Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4268517" data-attributes="member: 710">Interesting. Kids these days, they are way smarter then they should be! (Assuming it actually looked "realistic" enough for my childish desires <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )Unfortunately, the analogy in the original post with carpenter, electrician and plumber doesn't work so well to illustrate this, but maybe I can try:Let's assume that the education to become a carpenter, an electrician or a plumber costs money and time. And now, someone comes around and can get the education for all 3 for the time and money of the education for each individual one. And just because he is who he is, he gets it, while the rest is stuck with what he got, and had to spend additional time and money to expand. Creative abuse of spells can still be a source of fun. But usually it is more fun for the single one that can abuse the, in constrast to the fun for a whole group.The problem is also in the nature in how a game like D&D is played. If you focus your game on combat, and everyone is good at combat, everyone gets an equal amount of "screen time". If someone is not good at combat, his "screen-time" isn't very enjoyable. If you focus on non-combat, anyone focused on combat at the expense at other aspects has less screen-time. Best solution. Ensure that everyone is good at combat, and nobody is bad at non-combat. But: "Everyone is good at combat" can lead to characters that all play the same. To avoid that, 4E distinguishes roles and power source, to add some notable mechanical and flavor effects to achieve this differentiation.My caveat: Combat _is_ role-playing. It only involves combat roles, for sure, but that is still a role you can play. (And you can roleplay badly in combat, too. If you're playing a Cleric, and don't heal your allies, or if you're playing a Fighter and don't protect your allies, you're bad at playing your role. Just as if you're trying to play a pacifist and consistently suggest killing your enemies and taking their stuff is a good idea, or playing a shy character constantly trying to bluff and intimidate people)Role-playing is ("these days") more then just the combat role. We add "social" roles (loremaster vs faceman vs bully), personality traits and similar stuff to define a character and role-play this, too. Upping the rules page count doesn't make the "acting" part of role-playing better, though. It just makes the game-part of the role-playing game more interesting. Even if you introduce a 150 page chapter on "social combat", you won't get better at the acting part. You only get better at the game part.</blockquote>

Verification