Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3819548" data-attributes="member: 3192">Per Day abilities may be uninteresting in Rolemaster, but I prefer how they operated in D&D: Spells as highly powerful, but infrequently used.  The idea that there will be fewer, but more powerful spells is actually something I'm hoping for in 4th.  The "at will" "spells" I can easily change back to what they were previously and mechanically probably will be anyways: simple weapons.The interesting strategies you mention are all still there with a Per Day system.  In addition, spell selection is also added into the mix. You're right here.  I overstated my position.  Strategic thinking merely adds in again spell usage.In an adventure game adversity means planning.  Or kick in the door hack and slash. Neither is required, but Per Day spells emphasize the utility in forethought and strategy.It's not knowing when to run.  Strategy occurs before combat begins.  Planning involves role assumption because it puts you into character for goal setting.  It is the out-of-combat play that still keeps combat relevant.By plots you mean character planning?  There won't ever be character plans that aren't limited by resources.  The designers have said combat won't be unlimited for every day.  I didn't see any references to specific plots in that post, but I may be missing a bit in not reading 1400 posts. Role assumption occurs both within and outside of combat.  Resource management encourages it outside of combat when relevant to combat.Hero Points, and the like, are actually antithetical to roleplaying.  The are not about "gaming the world", but "gaming the system".  They are not representative of anything in the world, but for players to play a Meta aspect of the rules - something they should not know anyways.I'm completely misunderstanding you here.  Not what you have written, but that, somehow, there are people who want to play a game, but not have their skill at playing that game tested.  Is that an accurate interpretation of what you are saying?  Games test skill.  Roleplaying test one's ability to roleplay.  Roleplaying Games test both.  If I understand you correctly, you are referring to people who want to roleplay, but not game.  These folks have no need of rules then.  The game aspect is only going to obstruct them from doing what they want to do.Is this such a horrible thing?  Is this a result of hours long combat agonizingly painful in 3e?  Miss your turn in pre-d20 and it comes up a minute or two later.  It's not that big of a deal.  Not to mention that just because PCs don't have a special "power" to use every round does not preclude PCs from taking other actions.I do play OD&D and run 3.5.  "Operational play" as you say is still possible in 3e.  It may not be in 4th.  The fact that this playstyle has been part of D&D for 33 years makes me wish it, and 80% of the player base, kept it as an option.Of the two types of character design you define, I'm more of the 1st of course.  The second removes the opportunity for roleplay/immersion in the game.  I can handwave aspects if I choose to, but I don't want them built in.I disagree that the 2nd approach is more mechanically balanced.  That is mechanical Illusionism - the idea that only the actions defined within the system will ever be taken by users of that system.  RPGs have always been the exception to games which take such highly systemic approaches.  Chainmail and D&D were/are not "light" games in terms of rules, but they are very broad with a "beer & pretzels" approach.  Heavy Sim is not what I'm suggesting and yet having massive mechanics is what 3e & perhaps 4th deliver.And for automatic combat skills presupposing combat, again, this is an adventure game.  D&D limits players by being such.  If they do not want adventure, then it is not the game for them.  Combat may never even be necessary depending on how adventures are approached, but the idea PCs improve at combat abilities is easily accounted for by using training rules.  I'm not suggesting foolish fidelity to system.  I'm saying they are moving away from their core players, and the biggest draw of the game, all of which they brought back with "back to the dungeon" game/gamism design for 3e.  I'm glad they shook off the false ideas of 2e with roleplaying as good and challenging play as bad.  Going to what may amount to a Skirmish Miniatures game, where whatever happens outside of combat has no relevance to combat, is an unwise idea IMO.  It misses why RPGs originated in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification