Quote from: James J SkachOh...numbnuts....no I don't track that. Hell, I call everyone numbnuts, you butt nugget.

Edit: You know, it's interesting you pointed that particular thread (and post out). It's akin to the idea Seanchai has - that is everyone has been playing D&D the same way through all version over all the years. The amazing thing about that post is that you claimed if you weren't playing D&D with the comic book feel, you weren't playing it as written - so I had to go with the numbnuts.

Edit II: Changed "playing it wrong" to "not playing it as written" to be accurate.

Fuck it! This thread was boring anyway so I'm responding to you and making it even more off-topic!

James, I doin't find that idea akin to what Seanchai is discussing at all. I think it's interesting that you had to edit your post here. I think both time you read it to mean "playing wrong" when really, I'm just assessing the content of the books.

And the books, the power level, is superheroic in feel. When several characters at first level can already ignore being threaten at point blank by bows and crossbows, that's clearly out of the realm of what I consider to be even "cinematic", much less normal. Once you hit fifth level and up, it seems very superheroic to me. I don't think that aspect has changed much throughout the many editions. It's always been superheroic from where I stand. The fundamentals are the same but the presentation has changed, however.

Anyway, I think it's kind of weird that you disagree with that, but I don't mind. I do think that you overreacted to it, though. It's not offending nor is it a particularly strange assessment.

Quote from: James McMurrayI'll call someone an asshole. I don't mind.

Who wants it?

Bring it on, flangeface.

- Q

Quote from: QuireBring it on, flangeface.

- Q

Quote from: AosI specialize in pointless commentary.

I'd like to say I'm here for pointless commentary, but really I'm just stealing the light bulbs and rifling through medicine cabinets.

Oh, and abusing the huge page of smilies.

:chestram: :violent-smiley-078: :shovel: :DRUNKANI: :sleeping: :ferret:

Pete wins !

But at what cost?

Quote from: Consonant DudeFuck it! This thread was boring anyway so I'm responding to you and making it even more off-topic!

Fuck 'em all, we'll take the thread where we please!

Quote from: Consonant DudeJames, I don't find that idea akin to what Seanchai is discussing at all. I think it's interesting that you had to edit your post here. I think both time you read it to mean "playing wrong" when really, I'm just assessing the content of the books.

Perhaps because my experience was so different, and we played pretty damn close to the rules, there was this disconnect between what you were saying and what I experienced that gave me this "playing wrong" sense.  Ah, well - I corrected it for a reason...

Quote from: Consonant DudeAnd the books, the power level, is superheroic in feel. When several characters at first level can already ignore being threaten at point blank by bows and crossbows, that's clearly out of the realm of what I consider to be even "cinematic", much less normal.

And right here is where we part ways.  I have to ask what game you were playing?  I mean, the first level characters we played (and I would venture a guess Haffrung did as well, given what I've read of his comments) were scared shitless - a single successful shot could kill them - even many of the fighters. And god forbid a spider bites you. There was very little that felt "cinematic" or "superheroic" about the play - until we got out alive, injured and panting, but alive.

Quote from: Consonant DudeOnce you hit fifth level and up, it seems very superheroic to me. I don't think that aspect has changed much throughout the many editions. It's always been superheroic from where I stand. The fundamentals are the same but the presentation has changed, however.

Now this I would agree with to a much greater degree.  Fifth level, when those damn magic users got fireball, a lot of shit changed. But here's the thing - it took forever to get to fifth level (OK, not forever, but it was a long slog). And many characters never made it - yes, even with the rules that allowed raising the dead, it was not like a drive through trip to McDonalds every time you dropped. I think of all the times we had to seriously struggle to try and drag someone out to get healed/raised - only to discover that when we returned, the situation was worse - the "dungeon" wasn't static, after all.

And here's how it all ties back in.  See that up there? That's you playing the same game as I did in very different ways.  At least, I have to assume so if your experience (and I don't doubt your experience) leads you to describe the game as having always been "superheroic" and my experience (and I would ask you to show the same respect for my experience) leads me to describe it as anything but - with the same rules.

And I get that - I could see where you could, depending on preference of group, play it either way.  Haffrung's point, I believe, is that this ability to use the same rule set to play in almost diametrically opposed ways was true of BD&D and AD&D; however, while still present, it has been decreasing in subsequent versions. I don't know if Haffrung feels the same, but I will say that my concern is that this version might finally be the version where support for the non-super-heroic, non-cinematic style falls to a level where it's no longer valuable to those that prefer/lean towards/are most comfortable with that style.

