Exactly the same thing a PC in 3e needs to do to succeed/win a challenge that involves the use of skills.
Which is what?
Exactly the same thing a PC in 3e needs to do to succeed/win a challenge that involves the use of skills.
So what you're saying is, 1e is what Paranoia would be if it didn't realize it was a farce.
A thought just occurred to me: Your car might have a GPS system.
Something I thought was odd about 3e.
The unified mechanic and skill system tended to encourage moving everything more towards challenge the PC.
Except combat. By lowering the level of abstraction, it encouraged moving combat more towards challenge the player.
You know, I used to criticize D&D and AD&D as being too combat-focused. Going from 3e to classic D&D, though, classic doesn’t feel nearly as combat-focused to me as it used to. In fact, using the Basic and Expert rule booklets made me realize that classic is really more adventure-focused (or maybe “delving-focused”).
I wish I knew how to explain to people who played classic D&D combat as just stand-up hp attrition that it can be more than that (and without DM fiat). If you have rules for moving, you can apply tactics.
One of the things I like about classic D&D combat is that simply a basic knowledge of tactics will serve a player well, while in 3e the player really needs to master the rules as well.
But, I’ve really wandered off-topic now.
You know, I was going to put something in there about how the cars of today and the near future are going to kill that analogy. (^_^)
I don't know if I quite understand this. Are you saying that, in the end, all that counts in roleplaying is the state that player 1 is able to engender in player 2 by way of her action at the table? That is true, I guess, but it is a little too abstract to differentiate RPGing from other games, from pleasant conversation, from argument etc.Players have to only come up with the stuff that influence their relations with the other players (through PCs).
I lilke this distinction of the different sorts of challenges. Good stuff.I prefer RPG campaigns that do all of the above; challenge the player through their characters ("What would Conan do?"), challenge the characters directly ("Hey look, a puzzle"), and challenge the characters directly (so the players can experience being faux-awesome).
I think Mallus is right that a mix of challenges is probably most enjoyable (at least for me), but I think that this is the sort of challenge I'd like to be most prominent in the mix.My view is, challenge the players. The abilities of the character are the tools that the players use to meet the challenge.
I like this too. Especially because sometimes the creativity won't necessarily involve me playing my PC.On the discussion on what part of the game should be challenging I think the ony answer can be the creativity of the girls and guys sitting around the table. Sometimes that should be a question about what is the best tactical sollution to a battle, sometimes it is about what the crazy dwarf they are playing would actually do when the king insults him. But the real challenge of d&d game is always for the players to move the game forward by not just responding to the challenges of the DM but adding their own creativity.
Presumably you believe you know, since you thought we might be enlightened by your earlier lengthy post.Which is what?
Here is difference that causes the argument.
In a 1e adventure, if you do something stupid, you're dead. If you try and explore every room the dungeon, you're dead. If you often leap before you look, you're dead. The best way to survive 1e adventures is lots of caution, divination, henchmen, listening at doors, sending in henchmen, and so on. Luck is also very helpful. How to survive is not spelled out to you on your character sheet. You have to use your player skill to figure out a strategy to navigate the dungeon.
.
Where do you get this from?Probably the default assumption of 4th edition that you don't need to play through a skill challenge, but can just roll the dice through it, and then IF every party member fails you would need to worry with thinking through it.
However, it's particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, "Can I use Diplomacy?" you should ask what exactly the character might be doing . . . Don't say no to often, but don't say yes if it doesn't make sense in the context of the challenge.
I'm sorry... how are 4e and 1e different again? Certainly, 4e doesn't have that "Oops, I'm dead" all the time from single bad actions, but you can certainly have your PC die from stupid play. Nor is every encounter an assured win (see Irontooth). If you assume that all 4e adventures use APL=EL encounters, you're dead wrong.
Cheers!