Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4669359" data-attributes="member: 2067">I agree.There's a whole bundle of reasons to use D&D even though it has never been perfectly suited to noncombat to handle noncombat things. The biggest one is probably that it is the most popular RPG out there, so it's the one that everyone in the group knows how to play, has been playing since high school, and the one you can find new players or a DM for. Because the campaign will probably only last a few months, it doesn't need to be ideal at handling those noncombat things, just "good enough." Because most often, individual sessions might focus on other things, but the campaign overall might use combat as an important tool. Because D&D has always modeled a class-and-level based system. Because you want said political mechanics to occur along with the cults to Demogorgon. Because no one wants to bother to buy or to research other games.Because, basically, D&D was easier to use and it was "good enough" for the time you'd use it for. People did it all the time.This isn't a strawman argument -- it is the real situation. This isn't about what systems are theoretically ideal for a game that isn't about combat, this is about specifically 4e doing it less well in comparison to an earlier edition. That's the point.Because that is how D&D has been actually used by a multitude of gamers for 30 years. It was a playstyle that 4e has abandoned in favor of doing one thing well. Of course it does. The game has always been different. Not one normal group has played by-the-book D&D, I'd wager, since it was invented (possible exception for RPGA and other "official" play, but I'd hardly call those "normal" groups). That diversity was a strength of the game, it allowed the most popular RPG to be "good enough" for a variety of things.4e has narrowed this focus considerably, meaning that, in part, this strength has been lost.So ultimately, you're saying this:"KM, you're absolutely right, but I just think those people who want that shouldn't be playing D&D.'We can probably agree to disagree on that side-point for this conversation, since it's not about who theoretically should or shouldn't be playing D&D, it's about what 4e actually does in practice.If you like the skill challenge system, what's wrong with having it replace combat?Unless you WANT more detail for combat?So perhaps you could envision a situation where a D&D player WANTS more detail for non-combat?I certainly never said that. Just that 4e, by decreasing the noncombat rules, has damaged the campaigns of those who use those rules extensively.Your "unsuported hogwash" that these people don't exist or should be playing some other game doesn't actually matter for what people actually do. They still want to play D&D, even if they want to play it differently than you do.Yes, actually. I'm as surprised as you are that people are defending 4e's capability for noncombat-focused campaigns since 4e clearly doesn't have as many. For instance, that you think skill challenges are "better" at handling noncombat than what previous editions had speaks to the fact that you're not doing a whole lot of non-combat focused games (since you won't use them to replace combat, I'm guessing you're not generally comfortable with open-ended rules), and thus really aren't talking about the same thing as I am.</blockquote>

Verification