Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sacrosanct" data-source="post: 6659099" data-attributes="member: 15700">What's been illustrated time and time again is that if you give someone paints and tell them to paint a picture, and give another group paints and tell them to paint a tree, you're going to get a much larger variance in paintings in the first group.&nbsp; Any time you add additional rules and guidelines, you limit the amount of potential outcomes.&nbsp; This seems to be indisputable in every industry and every group except 4e fans it seems.&nbsp; Which is pretty odd.&nbsp; It's like you want your cake and eat it too.&nbsp; You can't celebrate 4e as being great because it defines rules in a very detailed way and takes away DM judgment calls, and at the same time say it has the same flexibility.&nbsp; Those things are naturally contradictory with each other.And it's also been shown, time and time again, that the more defined system you have, the less likely players are to deviate from that core system.&nbsp; People naturally follow the rules and guidelines of the game.&nbsp; How many times have we seen players here constantly complain that class X isn't effective or good at pillar Y or skill Z because they don't have a high enough modifier?&nbsp; Or how many times have we heard players say that &quot;the fighter shouldn't be attempting to bluff the guard, because the bard has a higher skill.&quot;&nbsp; Not only are rigid and clearly defined rules not conducive to coming up with ad hoc actions, in many cases they outright discourage them.&nbsp; When you don't have a &quot;bluff&quot; skill in the game as a mechanic, more people attempted it because they didn't have this implied &quot;you shouldn't because player X has a higher value.&quot;&nbsp; It's the same reason Hussar said that in AD&amp;D, it &quot;would never fly&quot; but in 4e &quot;it's easy peasy&quot;.&nbsp; Are you implying that Hussar has a lack of imagination when you say ad hoc things are only player specific and not influenced by the game?&nbsp; it's a clear example of &quot;what is not expressly permitted is prohibited&quot; that we see in so many gamers with 3e and 4e.&nbsp; There's a reason why that saying came about.&nbsp; It's not an attack on Hussar or any other gamer, but of human behavior in general.&nbsp; I can't tell you how many times I've seen the same player change how often they try ad hoc things depending on what game they are playing.Please note I'm not saying one edition is objectively better than the other, because lots of folks like to have clearly defined rules and balance and don't want DM fiat at all, and that's a perfectly valid playstyle.&nbsp; But you can't claim 4e does both equally well.&nbsp; It is exceptional at balance and defined rules.&nbsp; But that means it doesn't not handle rulings over rules nearly as well.&nbsp; You can't really do it at all unless you start adjusting the core rules that the system is built off of, just like in your examples.Basically, everything you're saying is the exact opposite of what people say is great about 4e--the removal of DM fiat and the reliance on clearly defined rules.&nbsp; So forgive me if it seems odd that you are relying on DM fiat to support your favorite edition when that edition was designed intentionally to remove DM fiat.&nbsp; And so far the only example of you showing how 4e is just as flexible is by taking away one of the fundamental aspects of 4e and playing it like...ahem...AD&amp;D DMs do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sacrosanct, post: 6659099, member: 15700"] What's been illustrated time and time again is that if you give someone paints and tell them to paint a picture, and give another group paints and tell them to paint a tree, you're going to get a much larger variance in paintings in the first group. Any time you add additional rules and guidelines, you limit the amount of potential outcomes. This seems to be indisputable in every industry and every group except 4e fans it seems. Which is pretty odd. It's like you want your cake and eat it too. You can't celebrate 4e as being great because it defines rules in a very detailed way and takes away DM judgment calls, and at the same time say it has the same flexibility. Those things are naturally contradictory with each other. And it's also been shown, time and time again, that the more defined system you have, the less likely players are to deviate from that core system. People naturally follow the rules and guidelines of the game. How many times have we seen players here constantly complain that class X isn't effective or good at pillar Y or skill Z because they don't have a high enough modifier? Or how many times have we heard players say that "the fighter shouldn't be attempting to bluff the guard, because the bard has a higher skill." Not only are rigid and clearly defined rules not conducive to coming up with ad hoc actions, in many cases they outright discourage them. When you don't have a "bluff" skill in the game as a mechanic, more people attempted it because they didn't have this implied "you shouldn't because player X has a higher value." It's the same reason Hussar said that in AD&D, it "would never fly" but in 4e "it's easy peasy". Are you implying that Hussar has a lack of imagination when you say ad hoc things are only player specific and not influenced by the game? it's a clear example of "what is not expressly permitted is prohibited" that we see in so many gamers with 3e and 4e. There's a reason why that saying came about. It's not an attack on Hussar or any other gamer, but of human behavior in general. I can't tell you how many times I've seen [i]the same player[/i] change how often they try ad hoc things depending on what game they are playing. Please note I'm not saying one edition is objectively better than the other, because lots of folks like to have clearly defined rules and balance and don't want DM fiat at all, and that's a perfectly valid playstyle. But you can't claim 4e does both equally well. It is exceptional at balance and defined rules. But that means it doesn't not handle rulings over rules nearly as well. You can't really do it at all unless you start adjusting the core rules that the system is built off of, just like in your examples. Basically, everything you're saying is the exact opposite of what people say is great about 4e--the removal of DM fiat and the reliance on clearly defined rules. So forgive me if it seems odd that you are relying on DM fiat to support your favorite edition when that edition was designed intentionally to remove DM fiat. And so far the only example of you showing how 4e is just as flexible is by taking away one of the fundamental aspects of 4e and playing it like...ahem...AD&D DMs do. [/QUOTE]

Verification