Originally Posted by
TheOOB
4e inhibits creativity, but it does not prohibit it. Those are two different thing.
When an RPG is creating rules for how players handle situations, there are two general ways to do it. You can create broad abstract rules that cover many different situations, or you can create specific focused rules or powers(which I like to call "crunchy bits") that tell you exactally how to handle a situation and give different abilities to different players. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.
When you have a broad system like most White Wolf stuff or Paranoia, you have a lot of flexibility, a system where anyone can do pretty much anything, where the basic rules are fairly simple and intrusive. It makes it puts emphasis on roleplaying over the mechanics. There are disadvantages, however, some specific situations may be covered poorly by the rules, and the GM has to improvise heavily. These systems create ambiguity and rules conflicts. Further, these systems can lead to a lack of uniqueness among characters, and can also lead to a more freeform method acting exercise rather than a game.
Crunchy bits, and systems heavy in their use, remove ambiguity and create clear rules. They create a system that puts emphasis on mechanics over roleplay, create clear and unique characters, and can create a fun game outside of(and optimally along with) roleplaying. Unfortunatly, crunchy bits are bad at handling situations outside of their scope, and they can force players into certain roles and limit options.
Most every good RPG system uses both broad rules and crunchy bits, D&D has always been heavier on the crunchy bits, and 4e took it to kind of critical mass, where the game less resembles an RPG and more represents a group TCG. There should be specific rules for disarming folks, D&D is a combat game at it's heart, and there needs to be rules for it, but I don't think EVERYone needs to be able to do it.
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
