Quote: Necratoid wrote:
My general point is that the writers of DnD books are making them simpler and simpler to the point of FF12... you have to think less and less about what
your doing to the point the character plays itself. Which means the only reason to play is for the character interaction. Which is going to be done the same
regardless of what is going on with the dice (minus the basic effects of the roles themselves). So if your excuse for making it flat stats for everyone is
that it with be more social them a game with more complicated rolling... you failed. Players will be pretty much the same level of RPing regardless of the
system itself. So the point of the 4e system is so everyone moves faster in their game... but less stuff is going on in the first place.
*gets on the soapbox, apologizes for the interruption*
I can understand what Necratoid is saying about making cookie-cutter characters that are carbon copies of their previous incarnations that play practically
play themselves without player input. But I would disagree that thats is what is happening in 4th ed.
First, regarding extreme balancing in the game, I think that what the dev's were aiming for, is a game that involves each player at the table, rather
than letting the one or two players who have calculated all the advantages and has the correct response in every situation, dominate everything leaving the
other players to just coast through the game. In other words, leveled the playing field so that everyone can do something.
Also a point that has been already mentioned but I feel is worth mentioning again is that since it has been balanced it is very newbie friendly. While
providing some wriggle room in min maxing your character the average joe who wants to try out this D&D thing can make a character with minimum errors that
can contribute to the game even without RP'ing. Sure yes, it can result in a sort of carbon copy of what a more veteran player at the same table is doing
but then it comes down to how they decide to roleplay their characters to make distinctions between them. And if a player's character is killed and the GM
is allowing him to slap on the old stats and skills onto the new character verbatim, then the GM needs a slap up the head for allowing the player to use a
meat-plug character.
As for doing less and less. I don't see it at all. Its the same things we've been doing all along except with a different format. What does 3.5 have
on the battle grid that 4.0 doesn't do? I think what 4.0 has actually done is cleaned up a lot of clunky rules that were obstacles to fun in 3.5 which
caused a lot of book checking and so forth. Getting rid of that speeds up the game, but doesn't actually mean the players are doing less. They're doing
the same, only more efficiently which is a plus.
Gutting the forgotten realms setting is not a bad thing. Seriously stop thinking of it as a bad thing, think of it as giving old and new GM's space
to make up their own stories or developments according to the new fluff. All in all this argument over gutting the setting is like a pair of old comfortable
shoes that have big holes in the soles. Sure yes its comfortable but its also time to get some new shoes. In any case its just a matter of setting. I you
don't like it. then make up your own or play in the old setting, but bear in mind that it is well known and all the paths have been trod before, leaving
the GM with the headache of trying to find something new to do in well established and fixed storyline.
_________________________________
Take Your Candle, Go Light Your World.