Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AllisterH" data-source="post: 4523407" data-attributes="member: 51325">Wow, this I really have to argue against.&nbsp;Actually, this feature actually ENCOURAGES non-combat encounters. When only one or certain &quot;class&quot; can take part in a specific non-combat encounter, a DM is more likely to have COMBAT encounters than before.&nbsp;Let's use a non-combat investigative encounter where there was a murder. A classic whodunit. By your own admission, any character could take part. One could be the face specialist, one can focus on rituals trying to solve the murder another can be the streetwise expert.&nbsp;Yet in the previous editions, when of the classic 4 class party (thief, fighter, cleric and wizard) only 2 of them could take part you expect more DMs tp design said encounters?&nbsp;I'll use another example. Deckers in the previous editions of Shadworun had their own sub-game and you know what? As a SR GM, I purposely would not have &quot;hacking encounters&quot; since the result at the table was that I would have 4 other players twiddling their fingers and only 1 player actually interested.&nbsp;So guess what the new edition of SR did? It made hacking/decking no longer a one-class subgame.&nbsp;We didn't game that often so the D&amp;D way of &quot;you will get to shine but you'll have to wait a few sessions&quot;&nbsp; was not something that worked for my group.&nbsp;I fully believe that this is also one of the reasons for the redesign. WOTC has to cater to gamers that no longer satisfied with having a game where characters get to shine only at certain situations/levels.&nbsp;So please, explain how the previous edition separation of noncimbat roles actually encourages a DM to make use of non-combat encounters because I'm truly not seeing it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AllisterH, post: 4523407, member: 51325"] Wow, this I really have to argue against. Actually, this feature actually ENCOURAGES non-combat encounters. When only one or certain "class" can take part in a specific non-combat encounter, a DM is more likely to have COMBAT encounters than before. Let's use a non-combat investigative encounter where there was a murder. A classic whodunit. By your own admission, any character could take part. One could be the face specialist, one can focus on rituals trying to solve the murder another can be the streetwise expert. Yet in the previous editions, when of the classic 4 class party (thief, fighter, cleric and wizard) only 2 of them could take part you expect more DMs tp design said encounters? I'll use another example. Deckers in the previous editions of Shadworun had their own sub-game and you know what? As a SR GM, I purposely would not have "hacking encounters" since the result at the table was that I would have 4 other players twiddling their fingers and only 1 player actually interested. So guess what the new edition of SR did? It made hacking/decking no longer a one-class subgame. We didn't game that often so the D&D way of "you will get to shine but you'll have to wait a few sessions" was not something that worked for my group. I fully believe that this is also one of the reasons for the redesign. WOTC has to cater to gamers that no longer satisfied with having a game where characters get to shine only at certain situations/levels. So please, explain how the previous edition separation of noncimbat roles actually encourages a DM to make use of non-combat encounters because I'm truly not seeing it? [/QUOTE]

Verification