Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Intense_Interest" data-source="post: 4286126" data-attributes="member: 65904">I don't see the inherent difference in "tinkerability" between a feature you house-rule in that works within a system and a feature you house-rule out that doesn't work for your game.  Further, if a system is more able to add things it is a better system to "tinker" with, which is the essential design philosophy of 4E.Add to this the Jenga-nature of the previous rule set- Wealth by Level was tied into Magic Items which was tied into CR scaling that was a reflection of the Monster System that filtered into Monsters as PCs (in a sense) means that the tinkering within the system was more taste-based than actually reformative.Meanwhile, you can strip all magic items out of 4E by handing out the engine assumed plusses and refusing to tailor encounters around Magic Item X.Ignoring Wealth-by-Level charts created a degenerative game, for example.  I would argue that there is no inherent difference between Adding, Subtracting, or Altering rules; as long as the system can support the change.In a rhetorical example, jackbooting the W/E/D/U by level chart for a single new class (exception based design) and constraining that class with an entirely-Daily power selection to create a Vance Caster.  Is this altering the Power/Level chart, subtracting it, or adding a new class?Second, an added suite of powers that re-introduce CN and LN foes, powers, and classes (maybe from Law and Chaos: Moorecockian Tapdance) is no more an amount of "tinkering" than subtracting alignment altogether would be.Sidenote, I think we've gone deep into the Semantic hole.There's your rule breaking: but be careful about ascribing motives to the actions of others or telling others how they "should" think. You are not only telling me what kind of feelings I am having, but how pejoratively minor in scope they are to you.You are simplifying to a definition without regarding the negative associations that should have already been apparent, unless you fail to see the demeaning nature of calling a person "casual"."Well designed" "Straightforward" and "highly efficient" is a judgment about the game system- Chess, for example.  "Casual" is a judgment about the players, calling them the Lowest Common Denominator and unwilling to make the leap into a Hardcore game.The substantial reasons I have seen and agree with is that it'll cost more money and Angels aren't Good.  Yet a collection of valid data-points does not come to an absolute sum of a value-comparison.Hell, I think there shouldn't have been Usually-Good Angels in the MM, instead putting them into the Book of Vile Darkness: ruleset for Evil PCs.  That agrees with one reason while contradicting another- that doesn't mean that I condemn 4E.This assumption only works if you find that 3E can be made into a worthwhile game of Fantasy Roleplaying.  Personally, I used the d20 engine to play Spycraft for the past 3 years.  Value judgement, yes, but it answers your question.</blockquote>

Verification