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: 3923419" data-attributes="member: 1757">Good. So I take it that if you play fighters, you also make sure that you're in good enough physical training to wear a 70-pound suit of armor and swing a sword for hours at a time? You can cast spells? And how exactly is actually having a mechanical basis for your character's abilities inconsistent with being able to "act in character?I didn't miss the early years. I played many, many enjoyable campaigns using "old school" rules. But that doesn't mean that I was somehow trapped into thinking the rules couldn't get better; for that matter, it doesn't mean that I encountered many, many players who left to play GURPS, Ars Magica, or Werewolf because they found the AD&D system clunky.The point I'm making is that your comments on "style of play" have *absolutely nothing to do with the current state of the rules.* You're somehow suggesting that creating mechanics for non-combat situations kills the imagination, which is actually missing the whole point... that point being that the rules are going to come up anyway. It's just a question of a) whether the player's own social skills and ingenuity should be substituted for those of his character, which prevents players who either have middling social skills or aren't necessarily brilliant polymaths from playing social or intelligent PCs; or b) whether the DM should make up the rules instead of, say, having them conveniently written down in the game books.Especially like yours? I find that comment rather elitist. In case it wasn't obvious, there are many, many people out there who think that the rules for handling "traditional"-feeling D&D games can get better. It's just that for us, "traditional" feel doesn't mean "there aren't rules to cover anything but combat" or "the DM just makes up most of it." I was disagreeing with Raven Crowking's post (and subsequently with yours): Namely, the argument to the effect that *not* having rules to cover certain aspects of the game somehow allows greater choice. IMO and IME, it doesn't. D&D is a game of the imagination, but without rules to shape that imagination, it can't be anything other than make-believe or cops and robbers. If I want to challenge my players, I can do so just as easily in 3e as in 1e, and I doubt this will change in 4e. As I said, challenging the players is system-neutral. You're probably zooming in on the social aspect of the game, what with the comments on autistic players and being able to "become a silver-tongued diplomat" with sufficient play. Personally, I think that social interaction rules have several advantages:a) They allow characters who choose to focus in social abilities to reap mechanical benefits in parallel to characters focused on combat. This makes building a social character a legitimate, meaningful option on par with building a combat machine. But even 3e still hasn't gotten there, and 1e was nowhere close.b) They allow the DM to have a meaningful framework within which to judge social interactions, meaning he doesn't have to make it all up as he goes along. Fine, you may like the idea of the DM/referee making it all up. However, not everyone likes having to be arbitrary; I for one am very uncomfortable with the idea that I just decide what happens without a consistent framework within which to work. Ideally, a smart decision should have a definable, predictable (within parameters) result.c) They allow the players a meaningful role in generating the story. If I'm a player and I'm *not* the most brilliant of diplomats, *or* if I'm a DM who doesn't have that ability, the DM essentially has to tell the story by fiat. The use of rules for social interactions allows the players and DM to use the dice for direction while they generate the script, to quote another ENWorlder.d) They allow players to play epic bards or diplomats on par with epic warriors. I don't care what you say; I don't think *anyone* exists who can match in repartee what Odysseus or Orpheus was supposed to be like. If I can create a PC who thrusts a spear like Achilles or Heracles, I should be able to create a PC who talks or sings like either of those two.Just some initial thoughts.</blockquote>

Verification