>Old D&D The characters are everymen of their races who

everyone wants to be a snowflake: the age

>>54779293
>The characters are everymen of their races who end up becoming renowned heroes with powerful abilities and their own armies through their deeds

No. This was never the case. Your average elf is not a fighter/wizard hybrid. Your average human has 0% chance to hide in shadows or climb sheer surfaces like a thief (and the thief is one of the weakest classes!). The Cleric is the chosen of his God. The Fighter is a step above your town guard in both training and potential.

>Everyone is some sort of special adventurer with an one-in-a-million background.

Yes, such snowflake background like "Noble" or "Merchant".

>>54779293
>Everyone is some sort of special adventurer with an one-in-a-million background.
only if you choose to be, 5e backgrounds still have favorites like hermit, criminal, soldier so you can still make an everyman if you want to be

>they only change in that they're barely able to kill a man at first level and they end up blowing up kingdoms by their last one.
at level 1 they are already stronger than a run of the mill guard

File: Because Fun.gif (2MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x360px

>>54779293
Because the bit between being everyman and achieving enough to be someone worthy of note was the most boring part, so hand-waiving it as "before character creation" let us skip to the more fun bit. New way is better for players.

Also, that bit we used to not skip over was usually filled with replacement character after replacement character like a revolving door until one of them stuck by sheer accident. This didn't lend itself to getting players invested in their characters. Running a game for a bunch of players who aren't invested in their characters can make DMing a bore. New way is better for DM's.

I don't see the problem.

>>54779371
I disagree, I find the parts where you're a big goddamn hero blowing all competition away to be the boring part. Also usually where the game falls apart. The part where you struggle to become stronger is generally where you define your character as well, and grow attached to it.

>replacement character after replacement character
Never experienced this very much. The thing though is that when a character actually does survive and become something, it is so much sweeter than when someone shows up with a character with no bonds to the campaign that's already accomplished by doing stuff in the backstory. it feels disingenous, kinda.

>>54779371
>"The devil bites into you with his long fang. Your clothes are soaked in blood, and you feel your lifeforce wane. You need to do something, or soon the fiend will feast on your corpse'

or

>"The devil swipes at you with his claws and... uh, he does like one tenth of your HP. Roll to hit him for the fifth time.'

>>54779369
Even outlander is everyman background - as it's a background of a member of some tribe or simple hunter - that is the case in my games, where I run a not-so-civilized land

>>54779521
i'm not really sure how having most or all pcs have a unique backstory and be an exceptional person is supposed to magically make them immune to any threats and make the dm give up on storytelling and roleplaying but ok

>>54779563
My point is that in newer editions monsters are utterly toothless. There's no danger in fighting, and thus, no excitement. Combat is like 80% of D&D, for fuck's sake.

>>54779476
>big goddamn hero blowing all competition away
There's a lot of campaign space between
>achieving enough to be someone worthy of note
and
>a big goddamn hero blowing all competition away


Also I generally come from a perspective of a DM, and I've found that
>someone shows up with a character with no bonds to the campaign
happens a lot more often when the characters are required to be nobodies. There's no rule saying that the past accomplishments can't be related to the worldbuilding and campaign, unless you build a campaign in total before the players even have their characters built. I've found that seeing the characters first, then building a campaign skeleton designed to engage those characters' drives works a lot better.

IDK about you, but before I experienced anything "D&D," I read fantasy novels as a kid, and we've been trying to recreate the "essence" of those same novels. Unless the fantasy novel in question was written by GRRM, modern D&D does it better.

>>54779613
>My point is that in newer editions monsters are utterly toothless
even beginner module lost mines of phandelver has a green dragon that will TPK the party easy

>>54779613
No...Combat is just alternative to shit roleplay skills, this is why I am having fun with my group - they try going around combat by talking or sneaking or other stuff (I even give more xp for such solutions)

>>54779521
That sounds a lot more like a problem that comes from switching to a lazy undescriptive DM than switching to a newer edition.

File: 1500879406864.gif (2MB, 448x352px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 448x352px

>>54779613
>>54779521
Seems like a bit of a false binary. There's a lot of space on the threat-spectrum between Hellhounds in 2e and complete toothlessness.

>>54779613
well that's a bit out of left field for the topic
but isn't that a problem a dm could easily solve with some number adjustments? if they're looking to run a high lethality kind of game it's not that hard to tweak is it

i'm kind of confused

>>54779637
>Unless the fantasy novel in question was written by GRRM
...or Howard or Moorcock or Leiber? Seriously go read the books D&D was created to emulate. Snowflake fantasy is trash.

>>54779638
>throwing high level monsters at low level parties results in difficult encounters
Oh wow, I could never have figured that out myself. 5e's combat is atrocious, though.

Try throwing that same dragon at a party that's properly leveled for it, see if the fight's exciting at all.

Try fighting lower level monsters, too. See if the town guard can do anything at all against a 10th level PC.

The problem is that everyone's HP is so bloated that tactics do not really matter much, and individual rolls don't have much weight. What you do in single round doesn't matter much, because hit points scale much faster than killing power. The worst offender are classes that can gain resistances (especially the bear totem barbarian, who can just jerk off for ten rounds while he tanks an army's worth of damage), but even wizards now have a d6 hit die. I guess daggers and arrows are no big deals nowadays, because you can just sleep the damage off in 8 hours. Boromir was just a pansy.

The whole fight hinges on if you got X abilities and enough levels (for the HPs). If you do, you will win, if you don't, tough luck, better run.

The party isn't going to take down a drider at first level, because they have like one fucking hundred and twenty HPs, but in AD&D they might, because they have about 30. It might be hard, but it's possible.

>>54779293
I think you're just playing modern D&D wrong.

>>54779293
Because WotC figured out that sallow instant gratification sells better than a more fulfilling but long-term progression.

I'm in the middle of writing a 5e homebrew supplement that returns all the classes to their original 1e AD&D low-power flavor.

I've only done Cleric and Druid so far but I can already tell my players who have only played 5e will be saying "wtf what's the point I don't have any powers".

Also reintroducing specific weapon proficiencies instead the blanket version modern editions use. Can't wait for the salt.

>>54779910
Honestly this was a problem in old D&D too once you started to get past the first few levels. There's just no tactical depth unless mid to high-level magic users are present, and once the hitpoint bloat starts it's very easy to tell which side is going to win within the first few rounds.

>>54779941
You sound like an awful GM.

>>54779521
So the problem is that people don't die in two hits?
Except the whole 'they still fucking do, especially at low levels' thing?

>>54779910
Then make better monsters yourself - I can tpk a party of lvl 5 with a single kobold in head on combat - be creative.

5e is for DM to get off there ass and do stuff XD

>>54779960
>>54779941
Were older groups more stable than newer ones? Did they meet more frequently? I can't see how anyone ever made it past the lowest levels in old-school D&D., considering how slowly experience is gained, how much experience you need to level up, and how many false starts you have to endure with low-level character death. Best case scenario, you can keep a group together and interested in the campaign for a year or two. That's enough to reach high levels in 5e, but in AD&D you could barely get to level 5 with that.

>>54779293
This sounds more like an issue with writing in itself. Because
>characters are everymen
Sounds like really shitty writing when you put it up right before saying that "having unique backgrounds is a bad thing".

Remind me the last time someone got praised for writing a character that was a completely regular blank slate without any interesting individualities or depth to them, and their most defining trait was "human", "elf" or "dwarf".

Or enlighten me on how adding depth, personality, and fleshing out a backstory to an character won't result in having them a "one in a million background".

People aren't carbon copies, OP. Even two people who share a background like "son of a farmer and a housewife, evil monsters raided village, family and friends got killed" can end up like completely different characters. One may become a righteous paladin to prevent people from suffering like he did in the past, other may become an edgelord murderhobo who is dark and brooding and wants to murder all goblins, etc.

