Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nemesis Destiny" data-source="post: 6097124" data-attributes="member: 98255">Are you serious? Given what I have said, that takes some pretty willful misreading.Yeah, wow. You're taking what I said and twisting it into a personal insult, which was not the intent. Why would you do this? Where did I say that YOU need a reality check? You keep putting words in my mouth. Are you trying to start a flame war?The problem with putting things like that in a separate book, from my perspective, are twofold.First, you have the issue where as a "module" it will just feel "tacked on" and not supportive of the playstyle from a fundamental level. We already have a system that does this, so why would I buy a book that does a less-good job of it? People seem to think that you can please 4e fans by throwing them a bone in the form of a "tactical" module and "they'll be happy," when this really only scratches the surface of what makes 4e a great system to its fans.Second, by publishing it in a separate book, it silos the options into a convenient location that people can point to as a collection of "bad" things, not even to be considered. It sounds ridiculous, but mark me, if that's how it goes to print, then that will be a common outcome. I wouldn't even suggest it if we hadn't seen a lot of that happening in late period 3.x. Bo9S got a lot of flack and disregard from people who never even cracked its covers based on preconceptions alone. And this was not a small part of the community at the time. I'd know; I was one of them.I don't even see it as being built around the issue, at least, not for that express purpose. I think it's more a side-effect in that it makes bad GMing more difficult. Why shouldn't that be a goal of any ruleset? There are some smart minds on the project, surely they can come up with rules to satisfy that criteria as well.Who hasn't played with a bad one at one time or another? Most of my early experiences were bad. Really bad. It's somewhat surprising that I even continued in the hobby, frankly. I can't be the only one, though we may never hear from the others, since they might have long since given up on the idea of playing an RPG.I'd personally rather play a game that, rather than assume a competent GM, assumes that people want to play a competently designed ruleset that includes leeway for GM creativity, without as many of the traps that the bad GMs get caught on.Maybe I'm not being clear. Is there an actual reason why realism or world fidelity or whatever cannot ALSO be genre-appropriate?</blockquote>

Verification