|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 3:48PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2009
|
I know that 4e was designed to be a tactics game. I've never doubted that. I just wanted to explore its potential as a storytelling game by removing most of what I consider "tactical" aspects. I chose 4e because that was the ruleset that I have the most access too. I didn't just want the inital 3 rulebooks, but a wide range of support materials. I also really like the "class equalization" goal of 4e and how 4e integrates epic level play into the game.
But... if you want to remove the tactical aspects then it's not 4e anymore. You don't need access to all these rulesets if you're just throwing them out. Starting with 1e would be vastly easier and closer to what you're going for (and I say that as someone who still plays a monthly 1e game).
As for class equalization and epic play, these things are balanced very finely in 4e and your sweeping cuts don't take this into account at all. The result is wildly unbalanced classes and encounters.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 5:54PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2011
|
Can I confirm that you're playing this alone?
Also, no one was "dumping" on gandalf, Zathris was adding a needed and intelligent literary analysis of what Gandalf represents for LotR.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 6:08PM
#53
|
|
|
Scatterbrained certainly has a good point about 1e. I think the BECMI rules would actually be the closest to my "ideal" system. However, given all the things I would need to change about 1e, I'm better off just making my own game from the basement up. As it stands, I have the Essentials books (minus the DM kit) and MM1. I'll buy MM2 and MM3 to give me more ideas for monsters, but I'll just rework all the monster and character stats and make my own game.
I have absolutely no interest in playing 4e (or even Essentials) as is. (That goes double for 3.5e and Pathfinder). For one thing, I refuse to play on a tactical grid, or worry about exact distances. I also happen to like simple combat that just uses a few attacks that can be used repeatedly (Yes, I realize most people disagree, you can shut up about it now!). I won't play DnD Next either, since I seem to be an insignificant minority in the community and have no interest in being bullied and insulted.
Signing off
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 24, 2012 - 10:16PM
#54
|
|
|
Gandalf wasn't a Wizard (as published by WotC)
Gandalf was Olorin in his youth, one of the Istair whom the Men called Wizards, but were all actually Maia the lesser of the Ainur or Holy Ones, the beings first created by Iluvatar, even created before Ea - The World. They were sent by the Lords of the West to contest the power of Sauron, if he should arise again, and to move Elves and Men and all living things of good will to valiant deeds (if elves are to be believed). If this description sounds like it's fairly similar to Angels or Elohim from the Bible, you'd be correct. Gandalf was an Angel, and trying to distill a being such as he into a playable character is akin to trying to catch sunlight in your hands in order to water a plant in darkness.
And just to make it clear. I've had a meal with his son and read (at the time) unpublished notes, it would be unwise to question my comments regarding his works unless you believe you can speak from a higher authority than "I've seen the movies".
"Invokers are probably better round after round but Wizard dailies are devastating. Actually, devastating is too light a word. Wizard daily powers are soul crushing, encounter ending, havoc causing pieces of awesome." -AirPower25 Sear the Flesh, Purify the Soul; Harden the Heart, and Improve the Mind; Born of Blood, but Forged by Fire; The MECH warrior reaches perfection. My Guides
Show
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 12:11AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
I am viewing this set of houserules as an analogy to playing chess but only being permitted to use pawns... :/
Peasants' Revolt.
One side gets 8 pawns in the 2nd row and wins by getting one pawn to the 8th row.
The other side gets 4 knights and wins by capturing all the pawns or blocking the survivors so that the peasant side can't move.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 5:01AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
May 15, 2007
|
Gandalf wasn't a Wizard (as published by WotC)
Gandalf was Olorin in his youth, one of the Istair whom the Men called Wizards, but were all actually Maia the lesser of the Ainur or Holy Ones, the beings first created by Iluvatar, even created before Ea - The World. They were sent by the Lords of the West to contest the power of Sauron, if he should arise again, and to move Elves and Men and all living things of good will to valiant deeds (if elves are to be believed). If this description sounds like it's fairly similar to Angels or Elohim from the Bible, you'd be correct. Gandalf was an Angel, and trying to distill a being such as he into a playable character is akin to trying to catch sunlight in your hands in order to water a plant in darkness.