>>54780103
No, they played differently. You gained XP primarily from finding treasure rather than overcoming combat encounters, so large parts of the game revolved around avoiding combat encounters to find the treasure the monsters were guarding.

You should try it sometime. It's fun.

File: old-school-vs-new-school.jpg (44KB, 530x469px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 530x469px

>>54779293
>Old D&D
Roll 3d6 in order. You had secretly hoped to play a shy wizard and let your friend do the talking for you? WELL TOO BAD, YOU ARE A BARD NOW, GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH A D4

>Modern D&D
Hey man, don't ask me: ask yourself what you want to be and then proceed with point buy. Here's there rules for that: good luck and have fun!

>Old DeeNDee
Welp, looks like your fucking shit character died LIKE A BITCH fighting a SHITTY GROUP OF GOBLINS. Better go and make a new character if you don't want to sit WITH YOUR THUMBS UP YOUR ASS for the rest of the session. 3d6 in order, chop chop.

>Modurr DeenDee
Aw, you died. Bad luck there chum: you had a backup made though, no? Don't worry if you didn't, character creation doesn't take long anyway. Better luck next time!

>Oh'law D n D
Oh, before I forget, since you DIED LIKE A BITCH, you also get to play as a SHITTIER CHARACTER! -1 level from the lowest level of the party and no Experience. Bitch.

>ModurnDnD
Dude, don't worry, we'll get you roped into the story in no time. It's going to be okay.

inb4
>stop defending new deeNdee
>implying dungeons and dragons is actually any good to begin with

>>54780177
>new character creation taking less time than old character creation
Don't you have a 4000-feat spreadsheet to go sift through?

>>54780154
I have tried it, and that's how I know how slow progression is. At low levels, the treasure you get is measured in silver and copper pieces. And it's divided among the whole party, plus any henchmen or hirelings. It's slow as fuck and makes you want your character to just settle down and get a day job.

>>54779613
We play for circa year with our group. So far, we had 2 TPKs and half dozen dead characters on top of it. What you're saying doesn't seem to be the case for us.

>>54780154
Frankly, i wouldn't want to play game focused on earning treasure - i enjoy heroic DnD, where heroes who fights evil and in the end, saves the day. Earning treasure there is completely irrelevant.

>>54780202
not in 5e.

File: I8yYHA4.png (55KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x626px

>>54780255
>At low levels, the treasure you get is measured in silver and copper pieces.

>>54780202
I suppose it might not have that much difference time-wise.

However, there are not many feats in 5e, nor is there a lot of need for spreasheets.

It's been made more casual/beginner friendly.

>>54780277
>It's been made more casual/beginner friendly.
I know i am probably in minority, but i wished they would make it EVEN MORE casual.

In old D&D it was impossible, both literally and figuratively, to roll up a bard. Not only were the ability score requirements tougher than those of any other class, even paladins, but you had to dual class twice, something you weren't even normally allowed to do, and gain 5-9 levels each in fighter and thief before you earned your lute.

>>54780297
I think the game would become more like FATE at that point. Or Dungeon World...

>>54780177
>Thinking it was easy to become a bard in Old D&D
You obviously don't have any idea what you're talking about. You know nothing about the older editions other than memes you've picked up on /tg/ that you proceed to spout.

>>54779293
>Old D&D
>The characters are everymen of their races who end up becoming renowned heroes with powerful abilities and their own armies through their deeds

You have never actually played old D&D, right?

It's terrible, anon. Who in their right mind would tell lies on the internet?

>>54780339
I know enough to say that things back then were not as fun as they are today.

>>54780297
Well feats are optional to make it even simpler

And if you make non caster or low spell number caster (warlock, ranger) game it's even less complex

>>54780404
How would you know if your entire understanding of older editions is based on the shitposts of others? You've never played the older editions, you've never read the rulebooks and you've likely never heard of what it's actually like to play them from someone who actively does so. You've let /tg/ do your thinking for you and internalized the narrative that is predominant here. You've fallen for entertainment motivated propaganda and as a result hold opinions on things that you do not actually understand.
You've been brainwashed.

>>54780521
So what you are saying is that there's no need to roll 3d6 in order and that I can create a character with point buy and decide class and race before I decide what abilities I want to have? And that when my character dies I will play on the same level and not go -1 negative level because I was unlucky rolling decahedrons? And that wizards are the same as martials power-wise, meaning that they can both be helpful in a group even at later levels? And that alignments don't matter because morality and ethics are not set in stone like some people would have us believe?

>>54779847
>Howard
Ah yes, those disposable mook protagonists, Kull, Conan, and Solomon Kane

> Moorcock
ETERNAL CHAMPION with LEGENDARY ARTIFACTS sure does sound unsnowflakey

>>54780103
>Were older groups more stable than newer ones?

It was harder to find a group, so you put up with more bullshit so you could play. Which is why people like >>54779941 got anyone to even play with them.

>>54780575
Abilities are of almost no importance is OD&D so rolling 3d6 is not nearly as terrible as you are implying.
Also, you seem under the belief that dead players reroll a new character with a level less. That is wrong.
You start again with a level 1 character.

>>54781087
Hirelings, Anon. You pick frank the sellsword, he takes your old gear, the fighter fights on.

>>54781183
Yeah, that could work too. It depends on the setting and the GM, really. Starting back from level 1 was not this hard, especially when you had a bunch of higher levels, hirelings, and the dead character's gear to help you on the way.

>>54781209
Yeah. My Basic /Expert game just hit real world year 5. The Binder of Lost Heroes is about 300 pages strong. Some people have been salty, others just went with the flow.

Party level at the moment ranges from 1 to 6, with several old pcs retired as major players.

>>54779960
Hit point bloat wasn't a thing, because you stopped gaining hp rolls after a certain point and only got a small, fixed number (with fighters alone also gaining their con mod)
The difference between a level 1 and a level 12 wizard is about 25 hp. The difference between a level 12 wizard and a level 20 wizard is exactly 8 hp.

>>54780309
You were allowed to dual class as many times as you want. You just can't do it unless your most recent class is at least tied for highest level and you can never go back to a class you have already left.
The actual problem was that you couldn't use any of your old class features except for your house total untill your latest class was equal or better than your other ones.

>>54781822
>house total
HP total.

All I can hear is greybeard complaining.

>>54779960
I'm not going to force them to play it. The main campaign will stay vanilla 5e.

>>54780103
Actually yes they were far more stable but that may have just been because we were in highschool and had more time. We played a lot. Also worth mentioning we were playing AD&D 1e back in like 2008 at age 14, not 1978 and we still preferred it to 4e when that came out.

>>54780969
Man you guys get really upset when people call out new editions for their video game-esque instant-hero style.

File: 1434709179228.gif (1MB, 434x277px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 434x277px

>>54779847
Nigga, did you just try to use Howere and Morcock to justify unexceptional revolving-case protagonists? Are you retarded?

Howard and Morcock are literally the authors who's styles I emulate by making my PC's feel like they are the protagonist of their own stories.... because... you know... Conan.... Slomon K.... Elric.... have YOU read any of those authors buddy?

With the exception of 5e, which seeks to emulate a fictionalized version of D&D as defined by memories of D&D as described by grognards online, each edition of D&D has gotten better at recreating the pulp fantasy feel of the original source materials than the previous.

>>54786720
I'm sorry I triggered you, but can you try again with a more coherent argument please?

>>54786896
What can you expect from a guy who replies with bad memes?

Probably the worst thing about the "1st Level Superhero" approach WoTC has taken is how it actually makes the player base itself worse and worse.

If it's so shit why are you playing it?

File: level0.pdf (3MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1x1px

>>54783224
>Man you guys get really upset when people call out new editions for their video game-esque instant-hero style.

My first session of 5e ended with a party wipe from fucking goblins.

4e has this beauty for all your rusty dagger shanktown needs.

