Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 7667111" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I participated in...I believe the first two surveys? After that, I realized they were either (a) completely unaware of how to design proper surveys, or (b) only interested in push-polling. Since I wasn't actually playing the playtest (my group being only interested in Dungeon World at the time), I figured it was time for me to bow out.The issue for me is less a matter of &quot;proof&quot; that the rhetoric is wrong, but rather that they keep saying it, rather stridently, and that it's not just one person doing so.It's...not any different from 3.5e in that respect, and I doubt that &quot;banging&quot; 3.5e into a tactical shape that approximates 4e well (not perfectly, just well) is a house-rules exercise I want to undertake.I'm pretty sure &quot;ranging from ambiguous to frustratingly difficult in several places&quot; is not really the goal of &quot;rulings, not rules.&quot; But then again, I don't really understand that style to begin with, so perhaps the fault is in part mine.Odd. There was a rather large discussion on another forum where the rules for exactly how one enters Stealth were discussed at length, and I had thought they were pretty different from 4e's. Admittedly, I haven't seen my 4e DMG or PHB in a long while (they're at my parents' house at present) so I could be forgetting. The issues centered around what broke &quot;hiding&quot; (do attacks break stealth and hiding simultaneously, or just hiding? Can you be &quot;not seen&quot; without being &quot;hidden&quot;?) and the multiple possible rulings based on what someone considers &quot;common sense&quot; e.g. do you have to be TOTALLY SILENT to remain in stealth, or can you make some noise, etc.Is...this supposed to be a koan or something? When I first read it I thought I understood it, but now I'm not so sure...Hence the &quot;slim margin.&quot; I don't really expect 5e to change much in the near future. But hell, maybe they'll make a Big Book of Tactics full of crunchy crunchy goodness! (That is the highly optimistic side of my nature talking. The pessimistic side says, &quot;5e was made specifically to ignore the things that I happen to like best about D&amp;D, and the designers will consciously avoid anything more than superficial similarities to those things.&quot;)Sadly, I have no D&amp;D &quot;mnemonic real estate&quot; from that period. 2e was a strange, almost impenetrable mound that I struggled (and generally failed) to understand via playing CRPGs. 3e was my introduction to RPGs; initially I hated 4e, mostly because my friends were 3.5e fans and thus hated it, but once I actually gave 4e a try I loved it dearly. 5e is thus an abandonment of most of what I like, for things I usually don't care about or even dislike (e.g. the obsession with &quot;natural language&quot;).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 7667111, member: 6790260"] I participated in...I believe the first two surveys? After that, I realized they were either (a) completely unaware of how to design proper surveys, or (b) only interested in push-polling. Since I wasn't actually [I]playing[/I] the playtest (my group being only interested in Dungeon World at the time), I figured it was time for me to bow out. The issue for me is less a matter of "proof" that the rhetoric is wrong, but rather that they keep saying it, rather stridently, and that it's not just one person doing so. It's...not any different from 3.5e in that respect, and I doubt that "banging" 3.5e into a tactical shape that approximates 4e well (not perfectly, just well) is a house-rules exercise I want to undertake. I'm pretty sure "ranging from ambiguous to frustratingly difficult in several places" is not really the goal of "rulings, not rules." But then again, I don't really understand that style to begin with, so perhaps the fault is in part mine. Odd. There was a rather large discussion on another forum where the rules for exactly how one enters Stealth were discussed at length, and I had thought they were pretty different from 4e's. Admittedly, I haven't seen my 4e DMG or PHB in a long while (they're at my parents' house at present) so I could be forgetting. The issues centered around what broke "hiding" (do attacks break stealth and hiding simultaneously, or just hiding? Can you be "not seen" without being "hidden"?) and the multiple possible rulings based on what someone considers "common sense" e.g. do you have to be TOTALLY SILENT to remain in stealth, or can you make some noise, etc. Is...this supposed to be a koan or something? When I first read it I thought I understood it, but now I'm not so sure... Hence the "slim margin." I don't really expect 5e to change much in the near future. But hell, maybe they'll make a Big Book of Tactics full of crunchy crunchy goodness! (That is the highly optimistic side of my nature talking. The pessimistic side says, "5e was made specifically to ignore the things that I happen to like best about D&D, and the designers will consciously avoid anything more than superficial similarities to those things.") Sadly, I have no D&D "mnemonic real estate" from that period. 2e was a strange, almost impenetrable mound that I struggled (and generally failed) to understand via playing CRPGs. 3e was my introduction to RPGs; initially I hated 4e, mostly because my friends were 3.5e fans and thus hated it, but once I actually gave 4e a try I loved it dearly. 5e is thus an abandonment of most of what I like, for things I usually don't care about or even dislike (e.g. the obsession with "natural language"). [/QUOTE]

Verification