Search results

Can we skip to the post-post-modernist part where people start saying "gamist? What the hell are you even talking about? Can we talk about something that makes sense instead?"

I love how it's popular now to use "gamist" as a derogatory remark when describing a game. Oh, the postmodernism of it all...

This is usually my response to these sorts of things. Why exactly do random internet messageboard people who find a problem in a couple of minutes of looking think that nobody noticed the problem before them, and certainly not the people testing the rules in which the problem inheres?

How do we know that it doesn't actually say that in the minion write-up? Remember, those stat blocks were designed specifically for the convention games. I think it's unwise to try to reverse engineer too much out of them without constantly paying attention to that fact.

For the love of Pete, how many "4E is dead to me" threads are there going to be?! Edit: meh, never mind. Felt good to write it, though.

*subscribed*

Powers from the martial power source are called expoits. As in, "his daring exploits."

Because the review provides reasons why his opinion is so positive overall, and so it's not fair to characterize it as "gushing." He doesn't say that he will gush about it. He says that his experience was overwhelmingly positive despite reservations going into it. Also, you may be right, and...

Speaking as an actual scientist, there isn't. It's the same conjecture about the game we had on Wednesday, but with a few handy flags to wave in "support" of the conjecture. I'll trust Hong's opinion on the statistical validity of KD's claims, since he actually knows what he's talking about...

The paladin challenges, and runs away. The fighter engages the monster and uses his exploits to prevent the monster from chasing after the paladin. The monster takes 8 damage each round due to the paladin's challenge or else does nothing and gets chopped up.

No, he's amazed by how quickly they found it. I think that in general, the folks at WotC are kind of blown away by the amount of time and effort teh intarweb spends deconstructing the information they release. Mearls (I believe) has commented on this in the past.

Told you so.

First, this may speak to the strength of the rules. Second, they were a playtest group, and as such, probably had most of their rules issues actually addressed by the development team, leaving them with little to complain about. Third, the author specifically called out at the beginning that...

...says the guy who admits to not having read the section of the three-part review in which the author lists his complaints.

Holy bimodal distribution, Batman!

Ha ha! That's great. Listening to some of these "WotC is pandering to [group of which I do not consider myself a member]" posts, you'd think that there was a finite quantity of quality, and that they needed to parcel it out between the various customer demographics.

Hey, PC, you were there when 3e was in pre-release. Was it enthusiastically embraced by all, or were there some reservations expressed by players used to the AD&D style of game? This is, of course, a rhetorical question, but it might be worth putting things into perspective for some people.

I've seen that, and I also see people complaining about things in 4E that were in 3E and didn't cause any controversy. Somehow simply being in 4E makes them wrong. It's funny how people ignore what they want to ignore and notice what they want to notice, isn't it?

This is hardly unexpected: they don't seem to have a fixed meaning between posters, or even between posts.

As Hong points out, we already have that functionality.