Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 5104748" data-attributes="member: 2303">Not trying to turn this into an edition war, but I think these comments do relate to how 4E differs from other games.I don't agree. I feel there are too many die rolls in 4E. With so many rolls, none of them really matter; statistics makes it all pan out in the end. 4E is, even more than earlier editions, a game of attrition where the only result on the combat results table is &quot;exchange&quot;. This was true in earlier editions at higher levels, but it is more true in 4E.I find this sentiment common among 4E players. Combined with the earlier quote, my reflection is that 4E has little enough randomness to permit this kind of play to succeed. As a DM, if you use a level +4 encounter, you can be fairly sure its going to be &quot;skin of your teeth&quot; not &quot;team wipe&quot; - and the suspense is still there. For this to work, statistics have to &quot;pan out in the end&quot;. I guess this is something 4E succeeded at - but also a point where it alienated some players.For the opposite paradigm, try high-level Rune Quest. Most attacks in high-level Rune Quest had no effect whatsoever. Sure, they did hit, but they were also parried. They did a lot of damage, but this damage was absorbed by shields and armor. But the exceptional did happen. If one side scored a critical hit (a one-hit-in-20-event) and the other failed to parry (also a one-in-20-event at high levels), the attack went right trough all the beefed-up armor without losing any of its damage enhancers. Instant kill was the likely result. Compared to DnD, a fight in Runequest took about as long - only it was a low odds sudden death system rather than an attrition system. My personal opinion is that high level fights in Runequest sucked and that high level D&amp;D (all editions) works much better. Still, I feel 4E has gone too far in the direction of &quot;pan out in the end&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starfox, post: 5104748, member: 2303"] Not trying to turn this into an edition war, but I think these comments do relate to how 4E differs from other games. I don't agree. I feel there are too many die rolls in 4E. With so many rolls, none of them really matter; statistics makes it all pan out in the end. 4E is, even more than earlier editions, a game of attrition where the only result on the combat results table is "exchange". This was true in earlier editions at higher levels, but it is more true in 4E. I find this sentiment common among 4E players. Combined with the earlier quote, my reflection is that 4E has little enough randomness to permit this kind of play to succeed. As a DM, if you use a level +4 encounter, you can be fairly sure its going to be "skin of your teeth" not "team wipe" - and the suspense is still there. For this to work, statistics [b]have[/b] to "pan out in the end". I guess this is something 4E succeeded at - but also a point where it alienated some players. For the opposite paradigm, try high-level Rune Quest. Most attacks in high-level Rune Quest had no effect whatsoever. Sure, they did hit, but they were also parried. They did a lot of damage, but this damage was absorbed by shields and armor. But the exceptional did happen. If one side scored a critical hit (a one-hit-in-20-event) and the other failed to parry (also a one-in-20-event at high levels), the attack went right trough all the beefed-up armor without losing any of its damage enhancers. Instant kill was the likely result. Compared to DnD, a fight in Runequest took about as long - only it was a low odds sudden death system rather than an attrition system. My personal opinion is that high level fights in Runequest sucked and that high level D&D (all editions) works much better. Still, I feel 4E has gone too far in the direction of "pan out in the end". [/QUOTE]

Verification