Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 5669563">I have been torn on this one for a long time. I can see the value in both approaches. But I have to say, I ran a 2E game recently (after years of 3E) and I noticed a huge increase in role playing and interaction with the setting. It was a Ravenloft campaign.  I've run Ravenloft since the early 90s, and rand several 3E ravenloft campaigns when the new edition came out. However I did notice my 3E campaigns never quite felt the same. Don't get me wrong, I love 3E. I just found in the games I was running it didn't work as well for Ravenloft somehow.  Certainly much of this depends on the players and the GM. I think what happens sometimes is people lean on those social skill rolls like Diplomacy, Bluff or other types of skills like Detect. One can certainly role play and make a Diplomacy roll. But in practice there seems to be a muffling effect.  Once again don't get me wrong. Like I said I am torn on this issue, and in the game system I designed I ended up with tons of social skills and detect-like skills.  This is probably the first Mearls article so far I've enjoyed. This is an important question in game design, and more importantly, it is an honest difference between 1e/2e and 3e/4e.</blockquote>