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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3789741" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know if it defeats the purpose - I mostly play RM, which has (admittedly fairly skimpy) social encounter mechanics. But I think it takes away the "old school" feel.And I agree that there is a difference between a character whose character comes from it character, and one whose character comes from its build. My feeling is that 4e will continue the trend in the second direction.And there's the condundrum right there. Replacing GM fiat with mechanics is simultaneously shifting the focus of play from the players interacting with the situation set up by the GM, using their PCs as vehicles (which I take to be typical of AD&D) to a focus on mechanics (build and action resolution). And that means no "old school" feel.In my view, no new players, reading the 3E core rules, would be able to produce a game in which iron spikes are a key item of play. No new player, reading the 1st ed AD&D PHB, could fail to grasp their centrality to play.I agree that a group can play old-style if they want - they could even do that using HeroQuest or The Dying Earth. But it doesn't follow it's a rules neutral matter. Rules can push in a certain direction without being determinative if a group wants to go in a different direction.Of course, it's possible we mean something different by "old-school". I hope it's clear I don't mean just dungeon-bashing and "kick down the door" play - after all, Tunnels and Trolls also supports this. I mean operational play, where the emphasis is on the players' planning, problem solving and resource management. This is what I think 4e will not support.That's not - but you've helped yourself to about the best example that can be given. And the old modules often give some indication of how the trap works, or how the secret door opens, which implies that if a player states that their PC is searching in a certain place, or looking for a certain thing, then they find it regardless of the result of the dice roll.But let's go to the opposite end of the spectrum - 1st ed AD&D takes it for granted that it is up to the players to explain how it is that they are protecting themselves against ear seekers, checking for trappers and lurkers above, securing the door of the room they are resting in against intrusion, distracting the monsters they are trying to escape from, etc. But in 3E a character with ranks in Survival or Knowledge (Dungeoneering) or Profession (Dungeon Explorer) or whatever the relevant skill is would be quite entitled to expect a successful role against a DC to resolve these issues - that is, relying on effective character build (and thus the player's mechanical skill) rather than player choices during play (and thus the player's operational skill).That can be done (and logic suggests that the Survival skill also should go, presumably leaving Search to handle Tracking). In effect this solution pushes the game (however slightly) back in the direction of 1st ed, by reducing the importance of character build and action resolution mechanics in one particular domain of play. But at this point you will get the standard complaint: to play an effective fighter I don't need to know anything about fighting, so why do I need to know anything about dungeoneering to play an effective dungeoneer? Without prejudging the proper answer to that complaint, I think it is not obviously absurd - it is a natural complaint to make in a system that emphasises character build and action resolution in the way that 3E does.I'm not meaning to be dogmatic - so I agree that a group might be able to use 4e for old-school play. But (i) I don't think this would be very easy if the group contained new players, because the rules will not even indicate that this is a possible style of play, whereas the 1st ed PHB canvassed very little else; (ii) I think the inclusion of social challenge mechanics, and the (likely) inclusion of environmental challenge mechanics, will get in the way (the point of the bizarre rooms and corridors in a module like White Plume Mountain was not to trigger a raft of skill checks, but to trigger a flurry of activity on the part of the players, as they, not their PCs, try to come up with solutions); (iii) as was discussed to death on <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=206309" target="_blank">another thread</a>, the introduciton of per-encounter resources will significantly reduce the operational dimensions of play (and are likely especially to change the play experience for the players of Wizard PCs); (iv) I wonder to some extent why someone wanting to enjoy old-school play would use 4e.I imagine this post will not change your mind that I'm wrong, but I hope it helps you see where I'm coming from in thinking about the sort of play that the rules do or don't support.</blockquote>

Verification