Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 4538535" data-attributes="member: 66434">I would like to point out that its a lack of imagination that got us all these editions in the first place. There was a time when imagination was king and the action took place in the mind of the participants. At some point imagination became not good enough, more substance and complexity and options were desired. These options and complex systems continued to grow until imagination became subservient to them. Being a fighter and imagining him as a fierce gladiator was suddenly not good enough. We had to have all kinds of special rules and build options to make him a &quot;real&quot; gladiator. Imagination stopped serving a great many roleplayers a long time ago. &nbsp;If imagination were enough to give us everything we wanted&nbsp; then we could just all play OD&amp;D and call it a day. To often when an inquiry about what is wrong with older editions is brought up, 3E and 4E players are quick to respond that don't want a game of &quot; I hit&quot; &quot; I miss&quot;. Ok then, fair enough but if everything you do in 4E deals damage then, in effect, you are right back to &quot; I hit&quot; &quot;I miss&quot;. If nothing you do is ultimately going to do anything other than reduce hit points then the added complexity adds nothing but length to combat.&nbsp;If imagination serves well enough on its own to flavor a character then lets play OD&amp;D. I'm up for it.&nbsp;On valid choices:&nbsp; &nbsp; There is so much talk about how edition Y gives fewer choices but they are all valid choices. Edition X gave a whole slew of options but most of them were invalid. &nbsp;I don't get it. A choice in character options is valid if a DM permits it in the campaign. Is optimized a dirty word? Just come out and say the choice is not optimal rather than invalid. Sub-optimal invariably means not as able the kick as much raw ass as another option. In this case then any option that makes you a less efficient meatgrinder should be abandoned. Eventually, playtest and communication will reveal the &quot;best&quot; combination of class, build, and power selection for each role. Classes will be irrelavant and there will be a default Defender, Melee Striker, ect. that emerges as the only one worth playing. What then? When the &quot;valid option&quot; for each role is down to one choice where then will one go for choices? The next edition?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 4538535, member: 66434"] I would like to point out that its a lack of imagination that got us all these editions in the first place. There was a time when imagination was king and the action took place in the mind of the participants. At some point imagination became not good enough, more substance and complexity and options were desired. These options and complex systems continued to grow until imagination became subservient to them. Being a fighter and imagining him as a fierce gladiator was suddenly not good enough. We had to have all kinds of special rules and build options to make him a "real" gladiator. Imagination stopped serving a great many roleplayers a long time ago. If imagination were enough to give us everything we wanted then we could just all play OD&D and call it a day. To often when an inquiry about what is wrong with older editions is brought up, 3E and 4E players are quick to respond that don't want a game of " I hit" " I miss". Ok then, fair enough but if everything you do in 4E deals damage then, in effect, you are right back to " I hit" "I miss". If nothing you do is ultimately going to do anything other than reduce hit points then the added complexity adds nothing but length to combat. If imagination serves well enough on its own to flavor a character then lets play OD&D. I'm up for it. On valid choices: There is so much talk about how edition Y gives fewer choices but they are all [B]valid [/B]choices. Edition X gave a whole slew of options but most of them were [B]invalid. [/B] I don't get it. A choice in character options is valid if a DM permits it in the campaign. Is [B]optimized [/B]a dirty word? Just come out and say the choice is not optimal rather than invalid. Sub-optimal invariably means not as able the kick as much raw ass as another option. In this case then any option that makes you a less efficient meatgrinder should be abandoned. Eventually, playtest and communication will reveal the "best" combination of class, build, and power selection for each role. Classes will be irrelavant and there will be a default Defender, Melee Striker, ect. that emerges as the only one worth playing. What then? When the "valid option" for each role is down to one choice where then will one go for choices? The next edition? [/QUOTE]

Verification