Blackeagle
First Post
Endroren, have you read the skill challenges excerpt? Particularly the negotiation with the Duke that's given as an example. From your perspective, what exactly is wrong with it?
Endroren said:Huzzah! What he said!Celebrim said:The mythic '15 minute workday' is not a product of rules. It's a product of some players approach to the game, coupled with what appears to be conscious DM reinforcement of that approach.
Endroren said:Look, MAYBE the real 4E books will be different but even just using the standard HERO rules , even the Sidekick, as a guide, there is a distinct difference in the focus of the rules. 4E, in this introductory module which may or may not have been a good example of play (despite the fact that it is supposed to be) gives little more than lip service to social skills. Pair this with what the WotC designers have said and I think I have a valid concern here.
And as I mentioned, I HOPE I'm wrong, but honestly, I'm pretty concerned that I've hit this on the head.
Vendark said:Meh. I'm not worried. IMO, the biggest obstacle to roleplaying in KotS is not the rules, nor the scenario as presented, but rather the fact that it uses pregens. Instead of coming up with a character concept and then using the rules to realize it in play, players have to pick a set of statistics and then try to come up with a character for it. That lack of ownership of and investment in the character is sure to have a depressing effect on the immersion of many players.
Endroren said:Have you read the skill descriptions in HERO? Or better yet, have you read Ultimate Skill? These are well designed, robust, story driven rules. And it isn't just two rules.
Endroren said:Let me preface by saying I'm not trying to be a jerk when I ask is...I'm trying to understand the differing opinions.
What IS a roleplaying game to you?
In other words, what does a game system have to include to be able to honestly include the words "Roleplaying Game" somewhere on the cover? Some manner of definition must be possible, otherwise one could call anything an RPG.
Well, the problem with that is no one wants to play the "novice" version. People want the real thing. This is the "basic set" for all intents and purposes, and it mostly works in that regard. The lack of basic equipment information is one glaring omission - you can buy stuff in town but you can't because you don't have the PHB yet... or you find magic armor that gives an extra +1 to AC, but you don't know what AC bonus the armor itself gives...JeffB said:I'll preface by saying I like KOTS so far (and I was all set up NOT to). However I think it's been marketed very poorly.
Its a horrible introduction to the game of D&D
Its a good introduction to the 4E rule-set for players familiar with the game previously
I think Wizards should have gone the 3E route: i.e. 3 core books, an introductory adventure (that requires the 3 books) and a "basic set" with streamlined rules and adventure material for the Novice.
Contents May Vary said:My players do that, and the monsters are going to regroup/get reinforcements.
That area you cleared yesterday? Guess what?
JeffB said:Answer to PCs who *take advantage* of resting rules = wandering monsters (if you don't use them already)
Exactly. If I am not completely mistaken someone from WotC mentioned that the adventure is targeted on the existing D&D player base, not complete rpg newbs.Stomphoof said:Until the actual sourcebooks come out you are basing everything off a level 1-3 adventure. And it is entirely possible that they decided to write a combat oriented adventure. The biggest changes that I am aware of are those to the combat engine.
Endroren said:That seems a strange approach. If the module is "introductory" the goal is to teach players WHAT the game is. Now if it were called a "conversion" module, designed to teach players about what was different I'd believe your argument.
Look, if this is an introductory module, what WotC is telling us is "this is what it is like to play this game" and based on that, sorry...it's a minis game.
An even handed response. Thank you.
You are right. Good roleplayers can make ANYTHING a roleplaying game. I can make Hero Quest a role playing game. I can make Go Fish a roleplaying game (see my other post). Then again, I could make 3.5E a minis game. But does that make these games something they aren't? No. A game IS what it IS whether or not a creative person can bend it into somethign else.
A game is not a roleplaying game because someone roleplays. It is a roleplaying game because the system it presents supports and encourages roleplaying. The system I'm reading in the introduction that WotC has provided, does not do this. Oh sure, here and there they say "You could talk in a funny accent" but really, is that a system that embraces and encourages roleplay?