Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5539429" data-attributes="member: 55271">This is one of the things that make the &quot;edition wars&quot; so fruitless/entertaining: If you bought a 4E PHB, DMG, and MM in 2008, played a dozen sessions, and decided that the game wasn't for you, it's fully possible that the stuff you didn't like is no longer part of the game. Entire core mechanics have been completely rewritten; monster design has been radically changed; and so forth.People who are immersed in the ever evolving &quot;current version&quot; of 4E feel that its critics are ignorant because they're not discussing what &quot;4E is really like&quot;; 4E's critics feel that the fans are being disingenuous because they keep claiming things about the game which were patently not there when the critics played it.OTOH, I think NoWayJose makes a good point when he says:There is a lot of general advice in the DMG which doesn't seem to have influenced the actual design of 4E in any way. This doesn't seem to have gone away.For example, LostSoul's quote from the Rules Compendium feels as if it was written in direct response to forum criticisms that sprung up around Chris Perkins' decision in a celebrity podcast session of D&amp;D to not allow a particular power to target an object because it specifically targeted only creatures.(I think it was Chris Perkins. If it was another WotC employee working as DM, I apologize.)But while it narrowly addresses this particular aspect of non-flexibility in the rules, it doesn't actually alleviate the fundamental principles of design which create the problem in the first place (as the example of hypnotism demonstrates; simply changing the target doesn't fix the problem).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Beginning of the End, post: 5539429, member: 55271"] This is one of the things that make the "edition wars" so fruitless/entertaining: If you bought a 4E PHB, DMG, and MM in 2008, played a dozen sessions, and decided that the game wasn't for you, it's fully possible that the stuff you didn't like is no longer part of the game. Entire core mechanics have been completely rewritten; monster design has been radically changed; and so forth. People who are immersed in the ever evolving "current version" of 4E feel that its critics are ignorant because they're not discussing what "4E is really like"; 4E's critics feel that the fans are being disingenuous because they keep claiming things about the game which were patently not there when the critics played it. OTOH, I think NoWayJose makes a good point when he says: There is a lot of general advice in the DMG which doesn't seem to have influenced the actual design of 4E in any way. This doesn't seem to have gone away. For example, LostSoul's quote from the [i]Rules Compendium[/i] feels as if it was written in direct response to forum criticisms that sprung up around Chris Perkins' decision in a celebrity podcast session of D&D to not allow a particular power to target an object because it specifically targeted only creatures. (I think it was Chris Perkins. If it was another WotC employee working as DM, I apologize.) But while it narrowly addresses this particular aspect of non-flexibility in the rules, it doesn't actually alleviate the fundamental principles of design which create the problem in the first place (as the example of hypnotism demonstrates; simply changing the target doesn't fix the problem). [/QUOTE]

Verification