I don't want D&D Next built around heroes.

I don't want the next iteration of D&D built around everyone being a cinematic hero, or even a hero for that matter. I want the 'hero" aspect to be just one of the many ways that a group can play the game. Sometimes I like to be part of an evil group where the bad guy does win and we have to fight against evil creatures and good creatures. I also don't want to be the only hero, villain, whatever in the world. I want the world to be built around us "not" being the only ones around, unless the DM decides he wants to run that type of game. I want the game to be able to accommodate the hero, the villain and everything in between. 
I want yours to be a way to run the game, sure, but I love my heroic action fantasy RPG. To many people D&D is different things; I know that for me, D&D is heroic fantasy. Characters are the protagonists of a fantasy tale, and are goddamn heroes from the start. The whole world is built on the assumption that if they don't manage to stop it, evil will happen.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
I want yours to be a way to run the game, sure, but I love my heroic action fantasy RPG. To many people D&D is different things; I know that for me, D&D is heroic fantasy. Characters are the protagonists of a fantasy tale, and are goddamn heroes from the start. The whole world is built on the assumption that if they don't manage to stop it, evil will happen.



I disagree. I don't want the game telling me how I need to play. If I want to be a hero then I will play in a heroic game, if I want to be an adventurer then I can be an adventurer where the fate of the world isn't in my hands. I want to be able to play in a living, breathing world that is not based around me or my group, unless the DM decides to run a game that way. I don't want to be part of a "movie game", unless the DM runs his game that way.

I want yours to be a way to run the game, sure, but I love my heroic action fantasy RPG. To many people D&D is different things; I know that for me, D&D is heroic fantasy. Characters are the protagonists of a fantasy tale, and are goddamn heroes from the start. The whole world is built on the assumption that if they don't manage to stop it, evil will happen.



I disagree. I don't want the game telling me how I need to play. If I want to be a hero then I will play in a heroic game, if I want to be an adventurer then I can be an adventurer where the fate of the world isn't in my hands. I want to be able to play in a living, breathing world that is not based around me or my group, unless the DM decides to run a game that way. I don't want to be part of a "movie game", unless the DM runs his game that way.



As I said, that's good for you. I know your way of playing will be supported by D&D Next, we've got plenty of info confirming that.

I, however, want to play an RPG that is about heroic fantasy. I hope D&D Next delivers. 
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
I'm with you on the "heroes" part. I want to be able to play an elric type character at least out of the box. I do however want to be the games protagonist. I really don't want to hear, "you know they have leveled people too." As a shoot down to every one if my awesome plans.
Heroic stuff is sort of the core game.  And that's fine because you don't have to play D&D anyway but the way you like.  But I would also like to see some Optional Rules for playing an evil party.  Not DM side, but player side.  Since they are using the nine alignment system, talk about playing a chaotic evil character. 

I think alignments should be discussed in two terms, in the general sense.  This is what LE looks like in a kingdom or one of it's military leaders.  But also in terms of the PC, because I don't think they are necessarily the same.  LG or LStupid is one thing when you mock it on an NPC but another when your playing that character and want some depth to your story.  CE should be an Optional Rule player choice, and D&D should describe how to play it without killing everyone in your party on the first overnight watch because they didn't laugh at your bad pun that day.

I don't see Optional Rules as the wrong way to play the game.  I see them as providing rules for playing the game different ways.  An evil party is a different way to play the game, I think the OP knows that or he wouldn't have started this thread.  Let's see some support for this way.
I also like my Heroic fantasy, which is why I play this game still. Its kind of the guey filling of D&D for me. 
However, I find that its real easy to switch to a sandbox adventure or even a group of well-meaning jerks bent on world domination.  You just need to have some imaginary flexiblity when looking at what is presented.
Like Renark said I think the most important point is the the player characters are always the principle Protagonists in the game.

Like XunValDorl and Mormegil said they should be free to be glorious heroes,  glory seekers or horrible villains as long as it is clear that the story is about them.
As far as I can see there's nothing that says you need to be the great hero in D&D, at least none of the versions I play. If it isn't possible to play the every man in D&Dnext then the developers have failed to deliver the game they promised. uniting the community includes designing a game where the PC is only one of thousands of people in the world. 

