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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6465469" data-attributes="member: 42582">They have made assertions. Assertions do not equate to proof. For instance, did you read the tournament play report I posted upthread for G1? This was describe as a non-hack-and-slash module, yet in the report the winning team describe their approach as exactly one of hacking-and-slashing!Except for where they're not. Eg ritual abilities, non-combat utility powers, etc. By "literally" I think you mean "primarily".Just adding to Hussar's excellent point: in 4e, "domain management" etc are the province of paragon paths and epic destinies. So if you want to see how PCs fit into those social elements of the campaign, you need to look at the relevant paragon path and epic destiny descriptions (eg Knight Commander, Legendary Sovereign, Marsahll of Letherna, Questing Knight etc). Those descriptoins aren't primarily about combat, either - they locate the character in the bigger picture of the campaign world.The mechanical abilities associated with them are primarily (not exclusively, by any means) combat focused, but then so is the fighter's keep and army in AD&D - the only mechanical rules around domain management that are not combat-focused (clearing hexes of monsters, siege rules, combat stats for mercenaries, etc) are the rules for taxation revenue. There are no rules for all the other, non-combat aspects of real-life feudal society (eg politicking, alliances, marriages, etc).This is nonsense. 4e is not focused "solely on tactical combat and little else". It is focused primarily on conflict resolution rather than setting exploration, but has solid mechanics for resolving conflict without combat (ie the skill challenge). I think it's the first version of D&D published where it is possible to progress at a completely standard rate of XP and treasure gain without ever killing or looting anything (because XP awards for non-combat resolution are as robust as for combat resolution, nd treasure acquisition is decoupled from looting).It is true that combat resolution in 4e tends to be mechanically more weighty than non-combat resolution. In this respect it emulates all its predecessor editions. And 5e is no different.I don't understand this repeated assertion of some sort of necessary connection between mechanics and combat. Or combat and stakes.It is trivially easy to have combat resolution emchanics that require only a sinlge dice roll. Upthread I even provided a link to a session report for a system that has just that.It's also trivially easy to lower the stakes of combat - say, via an opposed roll between two duelists to determine which one ends up at the feet of the other, sword to the throat.Plenty of 4e players who post on these boards have used various sorts of skill check and skill challenge variants to resolve combat in this sort of way; I don't think it's as common among players of other editions. But the design choice to resolve combat with a degree of intricacy absent from other sorts of action (initiative checks, multiple rounds of resolution, hit point tallies, etc) isn't forced upon anyone by the nature of the activity: it's a deliberate decisin to make combat the most mechanically hefty part of the game.This page count doesn't address my claim about AD&D or the DMG. A lot of the material you have counted as non-combat is "world building" material - rules for populating a campaign, for determining random monsters, etc. But that is not playing the game. What actually happens in that world, once the GM has built it? As I posted upthread, the only solid modes of conflict resolution in AD&D are combat and evasion (which takes the threat of combat as its premise). There are no rules for finality of social conflict, and no rules at all for the bulk of exploration - eg there are no rules to govern trying to chart a coastline while sailing around it, or trying to find water in a desert, or any of the actual things that actual explorers in the real world had difficulty doing. The exploration mechanics are framed almost entirely around the very artificial dungeon environment (finding, listening at and opening doors are the bulk of them).I'm sure plenty of people have made up ad hoc resolution systems for this stuff (probably relying, in many cases, on GM fiat). But I don't feel that tells me much about D&D. I mean, exactly the same sorts of approaches could be used by groups playing Tunnels & Trolls, or Fighting Fantasy (the RPG), or even early versions of Rolemaster (before it got a fully-fledged skill system).My 4e group also likes to make bargains. But there are two obstacles to this within the general framework of D&D.The first is mechanical uncertainty. 4e has definite rules for the correspondence between money offered and the bonus to a check in a skill challenge (DMG2 indicates that 10% of the value of a level-equivalent magic item should confer the same benefit as a secondary check - typically +2 - so at 1st level an offer of 36 gp is worth a +2 on the relevant Diplomacy (or Bluff, or whatever) check). AD&D has no such guidance; and your comparison to the meagre personal monies of the monsters can break down if you also think about the much larger hordes they have stashed away in their lairs based on treasure type.The second, and in my view more significant issue, is alignment. Classic D&D, including Gygax's AD&D, is written around an assumption that the typical PC will not be good, and is essentially a Conan-esque mercenary. Being good is a burden - eg it prevents you parleying with orcs - but also a benefit, because it opens up help from friendly temples etc.But most modern D&D is written and played under the assumption that the typical PC is good, and committed to heroic endeavours. Even where the gameplay resembles the more classic game - entering the dungeon, etc - the framing goals and motivations are different - the PCs are entering the dungeon not just to seek their fortunes, but also to rescue the princess or recover the McGuffin that will free the village from the evil overlord, etc.When players are playing those sorts of PCs, in adventures and campaign worlds framed in those sorts of terms, it is not reasonable to expect them to bargain with orcs, wererats etc. A truce with such creatures is, in this framing, tantamount to treason.</blockquote>

Verification