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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6175643" data-attributes="member: 42582">I tend to find that trying a new system is quite straightforward for players, provided the GM has some familiarity and can guide them through it. For instance, a few weeks ago I GMed my 4e group through a session of Marvel Heroic RP - they chose PCs, I ran through the character sheets and rules, and then we played a session with two action scenes separated by a transition scene (writeup <a href="http://" target="_blank">here</a>).It took me time to read the rulebook, sure, but that's time I'm happy to spend. It also costs money, too, but spending $50 a month on gaming books generally fits comfortably within my budget.So I think trying new systems is a different sort of prospect for different groups.Where is that implication found? The only version of D&D that is expressly focused on the encounter is 4e, and both the DMG and the PHB make it clear than an encounter may or may not involve combat; for instance, PHB p 9:Encounters come in two types. *Combat encounters are battles against nefarious foes. In a combat encounter, characters and monsters take turns attacking until one side or the other is defeated. *Noncombat encounters include deadly traps, difficult puzzles, and other obstacles to overcome. Sometimes you overcome noncombat encounters by using your character’s skills, sometimes you can defeat them with clever uses of magic, and sometimes you have to puzzle them out with nothing but your wits. Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it’s a noncombat encounter.AD&D had a more narrow definition of "encounter" (eg traps and tricks don't count) and is not as focused on the encounter as the locus of play, but it also defines an encounter as including more than just combat; eg Gygax'x PHB pp 103-4:During the course of an adventure, you will undoubtedly come across various forms of traps and tricks, as well as encounter monsters [which on p 40 have been defined to include "any creature encountered during the curse of adventuring", including NPCs] of one sort or another. While your DM will spend considerable time and effort to make all such occurrences effective, you and your fellow players must do everything within your collective power to make them harmless, unsuccessful or profitable. . . A "monster" can be a kindy wizard or a crazed dwarf, a friendly brass dragon or a malicious manticore. Such are the possibilities of encounters . . .  All encounters have the elements of movement and surprise . . . as well as initaitve, communicaiton, negotiation and/or combat.There is no radical difference between the 4e and the AD&D characterisations here, except that 4e labels traps and tricks as forms of non-combat encounter.And obviously the encounter/scene/situation-based games that influence 4e - like HeroWars/Quest, or Burning Wheel - don't define all encounters, either explicitly or implicitly, as combat encounters. Which is to say, the implication that you are imputing is a spurious one.Is your objection to 4e that it lacks a non-combat resolution system, or that some particular build elements are too strong?They are very different criticisms - eg whether or not one thinks that the longsword is an overpowered weapon in AD&D, one could hardly object that AD&D lacks a workable combat resolution system.(I also don't really agree with the particular example - how is a wizard using Arcana 1x/enc going to do better in a social challenge than a bard using Words of Friendship 1x/enc, or a CHA-warlock using Beguiling Tongue 1x/enc?)</blockquote>

Verification