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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5645011" data-attributes="member: 48965">Your logic here seems to be a little off. In the first statement you seem to state that Pathfinder (the rules) focuses on adventures and further define adventure as... play where the invention and meaning have already been determined prior to actual in-game play by whoever authored the adventure...  Now for discussions sake lets ignore the fact that the statement above implies that any game having pre-made adventures (including 4e) should have this as it's default playstyle, which I think is erroneous in the extreme...  Next you seem to state that 4e is designed to focus on a different sort of play (without defining said type of play) then disregard the 4e adventures as doing a poor job of showcasing whatever this type of play is... So for PF, the adventures define, or at the least are representative of the type of play the rules create. Yet in 4e you claim adventures are actually a poor example of what type of play 4e was designed to facilitate. This seems like a double standard to me... Maybe 4e's adventures are very much indicative of the type of play the designers expected for 4e and designed its rules to accomodate. (I mean very few if any people actually complain that the rules as used in most of the 4e modules are prone to errors or misused, so I don't think the modules do a bad job of actually showcasing the rules). IMO, the above is a more realistic conclusion then believing that the same people who designed the game rules are incompetent in using said rules to create adventures in the game's expected playstyle.  Now whether you personally play in the games expected playstyle is a whole different argument of course.</blockquote>

Verification