WotC_Shoe: He DM's, but his pc's don't fight!

[DandD]

Close, but it's a verb, not a noun...

 

[Warbringer]

in before "But you could do that in 3e!"

sigh...

 

[Goreg Skullcrusher]

I game with a group of folks that are a bit older than me (I'm in my early twenties), and while there's always a story, and a lot of roleplaying, our group loves combat. A lot.

Everyone likes different styles of gaming, nobody's right, nobody's wrong, it's all taste.

That said, the session described in the OP sounds awesome.

While I normally agree, it is somewhat of an issue for me if it's the designers that play this way predominantly. It means that the material they develop will favour that style of play, because it is what they're familiar with, what they envision DnD to be.

Someone else did point out that this simply could have been this particular game with these particular players that play this way. I certainly hope that's true.

 

[SSquirrel]

Close, but it's a verb, not a noun...

In that case I'll guess "Kill, kill, kill"

 

[DandD]

In that case I'll guess "Kill, kill, kill"

Ding ding ding, the candidate has guessed right.

His price... is... a night with Cheetarah...

Thunder! Thunder! Thunder! Thundercats!Hooooooo...
Thundercats are on the move,
Thundercats are loose!
Feel the magic,
Hear the roar,
Thundercats are loose!
Thunder! Thunder! Thunder! Thundercats!
Thunder! Thunder! Thunder! Thundercats!
Thunder! Thunder! Thunder! Thundercats!
Thunder! Thunder! Thunder! Thundercats!

 

[Mistwell]

It is a legitimate question, however. What, if anything, is differentiating this situation from the same situation under 3e rules?

And what about the 4e ruleset makes it different?
Put some meat on that bone.

Put some meat on the bone that is your question. Why is your question a legitimate one? Why does it matter what you could do in a different version of the game?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

"Death, death, death"?

Cheers,
Cam

I thought I might had made it to easy with the second link. Nice of you not to go the easy route.

In that case I'll guess "Kill, kill, kill"

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Am I the only one that finds this unsettling? I know different game tables have different styles of play, but I didn't know the developers played such a...kick-in-the-door type of game. At the risk of sounding arrogant, those types of games got old and uninteresting very quickly for my gaming group; we haven't played like that since we were 14.

Funny thing is that, I like deep immersive RP, and yet one of the characters I've drawn the most depth from started her life as a "kick-in-the-door" kind of person. The thing that made her fun to play initially was the utter stress release of just kicking in that door and killing everything behind it. What made her fun to play in the end was the depth her character grew to from those simple beginings.

Basically "immersive RP" is no more valid a way to have fun than "kick-in-the-door", and who cares as long as the people playing are having fun?

I'm prepared to trust the WotC folks when they say they've built a better skill challenge system, and see how it goes when I get the books in a couple of months. Worse case scenario is that its the same as it is now and I can house rule it like I do already.

 

[Voss]

Put some meat on the bone that is your question. Why is your question a legitimate one? Why does it matter what you could do in a different version of the game?

Actually, the bone in question is the 4e skill/social/noncombat system that they've been touting so highly but not really talking about. Explaining the differences between 3e and 4e seemed the simplest way of getting some info, since I know they won't actually just spill the details of the system.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, the bone in question is the 4e skill/social/noncombat system that they've been touting so highly but not really talking about. Explaining the differences between 3e and 4e seemed the simplest way of getting some info, since I know they won't actually just spill the details of the system.

For me, the biggest difference so far seems to be that they promise actual guidelines at all.
3E has the Diplomacy "rules", with stink (but I am happy to abuse them with my Warlock and his +25 odd Diplomacy check), and its bluff and intimidate skills. But it hardly gives any real guidelines how to handle these in a satisfying, "interactive" way. Basically, the 3E system seems to boil to "roll against DC, and you're done".

Generally, for someone like me, this leads to me enjoying combats a lot more then social encounters. Combats are long-drawn activities, that require tactical maneuvering, smart use of abilities, and you're kept busy for some time. I am engaged because I constantly have to make decisions what I want to do.
Social encounters? I roll one die, and I am done. Sure, I can make up a speech, cleverly formulate my wishes, and I might get a small bonus to my Diplomacy check in exchange. Or I could do without, and just roll the check and trust that my insane skill modifier takes care of any shortcomings in my decisions.

You could make up your own guidelines, but... well, if they aren't part of the core books, then it's not a strength of the edition. It's your own strength. And if you can't come up with such guidelines, this part of the game will always remain weak.