Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Acid_crash" data-source="post: 4090802" data-attributes="member: 16278">From the sounds of it, Derren, sorry to say this but it really seems that you don't like anything that will allow players to add to the game beyond the limits in which you will set as their DM... from the way all your posts seem.4e will empower players in some situations to allow them to modify and tell the story based on the skills they use, how they use them, and why they use them.&nbsp; 4e is also much more realistic than the open and shut case of 3e... 3e, as designed, is a single die roll system.&nbsp; The core rules of the phb don't include rules for complex skill checks, and even if there are guidelines in the DMG, they are fuzzy at best and don't give much for xp rewards.&nbsp; 4e does.&nbsp; 4e system, as I've seen so far, for the way the complex skills work, makes the following situation&nbsp; more plausible --We've all been in the situation where the group had to negotiate with somebody for some thing.&nbsp; In the 3e way, we have one person make a Diplomacy roll, the other make a Diplomacy or Bluff roll, and its done.&nbsp; Whoever rolls higher wins.&nbsp; But, in a long term negotiation, this kind of skill roll is highly unrealistic and unplausible.&nbsp; The rest of the group twiddles their thumbs while the speaker speaks and makes his one roll.Now, with 4e, those other characters can do something.&nbsp; One can Intimidate, and if successful can add to the success count towards the group.&nbsp; Another can Bluff with someone else (let's pretend there are multiple people on both sides) not at the table, but if the bluff is successful it could cause a distraction with the negotiators, another point to the players side.&nbsp; You have the speaker himself talking, and let's say he fails a easy check.&nbsp; That negates the help the rest of the party has done for him.&nbsp; This 4e way of doing it, it is more dynamic, more cinematic, and more player empowering, which is what I think that you don't like.Either that, or you simply hate the idea of 4e so much that you will say anything to twist whatever else people are saying just to be a 4e hater... which is it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Acid_crash, post: 4090802, member: 16278"] From the sounds of it, Derren, sorry to say this but it really seems that you don't like anything that will allow players to add to the game beyond the limits in which you will set as their DM... from the way all your posts seem. 4e will empower players in some situations to allow them to modify and tell the story based on the skills they use, how they use them, and why they use them. 4e is also much more realistic than the open and shut case of 3e... 3e, as designed, is a single die roll system. The core rules of the phb don't include rules for complex skill checks, and even if there are guidelines in the DMG, they are fuzzy at best and don't give much for xp rewards. 4e does. 4e system, as I've seen so far, for the way the complex skills work, makes the following situation more plausible -- We've all been in the situation where the group had to negotiate with somebody for some thing. In the 3e way, we have one person make a Diplomacy roll, the other make a Diplomacy or Bluff roll, and its done. Whoever rolls higher wins. But, in a long term negotiation, this kind of skill roll is highly unrealistic and unplausible. The rest of the group twiddles their thumbs while the speaker speaks and makes his one roll. Now, with 4e, those other characters can do something. One can Intimidate, and if successful can add to the success count towards the group. Another can Bluff with someone else (let's pretend there are multiple people on both sides) not at the table, but if the bluff is successful it could cause a distraction with the negotiators, another point to the players side. You have the speaker himself talking, and let's say he fails a easy check. That negates the help the rest of the party has done for him. This 4e way of doing it, it is more dynamic, more cinematic, and more player empowering, which is what I think that you don't like. Either that, or you simply hate the idea of 4e so much that you will say anything to twist whatever else people are saying just to be a 4e hater... which is it? [/QUOTE]

Verification