Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6075863" data-attributes="member: 82106">[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] Let me just say that TO ME the key difference between 4e and 1e (as an example) is not player control of what their character can do. It is character durability and the assurance that your character's story arc can be explained in dramatic terms, and the fact that you can depend on being able to at least attempt to do cool and dramatic things in each scene without it being an insane risk that quickly kills you off, nor that all the cool plot defining action must by rule be reserved for one set of spell-casting archetypes. As other people have pointed out either here or in the &quot;Pemerton&quot; thread 4e relies a lot on a very open-ended skill system in any case, so it is NOT TRUE that the players can rely on knowing exactly how everything will play out. Their powers certain work that way in general, but powers have very narrow applicability in 4e. Unless your game's action is entirely relegated to tactical combat certainty is in no way shape or form in the hands of the players. No, it is the certainty that some stray arrow won't gank your character every other encounter, and that taking a chance to try to step up and climb a wall when it is dangerous isn't virtually suicide because you have at most 12 hit points. That's what 4e is offering and where it differs. In my 4e games the PCs slide down log flumes, dive into rivers, run through fires, leap on the backs of giant monsters, etc not because they KNOW what will happen, but because they know what will NOT happen, that rolling a bad check isn't instant death in all those situations, which is almost assured in AD&amp;D (and even if you don't die outright being reduced to a handful of hit points still ends the day's fun right then and there).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6075863, member: 82106"] [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] Let me just say that TO ME the key difference between 4e and 1e (as an example) is not player control of what their character can do. It is character durability and the assurance that your character's story arc can be explained in dramatic terms, and the fact that you can depend on being able to at least attempt to do cool and dramatic things in each scene without it being an insane risk that quickly kills you off, nor that all the cool plot defining action must by rule be reserved for one set of spell-casting archetypes. As other people have pointed out either here or in the "Pemerton" thread 4e relies a lot on a very open-ended skill system in any case, so it is NOT TRUE that the players can rely on knowing exactly how everything will play out. Their powers certain work that way in general, but powers have very narrow applicability in 4e. Unless your game's action is entirely relegated to tactical combat certainty is in no way shape or form in the hands of the players. No, it is the certainty that some stray arrow won't gank your character every other encounter, and that taking a chance to try to step up and climb a wall when it is dangerous isn't virtually suicide because you have at most 12 hit points. That's what 4e is offering and where it differs. In my 4e games the PCs slide down log flumes, dive into rivers, run through fires, leap on the backs of giant monsters, etc not because they KNOW what will happen, but because they know what will NOT happen, that rolling a bad check isn't instant death in all those situations, which is almost assured in AD&D (and even if you don't die outright being reduced to a handful of hit points still ends the day's fun right then and there). [/QUOTE]

Verification