An Orc barbarian or two with cleave is a TPK machine in 3.x-land before level 3.

>>54786720
Gygax statted Conan as like a 24th Level Fighter and 12th Level Thief in AD&D.

In 5e, he'd be like 9th or 10th level. This speaks volumes about the snowflake creep.

>>54787074
>In 5e, he'd be like 9th or 10th level

Do you have anything to back your claim with, or...?

>>54780177
>Welp, looks like your fucking shit character died LIKE A BITCH fighting a SHITTY GROUP OF GOBLINS. Better go and make a new character if you don't want to sit WITH YOUR THUMBS UP YOUR ASS for the rest of the session. 3d6 in order, chop chop.

>Not making backups in a low level dungeon crawl
Git gud.

>>54786956
At least it's not the Paizo playerbase

File: 1461181563525.jpg (84KB, 435x326px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 435x326px

>>54786896
How about, since you seem to think that Howard and Morcock being inspiration for D&D justifies the protagonists in campaigns being unexceptional everymen who rapidly die and are replaced with new similar characters, name a single Howard or Morcock protagonist who's anything less than a demigod of manliness (or edginess in the case of Morcock.)
>>54786956
>makes the player base itself worse and worse
Yeah, no, forever DM here, and keeping players engaged in their characters' motivations is a lot harder when everybody knows they're meaningless, and going to be replaced soon. This leads to uninteresting murderhobo for the sake of gold alone, rather than three dimensional characters motivated by actual relateable drives to fight evil and save the world.... you know... like the overwhelming majority of fantasy novels around.

Guys, if you want to argue that D&D has nothing to do with fantasy novels, and should not feel like them, and that DM's who try to do that are shoving a square-peg into a round-hole, then make THAT argument, at-least there's some validity to it, though I would still disagree. However, trying to use the literary inspirations for D&D to justify older editions' inability to recreate the feel of those novels is ridiculous.

>>54779293
>It's another New Things Are Bad episode

>>54780177
>>Roll 3d6 in order. You had secretly hoped to play a shy wizard and let your friend do the talking for you? WELL TOO BAD, YOU ARE A BARD NOW, GO FUCK YOURSELF WITH A D4

Someone clearly doesn't know how Bards worked in 1e AD&D.

File: 1412881668532.jpg (22KB, 358x392px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 358x392px

>>54787074
>Gygax had to stat Conan so high level that the game no longer functions at that level, and almost nobody will ever reach that level of play.
>In 5e, Conan is playable at the levels where the game actually functions
.... good? So you're agreeing that newer editions are better at emulating the essential fantasy novel experience better?

>>54781087
>You start again with a level 1 character.
Well, that is just shittier gameplay right there, just like rolling 3d6 in order, especially when you can't even cast spells if your intelligence or wisdom is higher than a certain percentage. That is stupid, old, stupidly old and only stupid game design. There's a reason modern computers run faster and have better parameters than older ones.

The same can be said for tabletop games.

>>54787101
>implying the GM would let you roll up various characters
>implying that you couldn't just roll until you got better stats and a character you liked and settle with that one instead
>implying implications
Git gud

>>54787138
I've found only more murderhobos in newer editions because characters are so strong they hardly have to worry about anything. This is speaking as both a player and a GM.

Fear of dying makes players proceed with caution and better instills a sense of realism because they don't know they're going to win nearly every fight like they do in 5e.

Magic Users were very careful with how they played because they had limited spells and limited Hp. Now it's just warlocks who casts scaling cantrips every turn.

You can just go look at what /r/dnd has become just from the past 2 years of 5e to confirm the playerbase has gotten shittier.

>>54779613
>There's no danger in fighting, and thus, no excitement.
If I can TPK a first level party by being smart with a trio of kuo-toa you're not using the monsters right.

>>54787138
The fuck does masculinity have to do with anything? Howard's characters are all highly skilled manly men, but none of them are demigods. Elric might fit that label, and even then modern D&D characters just blast past his level like it's nothing. I also wanna point out you haven't mentioned Lieber at all yet.

Pulp fantasy isn't about superheroes. Modern D&D is about superheroes. Modern D&D-inspired snowflake fantasy is about superheroes.

>>54787282
The warlock is a literal equivalent of a guy with a bow for the first 5 levels.

>>54787292
Or your players are just really really dumb.

>>54787335
>firing a bow into melee without pentalty or risk of hitting friendlies every round

You're just bringing more dumb stuff up for me.

File: conan_the_cimmerian__render_1_by_bobhertley-d5p2ybc.png (448KB, 558x672px) Image search: [Google]

448KB, 558x672px

>>54787212
>>54787074
>>54787096

1. OD&D was extremely low power, but even there the PCs were not everymen. Normal people were 0th Level characters with no bonuses or abilities at all. The levels in OD&D were named, and the name of a level 1 Fighting Man was "Veteran" [a 4th level was Hero]. In AD&D this became even more pronounced, as the default method of char gen became 4d6 drop lowest, which meant even at birth a PC was superior to normal people.

2. Even in the older editions, Conan should have been only between 6-10th level, IF THAT. People back then had the strange tendency to take staples of the fantasy genre and make them like 48th Level Swordmasters that were unkillable death machines. Gandalf, Aragorn, Conan, you name it.

The problem is those characters were usually only mid-level or even relatively low-level. If Conan was level 24 he could wrestle adult Red Dragons with ease and survive multiple falls at terminal velocity, and anyone whose ready Conan knows thats an entire tier above his greatest feats.
>>54787282
>>54787335
Seconding this, characters in low level 5e are only marginally more durable then low level characters in AD&D, and they have the disadvantage that the monsters are more durable too.

In AD&D most common monsters had 1 HD or even 1 HD-1, meaning a single solid hit [easy enough with Weapon Specialization and a good sword or darts] would take them out.

Not to mention, in 5e Cleaving is an optional rule in the Monster Manual, but in AD&D a warrior can make a number of attacks equal to his level against 1 HD or lower opponents.

Not to mention that in 5e, magic items are technically optional, whereas in AD&D they are part of the standard loot tables and came up with great frequency after the first few levels.

>>54787441
Cleaving is an optional rule in the Dungeon Master Guide*

>>54779293
The abundance of retroclones and OSR inspired games that have been coming out the past few years suggest that this is a known problem and many players agree.

>>54787394
EB uses the same mechanics as a bow in 5e, it just deals different damage.

>>54787361
When you use monsters as a threat in your game, do you just throw them in a rectangular room with some weapons and roll initiative?

Because even with stupid players that's the only way "bloo bloo the monsters aren't OP enough" is an excuse. Plan an encounter before the players stumble into it. It doesn't take much to build or set traps, it's easier still to simply consider positioning for an ambush. Adventurers are often loud, even crafty ones, and more often than not the monsters are gonna know they're coming for one reason or another. Man-catchers, nets, ranged weapons and basic cover like tabled upended or putting things against a door will always make a challenge interesting. You can spice up an encounter beyond belief by simply considering that maybe Goblin #3 is one of the tribe shamans and can fire off a firebolt at the start of the encounter, lighting up the concoction steaming in the bucket that was rigged to fall onto the smarmy cunt who just walked into the room.

Maybe you don't forget that the monster can use all the basic skills like hiding, sneaking and using objects in the room just as well as a PC with the same number and type of appendages. Maybe you don't forget that many of the monsters with spell-like abilities have non-combat ones that can be repurposed for combat if you think for five minutes, and have probably figured this out over thousands of years of inherited knowledge from their forefathers. Maybe you remember that strategy isn't a secret knowledge only the PCs get to access. But killing PCs is an easy fucking art as long as you do more than sit a monster down and wait for people to roll dice at it.

>>54779293
>In old DnD, players can choose to play as a small selection of characters with the promise that they will develop in a small selection of ways into a small selection of different characters.

How is this more desirable than playing as the characters you would like to be, and developing then in the way you'd like to see them develop, with no restrictions
?

