Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8393075" data-attributes="member: 7032025">If you don't want to discuss, don't answer back. But you might also want to listen to lots of people who did not like 4e, they had their reasons too.It has lots of qualities, which I recognise, but it's not perfect in general, and I'm entitled to my preferences. But if you'd rather only get people that agree with you, I suggest avoiding the internet.What is this even about ?No, it's clearly not, and I've not been the only one to explain that it's totally abstract, very gamist, and that is did not suit our tables at all.Moreover, it's not even what I was speaking about, oyu draw everything back to skill challenges, but there are constraints all over the place in that system, which is a widely recognised fact.No, by open ended, I mean something that can deal with every situation that I have imagined for the last 40 years in D&D, which 4e did not allow me to do, in particular because all the powers of the classes are limited to combat, focussed on playing on a grid, and allow absolutely no freedom in their interpretation.Not at all, but I don't need skill challenges to run things outside combat, so it's not a boon to me, I prefer even more openendedness which is not bound by preparation and allows me to take improvisation and new ideas into account, and honestly, it's what, 2% of the system ? Whereas all the rest of the system fixes what where previously and after much more open classes into extremely strict paths with boring combat powers that only scale with level by increasing the numbers, not even the possibilities. As for rituals, they were nice, but again destined to a very limited set of characters.Once more, there were many things that I liked in 4e, and I understand some people liking the game for a number of reasons, but there were also lots of people not liking it, also for very good reasons. If you can't accept this, why are you even discussing ?</blockquote>

Verification