Quote from: talysman;613303I do, if fighting isn't the answer. Sometimes, running is the answer. Sometimes, hiding. Sometimes, bribery, or begging.
 
But you are ignoring the point of this thread: why is "fighting" the definition of "action"? Why is "unloading all your spells" the definition of "action"?
 
You automatically assume that it is, and you are thus baffled when you read what I write, because I'm telling you that for me and other people, that's not the real action.

So that is the point of this thread? (The Bolded)
I'm sorry to have misunderstood a bit, then.
However, do not assume things about me that isn't correct.
I'm not baffled at all by your approach, i'm merely asking (...or perhaps telling) you to be aware of how other people play.
That do not mean that i play in that way, though. I rather follow the style of play that the others in the playergroup follow, more or less.

As for the question itself, that you just claimed is the point of this thread, CRKrueger and soviet above has presented some really probable explanations and answers for it.

With the 15 minute workday the issue isn't that some people play that way (why not, if that's what they're into?), but that they play that way and then bitterly complain about it.

In the other thread someone likened it to "It hurts when I hit myself", which sounds about right.

Quote from: soviet;613306So the 3e rules bloat made combat in some ways more interesting by expanding on the systems that were there, but made noncombat less interesting by replacing the detailed narration/exploration system that was there previously with a simple dice roll. Combine that with all the optimisation stuff revolving around feats etc and maybe we have our answer. Maybe people are just responding to the system they're being presented with, doing the stuff that the game makes interesting. Hmm.

And I think this is why "One Game to Rule Them All" blows chunks.

If this site had a +1 or thumbs up feature, I'd be clicking it on talysman's OP.

I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that games need "balance" in some sense; the issue is that balance can be achieved over widely different domains or "chunks" of play.

I don't completely buy the idea that rules dictate activity; a game might have a combat system with all sorts of detail and be fun as hell, but you aren't forced to engage that system. True, there's a least common denominator effect where a player who likes X can more easily drag the game in that direction if the rules are there; this is part of the theory that led to games which achieved "focus" by deliberately having a rudimentary resolution system for any activity outside the desired focus. OTOH complex games have evolved out of simple systems precisely because a game group enjoyed a certain type of activity and developed rules to go with it.

Either way I don't buy a dogma that says rules must dictate play style, or that rules don't influence play style at all.

Quote from: soviet;613306I think you've nailed exactly the difference between old school play and new school play. I think that transition happened somewhere round the release of 3rd edition but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why that would be. The change from expecting things to be resolved by fiat (and thus narration/exploration) to expecting things to be resolved by the detailed skill system (and thus a dice roll) maybe? Also coinciding with more detailed combat rules including action economy, opportunity attacks, power attack calculations, etc?
 
So the 3e rules bloat made combat in some ways more interesting by expanding on the systems that were there, but made noncombat less interesting by replacing the detailed narration/exploration system that was there previously with a simple dice roll. Combine that with all the optimisation stuff revolving around feats etc and maybe we have our answer. Maybe people are just responding to the system they're being presented with, doing the stuff that the game makes interesting. Hmm.

As well as being slightly less interesting, noncombat being covered by skills and the like raises the bar for participation here. If a non-combat task is Search DC 25 or Diplomacy DC 25, a rogue at higher levels might pull it off easily or even automatically (Take-10) but the wizard may not be able to do anything useful if they don't have a spell for it.

Quote from: soviet;613315True.

When we play 4th edition we also feel a real pull towards getting into combat because fights are a lot of fun to play out. To the extent that when we have a session that doesn't have a fight in it, it's kind of disappointing. But it's also a mixed blessing because that combat takes so long that we don't have time to do much else afterwards.

I think 3e suffers less from this because combat is still very detailed and time consuming but it's also less fun. So the mechanics sort of point you in that direction but as a player you have less of an inclination to follow along.

Back in my 4e DMing stint, I noticed the players were spending far more time in roleplay and exploration than in other editions/systems and far less time getting into scraps.  When I asked about it, the most vocal player piped up, "Combat is so damn boring in 4e that I'll try anything to avoid it."

For me, 4e is the D&D edition heaviest on roleplay heavy and lightest on combat.

Quote from: Old One Eye;613404Back in my 4e DMing stint, I noticed the players were spending far more time in roleplay and exploration than in other editions/systems and far less time getting into scraps.  When I asked about it, the most vocal player piped up, "Combat is so damn boring in 4e that I'll try anything to avoid it."

For me, 4e is the D&D edition heaviest on roleplay heavy and lightest on combat.

4E combat can be boring. I found that doubling the damage that monsters do, and halving monster HP worked very well.

In my opinion, HP/Damage is the biggest 'flaw' in 4E. very easy to tweak though.