>>54787394
>without pentalty or risk of hitting friendlies every round
You didn't read the rules on spell attacks, did you?

File: 1430363217643.png (95KB, 273x288px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 273x288px

>>54787316
>The fuck does masculinity have to do with anything?
... are you seriously asking what Manliness has to do with Howard's writing? Really? Come on man.
>modern D&D characters just blast past his level like it's nothing.
Except they don't. I can't speak much for 5e, because I don't play or run it, but I've been running 4e for a long time, and 2e for a long time before that, and in 4e, PC's do not fly past Conan/Elric status like it's nothing. Usually it takes an entire campaign to climb from lvl 1 to epic tier, but once you reach epic tier, yeah, you basically ARE King Conan and/or Elric tier. That's not a bad thing. The players don't begin as demigods, they begin as plucky heroes who clearly have a destiny to fulfill... you know... like a fantasy novel.

>I also wanna point out you haven't mentioned Lieber at all yet.
Because I'm not as familiar with his work as I am with Howard and Morcock. Simple as that.

>Pulp fantasy isn't about superheroes.
You know, even though you're using "superheroes" as a pejorative, I still disagree. Just take a look at Barsoom: John Carter, from the get-go, has extreme strength thanks to Mars gravity, and swordsman skill thanks to the civil war. He doesn't become the "Jeddak of Jeddaks" until the conclusion of a long campaign's worth of books. At no point did the author waste a lot of time about random mooks astral projecting to mars until one got lucky enough to survive long enough to learn how Barsoom actually works... because that part isn't interesting. Even if we assume that happened, the book doesn't focus on that part, and neither should a campaign.

It's not like every character who isn't a worthless mook at-risk of dying to an errant random-encounter goblin is automatically an unstoppable demigod... there's a lot of room between the two.

>>54779368
The DMG for AD&D 2e had a discusion on this topic for the 3d6 vs 4d6 char gen.

It said something like historically the idea is that PJ are regular people which are only different from others in that they have a drive to be adventurers/achieve things this is represented by 3d6 chargen.

Then explained that a newer trend viewed adventurers as inherently better people which used 4d6 chargen.

>>54779521
Literally strawman.

>>54787467
The better/more popular ones still aren't as mechanically deadly, nor do they star "everymen" as you think.

Heck, I've yet to play a DCC with funnels, despite having 3-4 mini adventures in it.

As you have guessed, the number of character deaths after the level 0 funnels actually isn't high at all, assuming non retarded players.

Which brings me to >>54787572

Monsters/fights were never especially deadly after first level, unless they massively outpowered the party. Traps were. Environment were. Stupid, stupid fucking decisions were. Adventures were written with primarily these in mind, so that the players can overcome them.

That the mechanics for fights got more involved and intricate doesn't stop you from running a game like that. Yes, the focus shifted, but you still got your old, amazing tools to make your overconfident players suffer.

modern gaming is complete shit compared to old school gaming from the 80ies.
I honestly think that modern d20 system games are complete shit across the board. It's the same tired ass system for every game, with a paper thin veneer of setting laid onto it.
>t. actual oldfag

File: 1434500934185.jpg (28KB, 335x333px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 335x333px

>>54787282
>I've found only more murderhobos in newer editions
I've found the opposite to be true.

In older editions, character-death was inevitable, so players weren't encouraged to get invested in their characters hopes, dreams, and drives. In the absence of an in-character RP-driven motivation, players would default to "steal shit and get rich bitches" almost all the time.

Yeah, newer editions have a much lower chance of character death, but I've noticed that makes players more comfortable actually getting into character and basing their characters actions off of reasons that internally make sense to their character's role-play decisions and background. On top of that, that really doesn't mean "gloves off" because only a DM with no creativity whatsoever can think of no consequences other than "dead, roll another character." Once you've got your players actually invested in their character and their internal motivations, then you can threaten those motivations, and actually create a compelling adventure, rather than another "story" about mercenaries raiding tombs until they die or get rich enough to retire.

TLDR
>Players not invested in their characters own motivations default to murderhobo tomb raiders
>High lethality disincentivizes character investment
>Low lethality incentivizes character investment
>lethality is not the only form of consequence if you're a good DM

>>54787606
>... are you seriously asking what Manliness has to do with Howard's writing? Really? Come on man.
No, I'm asking why it has any bearing in this particular discussion. It's a total non-sequitur.

>Except they don't. I can't speak much for 5e, because I don't play or run it, but I've been running 4e for a long time, and 2e for a long time before that, and in 4e, PC's do not fly past Conan/Elric status like it's nothing. Usually it takes an entire campaign to climb from lvl 1 to epic tier, but once you reach epic tier, yeah, you basically ARE King Conan and/or Elric tier. That's not a bad thing. The players don't begin as demigods, they begin as plucky heroes who clearly have a destiny to fulfill... you know... like a fantasy novel.
Conan isn't epic-tier, though. You're totally inflating his ability beyond that shown in the actual stories. How do you justify putting him next to level 20 D&D characters?

>Just take a look at Barsoom: John Carter, from the get-go, has extreme strength thanks to Mars gravity, and swordsman skill thanks to the civil war. He doesn't become the "Jeddak of Jeddaks" until the conclusion of a long campaign's worth of books. At no point did the author waste a lot of time about random mooks astral projecting to mars until one got lucky enough to survive long enough to learn how Barsoom actually works... because that part isn't interesting. Even if we assume that happened, the book doesn't focus on that part, and neither should a campaign.
Do you have a point you're making here

>It's not like every character who isn't a worthless mook at-risk of dying to an errant random-encounter goblin is automatically an unstoppable demigod... there's a lot of room between the two.
Good strawman

>>54787747
>players weren't encouraged to get invested in their characters hopes, dreams, and drives
You couldn't be more fucking wrong. that has nothing to do with editions and everything to do with shit DMs and even shittier players

>>54779293
>The characters are everymen of their races

Maybe YOU were. I was a Paladin. There weren't a lot of those, to the point where a Paladin dying or falling was considered SERIOUS FUCKING BUSINESS in the cosmic scheme of things.

You weren't even allowed to BE a Paladin unless you have stupendous ability scores at character creation.

>>54787710
> t. young oldfag agreeing

>>54787832
That level 0 start though

File: Barsoom.jpg (124KB, 736x968px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 736x968px

>>54787788
>Do you have a point you're making here
Yes, that fantasy novels tend to have an arc, where the protagonist(s) begin as exceptional, but not yet world-breaking, often seemingly protected by destiny, until they eventually climb their way up to saving/changing/ruling the world. New editions of D&D, particurlarly 4e, do this extremely well. Older editions, especially 2e, do not do this well.... they do their own thing well, but not emulating the feel of fantasy novels.

>It's not like every character who isn't a worthless mook at-risk of dying to an errant random-encounter goblin is automatically an unstoppable demigod... there's a lot of room between the two.
>Good strawman
You are the one who said "Modern D&D is about superheroes." which, until one reaches epic-tier (or whatever the 5e equivalent is,) it really is not. There's a lot of wiggle room between where modern D&D starts and "superhero." It does eventually REACH superhero, but that's a good thing, because so do fantasy novels.

>>54779613
5e isn't great if you prepare everything to be level appropriate.
It runs best if you don't scale jack shit.

- If your level 6 party wants to slug it out with 50 orcs, that's their problem.
- If your level 11 party wants to fight an ancient black dragon, that's also their problem.
- If your level 15 party decides to fight a couple of CR 5 monsters and they've got the jump on 'em, just speed things along and ask them how they fuck them up, unless there's a good reason to play it out, cause nobody wants to wait for that shit.

Just make sure to show signs of monsters ahead of time whenever possible, let them know a monster's rough CR by reading bestiaries or making lore checks,
and in combat, always roll your dice in public so there won't be any pressure to fudge anything.

Never plan anything around the PCs level ever again. Just make up a variety of stuff themed around an arbitrary CR value, and plop it down, then just let your players make the choices.

Maybe they do something crazy to get to a big reward. Maybe they play it safe. Up to them. Ain't your problem.

This makes the game amazing.

>>54787930
>John Carter

Mah man

>>54779293
>Why?
Because things change and the things people find entertaining change and everything you love that you think is traditional and worthy is equally transitory and meaningless as the next generation ignores it or even outright thinks it's stupid.

Speaking as an old 2e player here.

>>54787788
>How do you justify putting him next to level 20 D&D characters?

In 4e?

Easy, level 20 is still paragon. That means he doesn't even have an epic destiny like being a destined hero who will rest in valhalla or something. He's merely on the cusp of it.

>>54779476
>I disagree, I find the parts where you're a big goddamn hero blowing all competition away to be the boring part.
This is you basically admitting that it's a subjective opinion and not an objective one, and thus you have no grounds for complaining about this subject anymore because you admit that it all just depends on the person.

>>54787960
>Never plan anything around the PCs level ever again

Shit, I stopped doing that back in 3rd Edition. Personal rules of DM'ing:

1) Even when they aren't, your players are always intentionally trying to screw up your plans. One person can't out-think four people, so don't even try. Just throw stuff at them and then afterwards make them think it was part of the plan. Reward innovation, but otherwise, let the dice fall where they may.

2) Even when you think you are, you are never challenging your players enough. They're wily bastards who will escape from anything. So go on, throw another Rancor into that pit. Serves the fuckers right for screwing up your plans.

>Yes, that fantasy novels tend to have an arc, where the protagonist(s) begin as exceptional, but not yet world-breaking, often seemingly protected by destiny, until they eventually climb their way up to saving/changing/ruling the world. New editions of D&D, particurlarly 4e, do this extremely well. Older editions, especially 2e, do not do this well.... they do their own thing well, but not emulating the feel of fantasy novels.
Ah yeah, nothing emulates the visceral excitement of pulp fantasy like crunching through 4e's sterile grid-bound combat or combing a list of 4,000 3.pf feats

>You are the one who said "Modern D&D is about superheroes." which, until one reaches epic-tier (or whatever the 5e equivalent is,) it really is not. There's a lot of wiggle room between where modern D&D starts and "superhero." It does eventually REACH superhero, but that's a good thing, because so do fantasy novels.
3.pf becomes a superhero game a hell of a lot earlier than epic-level. It starts to transition around level 6, and by level 12 you're ready for some plane jumping. I've only played a 4e campaign up to level 6 so I can't comment much there. 2e kinda starts getting crazy, but earlier editions never do. There's a clear trend here.

And again, Howard's characters never reached what's considered to be 'epic level' by D&D standards. Nor did Lieber's. Elric is questionable but I'd definitely say he stopped short. Characters at that level of power are the exception but you seem to be considering them the rule.

File: Dude 4.gif (676KB, 320x160px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 320x160px

>>54788026
This entire thread is about taste, and there is no such thing as an "objective opinion," that's an oxymoron.

This entire thread is an argument about taste... 97 posts in and you don't get that?

>>54787960
>always roll your dice in public
Lol no

File: 1435474234294.jpg (54KB, 490x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 490x480px

>>54788132
>Ah yeah, nothing emulates the visceral excitement of pulp fantasy like crunching through 4e's sterile grid-bound combat or combing a list of 4,000 3.pf feats
Actually yeah. As far as combat itself being a tabletop skirmish game that's interesting enough in a vacuum to be a game in and of itself... 4e is king. You're kind of obligated to run out of combat as diceless role-play, but that's also a good thing, especially if you're used to that from... you know.... older editions of D&D like 2e.
>3.pf becomes a superhero game a hell of a lot earlier than epic-level.
Yeah, and 3.PF is garbage. There's a reason that I jumped immediately from running 2e games to running 4e games, just like how there's a reason I tried running 5e and switched immediately back to 4e.

>Howard's characters never reached what's considered to be 'epic level' by D&D standards.
Conan became the destined/prophecized warrior-king on two separate occasions, which itself is an Epic destiny. You don't have to be magical to be epic-tier, just a true badass who's actions fundementally shake the world, which is true for Conan, John Carter, Solomon Kane, Elric, and Tarzan. I feel like you're mistaking "magical" for "epic" but I don't want to start a caster-supremacy shitstorm, we're having a perfectly good edition war shitstorm.

>>54788243
Pussy.

>>54781235
This doesn't sound like it has actually been one story.

>>54788277
>As far as combat itself being a tabletop skirmish game that's interesting enough in a vacuum to be a game in and of itself... 4e is king
I moved on from D&D long ago but I agree with you that 4e is the most interesting mechanically. It's also the least interesting thematically. Our 4e campaign never got far because we were totally taken out of the story each time we engaged in combat.

>Yeah, and 3.PF is garbage
sure is

>I feel like you're mistaking "magical" for "epic"
I mean sure if that's how you wanna put it, but in that case everyone's magical at high levels. D&D fighters and (especially) barbarians definitely aren't restricted by real-world physics. Conan's not capable of carving through an army single-handedly or wrestling two dragons at once, none of Howard's characters are. They're important guys but they're not godly.

>>54788398
>D&D fighters and (especially) barbarians definitely aren't restricted by real-world physics
When they reach a certain level they aren't.
And in D&D parlance, Conan's story ended before 20th level. And that's completely fine.
Lots of D&D campaigns end before anyone reaches 20th level.

File: drjonesnuts.jpg (30KB, 296x272px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 296x272px

>>54779847
>Snowflake fantasy
Bwahahaha

>>54788277
epic levels and epic in the literary sense are totally different.

Conan and John Carter never got higher than level 10. Solomon Kane likewise. They'd be perfect as lvl 6 in an e6 game.

You need to use Elric for a 20+ lvl example; or better yet Malazan characters. That's a series packed with epic level and high-level martials.

>>54788398
>in that case everyone's magical at high levels.
Naw, there are plenty of "batman builds" for epic tier, especially in games that use inherent bonuses.
>Conan's not capable of carving through an army single-handedly or wrestling two dragons at once
Except he did fight armies single-handedly, and in Red Nails he DID fight and kill a dragon in personal combat.

>D&D fighters and (especially) barbarians definitely aren't restricted by real-world physics.
Neither are fantasy novel protagonists most of the time, that's why the genre's called fantasy.

>>54779476
This nigga gets it

>>54787262
>implying the GM would let you roll up various characters
If he's not a dogshit GM and you're starting at level one and everyone else's is a lot higher, mmm, yeah. He will. GMs in general don't like stopping games for a half hour or throwing players out or making them sit around with their thumb up their ass because Blackleaf fucked up her trapfinding roll.
You bring some backup sheets, most GM's will take a look at the new sheets, check for any obvious bullshit, and bam, they meet whiteleaf the paladin in the dungeon, fleeing from some mormon kobolds.

>>54787441

Conan is pretty OP. If you read the books, he consistently defeats deadly monsters or swarms of highly trained soldiers with ease. His universe is filled with powerful characters that he routinely outsmarts, outmaneuvers, or simply outfights.

The issue is that the scale for D&D and Conan are significantly different. there are very few creatures like a red dragon in his lore. The fantasy is more "realistically grounded" than with D&D where a standard mage capable of launching fireballs seems to be a dime a dozen. Most of the monsters he faces are his universes top tier. A lot of the times he does it single handedly with no magic assistance. You port him over to classic D&D and he will have all 18s and absurdly high skills.

>>54779910
Scale creatures to appropriate toughness?
Stop using stats as hardline rules and more as guidlines for how creatures should work?
Reward players for creativity in combat as opposed to trading hits?
Point being theres a lot you can do

>>54779293

People who first played AD&D
>>"Woah! If I reach 7th level I can shapeshift into animals! That's going to be so sweet!"

