Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4429572" data-attributes="member: 48965">All I can really say is playstyles.&nbsp; I like games where choices are meaningful.&nbsp; If no matter what I choose, there is no sacrifice (as in I will always be good in everything)...what's the point of the choice?&nbsp; I am finding alot of things about D&amp;D 4e lean towards the &quot;no fun to fail ever&quot; spectrum.&nbsp; I mean look at the new skill challenges, super easy.&nbsp; Only time I hear about dangerous combat is when the monsters are 3 to 4 levels higher than the PC's.&nbsp; IMO, 4e is a &quot;paper tiger&quot; game.&nbsp; I just have a preference for games where everyone isn't Superman...Where an archetype like Achilles as well as Aladdin (not much in combat skills) or Odysseus (more trickster or thinker than combat specialist) are both viable...not where everyone has to be Achilles at start.As far as the game being restricted... it only has to be that way if you expect your players to always succeed.&nbsp; In life, there isn't always a happy ending and way more people die forgotten than remembered as heroes.&nbsp; If it was easy everyone would be a hero and thus it would be meaningless.&nbsp; In D&amp;D 3.X, Warhammmer, Runequest, Reign, Stormbringer, L5R,&nbsp; etc. players are heroes but they aren't all combat capable uber-warriors.&nbsp; They struggle, sometimes have to think outside the box, and have to make choices with consequences on how to develop their character...and IMO, these games are a richer experience for that, especially when the players aren't coddled to.&nbsp; But this has become taboo with D&amp;D and I find it disappointing to say the least.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4429572, member: 48965"] All I can really say is playstyles. I like games where choices are meaningful. If no matter what I choose, there is no sacrifice (as in I will always be good in everything)...what's the point of the choice? I am finding alot of things about D&D 4e lean towards the "no fun to fail ever" spectrum. I mean look at the new skill challenges, super easy. Only time I hear about dangerous combat is when the monsters are 3 to 4 levels higher than the PC's. IMO, 4e is a "paper tiger" game. I just have a preference for games where everyone isn't Superman...Where an archetype like Achilles as well as Aladdin (not much in combat skills) or Odysseus (more trickster or thinker than combat specialist) are both viable...not where everyone has to be Achilles at start. As far as the game being restricted... it only has to be that way if you expect your players to always succeed. In life, there isn't always a happy ending and way more people die forgotten than remembered as heroes. If it was easy everyone would be a hero and thus it would be meaningless. In D&D 3.X, Warhammmer, Runequest, Reign, Stormbringer, L5R, etc. players are heroes but they aren't all combat capable uber-warriors. They struggle, sometimes have to think outside the box, and have to make choices with consequences on how to develop their character...and IMO, these games are a richer experience for that, especially when the players aren't coddled to. But this has become taboo with D&D and I find it disappointing to say the least. [/QUOTE]

Verification