Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3829331" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't remember any rule in 1st ed AD&amp;D or Moldvay Basic that precluded backstabbing undead and shambling mounds.Assuming by &quot;viable&quot; you really do mean viable, and not (for example) powerful, this is good advice only for a certain sort of game - one in which the players are prepared to endure a certain amount of tedium or significantly deferred pleasure, in return for a lot of fun later on. I'm not sure that a majority of RPGers fit this description.The problem is that what a player plays a game for is his or her own fun, not the usefulness of an imaginary person in an imaginary world. So unless the mode of PC utility is also a source of player enjoyment, usefulness is neither here nor there. Given that combat dominates the time spent playing D&amp;D, the usefulness must be of a sort that allows the player to enjoy combat - and not just every 3rd round, but every round. Who wants to play a game in which you constantly miss turns?So what you identify as a bug is, in fact, a feature - assuming that the players largely have the sort of preferences I have identified above.Rolemaster has no rules comparable to sneak attack, which negates a major class's combat abilities against a certain proportion of foes. But I can tell you that, nevertheless, not all characters play the same in combat. In fact, my RM game has two non-spell-using twin-blade wielding fighters, and these two characters play very differently in combat, because of the various tactical, acrobatic etc techniques each has developed. 4e will (with its talent trees, per-encounter abilities etc) be aimed at replicating this sort of variation, I imagine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 3829331, member: 42582"] I don't remember any rule in 1st ed AD&D or Moldvay Basic that precluded backstabbing undead and shambling mounds. Assuming by "viable" you really do mean viable, and not (for example) powerful, this is good advice only for a certain sort of game - one in which the players are prepared to endure a certain amount of tedium or significantly deferred pleasure, in return for a lot of fun later on. I'm not sure that a majority of RPGers fit this description. The problem is that what a player plays a game for is [i]his or her own fun[/i], not the usefulness of an imaginary person in an imaginary world. So unless the mode of PC utility is [i]also[/i] a source of player enjoyment, usefulness is neither here nor there. Given that combat dominates the time spent playing D&D, the usefulness must be of a sort that allows the player to enjoy combat - and not just every 3rd round, but every round. Who wants to play a game in which you constantly miss turns? So what you identify as a bug is, in fact, a feature - assuming that the players largely have the sort of preferences I have identified above. Rolemaster has no rules comparable to sneak attack, which negates a major class's combat abilities against a certain proportion of foes. But I can tell you that, nevertheless, not all characters play the same in combat. In fact, my RM game has two non-spell-using twin-blade wielding fighters, and these two characters play very differently in combat, because of the various tactical, acrobatic etc techniques each has developed. 4e will (with its talent trees, per-encounter abilities etc) be aimed at replicating this sort of variation, I imagine. [/QUOTE]

Verification