Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 4480418" data-attributes="member: 7635">What you are discussing is Avatar vs. Character play. Avatar play assumes the PC is nothing more than the Second Life Avatar of the player who is playing him. What is important is what the player can or can't do, with the dice and character-sheet numbers only resolving things too dangerous to resolve in real life (such as steel on steel combat). IMO, this style of play encourages metagaming (the player knowing trolls hate fire, assuming that a dead-end hall MUST have a secret door) while ignoring character concerns (an elven PC would probably know something about elven society, but since the player doesn't...)The extreme extrapolation of this becomes "metagame puzzles", or things designed to challenge the player and his grasp of the game, not the character doing the action. Tomb of Horror style traps, use of estoric knowledge (physics, chemistry), general ignorance or uselessness of mental (int, wis cha) scores, or a real-good grasp of the Monster Manual (Run! That giant's a CR 12!) rather than the experiences and personality of the character (my character is a Don Juan, I get nervous talking in public. I'm SoL)How is that different from Older D&D? I played my share of Pre-3e D&D, and I recall plenty of "explore here, kill that" adventures. As a matter of fact, many of the "classic" modules assume just that; Keep on the Borderlands, Against the Giants, White Plume Mountain, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc were nothing more than exotic locales where you go from room to room killing things and taking their stuff. Was there a combat less version of D&D I missed?You are, of course, referencing the 1 XP for 1 GP rule of 1e and older, rules that typically were ignored because they led to PCs leveling awfully quick and were done away with in 2e. Partial agree. 3e introduced the "yes you can" feat concept that began to weaken DM fiat of a given situation. I do not agree with the sequitor that it made featless fighters "better" since then the ability to do "cool" things laid at the feat of the DM, and lacking clear rules to adjuncate such situations led to near-impossiblness (no, you can't strike the foes hand to disarm him, that is not in the rules) or over-usefulness (called shot to the eye! He's blind now, right?)Ah, you can't call out bashers then end on that. Pot. Kettle.</blockquote>

Verification