Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 6323335" data-attributes="member: 59057">I don´t mind the wording. Actually I do like it, that corner cases or total stupidity is not explicitely excluded. Once you start specifying such ridiculous situations, people assume, that if such ridiculousness is not excluded in another ability, it works there too. I like hat mearls told us: &quot;if people like to play in an unfun way, we won´t stop them.&quot; Rules lawyers will alway find holes. 4e Errata showed us, that plugging all those holes is not possible and makes the game a lot less fun for normal gamers.I remember the divine challenge disaster, where we were stuck with a much too complex wording, because some jerk in preview game short before the release used it on the dragon and ran away, argumenting, that the dragon will eventually die, because he can´t attack them paladin. Rules lawyering and playing the game and the character and the ability against its spirit. And some voicy people on the forums supported that one gamer.I was so glad, when somewhere around essentials, the divine challenge was reworded to its original form, before the overreaction to that bad gamer.And yes, I said bad gamer. Because that was something that was very bad for 4e overall. Emphasizing wording over intend of the rules. It degenerated from a roleplaying game to just an exercise in rules exploiting.Not a fault of 4e, but a fault from the designers to listen too much to those people.I was so glad when I heard, that &quot;living ruleset&quot; now means: As long as a wording is no problem for most gamers (those with a brain to think for themselves) hey won´t change it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UngeheuerLich, post: 6323335, member: 59057"] I don´t mind the wording. Actually I do like it, that corner cases or total stupidity is not explicitely excluded. Once you start specifying such ridiculous situations, people assume, that if such ridiculousness is not excluded in another ability, it works there too. I like hat mearls told us: "if people like to play in an unfun way, we won´t stop them." Rules lawyers will alway find holes. 4e Errata showed us, that plugging all those holes is not possible and makes the game a lot less fun for normal gamers. I remember the divine challenge disaster, where we were stuck with a much too complex wording, because some jerk in preview game short before the release used it on the dragon and ran away, argumenting, that the dragon will eventually die, because he can´t attack them paladin. Rules lawyering and playing the game and the character and the ability against its spirit. And some voicy people on the forums supported that one gamer. I was so glad, when somewhere around essentials, the divine challenge was reworded to its original form, before the overreaction to that bad gamer. And yes, I said bad gamer. Because that was something that was very bad for 4e overall. Emphasizing wording over intend of the rules. It degenerated from a roleplaying game to just an exercise in rules exploiting. Not a fault of 4e, but a fault from the designers to listen too much to those people. I was so glad when I heard, that "living ruleset" now means: As long as a wording is no problem for most gamers (those with a brain to think for themselves) hey won´t change it. [/QUOTE]

Verification