Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 4502509" data-attributes="member: 13107">So... this whole debate is bringing up a problem that I've had with 3E (and which 4E has continued, hence 4E is not the fix that I was looking for.)Here is a filtering question: Playing 3E or 4E, if a player with a movement of 30' (or 6 squares) asked to stretch that to 35' (or 7 squares), would you allow it, say, with a -2 to actions until the beginning of their next turn, or would you simply disallow it?I understand that the game is about saying yes, but I hazard that few would allow this modification.&nbsp; The rules simply don't allow it, although, the modification does not seem to be completely unreasonable.&nbsp; (My read of the rules is that you have to run to go at all further than your base movement, which is a big step up from a hustling on a single move.)Here is another filtering question: You are chasing an airship, and a rope tied to and trailing the ship moves past you.&nbsp; You ask the GM to be allowed to grab the rope, as a kind of AOO, as it moves past you.&nbsp; Would you as GM allow that?This gets to a modification of the original question: What did 4E leave in that you would prefer had been left out?To close, allow me to make an observation and ask a third question: As a rules system, 4E attempts to be complete, so that, if this is your group's play-style, that once initiative is rolled, the options are exactly as set by the game rules.&nbsp; There is a part of the game that is designed to enhance the play experience by providing much simplified rules.&nbsp; Now, that leads to a question, which is, are the new simpler rules enabling, in that you can learn them quickly, and move past them to creative play and out-of-the box type thinking, or are the new simpler rules restrictive, leaving no options except those which are allowed by the rules?&nbsp; I'm thinking that a lot of excitement (or lack of excitement) about 4E can be traced to how one answers this question.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 4502509, member: 13107"] So... this whole debate is bringing up a problem that I've had with 3E (and which 4E has continued, hence 4E is not the [I]fix[/I] that I was looking for.) Here is a filtering question: Playing 3E [I]or[/I] 4E, if a player with a movement of 30' (or 6 squares) asked to stretch that to 35' (or 7 squares), would you allow it, say, with a -2 to actions until the beginning of their next turn, or would you simply disallow it? I understand that the game is about saying [I]yes[/I], but I hazard that few would allow this modification. The rules simply don't allow it, although, the modification does not seem to be completely unreasonable. (My read of the rules is that you have to run to go at all further than your base movement, which is a big step up from a hustling on a single move.) Here is another filtering question: You are chasing an airship, and a rope tied to and trailing the ship moves past you. You ask the GM to be allowed to grab the rope, as a kind of AOO, as it moves past you. Would you as GM allow that? This gets to a modification of the original question: What did 4E leave in that you would prefer had been left out? To close, allow me to make an observation and ask a third question: As a rules system, 4E attempts to be complete, so that, if this is your group's play-style, that once initiative is rolled, the options are exactly as set by the game rules. There is a part of the game that is designed to enhance the play experience by providing much simplified rules. Now, that leads to a question, which is, are the new simpler rules enabling, in that you can learn them quickly, and move past them to creative play and out-of-the box type thinking, or are the new simpler rules restrictive, leaving no options except those which are allowed by the rules? I'm thinking that a lot of excitement (or lack of excitement) about 4E can be traced to how one answers this question. [/QUOTE]

Verification