I don't design epic adventures or attempt to make the player feel like if he wasn't there the world would come to a stop. It doesn't. even a 20th level character will find others that are stronger and hold more power. Some NPC's are beyond the player and will always remain beyond the player. 

Cinematic crap is something that happens during the game it isn't something the game tries to deliver every time you play. If that's your style then fine, but it's not everyones thing. 

Of course in a game where the only thing you do for hours on end is fight the same battle, this kind of thing is necessary or the game goes flat. For me half hour combats are a waste of time. I look forward to being able to put the party up against a challenging foe and have them finish in ten minutes. I like roleplaying NPCs, I like intricate traps and puzzles, nothing cinematic about four guys wracking their brains trying to figure out a deadly puzzle left by some nut job in a tomb. 
nothing cinematic about four guys wracking their brains trying to figure out a deadly puzzle left by some nut job in a tomb. 



Agreed. That's part of the reason I hate using puzzles in my game. The other reason being, either the players breeze through one or the game grinds to a halt for hours with no real stuff happening.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
nothing cinematic about four guys wracking their brains trying to figure out a deadly puzzle left by some nut job in a tomb. 



Agreed. That's part of the reason I hate using puzzles in my game. The other reason being, either the players breeze through one or the game grinds to a halt for hours with no real stuff happening.




See I love puzzles in ancient ruins and as security measures.  If the players can devise it themselves then they get through it with no checks.  If they have taken more than 15 minutes to attempt to figure it out for themselves I start having them make checks to try and figure it out or bypass it.
I agree with the OP on this one. I want the PC's to start out as puny adventurers and becOme heroes after 10th level.
I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is here.

Isn't the heroic aspect world-specific?

If you're talking about the point of light thing they introduced in 4th edition, I have to be honest, I didn't even read it past the first paragraph. It's just some of those bull crap pages that end up in your fireplace.

My only problem with this kind of thinking is when you use it as an excuse to change a whole game world. "4th edition is about point of light"; "Forgotten Realms is a world where PCs don't really matter"; "the assumed setting in 4th edition will be the Forgotten Realms"; "Ok guys, lets nuke the realms, and while we're at it, lets get rid of 1/3 of the world. Nobody likes Mulhorendi, Unther, or the Shinning South anyways". None of that please!
I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is here.

Isn't the heroic aspect world-specific?

If you're talking about the point of light thing they introduced in 4th edition, I have to be honest, I didn't even read it past the first paragraph. It's just some of those bull crap pages that end up in your fireplace.

My only problem with this kind of thinking is when you use it as an excuse to change a whole game world. "4th edition is about point of light"; "Forgotten Realms is a world where PCs don't really matter"; "the assumed setting in 4th edition will be the Forgotten Realms"; "Ok guys, lets nuke the realms, and while we're at it, lets get rid of 1/3 of the world. Nobody likes Mulhorendi, Unther, or the Shinning South anyways". None of that please!



The problem is simple: does the system support a game where the PCs are random dudes? Does the system support a game where PCs are the protagonists of the story and goddamn heroes? Does the system support both?

I believe the answer is yes, yes, yes; but I also believe the important question is: how? 
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is here.

Isn't the heroic aspect world-specific?

If you're talking about the point of light thing they introduced in 4th edition, I have to be honest, I didn't even read it past the first paragraph. It's just some of those bull crap pages that end up in your fireplace.

My only problem with this kind of thinking is when you use it as an excuse to change a whole game world. "4th edition is about point of light"; "Forgotten Realms is a world where PCs don't really matter"; "the assumed setting in 4th edition will be the Forgotten Realms"; "Ok guys, lets nuke the realms, and while we're at it, lets get rid of 1/3 of the world. Nobody likes Mulhorendi, Unther, or the Shinning South anyways". None of that please!




