Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 4669135" data-attributes="member: 5143">I ran a campaign that went on a good 6 months with very, very little combat in 3.5e.&nbsp; I can tell you that the game became mostly freeform with a periodic check when it was needed.&nbsp; The same thing is true about 4e.&nbsp; The only difference would be that 3.5e characters jump to magic as the solution to their problem WAY more often.&nbsp; Instead of making Diplomacy checks, they often would just cast Charm Person, instead of Sense Motive, they'd use Zone of Truth and so on.The thing is, rules are designed to handle disputes.&nbsp; You only need them for a situation when the DM or an NPC disagrees with a player or PC OR the exact outcome of an action is in doubt.&nbsp; You don't need rules when everyone at a table can agree on what happens.&nbsp; Every single round of combat has an action that would cause disagreement between players and the DM, which is why we need rules to handle that sort of thing.When you are outside of combat, a LOT more actions become obvious and don't need rolls.&nbsp; If there is a box underneath a bed and someone looks there, they should find it(unless it is particularly dark or well hidden somehow).&nbsp; If someone says &quot;I look under the bed&quot; and the DM says &quot;You find a box&quot;, I doubt anyone in the group is going to say &quot;Shouldn't that need a skill check?&nbsp; We need detailed rules for this sort of thing.&quot;That's why the rules are written the way they are in 4e.&nbsp; You need a rule when you want to convince an NPC of something that they don't want to believe, when you want to find something that the DM isn't sure if you'll find or not, when you want to see if you unlock the door or fail, and so on.&nbsp; The skill checks cover nearly every situation that should require a rule for it.&nbsp; Certainly, they aren't complicated.&nbsp; I will admit that there aren't a lot of exceptions, small bonuses, things to keep track of and so on(like a bunch of rerolls, circumstantial modifiers, powers that work in noncombat situations in quirky ways) like there were in 3.5e.I wonder if that is what everyone is concerned about.&nbsp; That if you aren't getting &quot;+2 to diplomacy checks with elves who have black shirts&quot; that there isn't enough mechanical diversity in the system.&nbsp; I've found that having those things didn't really add anything to the game.&nbsp; People forget about them 90% of the time and when they do apply and the end effect on the game is:&quot;I make a Diplomacy check, I get plus +2 against elves because I'm a member of this PrC.&nbsp; I get 24.&quot;vs&quot;I make a Diplomacy check, I get 22.&quot;In fact, non-combat situations are more fun for me when the rules get out of my way entirely.&nbsp; I'm much more interested in the game where a PC is in the presence of the king being asked to explain what he was doing sneaking around the dungeon and watching the player squirm to come up with an explanation than I am in the game where the same thing happens and the player simply says &quot;I use Bluff to come up with a good reason.&nbsp; I fail?&nbsp; I use my Bluffer PrC power to reroll it.&nbsp; It still doesn't work?&nbsp; Well, my party can aid me, right?&nbsp; Quick everyone, make some aiding rolls.&nbsp; We still failed?&nbsp; Alright, Wizard, cast a Charm Person on him, he won't send us to the dungeon if he's our best friend.&quot;Mechanical options often make for worse games rather than better ones.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 4669135, member: 5143"] I ran a campaign that went on a good 6 months with very, very little combat in 3.5e. I can tell you that the game became mostly freeform with a periodic check when it was needed. The same thing is true about 4e. The only difference would be that 3.5e characters jump to magic as the solution to their problem WAY more often. Instead of making Diplomacy checks, they often would just cast Charm Person, instead of Sense Motive, they'd use Zone of Truth and so on. The thing is, rules are designed to handle disputes. You only need them for a situation when the DM or an NPC disagrees with a player or PC OR the exact outcome of an action is in doubt. You don't need rules when everyone at a table can agree on what happens. Every single round of combat has an action that would cause disagreement between players and the DM, which is why we need rules to handle that sort of thing. When you are outside of combat, a LOT more actions become obvious and don't need rolls. If there is a box underneath a bed and someone looks there, they should find it(unless it is particularly dark or well hidden somehow). If someone says "I look under the bed" and the DM says "You find a box", I doubt anyone in the group is going to say "Shouldn't that need a skill check? We need detailed rules for this sort of thing." That's why the rules are written the way they are in 4e. You need a rule when you want to convince an NPC of something that they don't want to believe, when you want to find something that the DM isn't sure if you'll find or not, when you want to see if you unlock the door or fail, and so on. The skill checks cover nearly every situation that should require a rule for it. Certainly, they aren't complicated. I will admit that there aren't a lot of exceptions, small bonuses, things to keep track of and so on(like a bunch of rerolls, circumstantial modifiers, powers that work in noncombat situations in quirky ways) like there were in 3.5e. I wonder if that is what everyone is concerned about. That if you aren't getting "+2 to diplomacy checks with elves who have black shirts" that there isn't enough mechanical diversity in the system. I've found that having those things didn't really add anything to the game. People forget about them 90% of the time and when they do apply and the end effect on the game is: "I make a Diplomacy check, I get plus +2 against elves because I'm a member of this PrC. I get 24." vs "I make a Diplomacy check, I get 22." In fact, non-combat situations are more fun for me when the rules get out of my way entirely. I'm much more interested in the game where a PC is in the presence of the king being asked to explain what he was doing sneaking around the dungeon and watching the player squirm to come up with an explanation than I am in the game where the same thing happens and the player simply says "I use Bluff to come up with a good reason. I fail? I use my Bluffer PrC power to reroll it. It still doesn't work? Well, my party can aid me, right? Quick everyone, make some aiding rolls. We still failed? Alright, Wizard, cast a Charm Person on him, he won't send us to the dungeon if he's our best friend." Mechanical options often make for worse games rather than better ones. [/QUOTE]

Verification