Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
R. Thompson : D&D still a sim/gamist RPG
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 4116942" data-attributes="member: 32536"><p>Sorry for taking so long to respond to this Kraydak, but you and Hong post way too early in the morning for me...</p><p></p><p>I think you probably could be a bit clearer here by stating whether this is a player preference, chosen character personality, or simply a specialized character build... All three have a similar result, but there are pretty significant differences between them for a discussion about roleplaying potential. That said, I <em>think</em> I understand what you mean.</p><p></p><p>Actually, Rodney said something more along the lines of "we will not penalize a sub-optimal choice so much that it impossible".</p><p>This is where my reading of everything and your reading differ completely. The idea behind 4E is more that you can try to make your shtick work where it could not work in 3E, not that the DM tailors more encounters in which your shtick works.</p><p></p><p>Let me phrase this a bit differently...</p><p></p><p>Let us assume that Thogg's party is put into a situation where they need to resolve some kind of tricky diplomatic issue. 3E basically assumes that such a task will be resolved entirely by characters who have put skill points into social skills or have social class features. Thogg, who only likes ass-kicking, has nothing to do, since ass-kicking is useless. 4E assumes that, if the player is creative, he can find some way to make his ass-kicking more applicable to the diplomatic situation (though probably at lower effectiveness than usual), but at the same time he has the alternative of using a less-optimized skill and participating in the negotiations directly (because of the new skill system). In 3E, Thogg has no viable options (and thus no way of roleplaying through the mechanics), but in 4E, Thogg has several viable options (if a bit sub-optimal), one of which is ass-kicking.</p><p></p><p>As such, I interpret things in the exact opposite way that you do. In 4E, Thogg will have more places where he can <em>choose</em> to kick ass, and the choice is not forced upon him based on circumstances.</p><p></p><p>At this point, you seem to be arguing a few different, slightly contradictory points, so I am getting confused again.</p><p></p><p>In your second paragraph, the important thing you dislike seems to be that 4E forces the DM to make situations in which Thogg can kick ass. In your third paragraph, you complain that 4E does not force a character to use sub-optimal skills. Both points seem very different than your original idea that 4E removes the ability of characters to choose their own goals (which is what I originally objected to). As such, can you please clarify your position somewhat? I am not sure what I am arguing against anymore.</p><p></p><p>Oh well, time to bring in what you said to hong.</p><p></p><p>I don't think this argument is applicable. Your decision that they were silly, and thus not useable in the game, is entirely your own subjective view as a player and/or DM. A DM who would nix such ideas in 3E will probably still do so in 4E. Meanwhile, as a DM myself, I would not have had a problem with those actions even in 3E. They may be silly (as in a bit humorous and off-the-wall), but that is no logical reason to nix them. If there is a thriving marketplace, there are likely crowds and saddlebags that the PCs can interact with. If there is a sewer, there is likely something mentioned about it in a history book the PC might have read in his spare time.</p><p></p><p>This just makes me even more confused regarding what I said above, but I think this is a matter of you interpreting things wrong.</p><p></p><p>There is no indication whatsoever that 4E tells DMs to tailor encounters to match the abilities of the PCs. All they are doing in 4E open things up so that players have more ways of responding to a situation.</p><p></p><p>Anyways, I think you should move on from the Thogg example... The vagueness of "ass-kicking situations" and "non-ass-kicking situations", and you assumption of an absolute distinction between the two (which I don't necessarily agree with), might be confusing the discussion more than helping it. Maybe we should use an example of a character who specializes in certain skills, instead?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TwinBahamut, post: 4116942, member: 32536"] Sorry for taking so long to respond to this Kraydak, but you and Hong post way too early in the morning for me... I think you probably could be a bit clearer here by stating whether this is a player preference, chosen character personality, or simply a specialized character build... All three have a similar result, but there are pretty significant differences between them for a discussion about roleplaying potential. That said, I [i]think[/i] I understand what you mean. Actually, Rodney said something more along the lines of "we will not penalize a sub-optimal choice so much that it impossible". This is where my reading of everything and your reading differ completely. The idea behind 4E is more that you can try to make your shtick work where it could not work in 3E, not that the DM tailors more encounters in which your shtick works. Let me phrase this a bit differently... Let us assume that Thogg's party is put into a situation where they need to resolve some kind of tricky diplomatic issue. 3E basically assumes that such a task will be resolved entirely by characters who have put skill points into social skills or have social class features. Thogg, who only likes ass-kicking, has nothing to do, since ass-kicking is useless. 4E assumes that, if the player is creative, he can find some way to make his ass-kicking more applicable to the diplomatic situation (though probably at lower effectiveness than usual), but at the same time he has the alternative of using a less-optimized skill and participating in the negotiations directly (because of the new skill system). In 3E, Thogg has no viable options (and thus no way of roleplaying through the mechanics), but in 4E, Thogg has several viable options (if a bit sub-optimal), one of which is ass-kicking. As such, I interpret things in the exact opposite way that you do. In 4E, Thogg will have more places where he can [i]choose[/i] to kick ass, and the choice is not forced upon him based on circumstances. At this point, you seem to be arguing a few different, slightly contradictory points, so I am getting confused again. In your second paragraph, the important thing you dislike seems to be that 4E forces the DM to make situations in which Thogg can kick ass. In your third paragraph, you complain that 4E does not force a character to use sub-optimal skills. Both points seem very different than your original idea that 4E removes the ability of characters to choose their own goals (which is what I originally objected to). As such, can you please clarify your position somewhat? I am not sure what I am arguing against anymore. Oh well, time to bring in what you said to hong. I don't think this argument is applicable. Your decision that they were silly, and thus not useable in the game, is entirely your own subjective view as a player and/or DM. A DM who would nix such ideas in 3E will probably still do so in 4E. Meanwhile, as a DM myself, I would not have had a problem with those actions even in 3E. They may be silly (as in a bit humorous and off-the-wall), but that is no logical reason to nix them. If there is a thriving marketplace, there are likely crowds and saddlebags that the PCs can interact with. If there is a sewer, there is likely something mentioned about it in a history book the PC might have read in his spare time. This just makes me even more confused regarding what I said above, but I think this is a matter of you interpreting things wrong. There is no indication whatsoever that 4E tells DMs to tailor encounters to match the abilities of the PCs. All they are doing in 4E open things up so that players have more ways of responding to a situation. Anyways, I think you should move on from the Thogg example... The vagueness of "ass-kicking situations" and "non-ass-kicking situations", and you assumption of an absolute distinction between the two (which I don't necessarily agree with), might be confusing the discussion more than helping it. Maybe we should use an example of a character who specializes in certain skills, instead? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
R. Thompson : D&D still a sim/gamist RPG
Top