Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4668555" data-attributes="member: 63272">So?&nbsp; They were wrong for the guy in Wisconsin who uses D&amp;D to play a non heroic game of Postmen &amp; Pitbulls.&nbsp; That doesn't make the designers wrong, it means your expectations are flawed.Clunky?&nbsp; Rituals are easy and generally well liked.&nbsp; My players love them.&nbsp; Skill challenges are the best innovation of 4e, imo.&nbsp; I love them, have ran dozens, they work great in doing what they are intended to do.&nbsp; Especially if you apply the general wing it attitude of DMing in 4e to the structure of skill challenges.&nbsp; Running multi-phase challenges, challenge/combat hybrids, challenges that run for months behind the scenes...Only thing you get right there is that encumbrance sucks, has always sucked, and probably will always suck.&nbsp; Games are better off without an encumbrance system.&nbsp; The only groups that need them are groups with players that specifically look to abuse equipment issues and the DM of that group can handle things as needed.No, the game really hasn't.&nbsp; D&amp;Ds players have embraced a diversity of playstyles over the years, the game itself has never deceived anyone (except you, apparently) about what is built to do.&nbsp; As someone else said - D&amp;D is great at being D&amp;D.&nbsp; The 3PP playground was built off bringing different playstyles to a published form using and tweaking D&amp;Ds basic kill-things-take-stuff model.&nbsp; D&amp;Ds given nods to other types of games, and 4e is no different.Yeah, because skills like diplomacy, streetwise, and arcana cry combat only, as do rituals, skill challenges, extensive sections on campaign design and world building in the DMG, a Roleplaying section in the PHB before any real crunch appears...&nbsp; That's simply wrong.&nbsp; You want it to be true, for some reason, but in your arguments you dismiss everything that 4e does that isn't combat as &quot;not working&quot; when legions of players feel otherwise.&nbsp; Yes, the math with skill challenges was off on publication.&nbsp; This doesn't mean the system itself sucks for handling things out of combat, it means there was a mistake with the math.&nbsp; One that has been corrected in Errata.&nbsp; Skill challenges beat the heck out of the way 3e and, indeed, all other editions of D&amp;D, have approached non-combat situations.&nbsp; It's a method to make such scenes involved and challenging, rather than just applying your diplomacy roll to the reaction table, &quot;sorry DM, your angry arch villian is now Helpful, says so right here in the book.&quot;&nbsp; The development of skill challenges and other touches show me that 4e is more focused, not less, than 3e was on things that happen outside of combat.&nbsp; The desire was to make those situations as tense and exciting as combat encounters, and, from the experience I've had both as a player and a DM with skill challenges, they succeeded.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4668555, member: 63272"] So? They were wrong for the guy in Wisconsin who uses D&D to play a non heroic game of Postmen & Pitbulls. That doesn't make the designers wrong, it means your expectations are flawed. Clunky? Rituals are easy and generally well liked. My players love them. Skill challenges are the best innovation of 4e, imo. I love them, have ran dozens, they work great in doing what they are intended to do. Especially if you apply the general wing it attitude of DMing in 4e to the structure of skill challenges. Running multi-phase challenges, challenge/combat hybrids, challenges that run for months behind the scenes... Only thing you get right there is that encumbrance sucks, has always sucked, and probably will always suck. Games are better off without an encumbrance system. The only groups that need them are groups with players that specifically look to abuse equipment issues and the DM of that group can handle things as needed. No, the game really hasn't. D&Ds [B]players[/B] have embraced a diversity of playstyles over the years, the game itself has never deceived anyone (except you, apparently) about what is built to do. As someone else said - D&D is great at being D&D. The 3PP playground was built off bringing different playstyles to a published form using and tweaking D&Ds basic kill-things-take-stuff model. D&Ds given nods to other types of games, and 4e is no different. Yeah, because skills like diplomacy, streetwise, and arcana cry combat only, as do rituals, skill challenges, extensive sections on campaign design and world building in the DMG, a Roleplaying section in the PHB before any real crunch appears... That's simply wrong. You want it to be true, for some reason, but in your arguments you dismiss everything that 4e does that isn't combat as "not working" when legions of players feel otherwise. Yes, the math with skill challenges was off on publication. This doesn't mean the system itself sucks for handling things out of combat, it means there was a mistake with the math. One that has been corrected in Errata. Skill challenges beat the heck out of the way 3e and, indeed, all other editions of D&D, have approached non-combat situations. It's a method to make such scenes involved and challenging, rather than just applying your diplomacy roll to the reaction table, "sorry DM, your angry arch villian is now Helpful, says so right here in the book." The development of skill challenges and other touches show me that 4e is more focused, not less, than 3e was on things that happen outside of combat. The desire was to make those situations as tense and exciting as combat encounters, and, from the experience I've had both as a player and a DM with skill challenges, they succeeded. [/QUOTE]

Verification