Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FourthBear" data-source="post: 4017408" data-attributes="member: 55846">And according to the rules in each edition, was that alignment assigned by the DM according to his own moral vision?&nbsp; No, it was made in accordance to the descriptions of alignment in the edition being used.&nbsp; Thus, alignment rules were just as restrictive to the DM as they were to the players.&nbsp; Where is the second conclusion coming from?&nbsp; Every time the social encounter rules have been brought up, it is to note that they are there to encourage group play and prevent cases where the rules were little more than a few social skill checks.&nbsp; There is nothing announced to prevent any more DM fiat in social challenges than in any other editions.&nbsp; As I noted, no DM is forced to use social encounters.&nbsp; Even the rules were bizarrely restrictive, a DM wishing to employ fiat wouldn't use them any more than he would use the social skills in 3.5e.Is the use social skills in 3.5e in all encounters and interactions optional for the DM?&nbsp; Do they constrict the DM and must they be used?&nbsp; If so, then then 4e is simply in the same boat as 3.5e, since both have the same social skill sets.&nbsp; It is no more constraining.I cannot believe there are now *two* people who believe this.&nbsp; You seriously believe that 4e D&amp;D will *forbid* the DM to have hostile encounters in certain areas.&nbsp; This based on a descriptive claims of example areas in a world-building book.&nbsp; It's just a description of the areas intent.&nbsp; If I was describing a tavern in a city I had created, I might tell the DM that the tavern is intended as a safe haven.&nbsp; That's a design note, not a prohibition!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FourthBear, post: 4017408, member: 55846"] And according to the rules in each edition, was that alignment assigned by the DM according to his own moral vision? No, it was made in accordance to the descriptions of alignment in the edition being used. Thus, alignment rules were just as restrictive to the DM as they were to the players. Where is the second conclusion coming from? Every time the social encounter rules have been brought up, it is to note that they are there to encourage group play and prevent cases where the rules were little more than a few social skill checks. There is nothing announced to prevent any more DM fiat in social challenges than in any other editions. As I noted, no DM is forced to use social encounters. Even the rules were bizarrely restrictive, a DM wishing to employ fiat wouldn't use them any more than he would use the social skills in 3.5e. Is the use social skills in 3.5e in all encounters and interactions optional for the DM? Do they constrict the DM and must they be used? If so, then then 4e is simply in the same boat as 3.5e, since both have the same social skill sets. It is no more constraining. I cannot believe there are now *two* people who believe this. You seriously believe that 4e D&D will *forbid* the DM to have hostile encounters in certain areas. This based on a descriptive claims of example areas in a world-building book. It's just a description of the areas intent. If I was describing a tavern in a city I had created, I might tell the DM that the tavern is intended as a safe haven. That's a design note, not a prohibition! [/QUOTE]

Verification