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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9416987" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I liked your comment, but I'd also push back on this a little.I agree that the exploration pillar has been ... well, marginalized. The increased number of, and access to, spells (along with 'always on' cantrips) is part of this. And part of it is that D&D is no longer that interested in the minutiae of tracking survival resources. Admittedly, many people can tell you about the Two weeks iron rations that they wrote on their character sheet at first level, never to edit again, in OD&D and 1e, but at least it had more interest in the exploration pillar, especially in terms of wilderness and dungeon exploration.Social rules are a little more difficult. I think that there is a reason that social rules are traditionally minimalized in D&D in favor of a more "free play" approach to social encounters. I think that it's partly because of the norms of play. But I also think that it has to do with the division of authority in D&D.In D&D, the idea is that the DM controls the world, but players control the PCs, and any thing that a DM does to encroach on a player's control of their PC is anathema. A robust system skill rules, especially one that is reciprocal (as we see in many amazing indie games!) would seem wrong to many D&D players. In short, the tradeoff being made is that while players don't have a lot of ability to leverage rules in social situations (persuasion, intimidation, deception), they also don't have to worry about their characters being "forced" to act in a way that the player doesn't want.At least, that's what I've tended to think in terms of that issue. Or maybe it's just path dependency. Who knows?</blockquote>

Verification