And just to make it clear. I've had a meal with his son and read (at the time) unpublished notes, it would be unwise to question my comments regarding his works unless you believe you can speak from a higher authority than "I've seen the movies".
Deva lazylord|shaman. He even has the staff with the flame on top from his invoker MC -> Flame of Hope PP 
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 10:39AM
#57
|
|
|
Okay, I'm done with my angry tirade. My apologies. I hope DnD Next is a success and I'll be sure to look into it when it comes out next year. It would also be interesting if WoTC reprinted the Rules Cyclopedia or the BECMI box rules. I've heard a lot of good things about them from various people.
I don't like people criticizing, let alone mocking in a vulgar manner, the way I like to play RPG's. I don't insist that other people play the game "my" way and I demand (not just desire but demand!) the same courtesy. That's the last I'll say on this topic.
It probably is best for me to make my own game. I can at least use the 4e books I've already bought for some ideas, so the money I spent won't be a total waste. I intend to let the roll of the dice have some influence on the narrative of my story and a low amount of tactical mechanics gives me more freedom to imagine the battles as I wish.
@zelink551
To confirm, yes, I am playing the game all by lonesome. I don't have a group to play with and don't want one. In my opinion, DnD is best used as a storytelling medium, not a tactical wargame. I have a lot of stories I want to tell and tactical wargaming just sucks up a lot of time I would rather use doing other things (like playing strategy games on my computer).
I wasn't mad at Zathris for his analysis. I just am far more interested in the concept of a wizard in classical fantasy literature than the concept that various DnD players, or even game designers, carry around in their heads. To me DnD is just one expression of the broader fantasy milieu. It isn't a world unto itself which takes precedence over any other.
@zathris
I have read all of Tolkein's Middle Earth novels (many times) as well as a good portion of "The History of Middle Earth". I was just using the movies as a "visual" example. I am well aware of the fact that Gandalf is one of the Maia, like Sauron. The subject of the Istari is best covered in the "Unfinished Tales", published by Cristopher Tolkein, as I'm sure you know. If anything, that distinction just strengthens my argument. If Gandalf's magic is low key (despite his "awesome cosmic power"--Aladdin reference), shouldn't a run of the milll wizard have even more low key magic?
This most likely will be my last post, since I have no desire to start another "flame war" with people who insist I play the game "their" way. Good luck to those participating in the DnD next playtest.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 10:42AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Feb 26, 2011
|
You've said the last couple posts were your last post. You just seem to want to be right and get the final word, though you're idea of "right" is strange. What started as an optimization question quickly became looking to write a story, which the "refuff" model of 4e isn't going to help you with. Move on buddy, because 4eOP isn't going to help you here, especially after you started making enemies.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 10:50AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I have absolutely no interest in playing 4e (or even Essentials) as is.
So...why are you posting in a forum about 4e?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Sep 25, 2012 - 11:59AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Mar 12, 2011
|
I don't like people criticizing, let alone mocking in a vulgar manner, the way I like to play RPG's. I don't insist that other people play the game "my" way and I demand (not just desire but demand!) the same courtesy. That's the last I'll say on this topic.
While there are of course people on this board that are prone to hyperbole, strong language, and harsh criticism, the bulk of responses you've gotten have been shockingly polite given the anti-4e (and in many ways anti-D&D) attitude you've brought to d&d 4e char-op while at the same time wanting our help on a project that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of those three things.
With the further contradictions between your stated goals and the actions you're taking to achieve them, the only helpful, constructive, on-topic response anyone can have is to tell you that homogenizing all actions does not lead to interesting character development and dynamic storytelling.
No one here is asking you, much less insisting that you play D&D "our" way. We're pointing out that what you're playing isn't D&D at all, and that playing D&D would actually fit your stated goals better than the construct you're creating.
That said, I wish you the best of luck, and hope you enjoy whatever you want to call your dice-driven audienceless storytelling. I'm skeptical, and I have no idea why you thought 4e would make a good base for it, or why you thought the 4e optimization board would have anything useful to add to it, but that doesn't mean I'm mocking you. It means I'm confused. And like most people, when something confuses me, I respond by saying, "wait, what? that makes no sense. can you explain it to me again?" The bulk of this thread is essentially that, though often not as polite or direct.
|
|
|
