Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4468440" data-attributes="member: 18280">I houseruled it (d10, roll each round), and ultimately it caused more good feeling at the table and great moments in the game than the effort to houserule it had cost me.Perhaps.&nbsp; But when the rules have this much disconnect, have this much erratta, have this little playtesting, and fail to have this many qualities that were advertised, I'm thinking that it isn't too much of a stretch to believe that they rushed things, and (as a consequence thereof) didn't think everything through.EDIT:&nbsp; And I don't mean here that they produced a mechanically bad game.&nbsp; A lot of problems could be resolved, as has already been said, by terminology.&nbsp; If you accept that 4e is gamist before simulationist (i.e., that some things are simply meant to exist as game constructs without simulating anything) then it succeeds in its design goals phenomenally well.&nbsp; If you argue that it is intended to simulate in-world events, then it is less successful (IMHO).&nbsp; And the amount of erratta makes me suspect that 4.5 is a real possibility in 3-4 years.Absolutely.&nbsp; And thank you for your courtesy!RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4468440, member: 18280"] I houseruled it (d10, roll each round), and ultimately it caused more good feeling at the table and great moments in the game than the effort to houserule it had cost me. Perhaps. But when the rules have this much disconnect, have this much erratta, have this little playtesting, and fail to have this many qualities that were advertised, I'm thinking that it isn't too much of a stretch to believe that they rushed things, and (as a consequence thereof) didn't think everything through. EDIT: And I don't mean here that they produced a mechanically bad game. A lot of problems could be resolved, as has already been said, by terminology. If you accept that 4e is gamist before simulationist (i.e., that some things are simply meant to exist as game constructs without simulating anything) then it succeeds in its design goals phenomenally well. If you argue that it is intended to simulate in-world events, then it is less successful (IMHO). And the amount of erratta makes me suspect that 4.5 is a real possibility in 3-4 years. Absolutely. And thank you for your courtesy! RC [/QUOTE]

Verification