Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5359489" data-attributes="member: 82106">Huh?! Sorry, this really doesn't hold water IMHO. You can do JUST AS MUCH with the 4e stunting/skill system as with any other system. The fact is it is a GENERALIZED system that is pretty good at adjudicating anything. The problem with the 3.x "rule for everything" system is twofold. First there is NEVER a rule for everything, thus there are always the black pits of the rules system where you have nothing to go on, except to fall back on a generalized system of action resolution, so you're just as well off with a good one of those that consistently handles all that crap from the start. Secondly the specific rules that the system DOES provide are VERY frequently themselves unworkable and stupid and have to be jettisoned anyway. You want to handle the "the BBEG is on the roof" scenario? In 4e the players have a plethora of options that all fall within the general system. They can bull rush, they can use forced movement powers or other similar kinds of stuff. They could actually try to collapse the roof too, there are perfectly good rules for that. Or they can stunt. It is perfectly possible for a PC to say leap on the enemy and try to drag him down or whatever other possibilities I can't even think of. The DM uses page 42 and sets a DC and a skill to use based on the player's description of what he does. Damage can be picked from a standard chart if there is damage involved, an attack can be made against Fort, Ref, or Will, etc. Honestly, where is the problem? I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never said ANY system sucked. I haven't heard other people say that either here. I've heard them say what they think is good about the new system, 4e. I've also heard them articulate concerns that Essentials is trying to abandon hard won progress in the system based on a (as some of us would believe) mistaken assertion that somehow going backwards will make a better game. 4e is a more modern and polished game design than previous editions of D&D. It may not be the one you like as much but since I have played ALL versions of D&D, and all but 3.x VERY extensively I'm pretty darn sure 4e has the most solid rules of all of them. If it doesn't do what you want, then play a different version, but don't come around and tell me what I need to rethink, lol. Honestly, I understand when people state that they find 4e formulaic in some sense. I don't really agree as to the reasons why it seems that way though. That's OK, we can disagree but we can debate it instead of telling the other guy to rethink because he must be wrong. Personally I think the issue with 4e isn't powers trumping creativity. You can use powers creatively and you can do other things. I think the issue is they really honestly tried to remove a lot of the variability in how things work. What people miss is things like monsters that have major weaknesses and also scary ridiculous nasty effects. Items that can curse you. Totally off the wall overpowered magical effects, etc. That kind of stuff can wreck a game or make it darn hard to play, but if used RIGHT it can also really add to the game. Breaking away from a formula encounter paradigm will also bring benefits by making the play have more real meaningful variety.I think the place where 4e went a bit wrong was they poured out a huge amount of pretty vanilla content. It is GOOD, but they kind of just left the wacky stuff totally to the DM. That's good for some people, but it leaves a lot of others feeling like they're in a small box. Like I said up thread I think part of the reason this happened is that the devs are VERY experienced players and GMs. It just didn't occur to them that most people need someone to say "and you can make a zombie that poisons people dead if you really want, its OK as long as you make it a good story". Instead they just left out such elements, knowing that as ultra-creative types they'd certainly have no trouble adding it in themselves.</blockquote>

Verification