Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5463079" data-attributes="member: 42582">Billd91, I do understand that. One of my first posts in this thread suggested that WotC had overestimated the attraction to many potential customers of a metagame heavy, non-simulationist RPG.My point was simply that Danny is wrong to suggest that high-level 4e PCs are as challenged by mundane locks as are low-level 4e PCs.Note also that the game doesn't preclude high level PCs encountering mundane locks. It's just that such locks are scenery, not challenges, and wouldn't engage the action resolution mechanics (as I said upthread, the precise point at which this happens is left as an exercise for the individual group). In practice, therefore, 4e probably wouldn't be the best system to run a game in which demigods frequently have to deal with ordinary locks (on the other hand, I'm not sure how many people actually want to run such a game).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5463079, member: 42582"] Billd91, I do understand that. One of my first posts in this thread suggested that WotC had overestimated the attraction to many potential customers of a metagame heavy, non-simulationist RPG. My point was simply that Danny is wrong to suggest that high-level 4e PCs are as challenged by mundane locks as are low-level 4e PCs. Note also that the game [I]doesn't[/I] preclude high level PCs encountering mundane locks. It's just that such locks are scenery, not challenges, and wouldn't engage the action resolution mechanics (as I said upthread, the precise point at which this happens is left as an exercise for the individual group). In practice, therefore, 4e probably wouldn't be the best system to run a game in which demigods frequently have to deal with ordinary locks (on the other hand, I'm not sure how many people actually want to run such a game). [/QUOTE]

Verification