Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lurks-no-More" data-source="post: 3882947" data-attributes="member: 8226">I think it's very sad that you and so many other D&amp;D gamers seem to think that computer games rot your brains, wither your spine, grow hair on your palms and make you blind. Or perhaps because they're aiming for 4e to have more monsters per fight than 3e, so that a simple rule system for morale and/or aggression might help a DM, especially a novice, to keep the game fluid, fast and fun?Or that they want the &quot;defender&quot; role to be meaningful, in that fighters and other defender characters can engage monsters and keep them from going for the soft, crunchy guys like wizards and rogues, thus actually defending their fellow party members? This is something (A)D&amp;D has never been able to do well; reach weapons and AoOs in 3.*e are the best attempt so far, and they remain quite flawed.Or maybe it is that they aren't mentally blinkering themselves by refusing to consider sources of ideas outside of what some fans think as appropriate, and are willing to try out interesting ideas, judging them by the actual, tested feasibility of those ideas in D&amp;D context instead of some ill-conceived yearning for non-existent &quot;pure D&amp;D&quot; which has never existed?I don't know. But what we do know is that the designers took an idea from MMOs, applied it to D&amp;D, tried it out, found it wasn't doing what they wanted, discarded it and replaced it with something else, which in their opinion is much better in terms of options and fun.And despite this, most of the complainers in this thread are focusing on the first step and latching on it like gravehounds onto a meat golem, unable or unwilling to let go.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lurks-no-More, post: 3882947, member: 8226"] I think it's very sad that you and so many other D&D gamers seem to think that computer games rot your brains, wither your spine, grow hair on your palms and make you blind. Or perhaps because they're aiming for 4e to have more monsters per fight than 3e, so that a simple rule system for morale and/or aggression might help a DM, especially a novice, to keep the game fluid, fast and fun? Or that they want the "defender" role to be meaningful, in that fighters and other defender characters can engage monsters and keep them from going for the soft, crunchy guys like wizards and rogues, thus actually [i]defending[/i] their fellow party members? This is something (A)D&D has [i]never[/i] been able to do well; reach weapons and AoOs in 3.*e are the best attempt so far, and they remain quite flawed. Or maybe it is that they aren't mentally blinkering themselves by refusing to consider sources of ideas outside of what some fans think as appropriate, and are willing to try out interesting ideas, judging them by the actual, tested feasibility of those ideas in D&D context instead of some ill-conceived yearning for non-existent "pure D&D" which has never existed? I don't know. But what we [i]do[/i] know is that the designers took an idea from MMOs, applied it to D&D, tried it out, found it wasn't doing what they wanted, [i]discarded it[/i] and replaced it with something else, which in their opinion is much better in terms of options and fun. And despite this, most of the complainers in this thread are focusing on the first step and latching on it like gravehounds onto a meat golem, unable or unwilling to let go. [/QUOTE]

Verification