Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mxyzplk" data-source="post: 5924194" data-attributes="member: 16450">I agree. This was the only thing in the rules part I strongly disagreed with, the rest was all good or at least acceptable.The other three things that really bothered me from the other sections were 1. NPCs as cookbook&nbsp; &quot;monsters&quot; (someone mentioned &quot;well that's the way it was in 1e...&quot; Well it sucked there too, and is probably the primary improvement 3e brought to the game). It strongly encourages people to think of NPCs not as real people but as artifacts like in a MMORPG. It works against simulation and immersion. 2. Too much stuff on a level 1 character sheet - theme + background + all the other stuff seems a little overwhelming, given that &quot;choice paralysis&quot; is one of the major threats to ease of gameplay.&nbsp; I shudder at what a L10 character sheet is going to look like.3. Powers that don't make sense from an in game world point of view.&nbsp; Much ink has been spilled over the pros and cons, and they avoided putting any like that into the Fighter character sheet, but as I look at the monsters in the adventure I start seeing a lot of gamey powers that &quot;do this because the rules say so&quot; like the Gnoll Pack Lord's demonic frenzy and especially feed on the weak.&nbsp; 1 and 3 are examples of &quot;<a href="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1545/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics" target="_blank">dissociated mechanics</a>,&quot; the number 1 complaint from many people about 4e. (#2 is the long slogs of combat, which #2 goes to). The core game needs to allow for people to play the game like it's a real fantasy world with reasonable cause and effect for things, with people and monsters that weren't &quot;spawned&quot; for you to kill but are part of a living, breathing ecosystem/society.&nbsp; I have no problem with add-on&nbsp; modules adding on hundreds of snazzy 4e style powers, that's fine - but to the degree to which the core rules don't support simulation, it won't draw in much of the 3.5e/Pathfinder crowd. (More on this <a href="http://geek-related.com/2008/06/12/is-dd-4e-really-role-playing/" target="_blank">here</a> if this is a new argument to you.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mxyzplk, post: 5924194, member: 16450"] I agree. This was the only thing in the rules part I strongly disagreed with, the rest was all good or at least acceptable. The other three things that really bothered me from the other sections were 1. NPCs as cookbook "monsters" (someone mentioned "well that's the way it was in 1e..." Well it sucked there too, and is probably the primary improvement 3e brought to the game). It strongly encourages people to think of NPCs not as real people but as artifacts like in a MMORPG. It works against simulation and immersion. 2. Too much stuff on a level 1 character sheet - theme + background + all the other stuff seems a little overwhelming, given that "choice paralysis" is one of the major threats to ease of gameplay. I shudder at what a L10 character sheet is going to look like. 3. Powers that don't make sense from an in game world point of view. Much ink has been spilled over the pros and cons, and they avoided putting any like that into the Fighter character sheet, but as I look at the monsters in the adventure I start seeing a lot of gamey powers that "do this because the rules say so" like the Gnoll Pack Lord's demonic frenzy and especially feed on the weak. 1 and 3 are examples of "[URL="http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1545/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics"]dissociated mechanics[/URL]," the number 1 complaint from many people about 4e. (#2 is the long slogs of combat, which #2 goes to). The core game needs to allow for people to play the game like it's a real fantasy world with reasonable cause and effect for things, with people and monsters that weren't "spawned" for you to kill but are part of a living, breathing ecosystem/society. I have no problem with add-on modules adding on hundreds of snazzy 4e style powers, that's fine - but to the degree to which the core rules don't support simulation, it won't draw in much of the 3.5e/Pathfinder crowd. (More on this [URL="http://geek-related.com/2008/06/12/is-dd-4e-really-role-playing/"]here[/URL] if this is a new argument to you.) [/QUOTE]

Verification