Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5977072" data-attributes="member: 87792">Fine.&nbsp; Then don't use them.&nbsp; It's not as if their presence is going to spoil your fun if they are a DM tool that the DM never uses.&nbsp;&nbsp;And yet you have no wish for scene resolution mechanics.&nbsp; Take those out and what's left?&nbsp; A whole list of spot check values for skill rolls, and some spells?&nbsp;Tackling combat we can agree on quite a lot.&nbsp; Like how many hit points a kobold should have (minus ten)* and what we're supposed to be doing (putting axe or sword to face).&nbsp;Tackling non-combat (and chunking very broadly - not all people in each group want what I'm indicating)&nbsp;The OSR crowd wants Rulings. And not Rules.The 4e crowd wants meta-Structures to support rulings.&nbsp; And no &quot;I win&quot; spells.The Simulationist crowd wants Rules and not Rulings.The anti-Narrativist crowd want no meta-structures and generally want Rules.The Combat as War crowd want &quot;I win&quot; spells and strictly simulationist pacing.&nbsp;I could go on...&nbsp;They are starting with combat because it is the easy part.&nbsp; Because people are willing to scream bloody murder if there is even e.g. a hint of skill challenges as a DM tool (IIRC ForeverSlayer has outright said he doesn't even want it as an optional module).&nbsp;&nbsp;Who says we did get it right?&nbsp; 4e combat is good.&nbsp; But it's not the only form of good.&nbsp; It takes too long - and doesn't give anything to certain types of player.&nbsp; Multiattacks and charge-cheese are both overpowered.&nbsp; And most damningly, for people who aren't tactical players, seeing the wood for the trees - or the combat for the combat actions - becomes a challenge.&nbsp;* With thanks to Dungeon Bastard</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5977072, member: 87792"] Fine. Then don't use them. It's not as if their presence is going to spoil your fun if they are a DM tool that the DM never uses. And yet you have no wish for scene resolution mechanics. Take those out and what's left? A whole list of spot check values for skill rolls, and some spells? Tackling combat we can agree on quite a lot. Like how many hit points a kobold should have (minus ten)* and what we're supposed to be doing (putting axe or sword to face). Tackling non-combat (and chunking very broadly - not all people in each group want what I'm indicating) The OSR crowd wants Rulings. And not Rules. The 4e crowd wants meta-Structures to support rulings. And no "I win" spells. The Simulationist crowd wants Rules and not Rulings. The anti-Narrativist crowd want no meta-structures and generally want Rules. The Combat as War crowd want "I win" spells and strictly simulationist pacing. I could go on... They are starting with combat because it is the easy part. Because people are willing to scream bloody murder if there is even e.g. a hint of skill challenges as a DM tool (IIRC ForeverSlayer has outright said he doesn't even want it as an optional module). Who says we did get it right? 4e combat is good. But it's not the only form of good. It takes too long - and doesn't give anything to certain types of player. Multiattacks and charge-cheese are both overpowered. And most damningly, for people who aren't tactical players, seeing the wood for the trees - or the combat for the combat actions - becomes a challenge. * With thanks to Dungeon Bastard [/QUOTE]

Verification