Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 5360577" data-attributes="member: 20323">There's some kind of X factor that is going on here, cause it's clear there are 4e groups who notice a change in their creativity during combat, while there are 4e groups who don't notice any change.Do you think there is a core difference between groups that explains this different response? Is it a play style, different experiences of what &quot;old school&quot; means, exposure to indie rpgs?I'd be curious to hear from the most vocal folks in this thread, like you Scribble, and AbdulAlhazrad, Kamikaze Midget, Imaro, UHF, TerraDave, and anyone I'm leaving out.I really like how classes encompass so much of this, but not necessarily how they were presented in core 4e.Sorry, I'm not following you. Do you mean that they're not needed because the group can just improvise?Yeah, as a DM I *love* 4e because of it's easy to make stuff up on the fly. I tried really hard to convey that &quot;go for it!&quot; spirit to my group. Thing is, from a player's perspective I don't think it's as...inviting.There are two positions going back and forth regarding improvisation in 4e. Side #1 says: &quot;Page 42 of the DMG covers most improv! And the rules are less case specific so improv is easier!&quot;Side #2 says: &quot;Page 42 barely covers any improv! And the rules and their presentation discourage improv!&quot;I think that's useful to keep in mind so we don't keep covering the same ground, and can get more specific about our observations and positions.That was my first reaction to 4e too, but after DMing for a year what I observed was a shift from the novelty of the &quot;known elements&quot; to the &quot;known elements&quot; trumping improvisation.I don't attribute that to there being &quot;known elements&quot;, rather to the rules presentation and improv guidelines (for both player and DM).I'm sorry. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /> Wait, what am I apologizing for? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Wait, am I misunderstanding, or are there groups out there who feel adopting 4e has made their groups more creative? I'd be interested to hear *that* argument.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 5360577, member: 20323"] There's some kind of X factor that is going on here, cause it's clear there are 4e groups who notice a change in their creativity during combat, while there are 4e groups who don't notice any change. Do you think there is a core difference between groups that explains this different response? Is it a play style, different experiences of what "old school" means, exposure to indie rpgs? I'd be curious to hear from the most vocal folks in this thread, like you Scribble, and AbdulAlhazrad, Kamikaze Midget, Imaro, UHF, TerraDave, and anyone I'm leaving out. I really like how classes encompass so much of this, but not necessarily how they were presented in core 4e. Sorry, I'm not following you. Do you mean that they're not needed because the group can just improvise? Yeah, as a DM I *love* 4e because of it's easy to make stuff up on the fly. I tried really hard to convey that "go for it!" spirit to my group. Thing is, from a player's perspective I don't think it's as...inviting. There are two positions going back and forth regarding improvisation in 4e. Side #1 says: "Page 42 of the DMG covers most improv! And the rules are less case specific so improv is easier!" Side #2 says: "Page 42 barely covers any improv! And the rules and their presentation discourage improv!" I think that's useful to keep in mind so we don't keep covering the same ground, and can get more specific about our observations and positions. That was my first reaction to 4e too, but after DMing for a year what I observed was a shift from the novelty of the "known elements" to the "known elements" trumping improvisation. I don't attribute that to there being "known elements", rather to the rules presentation and improv guidelines (for both player and DM). I'm sorry. :uhoh: Wait, what am I apologizing for? :) Wait, am I misunderstanding, or are there groups out there who feel adopting 4e has made their groups more creative? I'd be interested to hear *that* argument. [/QUOTE]

Verification