Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Hitcher" data-source="post: 6310198" data-attributes="member: 63747">I stand by my summary of your argument, Ruin Explorer, but I will expand it slightly. You are taking a position based on a) your personal experience and b) an appeal to a small section of rules on one page of the DMG. Actually, you now seem to have watered down (b) even more to the "spirit of page 42", whatever that means. What about the spirit of the rest of the rules? The hundreds of pages of highly technical rules that form the basis of the tactical combat system that is at the core of 4E?If you can't see how that core system might drive many (if not most) people towards abstracted tactical play at the likely expense of imaginative, character-driven play, then I really have nothing else to discuss with you. I'm very happy to agree to disagree. Possibly we live in different dimensions.Which is fine. I'm very glad all of the different editions exist, that they all have fans, and that Wizards are now supporting players of all of them via pdf releases and subdivided forums. People can play what they want to play and that's great.I'm also very happy to have discussions about rules systems and their implications (it's what I do for a living, after all), but not when there's clearly no hope of finding common ground and it ends up feeling like I'm banging my head against a wall. Suffice to say that I'm far from the only one who has this perspective on 4E, and it seems that the 5E design team is working very hard to move away from these specific problems (for which I am very glad). I'll be extremely surprised if 5E doesn't in fact have a great deal of text about improvisation/imaginative play, since it makes up a significant part of their core design goals for the game:(source: <a href="http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130114" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130114</a>)</blockquote>

Verification