Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5469997" data-attributes="member: 98032">Nope. I've never emphasized an &quot;us versus the DM&quot; style of play whether 2e or 3e. The whole concept is absurd, cause, well, the DM wins, period (the edition doesn't matter - the DM can absolutely destroy the party in any version of any RPG, which consequently usually makes for a sucky game.) I'm sorry you've had to put up with games like that!&nbsp;Ive always run games where the players were the main characters in an evolving story. My job as DM has always been to present challenges and help the story unfold. Sure, sometimes as the rules played out, or the story played out, characters might fall to bad fortune. But it was never the case that I targetted players or arbitrarily decided to mess them up. I do &quot;toy&quot; with them at times, but only when it develops the overall story and usually it is in such a manner that hardens the players resolve to pursue in-game story resolutions. &nbsp;Maybe your group's playstyle has just matured? Maybe you just had a rash of bad DMs? I don't think the editon or even the RPG chosen has much to do with it.&nbsp;Edit: Consequently - my experience with 4e is that predictable outcomes, increased tactical combat (somehow they made an edition where the rules come even more to center stage for combat than 3e) are probably two examples of how the system clashes with my style, not adds to it. To each his own though. I do completely agree with the other benefits of 4e that you listed - they're just not enough to outweigh the things I personally dislike about the system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CuRoi, post: 5469997, member: 98032"] Nope. I've never emphasized an "us versus the DM" style of play whether 2e or 3e. The whole concept is absurd, cause, well, the DM wins, period (the edition doesn't matter - the DM can absolutely destroy the party in any version of any RPG, which consequently usually makes for a sucky game.) I'm sorry you've had to put up with games like that! Ive always run games where the players were the main characters in an evolving story. My job as DM has always been to present challenges and help the story unfold. Sure, sometimes as the rules played out, or the story played out, characters might fall to bad fortune. But it was never the case that I targetted players or arbitrarily decided to mess them up. I do "toy" with them at times, but only when it develops the overall story and usually it is in such a manner that hardens the players resolve to pursue in-game story resolutions. Maybe your group's playstyle has just matured? Maybe you just had a rash of bad DMs? I don't think the editon or even the RPG chosen has much to do with it. [B]Edit:[/B] Consequently - my experience with 4e is that predictable outcomes, increased tactical combat (somehow they made an edition where the rules come even more to center stage for combat than 3e) are probably two examples of how the system clashes with my style, not adds to it. To each his own though. I do completely agree with the other benefits of 4e that you listed - they're just not enough to outweigh the things I personally dislike about the system. [/QUOTE]

Verification