3e was a computer program. It had rules for creating everything and then processed those rules in certain patterns to create things. Monsters were a prime example of this. Pick a base race, add a template perhaps, add racial levels, add character levels... and "luckily" there were charts for doing all these things. But it wasn't just creatures, everything felt this way to me. Skills included such things as professions, crafting, and other rules that never saw the light of day in my games. Spell slots were enhanced so that characters could cast more often, but still within the given constraints. Cantrips were added as spells for those times when you needed a worthless spell like "clean undergarments." In short, there was a rule for everything. And it was good. You could create new cantrips and spells (there were rules for that, too). You could create new aberations (by following the handy "this is what it means to be an aberation at any given level" chart). You could create new uses for skills so that there were mechanics and DCs for impressing people using sleight of hand.
In theory, the game was full of rules that allowed you to RP - combat be damned. And that's how I game. I ran a weekly game for a year and the PCs got into maybe 3 combats. The rest was all RP via NPC interaction. What I found was that the system seemed far more binding than it was helpful. I won't get into the splitting combat vs non-combat skills and abilities argument here. Instead, I'll get to my point. In 3e, I felt like there were subsystems used to help define characters in an RP style, and I was less than impressed with the result. I ended up just winging most everything - I gave PCs powers when I wanted, gave casters numerous minor abilities to represent things they should be able to do, and gave characters extra skill points to spend only on certain skills to make up for the fact that some characters didn't get enough skill points to get useful skills, much less RP-oriented skills like knowledges and such. I also removed the skill cap for some skills.
When I first saw 4e, I thought "wow, this is nothing but a set of combat rules." I recently started to wonder, however, if this is not actually a better thing for RP than the in depth rules we had before. Here's why. In 4e, nearly everything is an abstraction or concept. Movement turned circles into squares. Minions turned creatures into paper (but you could only encounter them if you were near their level). "Damage" can be "healed" with a pep talk. In that sense, aren't all skills and abilities then abstractions in a sense as well? The designers have already talked about how you get guidelines for creating creature stats that will challenge characters instead of rules for creating creature types. More than that though, I'm talking about powers and skills. By only putting skills that will see use in my game, it feels more freeing to be able to say, "yeah, you were an apprentice blacksmith, so you know that the placement of the forge doesn't make any sense." No skill was necessary, so characters can have whatever background they want without me having to worry about balancing mechanics just so the PC can be an ex-apprentice blacksmith - a fact that will only rarely come up. Also, powers can be seen as more of an abstraction as well. You don't need the wizard to create a new cantrip that allows him to grow a single rose from a seed before the princess's eyes. For one thing, given the way the mechanics for powers work, it's impractical - which then frees us up to instead just look at what the character CAN do. He's got an ability that allows him to entangle a foe with vines? Then he can make plants grow. And so sure, why not, he can grow a rose from a seed just by holding it and chanting a bit.
Yes, I'm really just saying, "hey, without rules we can just make stuff up." And yes, we could certainly just make stuff up before. However, back then you were breaking rules to do it. You were expanding skill caps. You were giving characters more "spells per day" of a certain type. It's like when you're in creative writing class and the professor says, "pick a topic from the following list." Instinctively, most of us read the list. Could you convince the professor to let you write on whatever topic you wanted? Probably. But because there is already a set of rules for writing your paper, it doesn't feel the same as being told, "there are no rules - whatever goes. Just figure out something that makes sense and feels right."
So, is less really more?
In theory, the game was full of rules that allowed you to RP - combat be damned. And that's how I game. I ran a weekly game for a year and the PCs got into maybe 3 combats. The rest was all RP via NPC interaction. What I found was that the system seemed far more binding than it was helpful. I won't get into the splitting combat vs non-combat skills and abilities argument here. Instead, I'll get to my point. In 3e, I felt like there were subsystems used to help define characters in an RP style, and I was less than impressed with the result. I ended up just winging most everything - I gave PCs powers when I wanted, gave casters numerous minor abilities to represent things they should be able to do, and gave characters extra skill points to spend only on certain skills to make up for the fact that some characters didn't get enough skill points to get useful skills, much less RP-oriented skills like knowledges and such. I also removed the skill cap for some skills.
When I first saw 4e, I thought "wow, this is nothing but a set of combat rules." I recently started to wonder, however, if this is not actually a better thing for RP than the in depth rules we had before. Here's why. In 4e, nearly everything is an abstraction or concept. Movement turned circles into squares. Minions turned creatures into paper (but you could only encounter them if you were near their level). "Damage" can be "healed" with a pep talk. In that sense, aren't all skills and abilities then abstractions in a sense as well? The designers have already talked about how you get guidelines for creating creature stats that will challenge characters instead of rules for creating creature types. More than that though, I'm talking about powers and skills. By only putting skills that will see use in my game, it feels more freeing to be able to say, "yeah, you were an apprentice blacksmith, so you know that the placement of the forge doesn't make any sense." No skill was necessary, so characters can have whatever background they want without me having to worry about balancing mechanics just so the PC can be an ex-apprentice blacksmith - a fact that will only rarely come up. Also, powers can be seen as more of an abstraction as well. You don't need the wizard to create a new cantrip that allows him to grow a single rose from a seed before the princess's eyes. For one thing, given the way the mechanics for powers work, it's impractical - which then frees us up to instead just look at what the character CAN do. He's got an ability that allows him to entangle a foe with vines? Then he can make plants grow. And so sure, why not, he can grow a rose from a seed just by holding it and chanting a bit.
Yes, I'm really just saying, "hey, without rules we can just make stuff up." And yes, we could certainly just make stuff up before. However, back then you were breaking rules to do it. You were expanding skill caps. You were giving characters more "spells per day" of a certain type. It's like when you're in creative writing class and the professor says, "pick a topic from the following list." Instinctively, most of us read the list. Could you convince the professor to let you write on whatever topic you wanted? Probably. But because there is already a set of rules for writing your paper, it doesn't feel the same as being told, "there are no rules - whatever goes. Just figure out something that makes sense and feels right."
So, is less really more?
