4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

That's a non-argument, though. Who would purposefully hold opinions that they feel are not representative of the truth?



It's not clear to me what is being claimed, but someone is certainly welcome to claim they are speaking the truth. Whether that is "objective" of course depends on how convincing the evidence is. I would rather talk about their position than their right to claim to know the truth, which I believe is a right every person has.

Again, the poster was presenting his opinions as fact, and acting in a dismissive way toward the possibility that they are not, in fact, fact. And I continue to maintain that sophistry concerning the nature of truth has rather nothing to do with the issue...the issue being debate etiquette.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ah, but what about the belief that objective reality doesn't exist, but that knowing even that, objectively, isn't possible?

Speaking for my own subjective view of reality, all reality is subjective, therefore there really isn't any reality at all. But since that's my subjective idea, it could very well not be real, which means that objective reality could exist, and I just don't see it. But I don't think so.

In your view, is it possible to objectively know that it is impossible to know that objective reality exists?

This is the kind of conversation which happens only when i'm not drunk, but it seems i should be:)

:lol:

Philosophical ponderings happen when we're drunk, IMHO, because we let our guard down. Normally, when sober, we don't like admitting that we haven't much of a clue as to what life is all about.


RC
 

Y
Special because they are the main characters and do the important things in the world yes. Special because the laws of the universe give them VIP treatment, no.

PC: " dont give me any lip guardsman Joe. I am a PC. I have healing surges!!"

Guardsman Joe: " Big deal so do I. Bring it on!"

PC: " Well I can activate mine!"

Guardsman Joe: " :("

1st edition/2nd edition PC: Don't give me any lip, 0 level NPC. You don't even have hit dice, and I've got a name level!

3rd edition PC: Don't give me any lip, NPC. What do you have, Expert levels? I am a PC, and I have class abilities, good hit dice, higher wealth by level, and probably some bonus feats.


PCs have always been called out as special cases in the rules. 4th edition NPCs can be built using the rules for building PCs, including things like Second Wind. In most cases, they aren't, because it streamlines play.
 




Umm, using the word 'tank' to describe a heavily armored damage soaking melee machine has been in use as long as I've been gaming, which was the late 70s.

My fault for not being clear - - I'm glad that they didn't use the term 'tank' AT THE SAME TIME that they were introducing 'Strikers' and 'Controllers' into the terminology. I definitely see the parallels to MMORPGs, though I won't claim that it IS an MMORPG.
 

You are right, my bad. The problem lies with the game interacting with the world.[/2uote]

However, it relies entirely on NPC design and how that interacts with the world.

The game makes assumptions about the world DURING FIGHTS.

The PC is going to be in just about every fight the player sees.

An NPC is going to rarely be in more than one fight the player sees.

Giving the NPC daily resources doesn't make sense in this concept ... nearly all their resources are thus encounter based. They don't get (many) healing surges, they get tons of HP instead. They don't get daily powers, they get non rechargable encounter powers. They also have the option of rechargeable encounter powers, "replacing" a PCs encounter powers. Elite or Solo monsters get action points, just like the PCs ;). They don't get feats and magic items and 1/2 level increases and masterwork quality, etc, etc, etc ... they just get a simplified system of tracking that, and leave it to the PCs to have to do extra math.

There are characters in the world that are just like the PCs ... if they get into the fight, the "protagonist" PCs and "antagonist" PCs would have the antagonists be played as NPCs. In some cases, the opposing NPCs may have some more power than the PCs, such as recharging their encounter powers and being willing to use up dailies. Also, there are NPC powers that aren't necessarily learnable by a PC ... so some NPCs are more special than the PCs. In fact with all the high level monsters to fight [which can be NPC characters built to have classes] the specialness of the PCs is relative to peasants for the most part in the early level.

Special because they are the main characters and do the important things in the world yes. Special because the laws of the universe give them VIP treatment, no.

PC: " dont give me any lip guardsman Joe. I am a PC. I have healing surges!!"

Guardsman Joe: " Big deal so do I. Bring it on!"

PC: " Well I can activate mine!"

Guardsman Joe: " :("

And yet the PCs have a lot lower HP than most NPCs ... precisely because the NPC's "healing surges" have been rolled into that HP. A PC may have more HP available "per day", but it is possible for them to die by massive damage.

We are using the same definition with regard to hero. Being unique in the world is kind of a superheroic trait. If the PC's are adventurers who get to use different rules from everyone else, how were they trained? Were they sent to the planet like Superman or did the powers manifest overnight like on the TV series Heroes?

NPCs can have levels in the PC classes. They can be trained by other low level adventurers.

NPCs, especially ones comparable to PCs, may not have as many powers or healing surges, but they have more hit points, and the ability to recharge powers. Ultmately this is because they are only represting the monster/NPC as an "in combat" character. It is only dealing with how the character interacts within a fight. Giving an NPC tons of healing surges ... but no way to activate more than 1 of them during a fight ... is pointless. The GAME assumes they will die after 1 encounter... recurring villains are exceptions to the rule, and fighting them in back to back battles isn't a given.

Being able to call any kind of an attack a "stun" IS superhero comics.
It was included in the 4E combat system because nothing can stand in the way of PC's unleashing the full fury of thier combat powers without being labeled as unfun.

Applying the "same rules to everyone" ... a PC can knock down an opponent. Unless the PC does so much damage that the opponent is at negative bloodied, the opponent is not dead. Considering the fact that monsters have TONS of HP this will happen only in extremely rare circumstances. Thus, it is possible to stabilize an enemy before it fails it's third death save. For the sake of brevity, the player has the narrative power to determine whether the enemy survived long enough to be "saved". Or maybe they did make 1 non-lethal attack, which on top of all the "lethal" attacks means they are unconcious but not dying. Or, maybe the fight does end with all the enemies dying, but not dead, and the rogue goes around Coup de Grasing all the enemies just to be sure. Depending on the type of campaign, there a number of narrative ways to justify the ability to "set phasers to stun". You choose to interpret it one way, that then supports your feelings of the game being a superhero one.
 


I've had this debate before, and always find myself unsatisfied by the responses, but here goes:

Does it not feel, even to those who are huge fans of 4e, that a lot more of this 'dance of the narrative' has to be performed with this new ruleset. Here I'm thinking not just of the elective non-lethal bits, but things like Come and Get It, and any other powers that, without constructing or reconstructing the narrative, come off as quite a bit more 'super' or 'mystical' than earlier editions. In 3rd edition, there is no power that allows you to take all enemies within a burst, and force them without a save, and without any consideration of their own abilities, to move adjacent to your character. You can build a story in which it MIGHT make sense (I still debate this -but that's a different thread), but it just seems as if the amount of narrative construction required to bring the disbelief to an acceptable level is much higher in this edition.
 

Remove ads

Top