I think the OP's problem more lies in the fact that in 4e the characters are assumed to be heroic at the outset of level 1.  They never need to grow into being heroes, and you are never a beginer.  At first level you're already a practiced fighter and explorer that is just now becoming an exceptional fighter and explorer.  They fixed it a little with the 0-Level unearthed arcana, but that's not even a supported play style.  By not a supported play style I mean that no tools, or further adventures, or options, have been designed with it in mind.  In 4e it is incredibly hard to play the story of the completely untrained farm boy that becomes an adventurer, at least with the RAW, with houserules you can do it somewhat.  Some people want that story for their characters though and the system should inherently support it.  I know that sometimes I want that story and sometimes I want the other story where I start out as a practiced adventurer that has now come to be the main character of an important story.
I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is here.

Isn't the heroic aspect world-specific?

If you're talking about the point of light thing they introduced in 4th edition, I have to be honest, I didn't even read it past the first paragraph. It's just some of those bull crap pages that end up in your fireplace.

My only problem with this kind of thinking is when you use it as an excuse to change a whole game world. "4th edition is about point of light"; "Forgotten Realms is a world where PCs don't really matter"; "the assumed setting in 4th edition will be the Forgotten Realms"; "Ok guys, lets nuke the realms, and while we're at it, lets get rid of 1/3 of the world. Nobody likes Mulhorendi, Unther, or the Shinning South anyways". None of that please!




I think the OP's problem more lies in the fact that in 4e the characters are assumed to be heroic at the outset of level 1.  They never need to grow into being heroes, and you are never a beginer.  At first level you're already a practiced fighter and explorer that is just now becoming an exceptional fighter and explorer.  They fixed it a little with the 0-Level unearthed arcana, but that's not even a supported play style.  By not a supported play style I mean that no tools, or further adventures, or options, have been designed with it in mind.  In 4e it is incredibly hard to play the story of the completely untrained farm boy that becomes an adventurer, at least with the RAW, with houserules you can do it somewhat.  Some people want that story for their characters though and the system should inherently support it. I know that sometimes I want that story and sometimes I want the other story where I start out as a practiced adventurer that has now come to be the main character of an important story.



Can easily be done by starting at 5th level for instance but not doable when your 1st level is equivalent to your 5th level in another edition.
I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is here.

Isn't the heroic aspect world-specific?

If you're talking about the point of light thing they introduced in 4th edition, I have to be honest, I didn't even read it past the first paragraph. It's just some of those bull crap pages that end up in your fireplace.

My only problem with this kind of thinking is when you use it as an excuse to change a whole game world. "4th edition is about point of light"; "Forgotten Realms is a world where PCs don't really matter"; "the assumed setting in 4th edition will be the Forgotten Realms"; "Ok guys, lets nuke the realms, and while we're at it, lets get rid of 1/3 of the world. Nobody likes Mulhorendi, Unther, or the Shinning South anyways". None of that please!




I think the OP's problem more lies in the fact that in 4e the characters are assumed to be heroic at the outset of level 1.  They never need to grow into being heroes, and you are never a beginer.  At first level you're already a practiced fighter and explorer that is just now becoming an exceptional fighter and explorer.  They fixed it a little with the 0-Level unearthed arcana, but that's not even a supported play style.  By not a supported play style I mean that no tools, or further adventures, or options, have been designed with it in mind.  In 4e it is incredibly hard to play the story of the completely untrained farm boy that becomes an adventurer, at least with the RAW, with houserules you can do it somewhat.  Some people want that story for their characters though and the system should inherently support it. I know that sometimes I want that story and sometimes I want the other story where I start out as a practiced adventurer that has now come to be the main character of an important story.



Can easily be done by starting at 5th level for instance but not doable when your 1st level is equivalent to your 5th level in another edition.




I know that.  I just didn't want to be the one to say it because some people think that them having to start at a higher level to represent their beginning character does something....I don't know why they think starting at a higher level to represent their characters that are obviously much stronger than a normal guy is a bad thing.
Oh right, then I agree with the OP.

There should be the "rookie" levels for those that want to experience the whole learning experience. Seriously, Harry Potter is something fun to do once in a while. It might even be fun to have fighters that start with a leather armor, a club and a wooden shield! At least once or twice.

As for those that are upset with the idea of starting at higher levels... They'll get over it, especially if 4 goblins is a suitable level 4 encounter.
I don't see any problem playing an average joe.  My Dark Sun PC for instance, is loosely inspired by sickly spellcasters like Elric and Raistlin.  