And I don't (nor do most I've seen) have an objective problem with that. For me, it's more melancholy at getting old, finding you're no longer the one marketers worry about (damn kids!), and some slightly more specific concerns over the dreaded network externalities I'll be losing.  But hey, that's life!

Quote from: James J SkachAnd right here is where we part ways.  I have to ask what game you were playing?  I mean, the first level characters we played (and I would venture a guess Haffrung did as well, given what I've read of his comments) were scared shitless - a single successful shot could kill them - even many of the fighters. And god forbid a spider bites you. There was very little that felt "cinematic" or "superheroic" about the play - until we got out alive, injured and panting, but alive.

Just for the record, the last AD&D1e game I played was fairly recently. I was fairly scared for my wizard at first level. But the ranger (HP 17 IIRC) was definitly not. Even the third party member (a cleric) was fairly gutsy. The three of us did some serious damage.

Now, I'm not saying a a group we weren't scared. But that's because we went through serious shit at low level that is heroic if not, dare I say... "mythic".

Maybe it's just semantics because I read your post and don't disagree with what you are saying at all. I go through everything you say you go through, so I definitly respect your experience. My characters also tend to experience stuff that myself (me, not the character) can't imagine I could ever get away with, even at first level. There was stuff our ranger faced... stuff he was garanteed to survive under these rules but that is just plain deadly in real life. That's pretty much all I meant.


BTW, I'm a big fan of 3e, but I never liked the level progression, which starts a bit too high for my taste. In fact, even 1e starts too strong. I was hoping 4e would take a page off Mutants & Masterminds. That they would do something like this:

We at WotC think characters should be very competent when they start. We recommend that you start at 5th level. But our rules allow you to play a character from 1st to 30th level.

And then I would have liked levels to translate roughly like this:

Level 1: The equivalent of an old school commoner/apprentice.
Level 2: slightly less competent than a 1e starting PC
Level 3: Slightly more competent than a  1e starting character
Level 4: In the neighborhood of a 3e starting PC
Level 5: The new cool of 4e

You know, something that would truly allow an entire party of starting characters to hunt a single troublesome wolf and make for tense roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with D&D going more powerful by default. But they just added 10 level to the progression... what would be the harm in using a few of those on the lesser end of the scale? Mutants & Masterminds did it.

Can we now argue on a minor point, for the next 10 pages at least?

Quote from: Consonant DudeJust for the record, the last AD&D1e game I played was fairly recently. I was fairly scared for my wizard at first level. But the ranger (HP 17 IIRC) was definitly not. Even the third party member (a cleric) was fairly gutsy. The three of us did some serious damage.

Now, I'm not saying a a group we weren't scared. But that's because we went through serious shit at low level that is heroic if not, dare I say... "mythic".

Maybe it's just semantics because I read your post and don't disagree with what you are saying at all. I go through everything you say you go through, so I definitly respect your experience. My characters also tend to experience stuff that myself (me, not the character) can't imagine I could ever get away with, even at first level. There was stuff our ranger faced... stuff he was garanteed to survive under these rules but that is just plain deadly in real life. That's pretty much all I meant.


BTW, I'm a big fan of 3e, but I never liked the level progression, which starts a bit too high for my taste. In fact, even 1e starts too strong. I was hoping 4e would take a page off Mutants & Masterminds. That they would do something like this:

We at WotC think characters should be very competent when they start. We recommend that you start at 5th level. But our rules allow you to play a character from 1st to 30th level.

And then I would have liked levels to translate roughly like this:

Level 1: The equivalent of an old school commoner/apprentice.
Level 2: slightly less competent than a 1e starting PC
Level 3: Slightly more competent than a  1e starting character
Level 4: In the neighborhood of a 3e starting PC
Level 5: The new cool of 4e

You know, something that would truly allow an entire party of starting characters to hunt a single troublesome wolf and make for tense roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with D&D going more powerful by default. But they just added 10 level to the progression... what would be the harm in using a few of those on the lesser end of the scale? Mutants & Masterminds did it.

Can we now argue on a minor point, for the next 10 pages at least?

I am willing to toss of a minor arguement, but I've had my fill for ten page arguements for a long time...

Here is the thing: traditional hero types, even schlub farm boy turned hero types may have been called upon at some point in their heroic career to slay a wolf all by their lonesome. This crap of housecats even being moderately threatening combatants, much less the furry murder machines they currently are, is frankly dumb.  Not only are 1st level 'heroes' too weak, so are the average commoners who aren't 'heroes', if only in comparison to housecats and rats. Small children shouldn't even be that fragile.

And you want to make 1st level heroes even weaker?


