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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6105943" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Indeed. I suspect such a culture would produce/value a game to more directly reflect the genre sources as well.I am so very desperate to try a similar experiment. I hope you will post results!This is where, I think, the standard D&D architectures break down a bit, or maybe just reaches a limit. I've speculated before that if 4e had "Combat" and perhaps "Magic" skills, that you could run everything as a Skill Challenge. Just use the flavor text of the powers, if that. That's a very simple game. D&D seems to resist being a simple game, though. D&D loves to have fiddly bits, in particular fixed fiddly bits. Powers, feats, proficiencies, whatever, D&D loves to define what you can do, especially in combat! Whether and how much that also constrains what you can do seems to be subjective. The problem is that, to some extent, I think non-physical conflicts suffer from that level of definition, and it becomes a constraint. Non-physical conflicts seem to do okay with some broad stroke descriptors or traits, letting the players fill in the details. So what you suggest above sounds okay, but would you really gain a lot vs. a Skill Challenge? ::shrug:: Maybe. I don't think it would give you the ability to use social skills in an otherwise physical conflict. To do that, you've got to have some way to tie directly into things like the HP, movement, etc. and use the same action economy. That is, you'd need to merge the social and physical combat mini-games. To do that would necessitate (I think) changing the conceptualization of things like HP, AC, and injury in ways that most D&D players would find intolerable. Just look at the reaction to 4e's non-magical healing. Maybe there is some clever solution I can't see, but I don't know if most folks even see this as a problem.</blockquote>

Verification