He has uber-sucky physical stats:  Str 8 Con 6 Dex 10 Int 16 Wis 14 Cha 14.  These could have been rolled (they weren't however); they were starting stats, which gave him a total abiliy modifier of +4.  Even with lower than recommended stats though, he still falls within guidelines for a playable PC (according to page 18 of the PH).

My PC is a sorta counter-point to the 'bricks' in our Dark Sun campaign, where life is dirt cheap.  He's not an action hero by any stretch of the imagination, he's simply an average joe thrown into extraordinary circumstances who comes out on top, no matter the odds stacked against him.  If he were a bouncer in a tavern, he'd be known as a 'slinger' ;) (a bouncer who relies on magic over brawn).  That's how he holds his own in a rough-n-tough world like Athas.

4e is very much a fantasy action/adventure game I think but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the only way to play.  In my XP, playing an average joe is a nice change of pace ;).
/\ Art
Give me level 0!!

I don't want rule books telling me my character is a hero.  I want him to have to earn it, to be forged from adversity, to rise up from mediocrity or worse. To me, this is far more compelling of a story, and so much character personality is derived from this time in a young adventurer's life.

Celebrate our differences.

Give me level 0!!

I don't want rule books telling me my character is a hero.  I want him to have to earn it, to be forged from adversity, to rise up from mediocrity or worse. To me, this is far more compelling of a story, and so much character personality is derived from this time in a young adventurer's life.


This is my problem with the modular system. I don't want to play a normal person. It's fine in theory if you do, but how can we play at the same table?
Give me level 0!!

I don't want rule books telling me my character is a hero.  I want him to have to earn it, to be forged from adversity, to rise up from mediocrity or worse. To me, this is far more compelling of a story, and so much character personality is derived from this time in a young adventurer's life.


This is my problem with the modular system. I don't want to play a normal person. It's fine in theory if you do, but how can we play at the same table?



The simplest way I have in mind is to have two drastically different health systems. That way you can have heroic action AND everyday adventurer in the same system (though definitely not at the same table).
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
"backstory" is what you were doing back at level one.
Give me level 0!!

I don't want rule books telling me my character is a hero.  I want him to have to earn it, to be forged from adversity, to rise up from mediocrity or worse. To me, this is far more compelling of a story, and so much character personality is derived from this time in a young adventurer's life.


This is my problem with the modular system. I don't want to play a normal person. It's fine in theory if you do, but how can we play at the same table?

So you don't play level 0 to level 1.  The DM and I do it on our own time with whomever else wants to join.

Celebrate our differences.

I’ve removed content from this thread because baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...


 


 


 


Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.

Method Actor 100% Storyteller 100% Butt Kicker 50% Tactician 50% Power Gamer 25% Specialist 25% Casual Gamer 25% The Code of Conduct is: http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1916 To contact Customer Service: http://wizards.custhelp.com
I don't see any problem playing an average joe.  My Dark Sun PC for instance, is loosely inspired by sickly spellcasters like Elric and Raistlin.  

He has uber-sucky physical stats:  Str 8 Con 6 Dex 10 Int 16 Wis 14 Cha 14.  These could have been rolled (they weren't however); they were starting stats, which gave him a total abiliy modifier of +4.  Even with lower than recommended stats though, he still falls within guidelines for a playable PC (according to page 18 of the PH).

My PC is a sorta counter-point to the 'bricks' in our Dark Sun campaign, where life is dirt cheap.  He's not an action hero by any stretch of the imagination, he's simply an average joe thrown into extraordinary circumstances who comes out on top, no matter the odds stacked against him.  If he were a bouncer in a tavern, he'd be known as a 'slinger' ;) (a bouncer who relies on magic over brawn).  That's how he holds his own in a rough-n-tough world like Athas.

4e is very much a fantasy action/adventure game I think but that doesn't necessarily mean that's the only way to play.  In my XP, playing an average joe is a nice change of pace ;).




