[ SECRET POST #2307 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2307 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10. [tb1]


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 101 secrets from Secret Submission Post #330.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

But compared to some of the other editions, the combat is simplified and same-y, and as a player of several different D&D editions including 3.5, 4, and Pathfinder, I find that 4 is really just concentrated on doing battle and killing all the dudes. I found it really limiting in letting me feel like I'm developing a three-dimensional character!

Which basically translates to "play whatever edition you like best". We stick with Pathfinder and homebrew these days.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I mean, I could say the same about pre-4e Martial characters - I can only hit it with my sword, I only ever do one thing, etc., etc. It's samey! The structure of 4e let stuff that traditionally wasn't varied be varied.

Combat focus is a more a matter campaign or DM. Frex, my pathfinder game was almost all about combat, whereas my current 4e game is very heavily focused on RP and investigation - I've gone whole sessions without a combat in sight.

So, yeah. "Play whatever edition you like best". But framing it like 4e is just a combat-focused, simplified board game isn't a fair assessment. :/

[(Anonymous)]

You can play a game in any system in which you never touch your dice and spend the entire session on character interactions, if you have a DM prefers and is good at running roleplaying encounters -- but that doesn't mean that's what the system you're playing lends itself to or is focused on. 4e stripped down a lot of the non-combat skills and focused a lot more on stuff you do in combat, so looking at the system itself, the rules are a lot more focused on combat, and that speaks to how the game developers are expecting a "typical" session to be played.

A great GM can run a fun adventure in any system (possibly even F.A.T.A.L., though science has yet to confirm this), but that's a reflection on the GM, not on the game.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, lord, F.A.T.A.L. :P

Agreed. Though this is one of those places where the subjectivity of the matter comes into play - I /prefer/ the stripped-down out-of-combat specifically because I think crunchy rules get in the way in roleplay encounters - I only want heavy rules in combat. The way people talk about it - especially things like "dumbed down" or "boardgamey" - imply that the system is inherently inferior if you're concerned with roleplaying. For my style of game, though, it's perfect, and that isn't for a lack of interest in the RP side. That's why those things grate on my nerves so much. If someone doesn't like the game, fine, but they don't need to insinuate I'm only there to roll dice and kill stuff, y'know?

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I can certainly see how fewer rules for out-of-combat interactions can give a group more freedom to roleplay without the dice getting in the way. But what I was getting at was more the way the game is written and designed, more than the groups that play it or the GMs that run it. In practice, fewer rules for social interactions and what-have-you may allow a group more elbowroom, but what it tells me about the game designers is that they didn't think those kinds of encounters were important or would happen frequently in the "typical" session or adventure. I mean, that's what they do: they write rules to adjudicate in-game events that enable players to determine the outcome of their characters' actions, regardless of the real-life skill level of the people playing those characters. What situations the game developers decide to create rules for, and how they write about those situations in describing those rules, tells you a lot about what they expect an average game to look like -- and D&D has never placed huge amounts of emphasis on social interaction, and 4e, in my experience, did even less. It doesn't reflect on the people who choose to play it, because I've played D&D games where we never touched the dice all session, but it does reflect on the game itself.