People who grew up playing 5e
>>"What? I have to wait till 2nd till i can turn into a wolf?"

>>54788945
>If you read the books

In "The Phoenix on the Sword", he's nearly overwhelmed by like six guys.

>>54788560
>Conan and John Carter never got higher than level 10.
Explain your metric for this.

File: Dude 1.jpg (35KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 300x300px

>>54790202
Not him, but it seems like he's equating "higher levels" with "overtly magical and impossible," which while I disagree with, isn't necessarily invalid if that's the way he chooses to make his settings work.

>>54779293
Seems like a lot of the problems in this thread boil down less to edition and more to players and gms.

Tabletop RPGs are ultimately flexible, are they not? So why would it be codified into the rules how lethal or not encounters should or shouldn't be?

>>54788277
>Conan, John Carter, Solomon Kane, and Tarzan.

Good taste nigga.

Magic-Users needed 9 INT, 6 WIS, and 6 DEX
(60.99171% of characters could be MUs)

Illusionist needed 15 INT, 6 WIS, and 16 DEX
(0.388978% of characters could be Illusionists)


Bards needed 15 STR, 15 WIS, 15 DEX, 15 CHA, 12 INT and 10 CON
(0.001723% of characters could be Bards)

Of note, if you could pick Bard you could pick MU.
Not that you'd want to pick MU, Fighters were way better than MUs.

Bards...
• had a slew of unique abilities (up to 95% Chance Charm at will, etc.)
• fought as well as Fighters
• had full Thief abilities
• were full casters (Druids)
• got more than twice as many hp as the next tankiest class


>>54780177
Good to know you're familiar with the things you were commenting on.
Makes your anecdotal drivel all the more believable.

>>54788398
>It's also the least interesting thematically. Our 4e campaign never got far because we were totally taken out of the story each time we engaged in combat.
I never get this argument. 4e is dripping with flavor from the paragon paths and epic destinies all the way down to the powers. I'm playing 5e now and I'm just depressed how flavorless it is in comparison. There's no soaring blade monks or talarac ironjacks, no wardens running around in form of winter's herald, no fighters in crushing avalanche stance or using trollclaw grips, no avengers sprouting goddamn angel wings every couple turns, no swordmages teleporting enemies across the battlefield, no barbarians going into rages of the swift panther or rages of the winter pheonix, etc. I would think 4e combat would be considered by far the most thematic aspect of the game. It's a high fantasy goldmine.

>>54788330
I mostly hang out on /a/ and /vg/.
I pretty much only come here for /osrg/.
>story
I had to do a double take to realize you weren't memeing.

There is no overarching story in oldschool play.

You're welcome to hump the leg of any setting element you'd like, but the general expectation is your character is making Poor Decisions to try for an Early Retirement.
If you made a backstory at all, it would be short enough to run by Saitama without issue.

File: A_Hard_Days_Work.jpg (67KB, 870x623px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 870x623px

>>54779293
Looks like bait but here is a serious answer: differing styles.

Old D&D was very much influenced by Chainmail and as such your PC was assumed to be some mere mortal in a medieval society with very minimal training of any sort beyond being some shit wallowing peasant. Modern D&D sees characters who have had some time to actually peruse some specialized training in an alternative (usually) medieval world with 5e's background system serving to reinforce making a character who has had a life and did not merely start as an adventurer.

I would like to see some official supplements for how to make PCs who start more as novices who just began adventuring as opposed to skilled people who have been at it for a short time. Merely cutting out the backgrounds system seems like a crappy idea to accomplish this so, my fellow fa/tg/uys, can anyone give me a good recommendation for how to accomplish this?

>>54790202
1:1 physical ability & damage comparisons.

D&D is very realistic...if you realize realism never exceeds level 5, and most people will never meet someone over level 2-3.

The problem is level inflation. Modern players often think high level = in-story narrative power; instead of directly being simulationist. This leads to misusing the system.

A trained soldier is level 1. A war-weary special forces veteran is level 3. 5 or 6 if they're some kind of hero pushing the limits of mundane humanity.

A level 15 hero in 2e is eligible for demigod templates. Level 20 fighter? Dassem Ultor. At that point, a PC is dashing around battlefields hundreds of thousands of soldiers to save thousands-strong formations single-handedly.

File: ハードな一日の仕事.jpg (74KB, 870x623px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 870x623px

>>54779293
It looks like bait, but here is a serious answer: another style.

The old D & D was very influenced by Chainmail. Your PC was considered to be a mere death in a medieval society. Modern D & D has a 5e background system that lives on medieval options (normal), strengthens those who do not start as adventurers, and has received special training.

In contrast to short-term experts, I would like to look at the official supplement of how to start a PC as a beginner. Truncating the background system, this is a silly idea. Is my colleague fa / tg / uys giving me a good recommendation to accomplish this?

>>54779293

>The characters are everymen of their races who end up becoming renowned heroes with powerful abilities and their own armies through their deeds

AD&D wasn't like this.

You just think it's like this because every grognard claims it was like this and clearly since they played the game with tournament modules only and giddily murdered their PC's left and right that's how everyone played old D&D.

The shit old D&D was borrowing from didn't even follow this logic.

Conan's a fucking descendent of Atlantis.

>>54793650

Ironically the only fantasy story I can think of where it's unambiguously about an "average person" going on an adventure is Lord of the Rings which is often touted as High Fantasy.

>>54793650
>Conan's a fucking descendent of Atlantis.

The preamble to even the earliest Conan stories make it explicit that he is in zero danger at any point of any story where he is not yet King of Aquilonia.

File: Not Meat Points Since 1e.png (61KB, 776x1220px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 776x1220px

>>54793538
>D&D is very realistic
>being simulationist
I vomited a little.


>Modern players often think high level = in-story narrative power
That's because PC power and resilience are, and always have been, narrative in nature, at-least in part.

D&D runs on narrativium, because the literary works upon which it was based (most of which have already been named in this thread) ALSO run on narrativium.

>realism never exceeds level 5
>[a 6th level PC is] some kind of hero pushing the limits of mundane humanity.
As someone who grew up on fantasy novels, and ran 2e games trying to make it actually feel like the novels I loved, your explanation doesn't ring true (though it's only anecdotal... that's all I have, I was a kid without internet.)

That interpretation feels like one of those retroactive justifications for 3e caster supremacy and hyper realism that was never really a thing except through nostalgia-vision. Plot armor going up with level, and level going up with plot-significance has always been a thing.

>>54793830
>Conan dies
>gets clones
>his clone becomes king

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

>>54793680
Almost every person of note in tolkien is nobility, even the hobbits with whatever weird equivalent hobbits have for that. The only people that weren't that I can think of was bard the bowman and samwise

>>54793538
>A trained soldier is level 1.
>A war-weary special forces veteran is level 3.
OD&D title for level 1 Fighting-Men is "Veteran"

>>54787610
I remember reading in a 3.5e manual where it talked about how most common NPCs have stats ranging in the 8-11 range and the reason why our PCs are able to become adventurers is because they are simply better than most others. This doesn't stop them from getting beaten up by random drunkards in taverns though, so I guess it's just there so they can say they mentioned it.

>>54793174
This.

It sometimes gets a bit corny, but I absolutely adore the character that is dripping from the powers, backed by the mechanics.

>>54780177
Yeah, 3d6 straight down was kinda rough.

That's why 4d6 (minus lowest roll) is a thing now.

>>54793174
>>54795181
Agreed, so much. Too many people look at the crunchy part of the powers and completely miss the big picture. Every power's effects means that how a given class, or a given individual within that class, fights is completely different to anyone else.

You know why 5e's Sorcerer sucks? Because it's gone back to being a half-formed clone of the Wizard and it's lost the one thing it had that made it mechanically different in the bargain, so you can see what a watered down idea it was.

