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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rechan" data-source="post: 4394466" data-attributes="member: 54846">This. I ran a campaign that was 80% roleplay. The players were all con men and gypsies. Mechanically, it was awful. The sorcerer/rogue (played by someone who didn't understand spell casting rules) coudln't do what the player wanted. The swashbuckler at level three had a +12 to Bluff and Diplomacy, making him win almost always at any instance when he could roll. The barbarian had to spend feats just so he could bluff like the entire party so he wouldn't stand there and look stupid during 80% of the game time. And the roguish cleric had woeful options to emphasize her God of Thievery schtick. I rarely used mechanics to reflect the roleplay. If I did, it was just a BSed skill roll. Because the party had fun. I honestly could have done it if there had been no rules whatsoever, and it was just us sitting around a table doing free-form RP. There are several systems I would much more happily run that have a robust social interaction system. I would certainly reach for them before I ever picked up D&D for non-combat social interaction mechanics. Deciding to use D&D to reflect social games is like picking Rock Paper Scissors as a combat resolution system.As to the whole topic of "Fly" and such, I see no difference between 4e's recalibration of Fly and 3.5's recalibration of Haste, Harm, and the never-ending errata on Polymorph from 3.0. By the end of 3.5, Polymorph was just 'Spell X can only turn you into Monster X. To turn into Monster Y, see Polymorph Into Y'. Fly in 3e was broken, and needed to be fixed. 4e did that.</blockquote>

Verification