Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3821894" data-attributes="member: 3192">The magic part of the game, the spells, when used outside of combat are consequential to future combats that day.  It means resources for combat are related to their use outside of it.  So that the magical aspect of the game is not split between in or out.  I've already brought this up over at the WotC boards about how monsters without many S-Ls limit what they can do out of combat as well as in.  That diversity played to strategy and NPC plot design.But you're right.  I'm overstating again.I also agree that per encounter mechanics do have relevance to the game.  Like fatigue.  I'm cautious about what 4e means by per encounter though.  I'm guessing it means powers that really can't be made universal out of combat without implying a specific world design, namely very high magic.You may not like this as I mentioned before, but daily encounters will be limited in 4e regardless if powers are /day or /encounter.  What this mechanic is, however, we do not yet know.  Again, I can only hope it makes sense in game.  Maybe it will be DM adjustable for individual worlds?  That would serve everyone nicely.  Of course, spells can just be multiplied or divided in number in 3e too as each is balanced per combat turn.Well, I prefer in character play vs. rule play.  "Skill" has no reference to the players gaming the rules.  Their skill is in thinking in character like you or I in thinking about the real world.  The rules are the sim, not perfect, but okay.  The imagined world is the important part for players.  "Gaming the system" can be done without reference to the world at all.  It's like testing one's ability to make brush strokes and never bothering with the what the painting is supposed to represent.  In the style I am advocating, the brush strokes are invisible to the players.  All that is seen is the image.  IMO, players never signed up for that when they came back to D&D.  They played "operational play" (is that your term?) and were served up "ruleplay" (the derogative of gaming the system).  And so they left.  Numbers went down again.  And old school play became popular.I agree with your breakdown of Rolemaster and d20 being similar and pre-d20 D&D being different from them.  IMO, rules inherently limit thinking.  They appear to extend choices by extending rules, but that is the job of the DM: to expand the rules when the players leave what they account for.  Thinking only within a ruleset cannot help but limit creativity to within those rules alone.Same as above, Player descriptions of their PCs non-mechanically created are more expansive, less restrictive.  Do you believe 4e will be closer to Rolemaster than to 3rd edition?  I know Hong used to post on "the creeping HEROization of D&D".Plot (plan), theme, and fun are all up to the Players to create via their PCs.  Resource management encourages roleplay because it is part of everything we do when deciding our lives.  We judge based on what we can do and what we have on hand.  This RMgt will always exist in RPGs.  Arrows, expendable magic items, breakable swords, etc.  The whole of the what makes life, life is that very few things are unlimited in quantity.  As RMgt represents this with magic, it's most engaging part, it is the near the heart of what makes D&D, D&D.I consider Plots NPC plans.  There is not plot until it happens.  That's basically PC- vs. DM-driven.Players don't know the rules so they can imagine the world, not the mechanics.  They don't exercise their skill with the mechanics, because these are not the game.  As mentioned above by Mallus above in Forge language: Hero Points give "Narrative Control" to the Players.  By this they don't mean control via the PCs, but via the DM's character, the world.  That's removal from PC POV and inherently obstructive to being-in-character (roleplay).Perhaps after Session 1 of a campaign what you say is true.  As Players will often talk about their plans in front of the DM so he can prepare for them.  Discrete situation play is more for tournaments and one-shots.  They aren't what is meant by "campaign".I'm not saying everyone needs to play how the game was designed to be played.  Only that whatever 4e does bring that it doesn't negate the possibility of playing based upon how it was originally built.  (see my thread <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206969" target="_blank">here</a>.) (and see my response to Mallus and "Reading the DM's Mind" above)I agree.  As the OP says: give the option.  Just fair warning as I've said: RMgt constraint will never go away.  Per Day will always need rest, food, etc.  This is the basic rationale for why most magic was /day and not /week, month, year, etc.That's why I didn't mention them.  But I do hope the in-game descriptions are both sensible and flexible enough to be changed for different GMs' worlds.Well, yeah. They do.  I use them for feats and such in my 3.5 game.  I was responding to the assumed "automatic combat skill improvement" could make sense in games that used your defined first approach of play - basically play without combat.   Actually, given as pre-d20 D&D didn't increase out of combat abilities, leveling isn't even necessary.</blockquote>

Verification