Back in 4e, the flavor, the effects, the styles, every damn thing about the sorcerer was different. I miss my ability to shoot caustic lightning from one hand and freezing vapor from the other, or to spew venomous hellfire.

And gods, how I miss the Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies setup. Seriously, how could you not find some of those inspiring? There's a Fighter EDs that basically boil down to "you find a screaming hole in reality from which pours forth the infinite legions of nastiness, and you Hold The Fucking Line. Singlehandedly. Forever. And not one damn demon, aberration, whatever, is EVER getting past you."

Tell me that's not a ballsy way to retire your level 31 Fighter. Go on, tell me.

> This thread

>we.are.hitting.levels.of.autism.never.seen.before.black.science.guy.jpg

File: 1481320947044.jpg (76KB, 500x554px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x554px

>>54779613
>My point is that in newer editions monsters are utterly toothless
My most recent PF game would disagree. 2 character deaths in about 4 sessions, both due to someone fucking up and making a bad decision that cost him his life.

>lolsorandum player goes around trying to slit throats and pick pockets
>hits chainmail
>oh fuck it's a dwarf
>gets hunted down and murdered by a clan of dwarves that caught him trying to kill their prince in broad daylight

>3 sessions later
>party managed to pull off a perfect heist
>through skill, bravery, ingenuity, and loyalty to one another
>Orc swordsaint runs off with the entire score so he can finally retire
>entire criminal underworld was getting a cut
>gutted by thieves guild hit squad before he could get to the boat outta town

Just enforce consequences my dude.

And I just now realized you said "monsters". Fuck. Oh well, green text.

>>54795526

this must be your first edition war

>>54794179
Arnold Schwarzenegger could be beaten up by a lucky drunkard. That's life, m8

>>54795569

I migrated to /int/ --> /pol/ years ago

Only come back every couple months to see if the larping got better here

> They didn't

People arguing about psyops and Trump memes are lulzier than /tg/ now

File: 4eCombat.jpg (107KB, 889x444px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 889x444px

>>54788132
>Ah yeah, nothing emulates the visceral excitement of pulp fantasy like crunching through 4e's sterile grid-bound combat or combing a list of 4,000 3.pf feats
>4e combat
>sterile
Sometimes I wonder if I played the same 4e that /tg/ did

>Old D&D, the D&D that gave birth to characters such as Drizzt and Elminster.
Yeah, no. I'm glad those days are left behind.

>>54793174
>>54788277
>>54797496
Jesus Christ, the 4e brigade loves piling in the second anyone levels any sort of criticism at their beloved game, don't they?

>>54797659
what a weird reply

>>54797496

In fairness the combination of:
1. Early 4e adventures, ESPECIALLY the quickstart, had too many trash fights
2. Newcomers to the system take a long time to pick their action
3. High monster HP in earlier books

Meant that starting 4e, the combat really could be damned slow.

It takes a while for people to understand that 4e is meant to be like an action movie and you should never have 'just a fight in an empty room'.
The difference in pacing mechanics (limited healing surges) also means that the OLD pacing mechanism of 'wandering monsters' actively hurts a game that tries to do it that way.

>>54797659

>People make arguments
>Other people argue back

Are you really surprised? You are on the internet.

>>54797670
A lot of people's bad experience their first time playing 4e came from someone trying to run it like 3e, which was like trying to squeeze a square peg in a round hole, but with all the added emotional weight of internet edition wars.

I think that's why there are so many 2e grognards than who play 4e, but people who started with 3e hate it. People who started with 3e grew up in an environment where every game was a 3e clone, and spend a decade only running one kind of game. If you try to run 4e like OGLd20 it will not work.

>>54797820

>
I think that's why there are so many 2e grognards than who play 4e, but people who started with 3e hate it. People who started with 3e grew up in an environment where every game was a 3e clone, and spend a decade only running one kind of game.

I disagree but for a different reason.

You see, I think many 3e-lovers never really PLAYED 3e.
I mean, they CLAIM they play it. They have the books open, right there at the table. But whenever they got to a rule they didn't like, they tossed it. Whenever something was thought of that they liked better, they threw it in without heed to how it interacted with the system proper. Whenever they wanted a game that wasn't about dungeon-crawling (politics, exploration, romance, whatever).... they just made the GM handwave something good instead of adhering to the system or finding a different system that suited their needs better.

If those people TRULY played 3e as 3e WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN - especially late 3.x with the actually balanced classes like Crusader, Beguiler, Incarnate, etc. - those are the kinds of people that would love 4e, because that's 80% of the way to being what 4e is.

>>54797496
4e was shit

>>54798238
your waifu a shit

>>54798238
Yes yes, worst edition and all that, but it still frustrates me when people point at a brown turd and call it green. At least get the details straight.

>>54780339
>>54787187
>>54793055
Way to completely miss the point of his post.

>>54795373
>And gods, how I miss the Paragon Paths/Epic Destinies setup. Seriously, how could you not find some of those inspiring? There's a Fighter EDs that basically boil down to "you find a screaming hole in reality from which pours forth the infinite legions of nastiness, and you Hold The Fucking Line. Singlehandedly. Forever. And not one damn demon, aberration, whatever, is EVER getting past you."
>Tell me that's not a ballsy way to retire your level 31 Fighter. Go on, tell me.
That sounds like a fate worse than death unless you're a completely insane psychopath who only enjoys murder.

File: MenLaughing.jpg (567KB, 1200x1532px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 1200x1532px

>>54801194
>epic level fighter
>he hasn't become a completely insane psychopath who only enjoys murder
The sheer number of things you'd need to kill to get there should've mind broken you ages ago

>>54779371
>Because the bit between being everyman and achieving enough to be someone worthy of note was the most boring part, so hand-waiving it as "before character creation" let us skip to the more fun bit.
I can see how that might be the case for most people, but I get screwed up by it pretty badly. I tend to approach every situation like it's a puzzle or a brainteaser, and I prefer to get by through quick thinking rather than raw power. Mechanically speaking, I find playing a powerful character to be a lot like operating a vehicle with incredibly complex controls; it's hard to keep all your superhuman powers straight when you're trying to come up with clever ways to use them together. Power also frequently obviates the need for good strategizing, particularly that of the lateral-thinking-ish style I enjoy the most. So I prefer campaigns with low power levels because they present situations that are easier to think about but harder to solve. (Defeating a dragon as a chimney sweep is one thing; defeating an ancient Nexus Dragon as the Master Weaponlord of the Planes of Struggle is another thing.)

>>54793174
Those things all work according to the rules of an MMO. That's why it's hard to get into them. Everything is structured around game balance first and last, and the flavor is nothing more than weak justifications for the rules. Everyone has the same hotbar with the same cooldowns full of powers that all do the same templated effects, and when you level up enough they get replaced with new ones like Pokemon. It's not high fantasy, it's one of those trapped-in-an-MMO animes. A fantasy world created from the top down where people could regularly teleport short distances, turn into ice monsters, or sprout angel wings would be very different from what you actually get in 4e.

>>54795373
>>54801194
Also, teleportation is super common in 4e. Plenty of shit is getting past you.

>>54801018
"You clearly and openly have no idea what you're talking about" is a perfectly reasonable lever for prying away all his other points.
But sure, I'll humor you.

>>54780177
So his case is
>Old D&D
• was hostile to players
• kills them all the time
• constrains character building
• used 3d6 in order (bad)
• level drains you on death
>New D&D
• is inviting to players
• rarely kills people
• has fast char gen
• doesn't take people out of the story

These are pretty related issues, but let's start at constraint.
Old D&D absolutely constrains you. It hands you a role (3d6 in order) and says, "this is you, what's it like?"
This force you to innovate. It wouldn't always get you to better role play, but it always leads there.
I'll cede that it pickles players who repeatedly make the same character, but those players are actively stifling themselves.
Different strokes for different blokes, but defending them by attacking character options is the pot calling the kettle black.

