Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Igwilly" data-source="post: 7112033" data-attributes="member: 6801225">Well, err…*Fades in*4e has page 42.*Fades out*…Anyway, my honest opinion:Improvisation in combat is, basically, a spice: something to use occasionally. It is fun to see a new trick when no one expected it, but constant improvisation ruins the game for me, as DM and player. It often feels like the player is gambling the DM instead of, you know, playing the game.Ironically, many of the most effective improvisations can already be predicted. If there’s a big pit filled with acid in the combat scene, it’s pretty obvious about what you should do. In many cases, improvisation isn’t supposed to be more effective than direct fighting. I mean, which is the best choice for damage: to throw a chair into someone, or to use a dagger or a claymore?I have nothing against it, but I’m perfectly okay playing by the rules 99% of the time. I use my creativity elsewhere.However, there’s one thing I heavily dislike, and that’s why I voted “no”:I don’t like when the game relies on complete improvisation in order to be awesome. Let me explain: when actions other than “attack” and “cast a spell” are majorly relied upon the DM, the issue kicks in. It makes the player too reliant on the DM in order to be awesome. Martials characters usually are the victims here: they now need permission to be awesome while casters can already be awesome by default. In addition, around my area, if you warrior needs the DM’s permission to be awesome, you are in a bad situation. Especially if you fail the requested check – prepare to be severely punished. I don’t think it’s quite proper for one category of classes to rely that much on the DM, and the other has all awesomeness by the book. Now, choosing a simple “I attack” fighter is perfectly ok. In my current 3.5 game, I’m playing a “I rage and attack” kind of barbarian, and things are fine. However, if the only way to do more stuff with a martial artist type is by gaming the DM, things can get into trouble.Honestly, I’m still experimenting games with free-form magic. In that case, with consistent guidelines about what you can and cannot do, I see some advantage. After I try, I’ll give my feedback. Making this huge difference between the two main character groups, however, is not acceptable. Your PC needs to be awesome (for you) right from the book. In play, you can come up with a good idea sometimes; and you’ll get rewarded in my game for such ideas. DMs can be very varied, and I don’t trust my own DM judgement all the time.Or maybe not. Perhaps, when I run a free-form spellcasting system, I may change my mind. Who knows?</blockquote>

Verification