Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4563945" data-attributes="member: 2067">Once again, the same ideas I have, expressed much more coherently. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />This divide is one of the real obnoxious points for me as a 4e player and DM. It's right up there with minis-centric combat as one of the things that really makes me dislike the new edition. And, I think more broadly speaking, it's one of the BIGGEST sticking points about 4e, and reaches into so many contentious design philosophies about the new edition that it's one of the poster children for what people can really hate about it.I realize that monsters have different needs than PC's, and I'm largely OK with giving a DM metagame methods to ensure that enemies have the staying power and attributes they need to present a viable threat and a cinematic setpiece. But I can't stand the things being so exceptionally divergent that they are basically alien to each other.FWIW, this is a D&amp;D-specific thing for me. FFZ, for instance, has no problem with monsters being dramatically different from PC's, but even FFZ has monster-races, Blue Magic (monster abilities), classes that can have monsters attack for them, Charm powers that let PC's control monsters for a time, and other crossover points. It gets a pass because it's &quot;in genre&quot; for FFZ (it's a game based on a videogame, and commonly in a videogame, monsters are all that you'll really fight). In D&amp;D, I do demand a bit more verisimilitude, though. It's part of D&amp;D's appeal to me, as someone who really gets a kick out of exploring a fantasy world. I don't really expect to explore a world in FFZ (unless that part of the world has a treasure or a dungeon or a plot point on it). In D&amp;D, I do. Loosing some of that transparency makes exploration a lot weaker, which makes D&amp;D a lot less special in my eyes. I can play FFZ and get the same effect, but better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4563945, member: 2067"] Once again, the same ideas I have, expressed much more coherently. ;) This divide is one of the real obnoxious points for me as a 4e player and DM. It's right up there with minis-centric combat as one of the things that really makes me dislike the new edition. And, I think more broadly speaking, it's one of the BIGGEST sticking points about 4e, and reaches into so many contentious design philosophies about the new edition that it's one of the poster children for what people can really hate about it. I realize that monsters have different needs than PC's, and I'm largely OK with giving a DM metagame methods to ensure that enemies have the staying power and attributes they need to present a viable threat and a cinematic setpiece. But I can't stand the things being so exceptionally divergent that they are basically alien to each other. FWIW, this is a D&D-specific thing for me. FFZ, for instance, has no problem with monsters being dramatically different from PC's, but even FFZ has monster-races, Blue Magic (monster abilities), classes that can have monsters attack for them, Charm powers that let PC's control monsters for a time, and other crossover points. It gets a pass because it's "in genre" for FFZ (it's a game based on a videogame, and commonly in a videogame, monsters are all that you'll really fight). In D&D, I do demand a bit more verisimilitude, though. It's part of D&D's appeal to me, as someone who really gets a kick out of exploring a fantasy world. I don't really expect to explore a world in FFZ (unless that part of the world has a treasure or a dungeon or a plot point on it). In D&D, I do. Loosing some of that transparency makes exploration a lot weaker, which makes D&D a lot less special in my eyes. I can play FFZ and get the same effect, but better. [/QUOTE]

Verification