Actually by the rules represented in the CB your character is house ruled.  Not just that but at level 1 you had a daily power, an encounter power, and two at- wills.  You weren't an average kid trying to beat on a wolf with a sheapards crook.  I'm not saying they should all start like this but I'd love for the system to fully support this type of starting story.
Actually by the rules represented in the CB your character is housruled.  Not just that but at level 1 you had a daily power, an encounter power, and two at- wills.  You weren't an average kid trying to beat on a wolf with a sheapards crook.  I'm not saying they should all start like this but I'd love for the system to fully support this type of starting story.

It would definitely be really cool that at level 0, the DM constructs the story where you learn your starting powers as you approach level 1.

Celebrate our differences.

Give me level 0!!

I don't want rule books telling me my character is a hero.  I want him to have to earn it, to be forged from adversity, to rise up from mediocrity or worse. To me, this is far more compelling of a story, and so much character personality is derived from this time in a young adventurer's life.



Yar!

How many times can we agree on this?  Well, I'll tell ya: As many times as one of us sees the other post it.  ;)
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.

Section Six Soldier

Front Door of the House of Trolls

[b]If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.[/b]

Actually by the rules represented in the CB your character is house ruled.  Not just that but at level 1 you had a daily power, an encounter power, and two at- wills.  You weren't an average kid trying to beat on a wolf with a sheapards crook.  I'm not saying they should all start like this but I'd love for the system to fully support this type of starting story.

I've not used the online CB much but that's the way it is on the offline version.  

That is, if you choose to roll for stats, then the PC is houseruled.  That's kinda what I did with my PC (even though I didn't actually roll).

Still, house ruled or not, my PC is playable according to the guidelines in the PH; it doesn't cause problems for myself or others.  As for spells at 1st level, well . . . that's just Joe's Big Stick ;).

/\ Art
Actually by the rules represented in the CB your character is house ruled.  Not just that but at level 1 you had a daily power, an encounter power, and two at- wills.  You weren't an average kid trying to beat on a wolf with a sheapards crook.  I'm not saying they should all start like this but I'd love for the system to fully support this type of starting story.

I've not used the online CB much but that's the way it is on the offline version.  

That is, if you choose to roll for stats, then the PC is houseruled.  That's kinda what I did with my PC (even though I didn't actually roll).

Still, house ruled or not, my PC is playable according to the guidelines in the PH; it doesn't cause problems for myself or others.  As for spells at 1st level, well . . . that's just Joe's Big Stick ;).





Just want to throw it out there if your character is a magic user like im guessing he is,  and I'm guessing he is a wizard.  Your in Darksun and your using Magic.  You are by no means normal average joe in darksun.  Magic use is incredibly rare in darksun, Divine even rarer(or completely devoid if you could actually get away with that), or at least it is supposed to be.  Extremely focused Psionics, and Primal, are somewhat average but they are average among the exceptional.  normal average joe guy starts as a Martial at best with some random wild talent for psionics.  I'm not trying to entirely tear your character apart (I swear) because if you guys have changed the world it is entirely for you to do it.  

But even if the character I am playing is in destined to be a super powerful caster I should be able to play him straight from sheep herder to fighter all the way to over the top mage.  I shouldn't have to start at minimal powered mage, or even at psudo magic user like they had in the level 0 rules for 4e.  I should be able to start with that character having 0 knowledge that magic even actually exists outside of the stories and history he has read.

Basically think Rand Al'Thor from wheel of time.  If it was 4e mechanics he would have started out weilding crazy magic powers and understanding what he was doing. 
DDN might have rules for Level 0.  Why not?  4e rules appeared under the Unearthed Arcana banner (in Dragon #403).  The Storyteller system has somethng similar as I remember (preludes I think they call 'em).  Other games for sure.  The precedent has been set and the idea seems popular enough.

I wouldn't want an entire system built around such an idea though.  Wouldn't that be a fun game ;)?  

"Hello, I'm Mr. Nobody."

"Ooh!  Are you an Adventurer?"

"Nope!  I'm Nobody.  I once played an Adventurer on stage though."

"You ever seen a Dragon?"

"I've read about 'em, sure."

"Ever explored a Dungeon?"

"That sounds dangerous."

"Darn . . . My vanilla ice cream is melting.  Gotta go, mister!"
/\ Art
DDN might have rules for Level 0.  Why not?  4e rules appeared under the Unearthed Arcana banner (in Dragon #403).  The Storyteller system has somethng similar as I remember (preludes I think they call 'em).  Other games for sure.  The precedent has been set and the idea seems popular enough.

