Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9101104" data-attributes="member: 42582">It was obvious back in 2008 that 4e was (and would continue to be) "divisive", in the sense that there were many people who enjoyed 3E D&D and would not enjoy 4e D&D. I saw that in threads here about encounter powers, and skill challenges, as these were previewed by WotC.But I don't enjoy a resolution technique doesn't entail the fiction of those using that that technique is absurd or incoherent. Likewise when I ignored the rules and used rules and assumptions from other RPGs, this RPG didn't work isn't - for me - a very compelling basis for arguing that the RPG in question can't work.Which is why repeated claims that 4e's mechanics can't work, or can't produce coherent fiction, or are "video-gamey" or "gamist", drive me bonkers!I mean, at their core 4e's combat mechanics are no different from Gygax's account of hp in his DMG - they just take that design through to its logical conclusion. And the departures from AD&D - the uniform power suite, skill challenges, and the approach to PC level and treasure gain - are obviously based on well-known developments in RPG design that date back (at least) to Greg Stafford's Prince Valiant in 1989. Yet this thread has been like a "greatest hits" - prone oozes, damage on a miss, skill challenges, statting PCs and NPCs differently.People play what they like. From 1990 on I played much less AD&D than Rolemaster, because I discovered a RPG system that I much preferred. I don't play 5e D&D because it holds zero interest for me. But I don't feel like the historical record on 5e needs to include a footnote that it was not to pemerton's tastes.</blockquote>

Verification