Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I guess I really do prefer simplicity
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tequila Sunrise" data-source="post: 4982352" data-attributes="member: 40398"><p>Sure, you can make any decision you want in any edition; the relevant question to me is: does it matter and am I punished for making atypical decisions? So let's compare the three editions I know:</p><p></p><p>If I had made Finn in 2e, he'd no doubt be a fighter. I would have described and rped him as charming as best I could, but I don't remember any social proficiencies. So I would have been dependent on the whim of my DM; he might be one of those DMs who think fighters can only fight, he might base NPC reactions completely on my own only-occasionally-charming speech, or he might base NPC attitude off of the Reaction Chart or a simple Charisma check. None of which appeal to me, which is the problem with rules-light systems IMO: You have to hope that your DM is 100% phenomenal because the rules really don't give much guidance.</p><p></p><p>I happened to make Finn for a 3e game, and he was a fighter. 3e does think that fighters can only fight, which sucks, but at least it has halfway coherent rules and guidelines for social skills and skill options for players who imagine their characters as sociable. Luckily I had a halfway phenomenal DM, so he let me have Diplomacy as a class skill. So when social encounters happened, Finn's charm really shone though so long as I made the effort to rp it.</p><p></p><p>If I had made Finn in 4e, he might have been a fighter, tempest style -- or maybe a refluffed ranger or rogue or a tactical warlord -- because no matter what, I can pick up Skill Training in Diplomacy and be confident that it'll make a small difference during social encounters. And as an added bonus, those class options don't blatantly punish me for wearing light armor and a couple even make dual wielding a roughly balanced option, unlike previous editions. Now <em>that's</em> what I call freedom!</p><p></p><p></p><p>No doubt; I commented on Hairfoot's simultaneous claim of using consensus to make frequent decisions and 'rocketing' through his game, which seems an oxymoronic statement.</p><p></p><p>Wrong. Since my first post, where I might have avoided all this fuss by adding an 'IMO,' I've been very careful to use 'I' statements and be politically correct about what others enjoy.</p><p></p><p>All I have is a couple vague promises of house ruled options; I and others have asked for specific examples but have got none. So we have to assume that every time something comes up in game that's not covered by the rules, you folks are making house rules on the spot.</p><p></p><p>I don't have the CS anymore, but I can tell you just as easily how a cleric becomes a bard: instead of a holy symbol I gave him a flute and mentioned him playing it around the campfire and when he used a buff power. Instead of praying incessantly, he sang incessantly.</p><p></p><p>Hel yeah! I'm not afraid to house rule and home brew when my fave edition <strong>occasionally</strong> doesn't have anything vaguely resembling what I want to do. In this particular case, I think 4e acts too much like a video game -- sure, moving through an enemy's space should be really dangerous but to rule that a character <em>just can't</em> attempt an action that a real person clearly can is silly for an rpg.</p><p></p><p>Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth! I am the dictator of my game, but the way I use the rules is far from inflexible or cumbersome. I do seek general agreement in my group, I just don't take inordinate amounts of time to do so. On the rare occasion that something comes up that the rules don't cover, like moving through an enemy's space, I make a call and move on. That call is usually to the players' advantage, and I often go back to it after the session to make sure it's balanced, but I don't stop in the middle of a session to hold a prolonged forum about it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tequila Sunrise, post: 4982352, member: 40398"] Sure, you can make any decision you want in any edition; the relevant question to me is: does it matter and am I punished for making atypical decisions? So let's compare the three editions I know: If I had made Finn in 2e, he'd no doubt be a fighter. I would have described and rped him as charming as best I could, but I don't remember any social proficiencies. So I would have been dependent on the whim of my DM; he might be one of those DMs who think fighters can only fight, he might base NPC reactions completely on my own only-occasionally-charming speech, or he might base NPC attitude off of the Reaction Chart or a simple Charisma check. None of which appeal to me, which is the problem with rules-light systems IMO: You have to hope that your DM is 100% phenomenal because the rules really don't give much guidance. I happened to make Finn for a 3e game, and he was a fighter. 3e does think that fighters can only fight, which sucks, but at least it has halfway coherent rules and guidelines for social skills and skill options for players who imagine their characters as sociable. Luckily I had a halfway phenomenal DM, so he let me have Diplomacy as a class skill. So when social encounters happened, Finn's charm really shone though so long as I made the effort to rp it. If I had made Finn in 4e, he might have been a fighter, tempest style -- or maybe a refluffed ranger or rogue or a tactical warlord -- because no matter what, I can pick up Skill Training in Diplomacy and be confident that it'll make a small difference during social encounters. And as an added bonus, those class options don't blatantly punish me for wearing light armor and a couple even make dual wielding a roughly balanced option, unlike previous editions. Now [i]that's[/i] what I call freedom! No doubt; I commented on Hairfoot's simultaneous claim of using consensus to make frequent decisions and 'rocketing' through his game, which seems an oxymoronic statement. Wrong. Since my first post, where I might have avoided all this fuss by adding an 'IMO,' I've been very careful to use 'I' statements and be politically correct about what others enjoy. All I have is a couple vague promises of house ruled options; I and others have asked for specific examples but have got none. So we have to assume that every time something comes up in game that's not covered by the rules, you folks are making house rules on the spot. I don't have the CS anymore, but I can tell you just as easily how a cleric becomes a bard: instead of a holy symbol I gave him a flute and mentioned him playing it around the campfire and when he used a buff power. Instead of praying incessantly, he sang incessantly. Hel yeah! I'm not afraid to house rule and home brew when my fave edition [b]occasionally[/b] doesn't have anything vaguely resembling what I want to do. In this particular case, I think 4e acts too much like a video game -- sure, moving through an enemy's space should be really dangerous but to rule that a character [i]just can't[/i] attempt an action that a real person clearly can is silly for an rpg. Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth! I am the dictator of my game, but the way I use the rules is far from inflexible or cumbersome. I do seek general agreement in my group, I just don't take inordinate amounts of time to do so. On the rare occasion that something comes up that the rules don't cover, like moving through an enemy's space, I make a call and move on. That call is usually to the players' advantage, and I often go back to it after the session to make sure it's balanced, but I don't stop in the middle of a session to hold a prolonged forum about it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
I guess I really do prefer simplicity
Top