I wouldn't want an entire system built around such an idea though.  Wouldn't that be a fun game ;)?  

"Hello, I'm Mr. Nobody."

"Ooh!  Are you an Adventurer?"

"Nope!  I'm Nobody.  I once played an Adventurer on stage though."

"You ever seen a Dragon?"

"I've read about 'em, sure."

"Ever explored a Dungeon?"

"That sounds dangerous."

"Darn . . . My vanilla ice cream is melting.  Gotta go, mister!"




Oh definitely not an entire system but for like the first like 3 levels you should be learning about being an adventurer.  If you want to skip that and put it in back story start at level 3.  

Also at some point someone made the idea known of what happens when someone starts out as a practiced hero and the other characters start out as nobodies.  The truth is I am actually a proponent of people starting at different levels. So long as everyone at the table agrees to it, knowing full well that the higher level character will be stronger than everyone else.  It can be interesting to explore the relationships between seasoned veteran and newly made adventurer.  To continue the WoT references Lan is at no point in the story a lvl 1 character.  The lowest we ever see him referenced as (even in the prequel) is about level 10 I'd say.  Hes at minimum lvl 16 at the beginning of the series (I'd go as high as 18 for beginning of series) where the main characters are at most lvl 2.  Watching their interaction is an interesting thing.  Especially when he comes back and all of the main characters have caught up to him in level.

I'd love to see the system be able to support this play style, but it should in no way be based around it at all or ever be the default. I'd like to see a system where I can have that setup, but that the lvl 16 character still feels threatend even though I'm not going to flatten the lvl 2 characters.  With the explanation of how the system is going to work, at least as far as I can grasp it,  This seems like it could be a distinct possibility with little to no handwaving and house ruling needed, and I'm happy about that.
I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is here.

Isn't the heroic aspect world-specific?

If you're talking about the point of light thing they introduced in 4th edition, I have to be honest, I didn't even read it past the first paragraph. It's just some of those bull crap pages that end up in your fireplace.

My only problem with this kind of thinking is when you use it as an excuse to change a whole game world. "4th edition is about point of light"; "Forgotten Realms is a world where PCs don't really matter"; "the assumed setting in 4th edition will be the Forgotten Realms"; "Ok guys, lets nuke the realms, and while we're at it, lets get rid of 1/3 of the world. Nobody likes Mulhorendi, Unther, or the Shinning South anyways". None of that please!




I think the OP's problem more lies in the fact that in 4e the characters are assumed to be heroic at the outset of level 1.  They never need to grow into being heroes, and you are never a beginer.  At first level you're already a practiced fighter and explorer that is just now becoming an exceptional fighter and explorer.  They fixed it a little with the 0-Level unearthed arcana, but that's not even a supported play style.  By not a supported play style I mean that no tools, or further adventures, or options, have been designed with it in mind.  In 4e it is incredibly hard to play the story of the completely untrained farm boy that becomes an adventurer, at least with the RAW, with houserules you can do it somewhat.  Some people want that story for their characters though and the system should inherently support it. I know that sometimes I want that story and sometimes I want the other story where I start out as a practiced adventurer that has now come to be the main character of an important story.



Can easily be done by starting at 5th level for instance but not doable when your 1st level is equivalent to your 5th level in another edition.




I know that.  I just didn't want to be the one to say it because some people think that them having to start at a higher level to represent their beginning character does something....I don't know why they think starting at a higher level to represent their characters that are obviously much stronger than a normal guy is a bad thing.



Because it shortens the game by 5 levels.  People inherently are looking for the longest amount of playtime with the most amount of material possible.  Almost everyone (because there are some outliers) looks for the most bang for their buck, and having to start 5 levels in decreases the overall length of the game, reducing the amount of story, cool items and powers and other things that one earns by leveling up.  It's not just having power, but aquiring more of it that attracts me specifically to play these games.  I don't want to have to start out higher, I just want more power at the start.  Like most people, I want it all. ;)

Also, while the story is nice, it isn't my end reward.  I know for some people it is, but my end reward at the end of the game is getting to enjoy each new ability I gain, each measure of power I increase.  The story or "just getting to play the game" are secondary or tertiary concerns to killing stuff and leveling up and getting more powerful.  5 levels is a lot of power to get to gain.

