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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5711995" data-attributes="member: 82106">It has nothing to do with social situations vs anything else. It is just a bad deal to take 'play pan flute' when you can take Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate instead, and blowing skill slots on obscure things that never come up is just a sucker's bet, pure and simple. All your rigid insistence on a single game mechanic for things that are not equivalent does is DISCOURAGE character customization, not encourage it, and you haven't enabled players to do anything they couldn't already do. 4e handles non-combat perfectly well. This whole line of reasoning is just simplistic and absurd. Nor is the concept that a power that does 'damage' somehow less engaging in an RP sense. Damage is simply the uniform measure of progress towards victory over an opponent and can represent anything you care to have it represent, such as the willingness of your opponent to continue to resist. The issue isn't the game. The issue is a rigid unwillingness to accept a more logical and useful set of rules representations for what has always existed. What you want is in the view of many of us simply a stubborn refusal to accept any paradigm that isn't exactly a retread of what was being used 10 years ago. We don't want to go back. Despite all the protestations about how terribly lacking 4e is in this and that and the other thing, I have run campaigns with it for what, 3 years now, and found none of these criticisms to hold water. I'm sure if I insisted on playing 3.5 with 4e rules I'd be dissatisfied but in fact what I've found is that the 4e developers actually have an excellent handle on flexible and sensible ways to do things. I realize this will just provoke more howls of outrage in all probability, but there it is. I really honestly have to hope for the sake of my own desire to play with rules that I like that what you suggest falls on deaf ears. I don't really see how we can both be accommodated by the same game system. If it is possible, great! I just don't see it and can't endorse making today's game into yesterday's game. Sorry.</blockquote>

Verification