit irritating, but D&D 3E embraced the core of what was D&D, after a very tumultuous late 2nd edition. 4E is exactly the opposite. All that "growth" and "evolution" that's occurred in the last couple of years with 3E -- that's what is forming the core of 4E. Not to mention the "change every piece of fluff you can find" attitude so prevalent in the previews.

In short: you're wrong.

A new edition is primarily targeted at new customers, as fans of previous editions are less likely to make a purchase they view as "making the same purchase twice for slightly different rules."

Again, you're wrong. 3E was targetted at those people that had abandoned 2E for becoming too "un-D&D-like". 4E is embracing those people and telling the rest of us to shove off, they'll find players on the WoW/GW message boards.

 

[Reynard]

I respect EGG, but it's been 20 years since he has had anything to do with the development of D&D.

And yet his core designs for D&D -- AD&D in particular -- remained for those 20 years. What does that tell you?

 

[Rechan]

It's also not the conclusion I've drawn from observing message board discussions.

This is flawed thinking.

Basing the purchasing habits of people based on message boards?

Let's face it. People on the message boards are not typical D&D players. And by that, I mean, they're not a sampling of average D&D players, from a statistical point of view.

We 1) Have the internet, 2) care enough about it to be coming to these websites, and 3) Well to make my point, we're debating this at 1:AM EST. Would you say your average D&D user is that obsessed?

The online messageboard community is a small drop in the bucket of all the people who played 3rd edition.

 

[Rechan]

And yet his core designs for D&D -- AD&D in particular -- remained for those 20 years. What does that tell you?

That no one was willing to unshackle themselves from thinking anywhere but inside Gary's box?