Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6095612" data-attributes="member: 82106">My experience with hacking and playing games says to me that the strength of 4e is the direct result of the regularity of the mechanics, not something you can add to a different type of implementation by any amount of analysis. Sure, you can try to analyze all the options that are built using highly divergent mechanical underpinnings, but you'll never achieve even 1/100th of the ingenuity that will be applied to prying it apart in the first week by charops. I mean charops broke 4e all the time, but the point was that the very nature of the design was a firewall. You could break a power, or you could combine and pile on certain types of options to an excess and you could produce a character that did exorbitant amounts of damage or whatever, but it wasn't a deep breakage. It wasn't like the 3e Cleric where unless you actively avoided all the decent options like the plague you just outstripped fighters hands down every time, and the number of permutations of things that would produce wonky results was a number theoretically dauntingly large sum. You could plug holes in 3e all day and not even make measurable progress because of the design, not because of some lack of care at making the elements which used that design.Well, there are a LOT of us, for instance see the "Will there be a game called DDN?" thread or the "Pemertonian Scene Framing" thread(s) where we have put forward a very coherent explanation of how and why DDN is drastically different from 4e in fundamental ways. The things that you mention are no doubt what Mike means, but they are superficial and trivial and a game designer of Mike's caliber must fully understand that DDN will deliver game play that is NOTHING like what 4e delivers for at least a very substantial fraction of 4e fans. In other words what WE consider a '4e style game' is not enabled at all, and the goal appears to be unattainable at this time within the timeframe and within the parameters outlined by Mr Mearls. I guess that's "reasonable people can disagree". I hope it illustrates something of where I'm coming from when I find DDN's design and very goals inadequate from my perspective.</blockquote>

Verification