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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6076333" data-attributes="member: 82106">I understand entirely why game mechanics matter in terms of what makes a game that is good and does what you want. Ramathilis' objection was purely 'ideological', he objected to the 4e fireball on the basis of "I think fireball should be like 1e fireball because that's D&D and 4e isn't D&D, its different." There's a huge difference there. If he says "for thus and such logic reasons when we play these rules DON'T WORK" that's one thing. I use 4e over 1e now because 4e's rules work better in some definable way. Ramathilis didn't want to use them because they're slightly different.I'm NOT trying to invalidate anyone's tastes. What I am saying is that I just don't find the difference between 1e's fireball and 4e's fireball to be sufficient in my mind to call one of them such a different thing that it can't possibly be accepted as being close enough that all we need to debate is its suitability rules-wise, mechanically. If Ramathilis wants to draw a line and say "that's not D&D" I'm NOT criticizing that, but I am saying I don't get it. Both sets of rules depict a magical burst of fire that burns the caster's enemies in much the same way and used in much the same context. To me that's perfectly sufficient to call them the same thing.Of course there are then all of the mechanical arguments, which break down into questions of suitability to play styles etc, which we have been discussing and which are all perfectly reasonable things to discuss. Again, it is only the "4e's fireball isn't a real D&D fireball" that vexes me, that's ALL.</blockquote>

Verification