|
1 year ago ::
Apr 11, 2012 - 4:57PM
#11
|
|
|
I've never understood why some people want to play peasants and pig farmers. I'd completely skip that tier if it were incorporated into Next.
One of my favorite games was the party running the local smithy and being part of the militia in a town of about 300 people. The DM did a very good job at simulating the impact of what would happen to the town after say a goblin war band passed through. For every person we lost in out little militia the town could change dramatically. Like if we lost the baker suddenly the towns food supply degraded in quality.
The smithing part was so our characters had to make the armor and weapons to arm the town. The better armed the more people survived when we were attacked. But better armor took more time and resources, and so we had to balance quality and quantity. Do 5 people get plate male or does the entire militia get studded leather? 50 Daggers or 10 greatswords? etc. etc.
Very fun game in the end.
Im sorry but ADEU is a French word for goodbye, not a combat system. You say, "Encounter Power" and I stop listening to you. Have Played/Run
Show
D&D 1st ed
D&D 3.5 ed
D&D 4th ed
Shadowrun
Star Wars SAGA
Cyberpunk
Interlock Unlimited
Run.Net
I know my games, don't try to argue about them. Alignment Explained
Show
This is a very simple problem and I will outline it below.
Their are two types of people
Type 1: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "I am lawful good thus I must play lawful good"
Type 2: a lot of people (not all, but a lot) who play see alignment as "My previous actions have made people and the gods view me as lawful good.
The difference is subtle but it is the source of the misunderstanding. Alignment does not dictate how you play your character. All it does is tell you, the player, how the rest of the world views you, and your previous actions. Any future actions will be judged by their own merits.
Say you're a baby eating pyromaniac. You are most likely chaotic evil. But one day you decide, "Hey all I really need is love." So you get a wife, have a kid, and get a kitten named Mr. Snook'ems. You become a member of the PTA and help build houses for the homeless. You are no longer chaotic evil. And just because you were once chaotic evil it does not mean that you have to stay chaotic evil.
Alignment never dictates what you can do, it only says what you have done.
Now that is cleared up here is a simple test.
What is the alignment of...
A Police officer:
The average Citizen:
A Vigilante:
The answer is simple.
The Police officer is lawful good. He uses the laws of the country and city to arrest people and make them pay their debt to society.
The Citizen is Neutral good. He wants to live is a place that is Good and follows moral and ethical principle, but he sometimes finds the laws impedes him, and he wonders why we spend so much on poor people.
The Vigilante is Chaotic Good. He wants to uphold the morals and ethics of society but finds that the bad guys often slip through the cracks in the law. He takes it upon himself to protect the people from these criminals.
That is the basic breakdown of the good alignment axis. What needs to be remembered is that any one of these people can change alignments, easily.
The Police officer could be bought off by a local gang, and suddenly he drops to lawful neutral.
The average citizen might find that his neighbors dog is annoying, barking at night and keeping him up. So he poisons its food, now he is no longer good, he is stepping towards true neutral. Maybe the citizen really goes crazy also kills the neighbor, hello neutral evil.
It is possible that the Vigilante realizes that the cops are actually doing a pretty good job and decides to become an officer himself, leaving his masked crime fighting days behind him. Now he is Lawful good.
Your alignment is not carved in stone, it is malleable and will change to reflect your actions.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 12, 2012 - 3:04AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
I've never understood why some people want to play peasants and pig farmers. I'd completely skip that tier if it were incorporated into Next.
One of my favorite games was the party running the local smithy and being part of the militia in a town of about 300 people.
The thing about this aproach is that a campaign could work fine in a single Tier, or have PC graduate from a lower Tier to a higher one. But, 1st level isn't the bottom of the bottom-most Tier, it's the bottom of each Tier. Because levels are experience levels, not power levels.
Level is about experience, but each Tier represents a quantum leap in power. An experienced 9th level Tier 0 blacksmith could make a much higher-quality horseshoe than an inexperienced 1st level Tier 3 godling, even if the godling could make 10,000 horseshoes (and the 2,500 warhorses wearing them, and their heavily-armed & armored knightly riders) with a snap of his fingers.
Lower Tiers allow for gritty realism, higher ones for more fantastic campaigns. Stacking the Tiers so that an experienced commoner could embark on the adventuring life, an experienced adventurer become a hero, and an experienced hero ascend to nigh-goodhood is certainly a viable option, but I don't think it'd be the default assumption.
I'd expect Tier 0 campaigns to be unusual (notice that I listed it last), with Tier 1 and 2 being the norm. But their are campaign ideas for which Tier 0 would be ideal.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 12, 2012 - 4:54AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@Tony_Vargas
I think you have a good idea but I'm not sure the name "tier" is right. It's been used already in a slightly different way.
Maybe playstyle would be a better term... I want to play the characters to completion at 20th level if possible in the style that my group likes. I feel that AD&D had a flavor and style that was good for me. Pretty much medium magic and gritty.
Also 2e did not straighten out the math enough :-). But I get your point. I'm sure there are retroclones that do this. I've looked at a lot of them. I might just write my own if 5e doesn't make me happy.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 12, 2012 - 5:02AM
#14
|
|
|
I've never understood why some people want to play peasants and pig farmers. I'd completely skip that tier if it were incorporated into Next.
