Mourn said:
I didn't say I wouldn't do it, just that it's more challenging.
Because 4e seems to also have a lot of the mechanics rooted in the fluff, such as feat or ability names, to give a small example.
Excerpt: Racial Benefits
I didn't say I wouldn't do it, just that it's more challenging.
Because 4e seems to also have a lot of the mechanics rooted in the fluff, such as feat or ability names, to give a small example.
The Little Raven
First Post
ProfessorCirno said:
Well, if you're going to give a "small example," then provide actual examples, instead of vague assertions.
Saishu_Heiki
First Post
If you are referring to Power of Amanator, what is preventing me from changing that to Power of Amaterasu in a wuxia setting, or Power of Amun-Ra in a egytian setting?ProfessorCirno said:
The names are infinitely malleable, the only reason to use that as a negative against 4e is because you are trying to convince yourself or others that 4e is bad.
Mourn said:
2 pages of easily-ignored gods vs. fluff entwined with everything.
Greyhawk gods in 3e==bad.
4e "implied world" complete with names of past civilizations, details of racial relationships, spanking monkey style power names, and mountains of other space-wasting fluff=worse.
I am one of those foolish people who expect a new version to FIX problems, not add more.
Saishu_Heiki said:
The fact that it's easily fixed does not make it not bad.
If I cut my face while shaving, it takes a few seconds to damp up the blood and it doesn't really hurt much. This doesn't mean that it's not bad.
And if every single time I shave, I cut my face, I might just decide to switch razor brands.
First of all, calm the hell down. I didn't say I disliked 4e, I didn't say I hated everything about the new game and wanted to make everyone miserable. I said I didn't like the fluff and I'm worried it might be too intertwined with the mechanics. Immidiately jumping on people like this doesn't do anything for your argument.
Secondly, changing feat names isn't hard, no, I recognize that. My worry is that it's just a show of things to come. As Lizard said, having all this stuff in the core manual is bad. Make a book for the setting, don't make the setting a part of the base rules.
Secondly, changing feat names isn't hard, no, I recognize that. My worry is that it's just a show of things to come. As Lizard said, having all this stuff in the core manual is bad. Make a book for the setting, don't make the setting a part of the base rules.
No one has a problem with this when it is true.ProfessorCirno said:
The problems happen when its not true, but the DM says it anyways as a cover for just not liking tieflings. Then you get into conflict, because the DM is implicitly saying "I think your character idea is lame/nerdy/immature/munchkin, and would prefer you pretend to be something mature and grown-up, like a short hairy fat man with alcohol abuse problems. And I'm going to use my informal authority as the DM to force you to do it, too."
Saishu_Heiki
First Post
Second of all, stop ascribing a state of mind to me that is not backed up in my posts. Anyway, on to our regularly scheduled debate...ProfessorCirno said:
I can see where this treads into Oberoni's Fallacy territory, but I just don't see the problem as being so major as to require a major shift in either direction. Now if every feat, PP, and ED was tied to a setting or setting related feature it would be an issue because of the sheer amount of work required. The other extreme is everything is somewhat descriptive, but completely mundane. I don't feel feel this is good either. The balance we have seen so far (admittedly woefully incomplete) is workable for me.
The Little Raven
First Post
Lizard said:
Oh, like the "dwarves hate giants" and "dwarves hate orcs/goblinoids" fluff that turned into mechanics, so I had Greyhawk dwarf fluff entwined with my game? Or the "elves get trained with swords and bows" stuff which defines some characteristics of elven society for me (obviously of a martial bent if ALL elves are trained in weaponry)?
Yeah, that's easily ignored.
Oh, you mean a game we can just sit down and play, instead of some fan-wankery world-building exercise that has to take place to provide a common point of reference?
Oh noes, they're actually reaching out to the majority of gamers that don't have much time to do that stuff, instead of the Doug Douglason Portals Into a Realm of Epic Gygaxian Fantasy DMs who spend weeks determining the economic structure of lands half-a-world away from their current campaigns.
One man's problem is another man's solution.
Similar Threads
