Quote:
Originally Posted by Biohazard
We played AD&D without frequent combats. Additionally the more a system concentrates on a certain aspect (like combat powers), the higher the probability gets, that this influences play.
|
I agree. I'm a strong believer in closely tailoring the rules to the setting and vice versa. Whilst it is true that you CAN run a swashbuckling rapier duel in more or less any RPG out there, the feeling and emphasis you get from D&D will be quite different from that of En Guarde and different again from Star Wars D6 or Tunnels and Trolls.
When I write a campaign I make a rules choice based largely on what the system concentrates upon. It isn't that you can do it in other systems, it is that it doesn't offer you the same "GM support system" to help hang your descriptions and decisions upon.
It is in this sense that 4th Ed, as published, seems very much more combat-centric to me than 3.5 Ed (or most of the earlier editions for that matter). The emphasis is clearly on combat in the character powers in 4th Ed, there are no "non-combat" character classes in the PHB whose powers are more or less useless in a fight but possibly extremely useful in a diplomatic impasse or the exploration of uncharted territory or who do nothing but heal.
A pacifist 1st Edition cleric could simply not own a weapon and cast nothing but healing spells, but all four of the cleric's at will powers in 4th Edition do damage to an enemy. They are very much better balanced for combat compared with the other classes powers, but the do presuppose that there is going to be a lot of combat going on. Hence, the rules seem to me to be more combat-centric, and the games I'd want to try running under those rules would be more like dungeon crawls than meetings of the Master Mage's councils.
Cheers, Hywel.