Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 4282378" data-attributes="member: 467">This, of course, is precisely the problem.&nbsp; By limiting the &quot;fun&quot; mechanics to combat, you essentially limit the game to combat.&nbsp; Or, as hong would put it, you've failed to reconcile mechanics with noncombat somethingorother.I mean, wasn't one of the great complaints against 3e that it reduced problems to singular skill rolls?&nbsp; Well, turning it into multiple skill rolls doesn't seem to be much of an answer when the designers have built in an entire support structure for making die rolling (which is all combat is) more fun.&nbsp; In the end, all the powers are simply exceptions to &quot;roll 1d20 and add x&quot; basic assumption and therefore could easily be applied to any situation in which dice play a part.It would not be hard to imagine, for example, a &quot;rhetorical combat&quot; system in which physical maneuvering and attacking were replaced by verbal maneuvering and attacking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 4282378, member: 467"] This, of course, is precisely the problem. By limiting the "fun" mechanics to combat, you essentially limit the game to combat. Or, as hong would put it, you've failed to reconcile mechanics with noncombat somethingorother. I mean, wasn't one of the great complaints against 3e that it reduced problems to singular skill rolls? Well, turning it into multiple skill rolls doesn't seem to be much of an answer when the designers have built in an entire support structure for making die rolling (which is all combat is) more fun. In the end, all the powers are simply exceptions to "roll 1d20 and add x" basic assumption and therefore could easily be applied to any situation in which dice play a part. It would not be hard to imagine, for example, a "rhetorical combat" system in which physical maneuvering and attacking were replaced by verbal maneuvering and attacking. [/QUOTE]

Verification