Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ryryguy" data-source="post: 4224203" data-attributes="member: 64945">I would suspect that from the 4e designers' point of view, this kind of stuff is not really a question of &quot;permissive rules&quot; vs. &quot;restrictive rules&quot;.&nbsp; I think they probably do put a lot of weight on whether they think a rule will make the game more fun at the table for a &quot;majority&quot;.&nbsp; And while I might have no evidence to back up a hunch that free-identifying items is more fun for the majority, the designers likely do.&nbsp; From playtests, interviews and surveys, etc.Now could putting this into the rules potentially put the &quot;DM who says no&quot; in a worse light?&nbsp; Potentially... though I think you're overstating a bit, especially if you're playing with friends, in a non-competitve way.&nbsp; But even if it does, if the designers do have pretty strong evidence that their rule is more fun for the majority of their audience, it's only rational for them to stick with that rule.&nbsp; Sorry for any unintended consequences for the minority &quot;DMs who say no&quot;.&nbsp; (And putting in mushy middle-ground, &quot;you could do it this way or that way, but probably this way&quot; stuff is bad for a variety of reasons already stated.)It's interesting to note that 4e does seem to be, on balance, less restrictive than previous editions, more inclined to letting the players do their heroic stuff with their cool powers without being bogged down with simulationist/anachronistic chains.&nbsp; And maybe this is partially a matter of philosophy... but consider this: maybe that general tendency, too, is based on actual analysis and evidence that it produces more fun gaming for the majority.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ryryguy, post: 4224203, member: 64945"] I would suspect that from the 4e designers' point of view, this kind of stuff is not really a question of "permissive rules" vs. "restrictive rules". I think they probably do put a lot of weight on whether they think a rule will make the game more fun at the table for a "majority". And while [I]I[/I] might have no evidence to back up a hunch that free-identifying items is more fun for the majority, [I]the designers[/I] likely do. From playtests, interviews and surveys, etc. Now could putting this into the rules potentially put the "DM who says no" in a worse light? Potentially... though I think you're overstating a bit, especially if you're playing with friends, in a non-competitve way. But even if it does, if the designers do have pretty strong evidence that their rule is more fun for the majority of their audience, it's only rational for them to stick with that rule. Sorry for any unintended consequences for the minority "DMs who say no". (And putting in mushy middle-ground, "you could do it this way or that way, but probably this way" stuff is bad for a variety of reasons already stated.) It's interesting to note that 4e does seem to be, on balance, less restrictive than previous editions, more inclined to letting the players do their heroic stuff with their cool powers without being bogged down with simulationist/anachronistic chains. And maybe this is partially a matter of philosophy... but consider this: maybe that general tendency, too, is based on actual analysis and evidence that it produces more fun gaming for the majority. [/QUOTE]

Verification