Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4865312" data-attributes="member: 80487">I think N0Man nailed it.One reason 4E is not the rules set for me is that I think the &quot;rules first&quot; approach is pretty key. The balance in &quot;builds&quot; and powers is an important reason to choose the game. Except where it is explicitly noted, I don't think &quot;common sense&quot; much factors into that. One is likely, I think, to short-change players with a &quot;situation first&quot; approach -- especially if there is any temptation to hold &quot;martial exploits&quot; to a higher standard than &quot;arcane&quot; or &quot;divine&quot; powers.That kind of balance is not necessarily any better in old D&amp;D (although I think it actually relies a bit on common sense), but it is not so important to players whose tastes tend in the old-style way.Obviously, not everyone is going to share my view. More power to groups willing to experiment with more ad hoc adjustments!However, I think that enterprise puts cooperation at even more of a premium than usual. If DM and players are not &quot;on the same page&quot; then it could lead to a lot of trouble.To my mind, one of the advantages of the 4E rules structure is that it can free the DM to &quot;take off the gloves&quot; and play adversaries in a more clearly adversarial way. Sometimes, that may be necessary for an encounter to deliver its full effect; the DM must focus all his or her brainpower to provide a good tactical challenge for the players' combined intelligence.A &quot;rules, not rulings&quot; basis spreads the work of adjudication. Anyone can cite the text and, to the extent that it is unambiguous, make an objective statement as to how to resolve a matter on the tabletop. That frees the DM not only of some labor but of some temptation to bias -- and the responsibility to resist it -- that can arise when one is responsible for much interpretation and innovation. That bias could go either way, and impartiality is to my mind much to be desired. As an &quot;old school&quot; DM, I cannot help but sometimes &quot;second-guess&quot; myself because so much depends on my assessments (although I also call on the consensus among players whenever it seems meet).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4865312, member: 80487"] I think N0Man nailed it. One reason 4E is not the rules set for me is that I think the "rules first" approach is pretty key. The balance in "builds" and powers is an important reason to choose the game. Except where it is explicitly noted, I don't think "common sense" much factors into that. One is likely, I think, to short-change players with a "situation first" approach -- especially if there is any temptation to hold "martial exploits" to a higher standard than "arcane" or "divine" powers. That kind of balance is not necessarily any better in old D&D (although I think it actually [i]relies[/i] a bit on common sense), but it is not so important to players whose tastes tend in the old-style way. Obviously, not everyone is going to share my view. More power to groups willing to experiment with more ad hoc adjustments! However, I think that enterprise puts cooperation at even more of a premium than usual. If DM and players are not "on the same page" then it could lead to a lot of trouble. To my mind, one of the advantages of the 4E rules structure is that it can free the DM to "take off the gloves" and play adversaries in a more clearly adversarial way. Sometimes, that may be necessary for an encounter to deliver its full effect; the DM must focus all his or her brainpower to provide a good tactical challenge for the players' combined intelligence. A "rules, not rulings" basis spreads the work of adjudication. Anyone can cite the text and, to the extent that it is unambiguous, make an objective statement as to how to resolve a matter on the tabletop. That frees the DM not only of some labor but of some temptation to bias -- and the responsibility to resist it -- that can arise when one is responsible for much interpretation and innovation. That bias could go either way, and impartiality is to my mind much to be desired. As an "old school" DM, I cannot help but sometimes "second-guess" myself because so much depends on my assessments (although I also call on the consensus among players whenever it seems meet). [/QUOTE]

Verification