Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MRTrice" data-source="post: 4320990" data-attributes="member: 27958">Just a noteA small point in the edition war going on between hong and rousner, but 4E's writing ( not the rules per se) draws a compromise for you two. While 4E offers clean rules on stats, it also suggests that changing flavor on power and monster descriptions is a great way to keep players on their toes.So it does seem the writers favor the idea of a player not knowing what a strange monster is. This seems to transcend edition, and isn't so insipid at all. 4E also makes it quite easy to assign new powers to a monster (even a human 'monster') with little external explanation. It may be cheap mystery for some, but it's mechanically well-supported cheap mystery--and that's across all editions.While &quot;I&quot; think 4E can be a bit more narrow a game (for good and bad), it does still rely upon a number of the same tricks D&amp;D has always has. No reason to fight that front.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MRTrice, post: 4320990, member: 27958"] [b]Just a note[/b] A small point in the edition war going on between hong and rousner, but 4E's writing ( not the rules per se) draws a compromise for you two. While 4E offers clean rules on stats, it also suggests that changing flavor on power and monster descriptions is a great way to keep players on their toes. So it does seem the writers favor the idea of a player not knowing what a strange monster is. This seems to transcend edition, and isn't so insipid at all. 4E also makes it quite easy to assign new powers to a monster (even a human 'monster') with little external explanation. It may be cheap mystery for some, but it's mechanically well-supported cheap mystery--and that's across all editions. While "I" think 4E can be a bit more narrow a game (for good and bad), it does still rely upon a number of the same tricks D&D has always has. No reason to fight that front. [/QUOTE]

Verification