Raise Dead also needs some attention.
In new D&D, it costs a level. In old D&D, it costs a point of constitution (stepping you closer to a final death).
Saying that old school death costs you a level is, once again, talking out of your ass. See also, >>54780339

Staeting at level 1 stings, but not badly.
3 level 2s 5 level 5s, and a level 10 can (and were expected to) form a party without anyone being overshadowed.

The char gen complaints are especially funny to me.
In old D&D you roll 18d6, pick from a list of 5 or 6 options, roll hp, roll for 3d20 for spells (if applicable), and pick a name. That it.
You can do it before the round you died in has finished. If your DM is especially "dude weed lmao" you can walk out from a corner and act in the same round.
5e has much faster char gen than 3e, it but it's a VERY involved process.

>we'll get you roped into the story in no time.
REEKS of the aforementioned "speaking from the ass".
It's a fair comment, but not a fair compari

>>54801018
>>54780177
son (it's apples and oranges).
See also, >>54793383

On that note, the lethality is also apples and oranges.
That new D&D's sacred cow mechanics are lethal at low levels is completely juxtaposed to the game's intentions.
Clear bad design.

And old D&D is far more inviting to new players than new D&D.
New D&D built straight up from a leaning tower, and has arcane bells and whistles you need to grasp before everything clicks.
Old D&D's abstractions are a strict subset on new D&Ds and make sense in context. Cherry on top, "things without rules are handled as one would rationally expect" so most outcomes are intuitive.

>Hey man,
>Bad luck there chum:
>It's going to be okay
That comes off as condescending. Like you're trying to baby me.
>GO FUCK YOURSELF
>died LIKE A BITCH
>no Experience. Bitch.
And That's misleading.
Deaths are supposed to feel you you've ducked up, not like you've been passed on from on high. It's the exact sensation good rougelikes try to capture.
2e aside, the DM was required to be as neutral as possible. The OSR movement memes on 2e for >no gp:xp, but the real reason they hate it the new "DM and players are enemies" mentality that started to creep in.
That mentality is absent from the rest of old D&D except modules written for convention tournaments, and wasn't fully fleshed out until new D&D (where it has since ran havoc).

>>54802538
>Old D&D absolutely constrains you. It hands you a role (3d6 in order) and says, "this is you, what's it like?"
>This force you to innovate. It wouldn't always get you to better role play, but it always leads there.
And that system is complete shit for anyone who has an actual idea of what they want to play.

>>54802976
what do you want to play?

I think that beside changing/different tastes, the main problem is that people have forgotten you can do the whole 'power fantasy' even with a seemingly band character. Everyone nowadays is trying too hard to be unique or deliberately doing bullshit mix for the sake of some broken-ass ability. When someone isn't trying to make 'something they saw in an anime'. Hey, I love anime and there is certainly some cool stuff which may be worth porting over to a game if it fits, but the problem here is that people try to do anime-esque stuff even when it shouldn't work.

The reality is that you could still do a wish fulfillment power fantasy bullshit human fighter or wizard (case in point, the kiddies who 'want to be Kirito' just need to play a dual-wielding human fighter in a monty haul game they'll be god-like after 2-3 levels) However even those are seen as bland in an era where exotic races and classes are the norm and readily available with the assumption these are available at the start and not at the GM's discretion. Keep in mind this is beside the fact that in 3e, core classes remain some of the most broken right off the bat without needing an extra pile of supplements.

So yeah it bugs me a bit that people are making gary stu but it bugs me even more how much everyone seem allergic to the basics. Perhaps it is simply that by now, 'fantasy' has become its own brand of sort and everyone has seen an elf or dwarf. The thing is, we went from elf-and-dorf oversaturation to an oversaturation of non-standard races which in itself has become a problem and just as cliche as the elves and dwarves were years ago.

>>54807092
that sounds more like something you've personally run into a lot than a systemic problem in "the community" or whatever.

Even if it is true, is there something inherently wrong with players wanting to play anime-action-heroes, and/or races that make them stand out? Personally, I try to fin a way to say yes to almost every character concept. I think the only one I've turned down in recent memory was for /d/ tier magical-realm.

>>54807092
I agree with this. But "Snowflake" and power fantasy are tied closely together because the DnD system, you can mix races, classes, templates etc to min-max.

>>54803012
A character I made, instead of one the game made for me and decided I should use whether it's interesting or syncs up well with the rest of the party or not.

>>54807858
>he doesn't know!

>>54803012
Not him, but I try to encourage my players to think outside the box when building their characters, and make something that genuinely appeals to them, and that will encourage them to actually role play and get invested in their character. Usually, when introducing a new player to my game and helping them build their character I'll say something like
>Forget about mechanics, or even what you think the game is capable of making, for a minute. Just pretend this game is a pulp fantasy novel, or a 1980's cheeseball fantasy movie, and you get to add a character that you really like, and it can be literally anything. Name that concept, and as long as it's not at-will flight before epic tier, we will find a way to make that character mechanically viable.
My current party is
>Dispondent farmer turned warrior when his wife was infected with a magical plague. Halfway through the campaign he fused his body with the phylactery/backup of a mechanical lich-god, and they share a body
>A child-warrior of a hunter-gatherer tribe, who during his ritual of manhood, ingested the soul and skills of a shapeshifter and is coming to terms with his new powers
>A 7 foot something half-fairy who is actively trying to deny his destiny and birthright as a fey lord by living the Grizzly Adams wilderness man archetype and rejecting anything cultured
>A girl who's family was killed by this world's equivalent of a nuke, who escaped by fleeing into fairy, and becoming part of it, and is now a nature-themed kung-fu wuxia witch who has a penchant for throwing seeds like shuriken and making them quick-grow mid-flight.

We're having a blast. Everyone is invested in their characters' internal motivations, rather than your usual tomb-raiding murderhobo fair, and I attribute this, in no small part, to letting their imaginations run wild and create the character THEY wanted to play, rather than proscribing what's "proper fantasy."

File: ( ﾟ∀ﾟ) blueboard_1.png (2KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 150x150px

>>54809099

This is what the muh snowflakefags will never understand.

Godspeed, Anon.

File: LaughingOrcs.jpg (42KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x500px

>>54802299
>he doesn't have a feyslaughter weapon

He doesn't realize that half the bullshit rules that are worshiped by retroclones today as a sacred cow were just ignored by most decent DMs back in the day.

File: He Is Right You Know.jpg (71KB, 795x591px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 795x591px

>>54813927

>>54788330

It has and it hasn't. Older D&D encouraged an organic, emergent narrative. Early in the game, the players decided they had one goal: Reach the bottom of the megadungeon.

They're about 10 levels down of 14, but there's been several side-trips to get resources to help them. They also got sidetracked by the literal dozens of subplots they themselves created.

>>54802976
It was also optional and there were several different methods of rolling in the DMG.

Also prevented all the autism characters you see in modern games. If I see another god damn Drow Warlock...

Characters were always exception and Gygax considered high ability scores important.

Source: AD&D 1st DMG.

>>54787610
This was actually a departure from the AD&D first DMG, where Gygax advised alternate methods of generating ability scores than 3d6 down the line.

>>54801018
> Spends the entire thread bashing old school D&D
> Clearly hasn't even read the PHB
> Gets called on his own ignorance and tries to play it off like it doesn't matter that he doesn't even know the system.

I get this weird feeling like you frequent /pfg/ now.

>>54793055
>fought as well as Fighters

I'm pretty sure they thought only as well as thieves, not getting a decent thac0, specialization, or multiple attacks.

>>54788277
>Conan became the destined/prophecized warrior-king on two separate occasions, which itself is an Epic destiny.

And did nothing a mid level fighter can't do. He was worried about fighting an ape in the dark, which no epic level character in any version of D&D would be.

>>54780177
How can you reasonably criticize how you think old dnd was played when you don't even know how the classes work?