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: 5826244" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree with EW, and I disagree that in the end it has to boil down to bonuses and penalties.In AD&D, the thief becomes powerful when sneaking but is weak when out front. Leaving to one side whether AD&D thieves are underpowered overall, this is something where fluff isn't just bonuses or penalties - the player of the thief has to engage with the fiction - find a way for his/her PC to sneak in behind the enemies - and this has an interesting effect on the dynamics of combat.4e has a lot of this sort of stuff. It's true there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether, by putting it all on a grid, there is a danger of the fiction dropping out (my view is the fiction can and should stay in, but that the techniques for achieving this aren't always made clear in the rulebooks). But putting that to one side, the need for the rogue to flank, or the consequences of the controller or defender repositioning, or immoblising, an enemy, introduces a dynamic that is more than just bonuses and penalties. It is a different dimension of engagement with the fiction.Social stuff in D&D needs more of this. Skill challenges are an attempt, and I'm one of the minority of defenders of the concept, but it seems clear that (again, in my view, mostly through poor explanatory text and half-baked adventure writing) they have failed as a mechanic as far as popular uptake is concerned.When it's time to talk to the king, for example, it should make a difference whether a PC is a berserker, or a warpriest, or a knight commander, or a grizzled veteran - and not just in terms of bonuses or penalties, but in terms of how this affects the fictional situation and its resolution.</blockquote>

Verification