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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 3922477" data-attributes="member: 1757">How is it limiting?1e had essentially no rules for non-combat situations other than the reaction tables (wacky) and the secondary skills table (useless). Nonweapon proficiencies in late 1e and 2e really didn't measure up, being essentially tacked-on rules that were highly unlikely to come up in gameplay. So instead, 1e went for challenging the players rather than the characters when it came to non-combat encounters. In 3e, you can actually craft a *character* who can excel at diplomacy, answering difficult lore questions, and so on, which expands options for role-playing, since the player can run a *character* who can do these things rather than the DM and player hashing it out directly between themselves with no regard for the character's implied personality and abilities.It seems to me that the elephant in the room is that challenging players rather than characters is game system neutral. I can use 1e's riddles, puzzles, whatever just fine in 3e (and I do!). The issue is that social interaction, wilderness survival, interactive trap scenarios, and so on are much harder to run in 1e because the DM has to make up the rules as he goes, meaning that the players have no real idea what outcomes are going to look like... which, if you are risk averse, means you'll avoid those sorts of scenarios in favor of combat, where you *know* what your character is capable of. Having rules for non-combat scenarios gives groups tools to *facilitate* such scenarios. It's not a limitation, it's an expansion of possibilities.</blockquote>

Verification