Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 4670319" data-attributes="member: 40177">You know what I realized?  You only stick to skills.  Why?  Because skills are the only means of interacting meaningfully outside of combat (well, not the "only" way, to be fair).  You don't acknowledge that in 3e, many characters had useful powers that were not skill related at all - I gave you a list.  In 4e, the only useful non-combat powers that PCs have access to are Skills, Rituals, and maybe a handful of utilities (and, as I said, those utilities are iffy, since they were designed with combat in mind).Whoa, easy there, Tiger. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Maybe I should have been a bit more careful with my words, since I should have known they would have been pounced upon.  First off, 1e wasn't just about combat.  It was also about getting treasure and exploration.  If you read the rules-as-intended for 2e, a huge focus was put on RP and world-building.  3e was combat-centric, much like 4e... but many non-combat elements were kept in.If earlier editions of D&D were all about combat, there wouldn't have been spells like Charm Person, or Phantasmal Terrain, or Knock.  Think about it - if D&D was always about the combat, then knock wouldn't exist, because it is a spell that is pretty much ONLY useful outside of a fight.  I think earlier editions of D&D were jst as much about mapping and exploration as they were about Combat.  I think the only edition of D&D that was about only combat was Chainmail.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />4e did some smart things.  The designers said "Hey, combat is where the majority of the imbalances lie", and went to fix that.  Unfortunately, they took out all of the non-combat abilities that differentiate characters.  Many of these powers wound up as feats, which was a dumb design idea - because now we have characters choosing whether they want combat-focused feats, or non-combat focused feats.  Meaning, if I choose combat feats, and you choose non-combat feats, I'm better than you in a fight.  (Ideally, they should have had combat feats and non-combat feats purchaseable from seperate pools, to keep some of this balance, but that's another thread)Now, the reason people keep saying 4e is more about combat is because so much more of the book is dedicated to combat.  Most of the PHB.  Most of the DMG.  All of the monster manual (since most monsters have lost their uses outside of a fight, except in flavour elements, unfortunately).  Not only that, but fights take longer in 4e, with the possible exception of 3e (and I say POSSIBLE exception... it wasn't the case in my games, but I've heard horror stories).  In the time you can run one fight in 4e, I could run 3 in BECMI.  In my experience, about 75% of our sessions are combats, and the rest is non-combat "Light exploration".  in 3e, it was about 50/50.  In earlier editions, more like 25/75.  In other systems, 25/75, or even less combat.  OH, and one other funny thing you said:Okay, cool (and, by the way, I kind of agree with you, here - that is a nice part of the game... if you're running a game where that sort of thing doesn't come up often)Also cool.  Here's where it gets funny:Kind of admitting that having no rules for non-combat skills was a problem, eh?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />A lot of people have tried to explain WHY they have a different viewpoint from you, only to have their opinions called "nonsense".  And when you say things like "Hopefully, you'll come to realize the system's potential at some point", I almost feel like you're a missionary trying to convert me.  And, for what it's worth, my video game comparison wasn't a direct one between the rules.  It was simply saying that trying to make an RPG that is primarily combat-based is not necessary, because a video game can do this better.  An RPG should focus on what video games cannot do, and that is - encourage creative play.  Power Listings and pre-made, DM-fabricated skill challenges do not encourage creative play.  Creative play can come out of them, but the rules do not facilitate it.</blockquote>

Verification