NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6075858" data-attributes="member: 27160">That's a very fair point, and it explains why I have said several times that I would have loved to see systems written for 4e that worked much more like the combat system does, but for social and exploration situations. I think a real opportunity to make a complete "rules as manual for the world" game was missed, there.Having said that, though, I do find 4e to be a significant improvement on earlier editions in this respect, for two main reasons:1) The broad skills are distinct enough for it to be pretty clear which one might apply to any given (attempted) action. In practice, I haven't found there to be overly much "mother may I?" in the sense of "can I roll this skill instead of this one?" - but there has been some. The fact that every character is at least minimally competent helps mitigate, here, too. In 3.5 the difference between the 8th level fighter with +15 or so Climb and the Wizard with +1 (if lucky) made it really crucial that the Wiz didn't (ever) have to roll Climb...2) The structure of Skill Challenges - with xp awards and difficulty guidelines attached - I find really does help. It's far from perfect - I would have much preferred if it had been massively expanded upon and it was definitely explained poorly to begin with - but it was better than anything found in any previous edition by a country mile, IMO.I agree that 4e D&D is a "Does One Thing Really Well" game. But I also agree with [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION], because I think earlier editions are pretty much the same - it's just that the "one thing" they do is what we thought was "the only way to do it" in the past.We have discussed, here and in the "pemertonian scene framing" thread, how having the way the game world works defined by the game rules (rather than vice versa) allows for player protagonism through communicating to the player clearly what the outcomes of their character's actions might be, in advance. I really don't think that older editions support this style of play - and I don't think DDN will, either.That's not a damning indictment of any of those editions - they support other modes of play. But, if you want rationally selected decisions from players, on behalf of their characters, informed by a clear understanding of the world physics based on a shared world model (i.e. the rules), they just don't work. It's too easy to exploit the rules in ways probably not intended; the primacy of some exogenous model of "the game world" over "the rules" is assumed - it's too ingrained to remove without substantially rewriting the rules (as 4e showed, in a way!).So, 4e blocks off one mode of play, earlier editions block off the other - that's just the way it is. Pick the one that suits what you want to do for the campaign you're planning and enjoy!It's a bit OT and an aside, but I am soooo with you on this. I have seen people persuaded to do things much against their "better judgement" by a variety of means IRL, none of which (obviously) involved "magic". I really don't see what was happening there as very distinct from what happens when a "charm" spell is cast. Just as "pick lock" and "Knock" differ in that, for the first, a rogue fiddles with some tools in the lock and *pop*, it's open, while for the secomd a mage fiddles with a wand near the lock and *pop*, it's open, I see "bluff" and "Charm Person" as differing in that, for the first, a socialite engages in some witty wordplay, subtle body language and so on and, *pop*, the target does something unwise, while for "Charm Person" a mage fiddles with a wand near the target and makes a request and, *pop*, the target does something unwise. If powers and feats are appropriate to one of the options, there is really no reason they can't apply to the other option, too.</blockquote>

Verification