Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9341538" data-attributes="member: 82106">I agree, there was EDITORIAL 'rule of thumb' on what WotC published (and they definitely gave those guidelines to the freelancers that did most of the actual design) but there wasn't a 'point system' or something behind the scenes. And there are some powers that break the rules in 4e, that just are not like other ones. Often one would appear like that and it would then become a sort of template for others, but it was quite possible to do different stuff. This is quite different from a game like Champions where basically all the powers end up being reflavoring of 4 or 5 effects, and the point system strongly encourages almost identical designs because there is high synergy between certain things. It is also an easy system to 'game', and thus the GM is required to play police, not a situation that would work within 4e's paradigm. The upshot is that a formulaic power system was not really a 4e option. Frankly this problem has been the main issue with HoML, which makes it not really a publishable game. I'd actually have to rip out the whole power system and go back to bog standard 4e AEDU in order to make it workable for any group where the GM wasn't expected to be in charge (or else the players are totally in charge and running it like a neo-trad design). Actually [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] called it 'neo-trad' and I think he's kind of right, it mostly comes out that way, though MY game doesn't when I run it, but that's not strictly system. This is a big factor in game design, some things seem like they'd be great ideas, like a more Hero-like approach to powers in 4e, but THEY DON'T WORK given the game's actual intended play style. At least not without a strong bossy GM or something like that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9341538, member: 82106"] I agree, there was EDITORIAL 'rule of thumb' on what WotC published (and they definitely gave those guidelines to the freelancers that did most of the actual design) but there wasn't a 'point system' or something behind the scenes. And there are some powers that break the rules in 4e, that just are not like other ones. Often one would appear like that and it would then become a sort of template for others, but it was quite possible to do different stuff. This is quite different from a game like Champions where basically all the powers end up being reflavoring of 4 or 5 effects, and the point system strongly encourages almost identical designs because there is high synergy between certain things. It is also an easy system to 'game', and thus the GM is required to play police, not a situation that would work within 4e's paradigm. The upshot is that a formulaic power system was not really a 4e option. Frankly this problem has been the main issue with HoML, which makes it not really a publishable game. I'd actually have to rip out the whole power system and go back to bog standard 4e AEDU in order to make it workable for any group where the GM wasn't expected to be in charge (or else the players are totally in charge and running it like a neo-trad design). Actually [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] called it 'neo-trad' and I think he's kind of right, it mostly comes out that way, though MY game doesn't when I run it, but that's not strictly system. This is a big factor in game design, some things seem like they'd be great ideas, like a more Hero-like approach to powers in 4e, but THEY DON'T WORK given the game's actual intended play style. At least not without a strong bossy GM or something like that. [/QUOTE]

Verification