Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 6238708" data-attributes="member: 9053">Well, D&D sort of is what it is these days. There are lots of other games that do a much better job of the things it seems you're looking for than D&D: I know since I play them! D&D's editions up to and including Next have had combat as one of the central if not the central element from day one. The game started as an offshoot of fantasy minis skirmish rules, after all.If my previous email makes me sound like some horrible min-maxer who's only out for the max damage, nothing could be further from the truth. I played 3X, and did so with a lot of characters that could be described as sub-optimal (I had a long-standing Bard who I managed to make very effective in all aspects of the game, and the Bard was one of the most maligned character classes around).The thing is: I get that you don't see a problem with characters not needing to be effective in combat, and I respect that. What we've seen as a result of that is that certain character classes don't get played very much, and if you're okay with that, no problem.I also get that folks will say "I don't see that those characters are played less," and while I don't understand that (really, fighters in 3X have so many problems I shudder to think of all of them) I respect it. At the same time, that's not what I see of have ever seen, so it becomes difficult if not impossible to have a conversation on this topic, because I literally can't fathom the argument.That's the trouble: to have a discussion like this you have to have some basic meeting of the minds on a framework discussion, and I can't see that happening. If you haven't seen a problem with CODZilla, for instance, and have played a higher level game of 3X, I, well I don't understand how that can actually be without some heavy house rulings.The thing 4E fixed was a very real problem for me, and if it wasn't for you I can definitely see how you could have exactly the same reaction in reverse.I managed to get through half a dozen 4E campaigns without playing a real spellcaster, which for me is saying something: almost all classes in 4E can be effective in combat and other portions of the game as well, so you're free to do the roleplaying without worrying about being useless when the dice come out for an encounter. The memories I have for 4E are all about the cool roleplaying aspects of the game that my characters did, much as with earlier editions of the game. I ALSO had a lot of fun with lots of challenging combats where I was able to contribute every bit as much as the other characters, despite playing a fighter or a rogue even at high levels. Being effective in combat had literally nothing to do with how I was able to roleplay a character. Does anyone really say "I would be a part of this tense roleplaying scene, but I was so awesome in the last battle that I ... can't?"So the reason I'm sad about this conversation is because it was something that was a huge problem for earlier editions, but we had (mostly) fixed with the last one. I'm just not nostalgic for arguments about how being less useful in something that takes up at least a third of the time you spend playing the game is or isn't important.</blockquote>

Verification