Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4332105" data-attributes="member: 4937">No, that's exception based thinking.There just isn't any evidence that 4e was designed to be a game with a loose relationship with the rules.  There is no evidence that 4e is all about promoting a tinker's relationship with the rules, or that the 4e designers consider there rules to be just loose suggestions readily open to interpretation.  In fact, I see the opposite.  The 4e rules are designed to be extremely clear and have very low requirements for interpretation, and that the 4e mindset is that DM adjudication is not particularly necessary or desirable.   The mindset is much closer to that of the Magic the Gathering rules than it is to classic 'Rule Zero' centered RPG rules.Instead, what you do see is 4e supporters who when challenged with holes, contridictions, and exceptions in the rules respond by that bugs aren't really bugs, they are features.  In particular, they continually claim in the face of the rules producing illogical results that the rules simply expect an experienced DM to adjust them as necessary, while simultaneously continually claiming that the relative narrowness of the rules is because they are designed primarily with inexperienced DMs in mind.</blockquote>