Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Some Wrecan Stuff
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="Jester David" data-source="post: 6727717" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p><strong>Originally posted by wrecan:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>While I appreciate the input, Hocus, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with B. I don't think "more options" for non-combat (at least in the form of non-weapon proficiencies and certain powers) is helpful. While it will force an investment of time in building a social or skillful character, the price of that is, in my opinion, limiting the free-form nature of roleplaying outside combat.</p><p></p><p>Combat powers allow you to do things in combat that are otherwise impossible. But that's because combat is an inherently competitive challenge with a clearlose an a clear winner. Noncombat is not competitive. For skillful encounters, there are generally no opponents -- only obstacles. "Options" in such encounters either prevent you from doing things you should be able to do, or they become free passes around the obstacle, thus obviiating roleplay.</p><p></p><p>An example of the former would be a Mountaineering Skill which forces the DMs to alter encounter difficulties so that only people with the Mountaineering Skill can accomplish the challenges for traveling through the montains. An example of the latter would be a teleport spell, which allows players to entirely avoid the challenge of traveling through the mountains.</p><p></p><p>So, no, I don't think the solution to Combat Investment is to also force players to engage in Skill Investment. I think the solution is to ramp down the amount of investment.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by wrecan:</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think arbitrarily making players spend five hours building characters is a step backwards in character creation. The sad fact is that you don't need to spend hours preparing a character you can roleplay, and forcing people to do make-work only causes resentment.</p><p></p><p>That's why I suggest trying to include in powers some out-of-combat uses. That way the player is not engaging in creating a combat a combatant, but is spending the same amount of time building a well-rounded character.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>Originally posted by wrecan:</strong></p><p></p><p>Sure, players bring ideas to the table. But, what if those players have never played D&D before? Say a new person sits down to his first 2E game and hears his buddy talking about playing a dwarf. So he asks his friend to describe a dwarf...short guy, stocky, <em>bonus to poisons</em>, makes good <em>fighters</em>, etc. But the friend still hasn't answered the question (to any real degree). To this new player, all he pictures is a short guy <em>with poison resistance</em> that's better at <em>one</em> certain classes</p><p><em>more </em>than others. Not very helpful. So he asks the friend to describe an elf. Slender guy with pointy ears that is good with a bow. For all he knows, the guy asking is now picturing Spock at an archery contest. The 2E books don't really help that much. Sure, they give a couple of paragraphs that expound on what the friend said, but then drops it as quickly as they started. Again, it's the emphasis on crunch and abandonment of fluff. From what I hear, though, they also made some <em>Kits</em> that will improve<em>d</em> this immensely. I'm looking forward to <em>reading </em>them.</p><p></p><p>Come on, [redacted]. The 2e PHB has as much (or as little) racial fluff as 4e did. I really didn't expect this level of discussion from you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6727717, member: 37579"] [b]Originally posted by wrecan:[/b] While I appreciate the input, Hocus, I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with B. I don't think "more options" for non-combat (at least in the form of non-weapon proficiencies and certain powers) is helpful. While it will force an investment of time in building a social or skillful character, the price of that is, in my opinion, limiting the free-form nature of roleplaying outside combat. Combat powers allow you to do things in combat that are otherwise impossible. But that's because combat is an inherently competitive challenge with a clearlose an a clear winner. Noncombat is not competitive. For skillful encounters, there are generally no opponents -- only obstacles. "Options" in such encounters either prevent you from doing things you should be able to do, or they become free passes around the obstacle, thus obviiating roleplay. An example of the former would be a Mountaineering Skill which forces the DMs to alter encounter difficulties so that only people with the Mountaineering Skill can accomplish the challenges for traveling through the montains. An example of the latter would be a teleport spell, which allows players to entirely avoid the challenge of traveling through the mountains. So, no, I don't think the solution to Combat Investment is to also force players to engage in Skill Investment. I think the solution is to ramp down the amount of investment. [b]Originally posted by wrecan:[/b] I think arbitrarily making players spend five hours building characters is a step backwards in character creation. The sad fact is that you don't need to spend hours preparing a character you can roleplay, and forcing people to do make-work only causes resentment. That's why I suggest trying to include in powers some out-of-combat uses. That way the player is not engaging in creating a combat a combatant, but is spending the same amount of time building a well-rounded character. [b]Originally posted by wrecan:[/b] Sure, players bring ideas to the table. But, what if those players have never played D&D before? Say a new person sits down to his first 2E game and hears his buddy talking about playing a dwarf. So he asks his friend to describe a dwarf...short guy, stocky, [i]bonus to poisons[/i], makes good [i]fighters[/i], etc. But the friend still hasn't answered the question (to any real degree). To this new player, all he pictures is a short guy [i]with poison resistance[/i] that's better at [i]one[/i] certain classes [i]more [/i]than others. Not very helpful. So he asks the friend to describe an elf. Slender guy with pointy ears that is good with a bow. For all he knows, the guy asking is now picturing Spock at an archery contest. The 2E books don't really help that much. Sure, they give a couple of paragraphs that expound on what the friend said, but then drops it as quickly as they started. Again, it's the emphasis on crunch and abandonment of fluff. From what I hear, though, they also made some [i]Kits[/i] that will improve[i]d[/i] this immensely. I'm looking forward to [i]reading [/i]them. Come on, [redacted]. The 2e PHB has as much (or as little) racial fluff as 4e did. I really didn't expect this level of discussion from you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Some Wrecan Stuff
Top