Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4674119" data-attributes="member: 48965">First, as I cited with the difficulty plus 1/2 character level rule... I'm still not convinced that the levels were intended to represent the level of the challenge as opposed to the PC's level... but let's say they do...&nbsp;Why do you care whether it then becomes the holy grail for me? I can say, and I'm not sure if you remember... this was a major contention for me in the artificial/boardgamey/whatever feel of the game... but answering whether I would like a game more or less if something had been different originally is futile, first impressions are exactly that and hard to rectify if done badly. I honestly can't answer whether it would have become &quot;Holy Grail of Gaming&quot; to me or not... I can say I would have been more favorably inclined towards 4e in the beginning. In fact in a more general statement, if the designers had spent more time tightening up the skill system in general I think I would have enjoyed 4e alot more than I did when I first played it.&nbsp;I do think it's strange to defend something as &quot;good&quot; or &quot;easily grasped&quot; when so many, pro and anti alike had all kinds of different interpretations of how this particular system in the game works. To me that clearly shows it wasn't intuitive or well explained.&nbsp;EDIT:&nbsp; I think the skill challenge system was a big part of what really soured me on 4e.&nbsp; I am not a fan of tactical combat for it's own sake, I could have taken or left the more tactical nature of 4e but I was intrigued by the designers so called &quot;revolutionary&quot; mechanics for skills.&nbsp; The thing is the skill challenges were the biggest dissapointment for me...they were wonky, frustrating and seemed to detract from the fun of the game.&nbsp; Never really explained well and now that Mearls is revisiting them... well you have to pay for DDI to get the articles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4674119, member: 48965"] First, as I cited with the difficulty plus 1/2 character level rule... I'm still not convinced that the levels were intended to represent the level of the challenge as opposed to the PC's level... but let's say they do... Why do you care whether it then becomes the holy grail for me? I can say, and I'm not sure if you remember... this was a major contention for me in the artificial/boardgamey/whatever feel of the game... but answering whether I would like a game more or less if something had been different originally is futile, first impressions are exactly that and hard to rectify if done badly. I honestly can't answer whether it would have become "Holy Grail of Gaming" to me or not... I can say I would have been more favorably inclined towards 4e in the beginning. In fact in a more general statement, if the designers had spent more time tightening up the skill system in general I think I would have enjoyed 4e alot more than I did when I first played it. I do think it's strange to defend something as "good" or "easily grasped" when so many, pro and anti alike had all kinds of different interpretations of how this particular system in the game works. To me that clearly shows it wasn't intuitive or well explained. EDIT: I think the skill challenge system was a big part of what really soured me on 4e. I am not a fan of tactical combat for it's own sake, I could have taken or left the more tactical nature of 4e but I was intrigued by the designers so called "revolutionary" mechanics for skills. The thing is the skill challenges were the biggest dissapointment for me...they were wonky, frustrating and seemed to detract from the fun of the game. Never really explained well and now that Mearls is revisiting them... well you have to pay for DDI to get the articles. [/QUOTE]

Verification