Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5481179" data-attributes="member: 22779">I notice that despite protestations about how people's character's might have used the trip mechanics without the feat, no one bothered mentioning how often opponents actually did it.Is it that it was unimportant so no one did it, or is it that there was no mechanical support, so no one did it?&nbsp; I'm not sure you can claim one or the other really.&nbsp; Prior editions had only very rudimentary social interaction rules, but, I think most players do want them.&nbsp; Prior editions had very rudimentary skill systems, but, again, considering that nearly all RPG's now come with skill systems of some sort, I would say that skill systems are now considered to be pretty important.How can you separate them though?&nbsp; One is going to have massive effects on the other.&nbsp; Take another example - magical item creation.&nbsp; Magic item creation in AD&amp;D was more or less free form.&nbsp; There were some basic guidelines, but, largely it was left to the individual group to figure things out.&nbsp; 2e flat out said that you couldn't buy magic items for any price and creating magic items was again the province of very, very high level campaigns.&nbsp; Move on to 3e.&nbsp; 3e made magic item creation rules very concrete.&nbsp; To make Item X, you needed this feat, this spell and this amount of money and xp.&nbsp; You know, absolutely, how much it costs and how difficult it is, to make any magic item in 3e D&amp;D.This had to have a big effect on play.&nbsp; The proliferation of wands for one thing dramatically changes how the game plays out.&nbsp; Add in a wand of cure light wounds and suddenly the party has virtually unlimited healing outside of combat.&nbsp; It's a trivial cost after about 4th level for every character to carry one.That, right there, can completely change the pacing of the game.I really don't think it's possible to separate player decisions from internal rules boundaries.&nbsp; Player decisions are always going to be influenced by those rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5481179, member: 22779"] I notice that despite protestations about how people's character's might have used the trip mechanics without the feat, no one bothered mentioning how often opponents actually did it. Is it that it was unimportant so no one did it, or is it that there was no mechanical support, so no one did it? I'm not sure you can claim one or the other really. Prior editions had only very rudimentary social interaction rules, but, I think most players do want them. Prior editions had very rudimentary skill systems, but, again, considering that nearly all RPG's now come with skill systems of some sort, I would say that skill systems are now considered to be pretty important. How can you separate them though? One is going to have massive effects on the other. Take another example - magical item creation. Magic item creation in AD&D was more or less free form. There were some basic guidelines, but, largely it was left to the individual group to figure things out. 2e flat out said that you couldn't buy magic items for any price and creating magic items was again the province of very, very high level campaigns. Move on to 3e. 3e made magic item creation rules very concrete. To make Item X, you needed this feat, this spell and this amount of money and xp. You know, absolutely, how much it costs and how difficult it is, to make any magic item in 3e D&D. This had to have a big effect on play. The proliferation of wands for one thing dramatically changes how the game plays out. Add in a wand of cure light wounds and suddenly the party has virtually unlimited healing outside of combat. It's a trivial cost after about 4th level for every character to carry one. That, right there, can completely change the pacing of the game. I really don't think it's possible to separate player decisions from internal rules boundaries. Player decisions are always going to be influenced by those rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification