Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gothmog" data-source="post: 4316622" data-attributes="member: 317">Hmm, I don't think I can agree with this.  Were 1e and 2e only combat systems with no roleplaying?  That flies in the face of many of the modules and source material written for those editions considering they spent considerable time exploring the PCs place in the world at large and how they interacted with it.Maybe I'm weird, but the more explicit the rules are for roleplaying and background options for a character, the more the character is constrained by those rules in his actions and way he can be played.  I think that is why the alignment system was stripped down and made secondary, and why the designers for 4th edition went into more textual description of role-playing, character quirks, social challenges, etc- because you don't need rules to codify every aspect of the game.  Yes, reducing the importance of alignment is skewering a sacred cow, but IME over the years, people used alignment as a justification for their character's actions, rather than being a reflection of their actions.Too many times in 3.x, I saw people try to use Diplomacy, Imtimidate, or other social skills to give them a positive outcome, while only relying on the die roll.  I suppose the reasoning was that since there are specific rules for the social interaction rules, that the rules trump roleplaying, so the die result matters more than the character's reasoning or how he approaches the problem.  When I told them the check would fail unless they made an attempt a brief attempt at roleplaying out the situation, I got angry stares fairly often and temper tantrums a few times.  I know I'll get some flak for this, but I'm sorry- thats lazy roleplaying/gaming.  4e specifically addressed this issue in the DMG, saying that how the characters approach the interaction is at least as important as the die roll, and for the DM to take that into account when determining NPC reactions.  I don't know about you, but to me thats empowering the roleplaying aspects of the game.Finally, if you want to compare simple page/word count, the 4e PHB has 29 pages detailing combat and how to run a fight.  The 3.5 PHB has 27 pages detailing combat and how to run a fight.  Also, Chapter 2 of the 3.5 DMG was about running the game, and pages 21-30 contained combat information.  Considering 3.5 had smaller font, there is a considerably higher wordcount in 3.5 detailing combat and combat interactions than in 4e.  Some people also point out that the 4e PHB powers are all combat oriented, but if you look at the 3.5 PHB, most (at a glance, I'd say 80%) of the spells are combat oriented there as well, so that comparison doesn't hold up either.  I'm not trying to make this an edition war- the point is D&D (and almost any other RPG) has always had extensive combat rules.  The reason we need more rules for combat, and not as many for social interaction/roleplaying is because few of us have been in a life-or-death combat before, but to make sure everyone is on the same page and uses the same set of assumptions, combat rules have to be spelled out explicitly.  In contrast, we've all been in an arguement before, or tried to sweet-talk someone into doing something for us- social interaction is something we have practical experience with.  Honestly, I can't see how someone could say 4e is all about the combat- its much less about combat than 3.5, and on par with 1e/2e.</blockquote>

Verification