Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4668775" data-attributes="member: 63272">D&amp;D was never designed to support noncombat gaming.&nbsp; Every edition has had a primary focus on combat.&nbsp; It has always been the most detailed system within the game system.&nbsp; If you are playing a noncombat campaign, why in the world would you want to use D&amp;D?&nbsp; There are a number of systems out there with much more involved social, political, and interpersonal mechanics, games built with a focus on such things, which you say is important (as opposed to leaving that up to DMs).&nbsp; This is really propping up a straw man.&quot;4e doesn't do games without combat well, therefore it is more limited than other editions&quot;&quot;Those editions didn't do games without combat well either&quot;&quot;Yeah, well... 4e does it worse-er.&quot;You're not really arguing anything of value here.&nbsp; That's not the gameplay D&amp;D is built for, in any edition.&nbsp; Arguing that one system is better or worse based on how well it does things its not built to do, rather than on how well it does at the things it is built to do, is a bit silly.&nbsp; Why choose the wrong game system for the type of game you want to play and then try to shoehorn it?&nbsp; Neither does any other edition.&nbsp; D&amp;D is mostly about combat.&nbsp; I know, I know, &quot;it does it worse-er&quot;The game has always been the same.&nbsp; Just because people use it to do different things doesn't change this.&nbsp; We did it in the early 80s because D&amp;D was about all there was, you didn't have 10 systems for every conceivable style of play.&nbsp; 1e and OD&amp;D weren't built to do noncombat games, they weren't built for games of courtly intrigue. they weren't built for historical, non magic gaming.&nbsp; We did those things more out of necessity than because early D&amp;D built it into the system.&nbsp; Nowadays, there's just no reason to try to shoehorn a game system into something it doesn't want to do.&nbsp; There are likely several systems to choose from regardless of what it is you want to play that are designed for that kind of play.This is where the disconnect is.&nbsp; The players are insanely diverse and insanely creative.&nbsp; What other forms are present in 3e, 2e, 1e that are as diverse, detailed, and interesting as 3e, 2e, 1e combat.&nbsp; Heck, half as diverse?None.Most of the several pages of errata.No game has ever been exactly right on publication.&nbsp; There is always errata.&nbsp; Because I am playing D&amp;D.That 4e is combat focused is not in dispute.&nbsp; It is D&amp;D afterall.&nbsp; What is in dispute is your unsupported hogwash that previous editions of D&amp;D were not combat focused.&nbsp; And if you claim you are not asserting this, and accept that previous editions of D&amp;D are combat focused, what are we arguing about?&nbsp; The tiny degree you believe 4e does noncombat worse-er than previous editions?&nbsp; I think it does it considerably better and skill challenges are the primary reason why.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thasmodious, post: 4668775, member: 63272"] D&D was never designed to support noncombat gaming. Every edition has had a primary focus on combat. It has always been the most detailed system within the game system. If you are playing a noncombat campaign, why in the world would you want to use D&D? There are a number of systems out there with much more involved social, political, and interpersonal mechanics, games built with a focus on such things, which you say is important (as opposed to leaving that up to DMs). This is really propping up a straw man. "4e doesn't do games without combat well, therefore it is more limited than other editions" "Those editions didn't do games without combat well either" "Yeah, well... 4e does it worse-er." You're not really arguing anything of value here. That's not the gameplay D&D is built for, in any edition. Arguing that one system is better or worse based on how well it does things its not built to do, rather than on how well it does at the things it is built to do, is a bit silly. Why choose the wrong game system for the type of game you want to play and then try to shoehorn it? Neither does any other edition. D&D is [I]mostly[/I] about combat. I know, I know, "it does it worse-er" The game has always been the same. Just because people use it to do different things doesn't change this. We did it in the early 80s because D&D was about all there was, you didn't have 10 systems for every conceivable style of play. 1e and OD&D weren't built to do noncombat games, they weren't built for games of courtly intrigue. they weren't built for historical, non magic gaming. We did those things more out of necessity than because early D&D built it into the system. Nowadays, there's just no reason to try to shoehorn a game system into something it doesn't want to do. There are likely several systems to choose from regardless of what it is you want to play that are designed for that kind of play. This is where the disconnect is. The [I]players[/I] are insanely diverse and insanely creative. What other forms are present in 3e, 2e, 1e that are as diverse, detailed, and interesting as 3e, 2e, 1e combat. Heck, half as diverse? None. Most of the several pages of errata. No game has ever been exactly right on publication. There is always errata. Because I am playing D&D. That 4e is combat focused is not in dispute. It is D&D afterall. What is in dispute is your unsupported hogwash that previous editions of D&D were not combat focused. And if you claim you are not asserting this, and accept that previous editions of D&D are combat focused, what are we arguing about? The tiny degree you believe 4e does noncombat worse-er than previous editions? I think it does it considerably better and skill challenges are the primary reason why. [/QUOTE]

Verification