Search results

I agree. It's less that the game is about that and more that the game is about exploring a world that's about that.

Fair enough. Your posting history indicates to me that you are very concerned about GM authority being abused, to a degree that the role feels to me vilified in your comments, or at best a necessary evil. Since making a world for the players to explore through their characters, whose players...

That sounds a lot like there are virtually no issues that aren't ultimately the GMs fault. With very few exceptions, the players can do no wrong in your eyes?

Another 4e fan talking about how it's changes weren't a big deal.

No one ever uses the word objective.

I agree with most of what you say here, but take issue with meta-knowledge being thought of as akin to cheating being a bad reflection on the game. I don't see that as anything but a personal and rather harsh judgement.

You can't say objectively (as @AbdulAlhazred presented their statement) that a game needed to be "firebombed" when it is quite clear that there were plenty of folks who liked it (and many whom I expect still do). Had the poster simply said they didn't care for 3.5e personally and explained why...

I have never seen anyone claim that 4e's changes weren't that significant unless that person liked 4e.

Does this answer my question? Do you like 4e?

Can you give me a page number or quote the rules? I have no memory of this specific rules widget you are describing.

How did the stats of swarm creatures change based on who they were fighting?

Then your statement makes no sense to me. Sorry I can't understand it.

Is there anyone who agrees with this not a fan of 4e?

And yet, Pathfinder existed in a financially successful state for many years. Weird. By what metric did 3.5 "need to be firebombed"? Was it the, "I don't like this system and want official D&D to be something else" metric?

Unconnected by any metric the poster in question values. As it turns out you have different standards.

Backed! Really looking forward to this one.

As I said in the post to which you responded, you did not present your statement as opinion. If you meant it to be, then of course that's just fine.

It's a matter of perspective, and definition. Some people determine the relation of action and consequence differently than you do. Contrary to your claim, that does not make them wrong. It means they looked at it differently and came to different conclusions.

Not sure what that has to do with anything under discussion. I feel about 4e almost exactly the opposite of @pemerton . It is the least D&Dish of all the D&Ds that has been published to date for me. And his opinion and mine are of equal weight and validity.

Not sure what that has to do with anything under discussion. I feel about 4e almost exactly the opposite of @pemerton . It is the least D&Dish of all the D&Ds that has been published to date for me. And his opinion and mine are of equal weight and validity.