Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aus_Snow" data-source="post: 4840052" data-attributes="member: 29112">Well, you certainly read more into my post than was there, I think it is fair (and indeed, totally accurate) to say. Also, you accused me of 'edition warz' or whatever, whereas that is absolutely not where I was coming from.What I said was what I meant. And what should also have been evident, but perhaps was not (to some), is that what was said reflects only my impressions, or assessment I suppose, based on what I've seen, read and heard.I don't know from direct experience, as I haven't played (let alone run) 4e, and am not likely to. And if it turns out that I'm convinced that I'm wrong about that (apparent) aspect of 4e, I'll revise my assessment, without any fuss or complaint.What it all boils down to is this: I don't actually have it in for 4e (or any other RPG) - I only judge each and every one that I come across, based (again) on what I see, hear and/or read*. And I'm fully aware that such judgements can't be other than subjective, of course. But I do try to give any RPG a fair go, believe it or not (and whether that is in fact believed, doesn't really concern me).You seem to be pretty sure that 4e is not less deadly at low levels than every edition prior. Fair enough. At this stage, I disagree, because I haven't encountered any evidence to contradict the evidence to the contrary. So to speak. Anyway, I am not (and was not) stating or implying that this apparent difference is a negative thing (nor a positive one, as it happens).Just one thing that springs to mind, by the way, is that 4e is meant to be 'all sweet spot', in a manner of speaking, so that PCs from go to woe play more like mid-level earlier play. Or something like that. To some extent, anyhow. There are other things too, but I'd have to dig around forums and other pages and stuff.* Heh, or play, in *some* cases.</blockquote>

Verification