Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sheadunne" data-source="post: 6245421" data-attributes="member: 27570">Part of the issue here, for me at least, is that the 4e games I have witnessed and the players I know who enjoy it, aren't playing that way. Which is probably why I'm interested in your viewpoint and play style. I haven't come across it in my circle (which started in Maine and now is in Maryland). While I agree with you based on play style, I didn't see anything of the sort with the way the powers and abilities are displayed. It seems to me that there might be a conflict here. One of my issues in D&D in general (any edition) is that not much thought has been put into developing abilities, powers, spells, etc, that both work within the combat framework and the non-combat framework. It's an issue I've brought up before in other threads. What are the inherent functions of say sneak attack, that also carry over into a non-combat situation? Is it simply an ability to perceive weakness in others and exploit it? If so, how can "sneak attack" be used to facilitate that experience outside of rolling an attack roll. 4e powers were an amazing opportunity to explore that further and they didn't. What is it about CaGI that can also carry over into the non-combat arena? And how do you go about presenting that in a way that doesn't require DM interpretation and altering the power itself during play (which seems more like a band-aid for the issue, instead of a cure). I guess this goes further into materializing intent through abilities. When I use the ability in combat or out, my intent is clear. I didn't feel that was necessarily the case when caring over combat powers into skill challenges. I don't disagree with you that the tools are available, only that if it were the intention, more thought would have gone into the system to make it explicit in the presentation of powers, rather than in either DMG advice or overall structure components (encounter powers and healing surges). I would guess that it was more luck as a result of trying to find individual component ways of (such handling issues in design as not relying on healing magic and balancing abilities between classes). I agree. I'd have to play it over a series to really determine whether that level of play is something I would be interested in long term. It's certainly how I run one-shot scenarios.This is simply a preference issue, probably more so that a play style issue. I much more interested in keeping character outside of play, especially when I'm a fellow player. When I run games I'm a little different. I enjoy the shared experience of achieve group goals, but have no interest in listen to other players explore their characters during play. Pass. Outside of play (or through transitions scenes) develop away.I think back to a game that I played in years ago. My character, a cleric, was interested in setting up his own temple and contributing to the welfare of the city. I did it all outside of play. I bought a temple, even paid the entire cities taxes one year. Zero amount of time was spent on it during play. It wasn't related or relevant to the story as a whole, only my small piece of it. When I play, I like to play that way. I don't want the game to get bogged down with individual objectives when we're playing a group game. If it doesn't concern the group, move on. In the case of Lucann and the Druid, I felt that way. Move on. Which is probably why I avoided the entire thing. If Theren had been over there he probably would have stuck his spear into the dryad and moved on (more because of my player preferences than a character reaction). When I DM I'm probably more interested in exploring character, but it's still a fine line between a game played by 4 individuals and a game played by a group. As I said though, it's a preference thing and not a play style or game system thing. Dungeon World is a bit too binary for me (It reminds me of Zork). I do need to pick up a copy of 13 Age but I'm hesitant because I'm not sure if the fluff can be removed from the mechanics without replacing the fluff with the same thing (I'm thinking of Icons). But I haven't checked it out yet, so I don't really know. But if it was generic enough it might be interesting.All good stuff, with the exception of the "anti-hero" possibility. Not something I'm personally interested in. It goes back to "team game" versus "individual characters." That's just where I am now. Who knows if my tastes will change as they have before. I'm just not interested in exploring character conflict during my limited game time.</blockquote>

Verification