Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ryryguy" data-source="post: 4353823" data-attributes="member: 64945">4e definitely reigned in and tightened up the scope of wizardly combat magic a lot.&nbsp; That's obvious.&nbsp;mid to high3e magic, through the use of &quot;creative combos&quot;, could create a lot of shut-down, &quot;I win&quot; sorts of effects.&nbsp; I think that the designers of 4e probably viewed this as undesirable.&nbsp; 4e's more limited magic helps to prevent those.&nbsp;Now, to the OP, 3e magic's shut-down techniques were a feature, not a bug.&nbsp; His group's play revolved around both the players and the opposition anticipating those techniques, preparing countermeasures, inventing new techniques as counter-countermeasures, and so forth.&nbsp; Sort of a magical arms race, in effect.&nbsp;I think it's great that his group has had so much fun with that kind of game.&nbsp; However, I also think that the level of rules mastery required to support that style of play is extremely high.&nbsp; This, if nothing else, limits the number of groups who are willing and able to play in that mode.&nbsp; &nbsp;As mentioned already, this style also emphasizes preparation before the encounter as well.&nbsp; That requires lots more work on the part of the group (as the OP has acknowledged).&nbsp; Again, while it's great that his group found this so enjoyable, it's not hard to imagine why there are probably many more players who aren't so keen about having to &quot;work hard&quot; for the sake of a game. &nbsp;The OP was wondering if his style was rare; in short, I think the answer is yes.&nbsp;That is not the end of the story, though.&nbsp; I think that there is a countervailing trend in 4e that promotes creativity and freer play which the OP may have missed.&nbsp; 4e's tighter constraints around combat magic/powers have also opened up a lot more space for free and unstructured play around it.&nbsp; 3e's deep and detailed magic (not to mention various other subsystems, not all of which involved combat) provides so many fiddly bits and levels and rules for resolving tasks that it gets harder to do stuff without using it.&nbsp; It's a really big box, but it's harder to see outside it.&nbsp;What I'm talking about is a bit fuzzy, a matter of philosophy and feel, more than specific things I can point to.&nbsp; There are a few things, though - the DMG's emphasis on the DM &quot;saying yes&quot;; the DC and damage expression by level chart; the wide-open ritual system where the effects of individual rituals sometimes intentionally seem to be left a little bit vague.&nbsp;Basically, as a DM, I feel better about letting players try crazy stuff with their powers and abilities that might not be fully supported by the rules on the page.&nbsp; The greater simplicity and transparency of the underlying math helps to guide me; the more constrained, modular nature of the individual spells makes me more confident that I'm not accidentally going to allow some &quot;I win!&quot; exploit that everyone will regret later on.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ryryguy, post: 4353823, member: 64945"] 4e definitely reigned in and tightened up the scope of wizardly combat magic a lot. That's obvious. mid to high3e magic, through the use of "creative combos", could create a lot of shut-down, "I win" sorts of effects. I think that the designers of 4e probably viewed this as undesirable. 4e's more limited magic helps to prevent those. Now, to the OP, 3e magic's shut-down techniques were a feature, not a bug. His group's play revolved around both the players and the opposition anticipating those techniques, preparing countermeasures, inventing new techniques as counter-countermeasures, and so forth. Sort of a magical arms race, in effect. I think it's great that his group has had so much fun with that kind of game. However, I also think that the level of rules mastery required to support that style of play is extremely high. This, if nothing else, limits the number of groups who are willing and able to play in that mode. As mentioned already, this style also emphasizes preparation before the encounter as well. That requires lots more work on the part of the group (as the OP has acknowledged). Again, while it's great that his group found this so enjoyable, it's not hard to imagine why there are probably many more players who aren't so keen about having to "work hard" for the sake of a game. The OP was wondering if his style was rare; in short, I think the answer is yes. That is not the end of the story, though. I think that there is a countervailing trend in 4e that promotes creativity and freer play which the OP may have missed. 4e's tighter constraints around combat magic/powers have also opened up a lot more space for free and unstructured play around it. 3e's deep and detailed magic (not to mention various other subsystems, not all of which involved combat) provides so many fiddly bits and levels and rules for resolving tasks that it gets harder to do stuff without using it. It's a really big box, but it's harder to see outside it. What I'm talking about is a bit fuzzy, a matter of philosophy and feel, more than specific things I can point to. There are a few things, though - the DMG's emphasis on the DM "saying yes"; the DC and damage expression by level chart; the wide-open ritual system where the effects of individual rituals sometimes intentionally seem to be left a little bit vague. Basically, as a DM, I feel better about letting players try crazy stuff with their powers and abilities that might not be fully supported by the rules on the page. The greater simplicity and transparency of the underlying math helps to guide me; the more constrained, modular nature of the individual spells makes me more confident that I'm not accidentally going to allow some "I win!" exploit that everyone will regret later on. [/QUOTE]

Verification