Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5512017" data-attributes="member: 98032">Well, I should probably just not respond - we keep talking over each other and I think there is a very clear hang up on "minor terminological differences", to which I can only say I am not speaking about theory but actual gaming experience. Terminology be damned <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />.   It's entirely possible that I am. However, it reinforces the point. Rituals IMO, is where they shunted actual Magic aside from zapping stuff (yes, I know the powers include Utility stuff, but many of those seem very focused on being tactical powers. Bad thing? Possibly - if you don't want to define magic in that way in your game. ) And before you say I'm just knocking 4e - I had a problem with 3.5e when they decided to reinterpret several spells by applying a "how powerful are these spells in combat" measuring stick and killing duration of spells that could be very useful in a non-combat sense. As a 2e DM, I had absolutely no problem with Invisibility lasting 24 hours or until you attacked. Players could actually use the spell for detailed reconnaissance and not just ambushing for instance. 4e takes that forcing everything to fit the "tactical measuring stick" even further IMO which just irks me.  I don't buy it. I don't think simple placement would have fractured a community for years on end.   I don't play Pathfinder but the example you give feels flawed though. Does pathfinder say "these are at will, standard action powers"? or does it say "these spells can be cast unlimited times using the standard 3.5 spellcasting rules?"   I think you are right. And I think as you describe it, it would not have that effect. However, clearly it did have some sort of effect on how people can tell their stories and how they play the game, thus the obvious divide. Therefore I think "common layout and rules terminology" isn't the only problem. I have no problem recognizing there is a clear difference, but you seem less interested in recognizing it for whatever reason.  Great, again, whatever works for your group. However, the differences between what a fighter does and a wizard does in 3.5 are not just obvious to the players watching the story unfold. Those differences are also coded into the system in such a way that allow players to interact differently and at a different level with the game world. That works better for my group.  Bottom line is - my game thrives with Magic defined as more separate from melee abilities. It thrives when magic is not limited by a system seeking mainly to provide mechanical balance which I had really little issue with to begin with. In a big nutshell - [sblock]I don't want a system to define a list of powers for casters that focuses on tactical movement and the like and shunts much of the "magic" to a separate ritual system. I don't need a system to "save me" from "I win DnD" spells like divinations, and high level summonings cause I can spin a whole session or even campaign around those spells (whether cast by PCs or NPCs). They keep me on my toes and provide for a good game where players feel they can take some ownership and power over the fiction. I don't need a system to save me from Illusions which allow players to be wildly creative (beyond using simple tactical creativity). If a player wants to summon a mount and feed it to a Giant Beetle as a distraction, sounds disturbing, but ten years later, I still remember it. If my players want to band together and memorize a host of earth churning, creation bending, craftsmanship focused spells and create an impormptu fortress in the middle of enemy territory, more power to them. If a player wants to be a cleric and trademark the summoning of multi-armed monkeys as his MO, thats annoying, but memorable. If an ape demon takes exception to the constant "borrowing" of his minions, hey, all the better. If a player wants to "Wish" the party back to town with the Dragon's horde so they don't have to walk back through the frozen wastelands with it all and then the giant shelf of ice all the treasure was frozen into is transported along with them, arriving at said town at the same altitude it was previously at, it then falls, crushing part of a city block forcing a whole bunch of compensation claims, fines, etc. I am more than happy to oblige. If the players want to try a blind teleport to shortcut the main quest, for the love of Pelor, PLEASE try it. Cause when they fail said roll and find themselves in a "similar" location - a location "similar" to the lost continent overrun by insidious evil which they were aiming for, the gloves are off.[/sblock] Could a great DM work all the above into a 4e game? Absolutely. But not without expanding "magic" beyond what is given in the system as presented. However, in previous editions, from my experience, all the above examples are par for the course and there's no need to work the system around any of those events. The rules automatically suggest these situations and encourage players to think outside the box through broad spell definitions and a broader magic system with capabilities to interact with the game world that simply dwarf those found in 4e. Sitting down thinking "can I recreate the same experience I have at my table right now using 4e" my answer is an unequivocal, No. So I won't play it (though to be fair, have tried). For others, I'm sure they can answer yes or they can make stories that fit their group playstyle even better using 4e. Great, awesome, enjoy your game!  I never said it can't survive, obviously it does but it works to provide a very different experience which some people enjoy and others very obviously reject. These differences are obviously so fundamental that YEARS later people are still drawing the line and not "crossing over" to the new edition. Again, simply arguing the differences don't exist doesn't make them go away.</blockquote>

Verification