+ Log in or register to post
Results 101 to 110 of 929
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 05:58 AM #101
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
After our Rogue and Cleric got captured, my Fighter snuck past the goblin patrols (not wanting to fight alone), all the way to the back room where they were being kept, took out their guard in one silent attack with a rock, and used his key to free them. Untrained in Stealth, even.
I'm really loving the way they handled skills.
If it is fun, then it'd because your group would have just as much fun doing improv theather as playing D&D, because the rules are actively discouraging fun in an unbalanced game. Or because everyone accepts it's unbalanced and the rules acknowledge it ala Ars Magica or Buffy/Angel.
Now, I do believe that discussion is important here, but if your DM says they're running a social heavy game, and you play a Fighter with no Charisma or social skills, that's your fault. You can still play a Fighter, just make sure to take a social Background, or at least have a good Charisma.
If everybody is good at everything, there's no reason to have classes or separate abilities. Or teammates. You're right, in that everybody should have options in a given situation, and not be useless. But that doesn't mean that everybody has to be equally useful in a given situation.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on adverts that
- are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 06:19 AM #102
Time Agent (Lvl 24)
Could we at least agree on that?
I would agree with this. It's not that everyone is identical. It's that everyone has opportunities to participate. And, if you (the non-specific you) choose not to participate because you want to specialize somewhere else, that should be YOUR choice. Not one the mechanics dictate to you.Originally Posted by DogBackward
The rules don't give the DM their authority. The consent of the players does. - Mallus
RPG's are filled with Potential Stories in the Making (PSitM).
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 06:27 AM #103
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 07:51 AM #104
Superhero (Lvl 15)
Now, I'm not against warriors with social skills, great knowledge, healing skills, the ability to perform, etc. But, saying that there's no logical reason to take someone along with you if they can't fight? Gotta disagree with that (again, unless the campaign is all or nearly all combat). As always, play what you like
As always, play what you like
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 08:46 AM #105
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Your Fighter isn't the best at social situations? Okay, don't try to sweet-talk the nobleman with Diplomacy. You could instead attempt to befriend his guards, gaining advantage to your Diplomacy check due to shared experiences. You could flex your muscles at the right time, using Strength/Intimidate to show how much better your party is than the other guys who are up for the contract.
The point being that the mechanics of Next, so far, do support everybody contributing to any situation meaningfully. But some are better at that than others, and you might actually have to think about what you can do in order to do something cool.
See above RE: Mechanics supporting meaningful contribution.I would agree with this. It's not that everyone is identical. It's that everyone has opportunities to participate. And, if you (the non-specific you) choose not to participate because you want to specialize somewhere else, that should be YOUR choice. Not one the mechanics dictate to you.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 08:50 AM #106
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:12 AM #107
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
I run for a 7 player group, and I rescale every encounter in some way or another - usually just adding another monster or two. Solo party is, admittedly, an extreme case, but lowering level and minionising can generally do the trick.
Or, as Krust says, boost the character; I'm intrigued by the idea of doubling HPs but leaving surges with the same value...
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:14 AM #108
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
I agree with most of the points raised by the OP but 4th ed did have some problems. As someone said upthread: i would really have liked to see some real attempt to address some of these problems.
What would 4th ed look like with i) flatter maths, ii) skill training at +3 rather than +5, iii) more interesting magic items, iv) less silly feats and class powers, v) shorter fights, vi) better realisation of rituals and skill challenges etc.
My feeling is that WOTC just have not thought hard enough about the real problems of 4th ed and are caught up by the perceived problems of 4th ed, hence the desire to obscure 4th ed mechanics in DDN (such as healing surges with new names hit dice, etc).
That said I do think a game which rewards a broader range of play styles is a valuable goal - I just dont think 4th is a bad foundation for this.
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:21 AM #109
I would think it's the other way around; i.e. that the rules are actively discouraging fun in a balanced system. They function as a straitjacket, constraining player choice in the name of preventing choices and accompanying outcomes that aren't "fair", even if they make sense. Certainly, when going outside of D&D I find less balanced games more enjoyable. Games where my character can be quasi-godly or comically inept depending on the choices I make are fun. My last character was actually for a comedy-oriented session and was purposefully a failure.because the rules are actively discouraging fun in an unbalanced game. Or because everyone accepts it's unbalanced and the rules acknowledge it ala Ars Magica or Buffy/Angel.
I would also hope that everyone playing D&D accepts that there is a certain imbalance in the rules. Wizards can grant wishes. Cleric can raise the dead. Rogues sneak around. Fighters hit things. That's never going to be 100% balanced, nor should it be. It's been balanced enough to drive the rpg market and sustain the game for several decades, though.
I don't.Originally Posted by Hussar
So you want to do away with class skills? I could see that. Or classes altogether? Other than that, I'm not really seeing how players don't have a free choice in what to play.I would agree with this. It's not that everyone is identical. It's that everyone has opportunities to participate. And, if you (the non-specific you) choose not to participate because you want to specialize somewhere else, that should be YOUR choice. Not one the mechanics dictate to you.
Really?Originally Posted by Raith5
Last edited by Ahnehnois; Monday, 2nd July, 2012 at 11:29 AM.
"Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"
Monday, 2nd July, 2012, 11:52 AM #110
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
Now, there is nothing wrong with "improv theatre in a fantasy world" as an approach to roleplaying - it's a valid and potentially fun angle on the hobby. But to claim it's the only one - and then further to suggest using D&D rules for doing it - is invalid and misleading.
- the players may be active participants, but not (only) through the agency of their characters (suggesting things to other players or to the GM, for example, or even having a role in defining the game world and in-game action resolutions)
- the players may not want, expect or be expected to be active participants; they might have a role for much or all of the time as simply an audience, passively observing the story as it passes by, maybe making the occasional easy or fairly obvious "decision".
If, however, the players do want and expect to be active participants through the agency of their characters, it is definitely a good thing if their characters are given the power to have some agency at all points in the game. I.e., they should be balanced.
Last edited by Balesir; Monday, 2nd July, 2012 at 12:00 PM.