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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6600201" data-attributes="member: 221">You are bordering on the ridiculous with an attempt to really spin the idea into something arguable. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Firstly, just because you can't do a thing, doesn't mean others can't; nor does it mean you can't train yourself to do them. And I do believe we are talking abilities, in the main, for which people do actually have the capability and training. Secondly, we are, of course talking actions or abilities which can be done within a fairly compressed period of time (per the game round). So yes, most people can only run a single marathon a day, assuming they can run a marathon, and I can only fast for thirteen hours a single time a day... but that's obviously not what we are talking about.I am not sure what your point is. The mechanical reason for rationing is easily understood. Understanding the reasons does not, of necessity, make it palatable in every case.  Rolling dice is very much an illusion of agency. It does not, in fact, give the player control over the outcome, nor does it really matter who rolls or how the dice are tossed, or what numbers came up before, nor does it actually mean the person rolling is in any way participating in the action being done.  But, when a person rolls the dice for their own character's actions, they "feel" like they are in some way participating in the action. And that feeling is not insignificant.  But that's not the complaint per se. Its the inability to repeat a mundane ability which strips away the perception of player agency (for some people). "You can't swing the sword that hard again!""Why, am I too tired to fight?"No, you are at full strength but you can only swing the sword that hard once per day."That comes across probably more elitist than you meant it to. And, I too played AD&D for many years, so I'm not sure that actually holds true as the reason for the preference.That oft seems to be the attitude presented. Perhaps it is unintentional.But if someone says, this doesn't feel like such and such to me... and the response is, "That's only because you don't understand xyz," or "That complaint makes no sense because,..." or "How can you like x but not like z," the message conveyed is that the complaint is in some sense irrational.  My apologies. Firstly, I worded that poorly. I only meant to suggest the possibility you may have been among those who suggested people would enjoy 4e more if they were to change their psychological approach to it. Secondly, I may simply be conflating posters.  I did not mean to imply that 4e got universally bad reviews. That would be a ridiculous assertion, especially as your single opinion of it would refute it. I don't know that I agree with you as to its popularity overall, but there are obviously people who really like(d) it. But it did get mixed reviews, some of which were very negative, and many of which were met with assertions that gamers needed to change themselves to better meet the game. I well remember the condescension with which non-4e compliant gamers were told that they would eventually be assimilated when Pathfinder inevitably folded and 4e was the only version of the game supported. That's the phenomena I am referencing.</blockquote>

Verification