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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primal" data-source="post: 4164883" data-attributes="member: 30678">Hmmm... I see it actually benefiting gameplay, storytelling and character immersion -- therefore, I see it as a step *forward*. However, I agree with you that it probably feels weird on its own in otherwise very gamist system (or a bunch of subsystems encouraging highly-gamist and tactical gaming over story and simulation). Now, if we're talking about the *other* mechanics in 4E, I see most of them (e.g. 'exception-based' ability design, NPCs as "monsters", strictly defined 'roles', self-healing, boardgame-y tactical combat, class-exclusive "attack powers", etc.) truly being steps backward (towards AD&D and, sadly, even beyond). But if they get this one element "right" (my subjective opinion, mind you), encouraging "nar" play in D&D, it gives me hope that maybe we'll see 5th Edition focusing on less-gamist goals and focusing on other stuff besides combat in its mechanics. Honestly, I'm more than willing to admit that I think the 4E skill system does work better than skills in 3E, at least from the narrativist perspective. I see your point, but I'm fairly certain that they've devoted a lot of pages in PHB (and DMG) to dealing with this issue. I *do* hope that there is some system for setting the stakes -- if not, your concern is actually valid. I could see players using their 'History' skill (e.g. to determine if that particular trap and how to disarm it is mentioned in the texts their PCs may have read) arguing about the consequences if failing that skill check blows up the trap ("I didn't touch it! I was just pouring through my tomes!"). It seems that the DM still has the final word over what happens and how, but I'm a bit concerned about less experienced players and DMs who may either abuse/misuse the system very easily.</blockquote>

Verification