Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4044879" data-attributes="member: 2067">It's weird that you seem to be able to say that without the slightest hint of irony. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />If it doesn't work, then how have I been having perfectly amazing games for 8 years under 3e and have only now, in the edition's final bow, have had anyone say that the way I play, the way I and my players enjoy playing, is somehow "indefensible?"I'm perfectly willing to admit that the core rules for 3e allow you to validly and constructively have rules only when the PC's are "on-stage." I'm saying that's not a fun game for me, but I can see how a sane, logical, rational human being could see the rules, go that route, and have fun with it. There are a lot of situations where the rules imply that you shouldn't think too hard about what the rules imply because it doesn't matter very much. In general, I agree with this principle, and think that 4e can better accomodate these DMs and groups by embracing it a little bit further (we don't need 4 different NPC classes, we don't need detailed demographic generation rules, we don't need a cohesive economics system, ad nauseum).But 3e, as is smart, tries to take a middle ground, and there are many places where the rules imply that you can or ought to think about what the rules imply because it creates certain setting and world assumptions that are part-and-parcel of D&D. Having NPC classes at all, let along being supplied with detailed town-generation mechanics, and being told how NPC's gain XP, and being told expressly in the rules that NPC's and PC's should, generally, follow the same rules, and having examples of NPC's following those rules off-camera...all these, everything I cited above, and having monsters with skill points and feats, is how the rules currently support my playstyle.And to suggest that they don't, that my position is indefensible, and that I am basically just making stuff up for SOME reason, is to suggest that my way of playing the game is wrong, that I'm not actually having fun doing what I do, and that rules like the ones I'm citing aren't there to create a believable, heroic world, and don't have NPC's obeying the same rules as PC's do off-screen. And that is really very wrong. Celebrim went a bit point-for-point against you above, showing quite well how nothing you cite forces anyone to play the game your way or break the rules or have a bad game.Your way isn't the One True Game anymore than mine is. And all I'm asking is that 4e don't tread (much) on me.It works. I've defended it, others have defended it, it is defensible. I've played it, others have played it, it is fun. Stop trying to tell me I'm some sort of hypocrite or horrible person for enjoying D&D in a way you don't. It. Ain't. Gonna. Stick.</blockquote>

Verification