Some people subscribe to the fact that their character had a life prior to being an adventurer and want to role play the events that led up to the day it begins "for real." Heroes typically don't just wake up one day as heroes. There are trials and tribulations that forged their path; important life-changing decisions that are made along the way. The story of a hero starts long before that character is actually a hero.
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.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 12, 2012 - 5:04AM
#15
|
|
|
I've never understood why some people want to play peasants and pig farmers. I'd completely skip that tier if it were incorporated into Next.
One of my favorite games was the party running the local smithy and being part of the militia in a town of about 300 people. The DM did a very good job at simulating the impact of what would happen to the town after say a goblin war band passed through. For every person we lost in out little militia the town could change dramatically. Like if we lost the baker suddenly the towns food supply degraded in quality.
The smithing part was so our characters had to make the armor and weapons to arm the town. The better armed the more people survived when we were attacked. But better armor took more time and resources, and so we had to balance quality and quantity. Do 5 people get plate male or does the entire militia get studded leather? 50 Daggers or 10 greatswords? etc. etc.
Very fun game in the end.
Sounds very fun indeed. Infinitely more exciting than "You all are at a tavern..."
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.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 12, 2012 - 5:51AM
#16
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I've never understood why some people want to play peasants and pig farmers. I'd completely skip that tier if it were incorporated into Next.
One of my favorite games was the party running the local smithy and being part of the militia in a town of about 300 people. The DM did a very good job at simulating the impact of what would happen to the town after say a goblin war band passed through. For every person we lost in out little militia the town could change dramatically. Like if we lost the baker suddenly the towns food supply degraded in quality.
The smithing part was so our characters had to make the armor and weapons to arm the town. The better armed the more people survived when we were attacked. But better armor took more time and resources, and so we had to balance quality and quantity. Do 5 people get plate male or does the entire militia get studded leather? 50 Daggers or 10 greatswords? etc. etc.
Very fun game in the end.
A fun type of game, but I'd rather have it pushed Up to Eleven with cooler effects and powers in play, and have the PCs be in charge of the city. Just a personal preference, but it's just to show that your example doesn't exclude the possibility of a more epic setting.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
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 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 12, 2012 - 6:08AM
#17
|
|
|
I've never understood why some people want to play peasants and pig farmers. I'd completely skip that tier if it were incorporated into Next.
And you'd be within your right to do so. The whole point of DDN is inclusion. There is no reason not to build the system to allow for all power levels and let players choose what they want. I knew people in the 80's who ran historically accurate, entirely magic free campaigns based on medeival France. Some played with more Arthurian levels of magic, and still others played with all the magic that was available in the rules at the time. One complaint I have about more recent iterations of the game is that they don't allow for that.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster Extraordinaire Concerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 12, 2012 - 6:15AM
#18
|
|
|
I've never understood why some people want to play peasants and pig farmers. I'd completely skip that tier if it were incorporated into Next.
Some people subscribe to the fact that their character had a life prior to being an adventurer and want to role play the events that led up to the day it begins "for real." Heroes typically don't just wake up one day as heroes. There are trials and tribulations that forged their path; important life-changing decisions that are made along the way. The story of a hero starts long before that character is actually a hero.
This.
Samwise Gamgee was a gardener. Taran was a pig-keeper.
I often like to run campaigns where the heroes start out as common folk who scrape and claw their way out of their dunghill of a village to shape the future of the world.
The story of the son of the head of a knightly order who becomes a knight and eventually heads the same order as his father before him isn't nearly as interesting as the story of a poor stable-boy who avenges the death of his father at the hands of the corrupt head of a knightly order, who becomes a knight against all odds and goes on to head that knightly order and cleanses it of corruption.
Kalex the Omen Dungeonmaster ExtraordinaireConcerning Player Rules Bias
Show
Gaining victory through rules bias is a hollow victory and they know it.
The argument goes, that some idiot at the table might claim that because there is a "default" that is the only true way to play D&D. An idiotic misconception that should be quite easy to disprove just by reading the rules, coming to these forums, or sending a quick note off to Customer Support and sharing the inevitable response with the group. BTW, I'm not just talking about Next when I say this. Of course, D&D has always been this way since at least the late 70's when I began playing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 12, 2012 - 9:04AM
#19
|
|
|
Yeah, I get that some people want this kind of play, I just don't get why. Shutting down a chicken uprising, running town hall meetings and training local militia may be the stuff of backstories, but it would bore me to death. I like my fantasy rpg to be fantastic, not like everyday life. You can be a rat catcher in Warhammer RPG if you're looking for that kind of play experience. But, to each their own. Just hope if this concept is included, it is an optional module and not part of the core.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 12, 2012 - 9:21AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Nov 13, 2004
|
The only folks I know that have voiced a desire to play as commoners are on these message boards. My players hate starting at 1st level, let alone 0-level.
But, that's not to say the option shouldn't exist. I think starting as commoners would be good for newbies, so they can get a feel for the place and position supernatural elements have in the world, and can better appreciate how far removed heroes, immortals, and even mere adventurers are. 'Common Tier' also seems to be the best place one would run a typical 'horror' story (yes, other systems may be better, don't really care).
4e D&D is not a "Tabletop MMO." It is not Massively Multiplayer, and is usually not played Online. Come up with better descriptions of your complaints, cuz this one means jack ****.
|
|
|
