Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 5983193" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Outside of expressing agreement with Hussar, Neonchameleon, and pemerton on all the fine former posts (regarding the elegance of 4e tracks and its applications and the  mechanics of 4e encounters in general and in regards to durations specifically), as I cannot XP them, I wanted to address this zombified non-sequitur that keeps resurrecting itself.Just because a specific interface of a program, or a specific cog of a machine, or a specific mechanic within a rules system is tightly quality-controlled and provides depth of experience (in this case dynamism generally and tactical depth specifically), does not mean that the effort/time spent/attention to detail in deriving the program, machine, rules system was mutually exclusive to that interface, cog, mechanic.  There is this unsupported assumption that there is some kind of anarchic, zero-sum allocation of time/effort within an engineering project (this one specifically) rather than a composed, coherent, compartmentalized focus on each moving part.  You can have an engineering project that aims for multiple, disparate or synergized design metrics.  That engineering project can meet some or all of them with flying colors.  - The fact that, to those who advocate it, the 4e combat system has embedded dynamism (from a PC-build and DM encounter-build standpoint) and tactical depth says nothing about the quality of the rest of the system's components nor is it specific evidence supporting a hypothesis of designer indifference in effort or time spent with regards to the rest of the system's components.- 4e advocates find many aspects of the game - unrelated to the combat system - of equal value to its combat system.  Among them are:1) Its elegance, coherency and efficiency in prep and play.2) Its ability to broadly create PC archetypes and how their mechanics are expressed symmetrically within the fiction.3) Its Ritual System.4) Its Skill Challenge System (conflict resolution).5) Its Skill System (task resolution).6) Its Track System (Disease, Environmental, etc)7) Its Hazard System 8) Generally, its marriage of meta-game and narrative components that, for the first time in DnD history, allow for groups who appreciate that style of play to consistently render the genre relevant fiction they seek.Its well understood that you do not like 4e and that you want to dismiss it as a Tactical Skirmish Game.  I don't know why you, and others, insist on reminding 4e advocates this over and over and over again.  4e advocates do not agree with you, you will not convince them of your zero-sum theory nor will you convince them that they are mistaken on the above 1-8 (some advocates my like some of those less than others).  You do not make compelling arguments sufficient to persuade them and all you are doing is "preaching to the converted."  Its pointlessly, redundantly provocative.</blockquote>

Verification