Hopefully I've been clear here.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I have a question here. Why does the default have to be your style of play? I don't get why I should have to start at 3rd level to be a hero? Why not have hero be the default and let apprentice levels be the module?

-edit- I should point out that the oposite question is valid as well. Perhaps core should be something else entirely and both styles should be modules. I don't know.  
I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem is here.

Isn't the heroic aspect world-specific?

If you're talking about the point of light thing they introduced in 4th edition, I have to be honest, I didn't even read it past the first paragraph. It's just some of those bull crap pages that end up in your fireplace.

My only problem with this kind of thinking is when you use it as an excuse to change a whole game world. "4th edition is about point of light"; "Forgotten Realms is a world where PCs don't really matter"; "the assumed setting in 4th edition will be the Forgotten Realms"; "Ok guys, lets nuke the realms, and while we're at it, lets get rid of 1/3 of the world. Nobody likes Mulhorendi, Unther, or the Shinning South anyways". None of that please!




I think the OP's problem more lies in the fact that in 4e the characters are assumed to be heroic at the outset of level 1.  They never need to grow into being heroes, and you are never a beginer.  At first level you're already a practiced fighter and explorer that is just now becoming an exceptional fighter and explorer.  They fixed it a little with the 0-Level unearthed arcana, but that's not even a supported play style.  By not a supported play style I mean that no tools, or further adventures, or options, have been designed with it in mind.  In 4e it is incredibly hard to play the story of the completely untrained farm boy that becomes an adventurer, at least with the RAW, with houserules you can do it somewhat.  Some people want that story for their characters though and the system should inherently support it. I know that sometimes I want that story and sometimes I want the other story where I start out as a practiced adventurer that has now come to be the main character of an important story.



Can easily be done by starting at 5th level for instance but not doable when your 1st level is equivalent to your 5th level in another edition.




I know that.  I just didn't want to be the one to say it because some people think that them having to start at a higher level to represent their beginning character does something....I don't know why they think starting at a higher level to represent their characters that are obviously much stronger than a normal guy is a bad thing.



Because it shortens the game by 5 levels.  People inherently are looking for the longest amount of playtime with the most amount of material possible.  Almost everyone (because there are some outliers) looks for the most bang for their buck, and having to start 5 levels in decreases the overall length of the game, reducing the amount of story, cool items and powers and other things that one earns by leveling up.  It's not just having power, but aquiring more of it that attracts me specifically to play these games.  I don't want to have to start out higher, I just want more power at the start.  Like most people, I want it all. ;)

Also, while the story is nice, it isn't my end reward.  I know for some people it is, but my end reward at the end of the game is getting to enjoy each new ability I gain, each measure of power I increase.  The story or "just getting to play the game" are secondary or tertiary concerns to killing stuff and leveling up and getting more powerful.  5 levels is a lot of power to get to gain.

Hopefully I've been clear here.





Knowing where you stand on the whole story component I know where your coming from kal and I even understand it somewhat.  Unfortunately you make my argument for me.

" cool items and powers and other things that one earns by leveling up." 

"I just want more power at the start"

So start at a higher level.  leave the lower levels for people like me that every so often like to play characters that don't have that much power to them yet.  I want to play the shepherd that becomes the mightiest wizard of an age.  I want people to be able to play the serving girl that goes on to become a battle leading queen.  At some point in their progressions they didn't have any powers, and they had to earn them somehow.  I want rules to be able to play that out, where they gain their powere bit by bit, because to me the story is one of the most important parts of the game .  If you want to start in the middle of the story where they already have those powers go for it, but don't force me to do the same.

Here is a constructive question.  Does your opinion change if there is no form of level cap?  If you can just level forever with the same character, would it matter that you needed to start 5 levels later to start with the level of power you like?
 
or, you know, maybe realize that there is a difference between a Heroic character and a character that's a Hero.

a Heroic character can be a peasant, a noble or a demigod... he's just not an expendable chump. 

a character with the title of Hero has done something of note and is recognized in the setting as such.

