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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thasmodious" data-source="post: 4311495" data-attributes="member: 63272">But why should it?  What benefit did it bring to us in the end?  There was plenty of playstyles and subsystems that 3e didn't have either.  You can't include everything.  So what to include and what not to include?  If you include one subsystem but leave out another then people who liked that subsystem/playstyle are upset.  Instead, the game provides a solid base to conflict resolution, the core of the RPG, and leaves DMs and players free to do what they always did anyway - tweak the game to suit their needs.  The books include plenty of advice on how to tweak it, giving DC tables by level so the math matches up, for example.  With those tables, devising a working craft system is cake.  As is devising about anything you need to do.  4e focuses no more on combat than any other edition of D&D did.  3e was a bit bloated, but the corebooks certainly focused on conflict resolution.  So did 1e - I have that PHB beside me, if you would like to post the table of contents.  Why?  Because that is the central element of the game.  People seem to be in agreement that crafting in 3e was crap, so why port it into 4e?  3rd party publishers will cover the niche markets for gamers that don't want to or aren't creative enough to tweak their own games to suit their own wants.  But why bloat the rules with a bunch of unnecessary subsystems that don't even get used in most games and many groups just houserule to suit their needs anyway?  With the way many gamers try to abuse every little loophole they can find, the more subsystems you use the more potential problems you create.  Not too many groups will design their own system and then seek to abuse it or complain that it isn't realistic enough, or doesn't model medieval armorsmithing well enough, or a hundred other things. And when the designers state from the beginning that this is, indeed, their design intent.  That they credit the average gamer with common sense, a sense of fair play, and enough creative muscle to tweak the game to their own groups playstyle and preferences, complaining that this is some kind of design flaw or limiting the versatility of the game is just baseless nerd rage.  And for the record. 3e wasn't nearly as versatile as you want to claim it was.  There isn't a group I am aware of that didn't have a collection of houserules to cover things the way they wanted.  Even if the rules included this or that subsystem, many groups houseruled those subsystems to make them work better, or more logical, or more realistic, or more powerful, or whatever based on their own perception.  My own group used a notebooks worth of houserules, a completely different and uncomplicated (but mathematically sound) XP system that didn't require tables and a calculator for every enoucnter, much less irritating identification rules (to our view, of course), modified craft systems, treasure systems, level/training, prestige class requirements, and many other things.  I'm already working on houseruling a couple things in 4e, but don't plan to finalize anything until we have more experience with the system.  Point is, it is not a design flaw for the game to account for the creativity and individuality of gamers.  It's a feature.  The skeletal framework is there for you to easily build just about anything you want to add into the system, including crafting.  Complaining that they didn't do it for you is where the arrogance lies - in thinking that the game designers failed if they didn't account for your personal preferences.</blockquote>

Verification