Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6069712" data-attributes="member: 87792">And in mine, process-based design is a straightjacket that makes it impossible to think outside the box or imagine a real world situation that matches up to what's happening unless you go into absurd detail.  And that just slows the game down to a hideous clunk and requires that the designers need to be right about everything.  GURPS almost gets away with it; I seriously had no idea that people thought that e.g. Cleave, Bull Rush, or Whirlwind Attack were other than effect based as making them process-based is just so limiting.And I have more than the amount I need in 4e powers.  They are about how the character moves and what they are trying to do.  What Icertainly don't need is a game that pins down my fighter and makes doing sensible things (like using my shield to control where the enemy is and drive them backwards to keep them off balance for my sword) next to impossible.You mean using your shield to drive the enemy back?  Doesn't that idea make any sense to you?  The effect of the power is part of the description.  The push shows you are driving the enemy back, and that you use your shield shows you are using a shield to do it.  The exact technical detail, something that I've written two descriptive paragraphs for, is something that is situational especially for a fighter.Sorry bro, but if a game had given the amount of fluff I gave for Tide of Iron for every major possible type of attack I would put it back for being incredibly annoyingly patronising.  And for padding the page count to an absurd extent rather than giving me a workable and elegant game.Calling 4e abstract is a joke.  If you think 4e is abstract, I'd like to introduce you to Dungeon World.  Or Fiasco.Even if you mean by D&D standards, it's still a joke.  pre-3.0 D&D is genuinely abstract.  1 minute combat rounds that are boiled down to a simple attack roll?  That's abstract.  4e is incredibly concrete by those standards.  And the 3e combat system that assumes that people are always in exactly the same part of the 5ft square every time and you can make exactly the same type of attack every time?  You're simplifying far more than 4e ever does.  And Theatre of the Mind?  Way more abstract than the 4e battlemap.4e is quite simply the least abstract that D&D has ever been.As for gamey - oD&D was written as a game.  XP for GP anyone?  4e is less gamey than oD&D or BECMI  And desperate to be an action movie?  Compared to the loving description of spells given in e.g. 3.X.  Well... possibly.And once more these are mere options you are picking out.  By picking out a handful of obscure powers you are saying "No one should ever be able to play this game in a specific way I don't like."  Who are you and why should every possible ability of every single martial character cater to you?  Why shouldn't those of us like @Pmerton, [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION], and myself be able to play with the sort of fighters, rogues, and warlords we want to which restricts you to a mere 90% of all martial powers possible?  Why is other people having BadWrongFun by giving their own fighters and rogues metagame-related powers so anathema to you personally?</blockquote>

Verification