Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3902194" data-attributes="member: 18280">Among other meanings, the word &quot;system&quot; means &quot;any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge.&quot;Certainly you might; but if you did so, you would be doing something other than what is suggested in the Design &amp; Development article.&nbsp; So my question is this:&nbsp; Would the final version appearing in the DMG be stronger or weaker if it included these kinds of options?I say, &quot;stronger&quot;, and therefore believe that we should bring this stuff up now, so that WotC has a chance to see it before the DMG final copy goes to print.You and I might read that article and go, &quot;Wow!&nbsp; That sparked off a different way of using that idea that isn't actually in the article but seems awfully keen!&quot;&nbsp; We might even fool ourselves into thinking our sparked idea was actually in the article.&nbsp; But, when the 4e DMG hits the shelves, and some new DM picks it up, he's going to go off what the text actually says, not what we wish it had said or believe it said.&nbsp; Therefore, if there are problems with the text, now is the time to at least point them out and give WotC a chance to deal with them.A reminder of the in-game conversation, and the in-game (i.e., negotiated with baron) rewards isn't railroading.&nbsp; Making the metagame rewards (i.e., XP) based off the players doing as the DM says is railroading.Again, if player-set goals are rewarded in the same manner, this problem goes away.&nbsp; As noted earlier.&nbsp; Multiple times.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3902194, member: 18280"] Among other meanings, the word "system" means "any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge." Certainly you might; but if you did so, you would be doing something other than what is suggested in the Design & Development article. So my question is this: [i]Would the final version appearing in the DMG be stronger or weaker if it included these kinds of options?[/i] I say, "stronger", and therefore believe that we should bring this stuff up now, so that WotC has a chance to see it before the DMG final copy goes to print. You and I might read that article and go, "Wow! That sparked off a different way of using that idea that isn't actually in the article but seems awfully keen!" We might even fool ourselves into thinking our sparked idea was actually in the article. But, when the 4e DMG hits the shelves, and some new DM picks it up, he's going to go off [i]what the text actually says[/i], not what we [i]wish it had said[/i] or [i]believe it said[/i]. Therefore, if there are problems with the text, now is the time to at least point them out and give WotC a chance to deal with them. A reminder of the in-game conversation, and the in-game (i.e., negotiated with baron) rewards isn't railroading. Making the metagame rewards (i.e., XP) based off the players doing as the DM says [i][b]is[/b][/i][b][/b] railroading. Again, if player-set goals are rewarded in the same manner, this problem goes away. As noted earlier. Multiple times. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification