Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4256071" data-attributes="member: 162">As I read this, I asked myself: "Self, is it worth it to point out that this is hyperbole, since the poster is pro-4e on the 4e boards?" And I replied, "Self, probably not. So you should probably not mention it."The heart of this question is not whether or not its frivolous to roll craft (blacksmithing) or craft (brewing) or even (basketweaving), it's a question of what the focus of the game is. If the game happens to be tending towards a direction that is focusing heavily on the players' ability to turn lumps of metal into more useful shapes, or to turn plants and yeast into alcoholic beverages, would these not be useful skills to have?4e's issue seems to be that it says to you, "Hey there, DM guy, this game is all combat, all the time. Your PCs don't need anything that isn't somehow relevant to killin' dudes and takin' their stuff." This is a fine approach, and I'm sure is practiced at many a table, but sometimes - sometimes! - there are games in which the PCs do other things.Gasp! I know, right? Hard to swallow. But perhaps there are games where all these myriad combat abilities could be rolled into one lump sum, one single check. Combat is resolved not through myriad tedious rounds of rolling dice (after all, swinging swords at dudes is much more boring than attempting to make a sword out of mithril), but with single, opposed skill checks. In this hypothetical game, skills like blacksmithing, alchemy, and - hell! - even profession (miner) play a much more central role, and silly things like acrobatics or sneakiness or tracking are silly things that no one would bother to roll dice for. Does your background say you're an Olympic-class athlete? Well, then, go nuts!I suspect that this will raise much ire amongst you 4e folk. But the example above exemplifies my concerns with 4e: it is a game of combat, and - while it has minimal support for things outside combat - pretty much ends there. 3.5 was superior in the idea that the system supported a wide variety of styles of play. Normally, I'd follow that statement up with an appeasement of sorts, to say that 3.5 wasn't perfect, but screw that. 3.5 was just straight-up better, in this regard, no bones about it.It's all a question of focus. Surprisingly enough, the game doesn't have to focus so darn tight on the combat aspects of the game. Enjoyable, totally valid approach to the game? Darn tootin'. But a game system can support multiple styles and approaches to the game, and while 3.5 wasn't perfect (drat!), I think that abandoning the approach of letting an individual table determine how it wants to use the rules is unfortunate. The game doesn't need to focus solely on encounters, and  - IMO - it should not.</blockquote>

Verification