Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5418947" data-attributes="member: 58416">The issue that comes with adding those rules to D&D's current set up is that having those outside sources of revenue and resources risks enabling a player to have more money and more buying power than the already established guidelines concerning what a character should have at a given level.  You also have the issue of followers turning out to be worthless; in a 3.5 game, no amount of level 1 followers could hope to challenge someone a handful of levels higher.  While 4E does lessen the power curve between levels, that same issue would still exist. You could create some sort of seperate minigame which handles such things, but then you have the current issue of not really getting what you want out of your non-encounter focused interests. I will again stress that I won't say it can't be done.  It can be. However, for me, I still feel it's better to play a game other than D&D 4E if you'd like to place more focus on goals which aren't easily quantified in a combat encounter atmospher.  There are games in which combat rewards and other types of rewards (as well as their respective risks) are weighed on the same scale and given equal prominence.  Whether or not I can do things is not the issue -as I've said before.  For me, the issue is whether or not the game can quantify the things I want to do a manner which is meaningful to me in the context of the game.  Example? In a non-D&D game I'm involved in, the same resources are used to buy both combat ability and non-combat ability for a character.  This does mean putting points in one area takes points away from the other; however, both areas are also equally supported.  The game doesn't assume that combat will be a central focus (even though the combat system is rather robust,) nor does it assume other types of play will be.  It doesn't make any assumptions at all.  It places both aspects of my character in play at all times.  I don't have different abilities and skills available depending upon whether the GM decides the game is in skill challenge mode, encounter mode, or rp mode.  All are in play at all times. For the player who has chosen to dump all of his resources into combat ability, that's not a problem.  He has done so.  However, there are times when hack & slash isn't the best answer.  As such this allows the guy who spent more of his resources on other things to have a place in the party without feeling suboptimal.   Likewise, when I choose to spend some of my resources on stronghold building or political wrangling, the game can reward success (or failure as the case might be) just as equally as rewarding the combat monster and the skill monkey.  There's not any sort of metagame (i.e. you should have X items worth Y at level Z) assuption which gets broken. To be fair, there are a few things D&D does better than the other game.  That's exactly my point though.  Instead of continually hacking and chopping at a set of rules and coming away still feel somehow betrayed (How dare WoTC not think building a castle is cool!) it might be beneficial to see what things are like on the other side of the fence. Note: I intentionally chose to not mention the name of the other game and be somewhat vague about the mechanics and details.  I didn't want to turn this thread into a flame war about system preference, nor did I want to come across as though I was bashing one way of play or another.  The point is that D&D is built upon certain design ideals.  Other games are built upon different ideals.  For me, I've found that -even if I intend to modify the rules anyway- I have a better experience if I start with a framework which has ideals about gaming which are more similar to what I want.</blockquote>

Verification