NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7026478" data-attributes="member: 82106">Its interesting commentary. Certainly EARLY D&D (which I can talk about with at least some authority) was OFTEN about grubby mundane resource matters. You were expected to solve fairly pedestrian sorts of problems with chalk, ropes, iron spikes, torches, and rations. Resource management COULD be a part of this, though it was largely up to the DM in practice. The tendency was for DMs to start off with the idea of being strict, but that almost always gave way to less formal "Oh OK, you did use up your chalk last week, but you went to town and stocked up on 'stuff', so we'll assume you used your 14 WIS and got another piece." Anyway, characters in the 6th+ level range could usually solve problems with magic or class features, their mundane equipment gradually faded from real significance. 4e certainly ALLOWS you to play this same resource game, with probably a similar outcome, but it also seems to encourage abstracting it out right from the start, and its style of moving from one plot point to the other certainly doesn't automatically generate a lot of situations or conditions under which clever use of equipment is mandatory (its unlikely for instance that a 4e DM will play out an intricate scenario of characters navigating a complex maze and describing each turn and how they mark each choice they made, etc., instead it would likely be an SC where 'use chalk' is a fictional element explaining a success, perhaps a check will even indicate that the character brought chalk despite so such explicit consideration being evident in the previous fiction). However, I think 3.5 had PRETTY well already abandoned the detailed resource game sort of play. This is indicated by the existence of an overarching skill system, which shifts the game from 'test the player' to 'test the character'. Note crucially that this system was thoroughly optional in 2e and was totally divorced from class features (except arguably in OA, but I'd note that OA was never carried over into 2e in any systematic way, it was kind of a blind alley in TSR D&D evolution). So when 4e did this it was rooted solidly in trends, material, and subsystems already present in 3.x. Anyway, I agree it was more explicit in 4e, and the streamlined and truly functional skill system combined with its generalization into SCs and the emphasis on encounter-based design certainly pushed the game into other directions, though without actively precluding older modes of play (pure player skill test mode aside, but that went out with 3e as noted anyway).I'm not sure I totally agree with your example. A lone B/X fighter would CERTAINLY be in a precarious situation, true. A lone 4e fighter would be in a certain fictional space. What would happen next in 4e would entirely depend on how the DM and player see the situation unfolding. The DM could indeed allow the lone fighter to succeed by himself, or he could as easily be allowed to fail! The key being that 4e's tools for encounter design provide the DM with a toolset with which to reliably produce the requisite scenarios. The fighter can be faced with simple SCs and at-level for one PC encounters, probably with a lot of minions involved, or the DM can simply play out how the orcs capture him and then when the rest of the PCs arrive rescuing him can be an element of the resulting encounter (possibly complete with his rejoining the fray and the story leading to "united we slay the orc king" or some such).</blockquote>

Verification