Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 4831009" data-attributes="member: 4892">Having mechanics for combat and exploration (or anything else that is standard across the board) is a good thing, IMO. Every edition of D&amp;D has focused on how the characters interact in combat or exploration. Interactions outside of these areas were encouraged to use the greatest strength a TTRPG has over other forms of games, the DM. Outside of exploration and combat the choices a player can make to interact with the game are only bound by their imagination and what the DM allows them to accomplish with said imagination. People criticize 4E for having a lack of non-combat options like it is the first version of D&amp;D to focus on combat and exploration. All* editions to date have focused on that portion of the game in the core rules and left the rest up to advice for the DM. Why? Because you can only geuss where the players will take the game. And if you devote page after page to such things one of two things will happen, IMO: 1) the players will come out of left field with an idea that you still aren't prepared for; or 2) the players will get ahold of those pages and get the impression that their characters are limited to the actions in those pages, like a grand &quot;Choose Your Own Adventure&quot; book.As to the game &quot;butting in&quot; - that's its job. The setting &quot;butts in,&quot; the rules &quot;butt in,&quot; and the flavor of individual powers/classes/etc. &quot;butt in&quot; to give shape to the game you are playing. Without this shaping of the world you play in chaos and might as well run out in the backyard and play imaginary &quot;Pokemon and Robbers&quot; with the 4-year-olds.** That kind of play can be fun, but it isn't what most TTRPGs are about.* IMO, 3E gave an illusion of rules for all situations, but that need for a rule stripped power from the DM to run an imaginative game and caused players to look for rules that covered what they wanted to do instead of just stating to the DM what they want to do and letting him do his job as adjudicator.**I am not trying to label anyone as immature here. The 4-year-old comment is more of an inside joke of the kinds of mish-moshed games I observe my sons playing when they exercise their imagination.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vyvyan Basterd, post: 4831009, member: 4892"] Having mechanics for combat and exploration (or anything else that is standard across the board) is a good thing, IMO. Every edition of D&D has focused on how the characters interact in combat or exploration. Interactions outside of these areas were encouraged to use the greatest strength a TTRPG has over other forms of games, the DM. Outside of exploration and combat the choices a player can make to interact with the game are only bound by their imagination and what the DM allows them to accomplish with said imagination. People criticize 4E for having a lack of non-combat options like it is the first version of D&D to focus on combat and exploration. [I]All[/I]* editions to date have focused on that portion of the game in the core rules and left the rest up to advice for the DM. Why? Because you can only geuss where the players will take the game. And if you devote page after page to such things one of two things will happen, IMO: 1) the players will come out of left field with an idea that you still aren't prepared for; or 2) the players will get ahold of those pages and get the impression that their characters are limited to the actions in those pages, like a grand "Choose Your Own Adventure" book. As to the game "butting in" - that's its job. The setting "butts in," the rules "butt in," and the flavor of individual powers/classes/etc. "butt in" to give shape to the game you are playing. Without this shaping of the world you play in chaos and might as well run out in the backyard and play imaginary "Pokemon and Robbers" with the 4-year-olds.** That kind of play can be fun, but it isn't what most TTRPGs are about. * IMO, 3E gave an illusion of rules for all situations, but that need for a rule stripped power from the DM to run an imaginative game and caused players to look for rules that covered what they wanted to do instead of just stating to the DM what they want to do and letting him do his job as adjudicator. **I am [B]not[/B] trying to label anyone as immature here. The 4-year-old comment is more of an inside joke of the kinds of mish-moshed games I observe my sons playing when they exercise their imagination. [/QUOTE]

Verification