4th ed doesn't automatically bestow your character the title of "hero". if your GM lets you be famous from the get-go, then so be it, but it's in no way giving you that title. it definitely stresses making your players the "heroes" of the story in the same manner the "protagonist" is often called the hero of any given story.

what 4th ed does do, however, is make your character of heroic caliber. what he does with his potential is entirely up to him. 
or, you know, maybe realize that there is a difference between a Heroic character and a character that's a Hero.

a Heroic character can be a peasant, a noble or a demigod... he's just not an expendable chump. 

a character with the title of Hero has done something of note and is recognized in the setting as such.

4th ed doesn't automatically bestow your character the title of "hero". if your GM lets you be famous from the get-go, then so be it, but it's in no way giving you that title. it definitely stresses making your players the "heroes" of the story in the same manner the "protagonist" is often called the hero of any given story.

what 4th ed does do, however, is make your character of heroic caliber. what he does with his potential is entirely up to him. 

Some people enjoy the origin stories of heroes.  Of how they came to be.  Of how they obtained their powers.  Some don't.

4E starts characters out with heroic powers.  No one is saying you can't start out like that.  What some of us are saying is that we also want to find out how that character rose up from the miasma of mediocrity.  There are absolutely fantastic stories to be found in this evolution.  If you don't want to partake, don't.  But just because you don't want them doesn't mean they should be taken away from us that do.

If you can explain how having an option for level 0 impacts your preference of starting at level 1+, I will be happy to take them to heart.

Celebrate our differences.

I'd prefer the default starting level not be so fragile so as to be subject to random death while playing smart.  I think there ought ot be options to start less powerful, like 1st eds negative levels.  I worrry about turing off new players to the whole hobby with a starter level of dispoasable characers.
Two things:
DND characters need to be able to be heroic from the start
DND characters need to be able to be disposable/average/forgeing their powers and reputations, etc.
And a third: NO MODULES SHOULD BE NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS!
holydoom.weebly.com: Holydoom! A lighthearted RPG in progress. Loosely based on 3.5. 4, and GURPS. Very, Very, Very loosely. Seriously, visit it now. http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29086701/I_HIT_IT_WITH_MA_SWORD!_(like_this!):_A_Slayers_Handbook An attempt at CharOp
To anyone who thinks Pathfinder is outselling D&D
While one report may say that FLGS report a greater amount of book sales, one cannot forget the fact that the 71000 DDI subscribers paying 6-10 dollars a month don't count as "Book Sales."
"see sig" redirects here
Oblivious troll is Oblivious
PbP supporter!
General thoughts, feelings, and info on DDN!
Stuff I Heard Mike Say (subject to change): Multiclassing will be different than in 3.5! That's important. There is no level cap; classes advance ala 3.5 epic levels after a set level. Mundane (AKA fighter and co) encounter and daily powers will probably not be in the PHB (for the lack of space), but nor will they be in some obscure book released halfway through the edition.
You can't please everyone, but you can please me. I DO NOT WANT A FREAKING 4E REPEAT. I DO NOT WANT A MODULE THAT MIMICS MY FAVORITE EDITION. I WANT MODULES THAT MIMIC A PLAYSTYLE AND CAN BE INTERCHANGED TO COMPLETELY CHANGE THE FEEL, BUT NOT THE THEME, OF D&D. A perfect example would be an espionage module, or desert survival. A BAD EXAMPLE IS HEALING SURGES. WE HAVE 4E FOR THOSE! A good example is a way to combine a mundane and self healing module, a high-survival-rate module, and a separate pool of healing resource module.
If you want rules for level 0 characters, sure it should take up all of one page so I see no reason why not. However, level 1 and on should be as the default has been at least back to 2e, where characters were assumed to be heroes and were already better than the majority of the population.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls. God of ownership and possession.
Two things: DND characters need to be able to be heroic from the start DND characters need to be able to be disposable/average/forgeing their powers and reputations, etc. And a third: NO MODULES SHOULD BE NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS!



I'm fine with this is disposable/average is a transparent option available across the aboard for all classes.  Some of a group should never end up with glass jaws because they missed somethign reading the rules.