Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4477480" data-attributes="member: 42582">1st ed AD&amp;D had virtually no action resolution mechanics outside of combat. 2nd ed AD&amp;D had a little bit more, but not much. 3rd ed had more again, but the combat mechanics are still the majority of the action resolution mechanics. The same is true of 4e (which uses the comparatively abstract skill challenge system as a catch-all for non-combat action resolution).This suggests that combat is intended to be a significant part of the game.Given that, I think it is does not really get to the heart of the matter simply to suggest that a player whose PC ends up confronting an orc with a greataxe, losing initiative, and dying to a critical hit has suffered the proper consequences of a meaningful choice (to go into places full of orcs).If that suggestion were correct, it would appear to follow that there was nothing meaningful to be said about whether AD&amp;D, 3E or 4e was the better-designed dungeon adventure roleplaying game - that the potentially one-shot lethality of the orc with the greataxe, which is a feature of 3E far more than of AD&amp;D or 4e, was not up for grabs as an example of good or bad design.In fact I think that that question is up for grabs, and I think that removing that potential oneshot lethality improves the design of a dungeon adventure roleplaying game, by ensuring that where lethality is encountered it is a genuine consequence of a sequence of choices that the player experienced as being meaningful and under his/her control (other than the choice to have his/her PC go on an adventure, which is - given that we are playing a dungeon adventure RPG - not really a choice at all).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4477480, member: 42582"] 1st ed AD&D had virtually no action resolution mechanics outside of combat. 2nd ed AD&D had a little bit more, but not much. 3rd ed had more again, but the combat mechanics are still the majority of the action resolution mechanics. The same is true of 4e (which uses the comparatively abstract skill challenge system as a catch-all for non-combat action resolution). This suggests that combat is intended to be a significant part of the game. Given that, I think it is does not really get to the heart of the matter simply to suggest that a player whose PC ends up confronting an orc with a greataxe, losing initiative, and dying to a critical hit has suffered the proper consequences of a meaningful choice (to go into places full of orcs). If that suggestion were correct, it would appear to follow that there was nothing meaningful to be said about whether AD&D, 3E or 4e was the better-designed dungeon adventure roleplaying game - that the potentially one-shot lethality of the orc with the greataxe, which is a feature of 3E far more than of AD&D or 4e, was not up for grabs as an example of good or bad design. In fact I think that that question is up for grabs, and I think that removing that potential oneshot lethality improves the design of a dungeon adventure roleplaying game, by ensuring that where lethality is encountered it is a genuine consequence of a sequence of choices that the player experienced as being meaningful and under his/her control (other than the choice to have his/her PC go on an adventure, which is - given that we are playing a dungeon adventure RPG - not really a choice at all). [/QUOTE]

Verification