Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FourthBear" data-source="post: 4017351" data-attributes="member: 55846">None of your examples hold under any scrutiny.  Let us examine them one at a time.The alignment system in previous editions does nothing of the sort.  The alignment system involves a set of *prewritten* descriptors given in the rules book that describe the qualities for each alignment axis.  Does the DM get to override the descriptions in the books *by the rules*?  No?  Then the DM follows the predetermined morality described in said rules in assigning alignments and determining the effects of mechanical alignment.  If the DM disagrees with the description of Evil and Good in the core rules, can he then declare that a creature assigned by the core rules' alignment is not detected by the appropriate Detect Alignment spells under the *DMs* interpretation, not the *rules* interpretation.  Not if he's following the rules, he's not.I will further note that this example fails because the alignment system is *descriptive* and does not prohibit actions in the game.  The DM may assign a player's actions as Evil according to the alignment system.  How then does the alignment system enforce the DMs moral vision?  Do bolts of blue appear from the sky if a player is Evil in the rules?  No.  The DM will act in the same way he is free to act in 4e: to arrange encounters and circumstances as he sees fit to "impose his moral vision".Tighter action resolution mechanics than in 3.5e?  Where is the evidence for this?  Your specific example of the social encounter rules fails because the social encounters will be used by the DM, when he chooses, it will not be forced by the game.   The DM is no more constrained to use the social encounter rules than he is constrained to draw out maps in his adventures.  They are a tool to organize group play.  If the DM wishes to use the 3.5e method of social interactions (roleplaying and social skill roles) he is free to do so.  The fact that we haven't even seen the details of these social encounter rules might also be a minor flaw in your argument as well.  But please don't let it keep you from making sweeping statements of judgment.Is the DM forced in 4e to use the PoL setting?  No and therefore this is also incorrect.  Further, do you honestly argue that this sidebar indicates that DMs are somehow forbidden by 4e rules to have hostile encounters inside the various "Points of Light?"  It is a world-building descriptor, not a literal prohibition.  In the Ruins of Waterdeep boxed set, it mentions that Waterdeep is intended a safe base from which players mount expeditions.  Does this somehow constrain the DM to not have challenging encounters in Waterdeep?  No, in fact the set later has adventures within the very city.And, again, I'll note that you are ignoring the fact that in Points of Light settings, the *DM* has far greater exclusive control over large portions of the map.  Since such campaigns encourage mysterious areas, the DM is justified in keeping more information exclusive.A *much* greater role in determining the unfolding of play?  This isn't some kind of narrative rules coup here.  First, the *DM* and his villains also have access to Second Wind and Action Points.  Therefore, whatever advantage is putatively gained by the players to keep their heroes alive can be applied to the characters under the DMs control.  As to your claim that the rules could not allow for the A3 to A4 transition, it is absurd.  What makes you think that action points would prevent this?  Even in Eberron, Action Points allow a character to avoid *death* not unconsciousness.  If A3 to A4 isn't allowed in 4e, then it isn't allowed in any edition.</blockquote>

Verification