Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3965959" data-attributes="member: 42582">In some ways I sympathise with your lack of sympathy. But not so much when it comes to D&D. In general, I prefer to blame the system, rather than the players, if the players of the system overwhelmingly refrain from "engaging the game" in a certain fashion. There are two main ways I know of for a player of an RPG to engage the game. In each case, D&D gives players reasons for focussing on the dealing of hit points to the exclusion of other in-game activity.The first way to engage an RPG is via its action resolution mechanics. In D&D, these are (but in 4e perhaps may not be) overwhelmingly concerned with dealing hit points.The other is via GM-moderated attempts at extra-mechanical "problem resolution". OD&D and 1st ed AD&D are the pre-eminent examples of games in which this sort of play dominates. 3E has expressly moved away from this style of play (which style of play is, in my view, principally responsible for D&D's reputation for producing adversarial GMing). Therefore it is no surprise that players of 3E do not attempt to engage the game in this fashion.What other game systems do is open up mechanical space for engaging the game in a non-combat fashion, via all sorts of action resolution mechanics both simulationist and metagame. For various reason, D&D historically has not done so (one of those reasons might be the hostility of a vocal group of D&D players towards metagame action-resolution mechanics, and towards social interaction mechanics). If 4e changes this trend, then it may be that the player of the rogue will have a real (as in meangingful in the context of play) choice to trick the golem rather than sneak-attacking it. If that is so, then the changes to sneak attack rules will constitute an addition of an option rather than a concession to a lack of player imagination.</blockquote>

Verification