Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5465323" data-attributes="member: 11300">Your logic there is wonky by the way. However, have you ever played MTGO? If so you would have more than likely seen what I meant automatically, but to rephrase: a computer could perfectly adjudicate all the actions taken by each of the players for their characters. In MTGO, the computer acts as a level 5 (the highest level) perfect judge. It can perfectly adjudicate the outcome of any action taken by a player. [The computer does not play the role of a player, it &quot;simply&quot; adjudicates the rules and outcomes of player actions.] Previous editions have a lot of loopholes and situations where such clear adjudication would not be possible. And this is referring to the rules as written, not some &quot;computerized&quot; derivation of the core rule books. To my mind, the 4e ruleset was designed so that a computer could perfectly adjudicate the actions of the players (and DM) similar to a computer's role of adjudicating actions on MTGO. Do you see what I mean now? I was not referring to the difficulty of coding the AI.&nbsp;You're skirting around the core issue here. A simplification was made to the rules that was made more for ease of play issues than what made sense. This was yet another reason for the feeling of &quot;sameness&quot; of characters in play. This bothered some but not others.&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes. Because of the alternative ability modifiers that could be used for defenses, all the values ended up in a similar range for almost all characters. Everyone's average or good at such things. Mathematically this works out nicely for holding a stable encounter duration and level of character involvement. It is a component of hardcoding effective characters into the game.&nbsp;Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Herremann the Wise, post: 5465323, member: 11300"] Your logic there is wonky by the way. However, have you ever played MTGO? If so you would have more than likely seen what I meant automatically, but to rephrase: a computer could perfectly adjudicate all the actions taken by each of the players for their characters. In MTGO, the computer acts as a level 5 (the highest level) perfect judge. It can perfectly adjudicate the outcome of any action taken by a player. [The computer does not play the role of a player, it "simply" adjudicates the rules and outcomes of player actions.] Previous editions have a lot of loopholes and situations where such clear adjudication would not be possible. And this is referring to the rules as written, not some "computerized" derivation of the core rule books. To my mind, the 4e ruleset was designed so that a computer could perfectly adjudicate the actions of the players (and DM) similar to a computer's role of adjudicating actions on MTGO. Do you see what I mean now? I was not referring to the difficulty of coding the AI. You're skirting around the core issue here. A simplification was made to the rules that was made more for ease of play issues than what made sense. This was yet another reason for the feeling of "sameness" of characters in play. This bothered some but not others. Yes. Because of the alternative ability modifiers that could be used for defenses, all the values ended up in a similar range for almost all characters. Everyone's average or good at such things. Mathematically this works out nicely for holding a stable encounter duration and level of character involvement. It is a component of hardcoding effective characters into the game. Best Regards Herremann the Wise [/QUOTE]

Verification