Even if you make 5th level the default staring point, just by pointing out that by the rules they could at any point in their adult lives be force to hunt a lone wolf in a huddled frightened pack, a little Leonidas inside them dies, a tiny spark of Beowuld gives a tiny cry of agony before being snuffed out.

Because, god damn it, we want to be Heroes. Even HEROES, in all caps. Not a tiny cog of a single heroic gestalt, surgically fastened at the hip to his team, and dependent upon them for every shred of cool he has.

Quote from: SpikeI am willing to toss of a minor arguement, but I've had my fill for ten page arguements for a long time...

Here is the thing: traditional hero types, even schlub farm boy turned hero types may have been called upon at some point in their heroic career to slay a wolf all by their lonesome. This crap of housecats even being moderately threatening combatants, much less the furry murder machines they currently are, is frankly dumb.  Not only are 1st level 'heroes' too weak, so are the average commoners who aren't 'heroes', if only in comparison to housecats and rats. Small children shouldn't even be that fragile.

And you want to make 1st level heroes even weaker?

Hold on!

YOU are talking about 1st level heroes. I'm talking about a more open-ended power scale, which allows me as a DM to more accurately throw challenges at MY starting heroes (depending on what level I see a starting hero at).

Want to play a smart 14 years old learning for his knighthood? 1st level might be appropriate for him under that power scale.

Need militia men that are not trained adequately? 1st or 2nd level.

Veteran militia well trained but not heroes? 2nd or 3rd level.

and so on...

As for the cat argument. This is an age old argument that was always addressed on what front only: that of the character. The problem of the cat is threefold:

1-The 1st level hero
2-The cat himself
3-The whole system (combat, HPs, and so on)

I believe D&D is being refined with each editions, a tweak here and there such as the -10 houserule becoming official and so on.  

In any event, I believe having the heroes start at a higher level takes care of the cat problem and gives you a beautiful assortment of challenges and companions as a starting hero. That damsel in distress that is nonetheless competent? She might be first level now. In 1st edition D&D, she's likely to kick her rescuer's ass on one lucky roll and that's the problem as I see it.

Quote from: SpikeIEven if you make 5th level the default staring point, just by pointing out that by the rules they could at any point in their adult lives be force to hunt a lone wolf in a huddled frightened pack, a little Leonidas inside them dies, a tiny spark of Beowuld gives a tiny cry of agony before being snuffed out.

Because, god damn it, we want to be Heroes. Even HEROES, in all caps. Not a tiny cog of a single heroic gestalt, surgically fastened at the hip to his team, and dependent upon them for every shred of cool he has.

This is purely an illusion thing. A matter of perception. I prefer to get the better of my perception and not see "1" as the absolute required starting point. The four starting levels can be confined to the DMG if need be. It's better than the current half-assed "commoner, noble, expert, warrior" crap, IMO.

As I said, I would really like for a greater range of friends, foes, allies, dependants, threats for my starting heroes. And better optiojns depending on how heroic I want this to be.

Most point systems do it. They offer different starting number of points depending on the genre and setting. M&M was wise enough to do it. D&D needs to wake from the 70s and embrace that tool as well.

If you set them on a numeric path, regardless of where they actually start, they will always project backwards to those earlier days and assume they 'came from there'.

Thus, no matter where the game started every character was once 1st level. And, if at first level, that character was incapable of hunting and slaying a wolf alone, he was weak and pitiful and unheroic and probably had to be rescued by some NPC, possibly even NPCs that even lacked...gasp!... class levels.

No hero could bear the shame. Unless, you know, that was their who deal, being the guy that overcame being a wuss or something. But we don't talk about... Those Guys...  

Point pool systems, with a less clear 'route' are less problematic in this regards. No one really trys to figure out what their guy was like a '1 point'. Since the 'starting level' is more nebulous, they can just chose to assume that their scrawny naked teenager barefoot in the snow was fully capable of slaying the wolf at the door and then they can eat cake and be happy.

Think of the Cake, man!

I was actually saving this for Set's next "4e will destroy the world" rant, but since this is the 3rd time in as many days Spike has ranted about housecats vs. commoners:

Quote from: SpikeThink of the Cake, man!

....How long did it take you to bake it?

Did you keep the recipe?

 and what about MacArthur's ParK???

Quote from: James McMurrayI was actually saving this for Set's next "4e will destroy the world" rant, but since this is the 3rd time in as many days Spike has ranted about housecats vs. commoners:

[/IMG]

You are just ashamed to admit your terror of kittens.  

Admit it, James!  Accept your fear, let it flow through you, let it wash over you. You will face your fear and vanquish it. Fear is the little death that brings oblivion, fear is the mind killer....