Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Toben the Many" data-source="post: 4761308" data-attributes="member: 19273">This is true to an extent - however your examples are a bit weak for me. What I see in your examples are things that empower the players. So what? I'm all for empowering the players. You want to make the innkeeper to dance a jig? So what? How does that ruin the game? In fact, it might make it funny or more enjoyable. Offing the archmage in a funny or humorous manner is great, too. Again, for me, that's the creativity and fun of RPGs. But I get your point. It's not so much fun, for example, if the paladin PC is charmed into dancing a jig while stripping down naked. Or if the noble bard is charmed into betraying his friends. But I think 4E takes it too far to the other extreme. There are ways of limiting PC power but allowing for non-combat usage. A great example is Mutants and Masterminds. That's a game system that gets rave reviews time and time again. It's a big seller in the third party market. Mutants and Masterminds limits these sorts of things by giving them small durations, and allows the really important NPCs to have strong defenses against that sort of thing. And numerous other game systems also allow for character non-combat abilities...without those game systems falling apart at the seams. It can certainly be done. See, I don't see this as a detriment at all. I want to deal with the fallout from when the PCs do something off-the-raiis. That's the whole point of sandbox gaming. That's where the &quot;yes, and&quot; rule comes in. Okay - you make the bartender dance a jig. When the spell wears off, he goes and reports your actions to the guards. Now what do you do? Those are great spring boards for adventures and campaign left-turns.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Toben the Many, post: 4761308, member: 19273"] This is true to an extent - however your examples are a bit weak for me. What I see in your examples are things that empower the players. So what? I'm all for empowering the players. You want to make the innkeeper to dance a jig? So what? How does that ruin the game? In fact, it might make it funny or more enjoyable. Offing the archmage in a funny or humorous manner is great, too. Again, for me, that's the creativity and fun of RPGs. But I get your point. It's not so much fun, for example, if the paladin PC is charmed into dancing a jig while stripping down naked. Or if the noble bard is charmed into betraying his friends. But I think 4E takes it too far to the other extreme. There are ways of limiting PC power but allowing for non-combat usage. A great example is Mutants and Masterminds. That's a game system that gets rave reviews time and time again. It's a big seller in the third party market. Mutants and Masterminds limits these sorts of things by giving them small durations, and allows the really important NPCs to have strong defenses against that sort of thing. And numerous other game systems also allow for character non-combat abilities...without those game systems falling apart at the seams. It can certainly be done. See, I don't see this as a detriment at all. I [i]want[/i] to deal with the fallout from when the PCs do something off-the-raiis. That's the whole point of sandbox gaming. That's where the "yes, and" rule comes in. Okay - you make the bartender dance a jig. When the spell wears off, he goes and reports your actions to the guards. [i]Now[/i] what do you do? Those are great spring boards for adventures and campaign left-turns. [/QUOTE]

Verification