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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6148433" data-attributes="member: 177">To use a somewhat dramatic analogy:  Folks were trying to build flying machines for centuries.  That should have strongly suggested to the Wright Brothers that flying machines were a non-starter.The mechanics I've been mentioning are all relatively new to RPGs.  Which means that people are thinking up new stuff all the time!  Why stop trying when there's always new things to try?I also submit that no, folks were not trying to find "narrative options" for non-spellcasters for D&D for decades.  Folks have been doing many things, but looking at it as "narrative options" is a pretty new concept.  They have, instead, been trying to find ways for fighters to dominate combat more, and have skills outside combat, but those are only a couple of things one can do - folks may have been trying to improve the fighters, but they have had some metaphorical blinders on.  As time goes on, and more games have more novel approaches, our palate of potential solutions to problems grows.Because, as we all know, in 1e and 2e magic users were never forces in combat!  Fireballs and lightning bolts are sacred cows in the game because they are pretty, but they never had any real weight in a fight!  I'm sorry, that was my sarcastic voice, and I should not have used it.  But the point remains - your memory of pre-3e gaming does not match mine.  Wizards in earlier editions had low hit points, but were often crucial to winning fights.If that's the way you have it, then players of casters are generally bored in combat, and players of non-casters are generally bored out of combat.  Being bored stinks.  Writing off a player for large sections of the game is probably not a desirable design goal.</blockquote>

Verification