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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7011320" data-attributes="member: 996">It's a risk you take, yes, and it blew up on them in that instance.  It's not what /always/ happens, or no one would ever re-imagine or re-launch anything, ever.  Shatner would still be playing Kirk.  Marvel wouldn't be making movies.An interesting take on the 'why' of it.  It rings true to my ears, but do you base it on anything beyond intuition? It clearly wasn't, since there were big chunks of the design that were at odds with the concept.  OK, D&D mechanics and assumptions have always been pretty heavily tilted in the other direction.  1e training rules, for just one instance, prettymuch required that there be high-level NPCs out there, in numbers.  4e, like 3e, implied a world (or even universe) with remarkably liquid and well-developed markets for insanely expensive magic items, which was starkly at odds with the PoL concept.  Even so, the game was more open to PC-centric storytelling, in general (though, really, turning on inherent bonuses starts to look like a really good idea if you start thinking through the implications of wealth/level & make/buy/sell for magic items).I think that must overstate it, and would, again, invite you to share any instances of insiders coming out and saying anything along those lines.  But, even if that was their vision, they produced a system that could be used to play in a much wider variety of ways.  Indeed, as I pointed out, above, there were sub-systems (not just magic items, Paragon Paths and Themes also often pointed to a world with large numbers of high-level adventurers, large/vibrant economies, and secure higher powers - fine for the sort of world that FR was before the spellplague) that strongly nudged the game in different directions.</blockquote>

Verification