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: 4214835" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't understand why "non-combat skills" such as Craft, Profession and Perform are seen as enhancing roleplaying but combat skills are not. (I'll put Knowledge (Nobility) to one side, as it seems likely that 4e incorporates it either via the History skill or the Diplomacy skill).Crafting, performaing and pursuing a profession are, like fighting, nothing more nor less than activity undertaken by a character. Thus, I am no more "playing the role" of my character when I resolve a situation using the craft mechanics than when I resolve a situation using the combat mechanics.Likewise, to turn to rituals, spells and powers, I am no more "playing the role" of my character when I resolve a situation by forging spearheads out of a wall of iron than when I use a Wall of Iron power to advantage in a combat situation.Is the real issue not about roleplaying, but rather about a game which has mechanics to handle ingame situations other than combat? Well, 4e (via the skill challenge mechanics) seems better suited to that, in my estimation, than any earlier edition of D&D. 3E gives the illusion of such mechanics, by incorporating non-combat skills into the character build rules, but then does not deliver: it has virtually no mechanical support for the generation and resolution of situations using those skills, it does not consistently incorporate the use of those skills into the player-reward mechanics - meaning that if I trade combat skills and feats for non-combat skills and feats I also trade away my capacity to improve my character by winning fights to earn XP and treasure - and it does not solve the problem of how these situations are to be successfully incorporated into a game whose principal focus is on party rather than solitary play.In these respects I think 3E compares somewhat poorly to RQ or RM (both mainstream fantasy RPGs, both about 20 years older than 3E), which both dealt with the encounter-design problem and the reward problem more-or-less effectively. With respect to encounter design, both have semi-universal action resolution mechanics (RQ moreso than RM) which support non-combat encounters (and I know these are quite prevalent in published RM modules). With respect to reward mechanics, in RQ improvement in any given skill is generally independent of improvement in other skills, and depends only on the use of that skill (so there is siloisation and reward for skill use). In RM, there are more development points available to the typical character than can be usefully spent on combat skills, and XP are awarded for successful ideas and manoeuvres (so again there is a degree of siloisation and reward for skill use). Neither directly solves the problem of integrating diversely skilled characters into party play, but siloisation does facilitate a degree of Jack-of-all-Tradesishness in all PCs to help this along a little bit.4e's siloisation of spell use via powers vs rituals seems to offer some of the same benefits as RM's spell lists (in RM, a spell-using character can develop sufficiently many spell lists that combat lists need not crowd out utility lists, and PP usage is flexible enough that using utility magic need not significantly undermine a PC's combat effectiveness). And skill challenges plus the power system for combat seem to effectively solve the party play problem by delivering the right degree of siloisation and hence universal ability to contribute.As for the other mooted mechanics, flaw/merit systems (of which the AD&D alignment system, and the 3E paladin code are examples) are  not essential to roleplaying, and indeed can frequently operate as a constraint on it by acting as obstacles to a player's playing of his or her character. And I don't think we know yet (or do we?) what the rules are for contacts and connections, although it seems likely that they will respect the action economy, and it seems unlikely (although you never know your luck!) that they'll be as well-developed as (for example) the follower and relationships rules in HeroWars/Quest.</blockquote>

Verification