Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't take page 42 into account anymore than I take Rule 0 into account with 3e. I DO very much and heavily agree that in BOTH editions if you have the ability to do it (or do it well) then you want to do it as much as possible. That is a failing for BOTH editions, not just 3e. (Nemesis, read this part)



If I approach the game with the mindset that the rules are made of jell-o I can do a number of extraordinary things with jell-o too. I don't see your point here.
Why is it tyranny to want a system that describes events in a way resembling reality, instead of one resembling a cartoon? (Note I didn't say realistic or realism.) Yes, in real life, it is tricky knocking someone over, or out a window, and I think there should be a certain amount of difficult to do it in the game too. (Here too Nemesis.)
.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't think your perception of 4E is very accurate, and I don't see much real interest in getting a more accurate one or understanding why it works the way it does. Which is fine; it's a free country. So let's just drop it.

 

[BryonD]

If all you wanted was the surges, sure, you could do that. If you want the narrative pacing mechanism that surges are the central part of, no, it would take a bit more work.

Now, I don't see much point in having the surges unless you also want the narrative pacing. When I developed a house rule for Fantasy Hero that was all but "surges" in concept, something like the 4E pacing was definitely what I had in mind. And I got to "surges" after trying a bunch of other things that didn't work. (My implementation wasn't nearly as elegant as 4E surges, but then that was me working alone with a single group. )

There might be something else majorly useful in the surges that I'm not aware of, though.

Oh, I agree with you that fitting one piece of 4E (be it surges or whatever else) is vastly easier than converting the entire feel. You specified surges here and I responded to that.

But I would NEVER claim that a true 4E fan should expect to have the same experience by simply tweaking 3E. 4E is custom built for that specific market niche.

What I have said and will continue to say is that 3E can do a very good job of providing a game for people who like the 4E style and it can also do a very good job of offering a game for people who like the style I like.

4E, OTOH, does an outstanding job of providing the 4E style and a poor job of providing my personal style. Why would any 4E fan accept very good when they can have outstanding?

I've also said before that if I'd never heard of RPGs and someone showed me 4E I'd think it was the coolest thing ever. I'd love it. At least until I found even better games. But keep that in mind when I say "poor". It is certainly relative. But the word still fits given the other options that do exist.

 

[Tovec]

PH1 p.287 - Bull Rush is listed.

And further, anything you don't have a rule for, that is what page 42 is for. So, possible, depending on the DC. No different than before.

Well I'll be damned. I'm genuinely surprised it was found in the 4e PHB. On this, and this alone, I will relent. Yes, I didn't go looking. I avoid things that annoy me - strangely this conversation doesn't seem to apply.

Also my comment about rule, I mean, page 42 was that it is as good and valid as rule 0.

Your point B is not accurate either. There are plenty of things that characters of different stripes can do better than others, or exclusively.

Yes, but as per MY read through and the reviews of others: the game was built with a specific design goal. That goal was to make all powers and classes relatively balanced compared to each other of the same level. This means that while some classes will be better at doing things, or will have different (often utility) powers, that many of their combat abilities are jarringly similar. It is something that illustrates my later problem, when I replied to Crazy Jerome, that both in 3e and 4e if you have an ability that pushes someone back you want to use it over and over and it becomes less cool and less special. It becomes something that you use "just because" instead of something you use for flavour or for tactical reasons.

I notice you didn't really respond to any of my other concerns, Nemesis, why not?

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] - YES I certainly agree to let bygones be bygones. I don't want to fight, all I want to do is set the record straight, as I'm sure many in this thread have wanted to. I am NOT trying to convince you or anyone that 4e is "wrong" but I do have valid concerns. If you'll look, you'll see that I often agreed with the basic points you were trying to make - especially about the wish of players to repeatedly use powers "just because" they have them.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I notice you didn't really respond to any of my other concerns, Nemesis, why not?

Mostly because I stopped caring some time ago about this thread. I realized, as CJ did, that it wasn't going anywhere. There are lots of attitudes in this thread that people hold, including my own, that simply don't want to change.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that 4e is the holy grail of D&D. I don't believe that it is, though to date, I find it offers the most freedom to let me determine fluff as I see fit, while still providing a mechanically more balanced play experience at the table.

That said, there are a lot of folks that have misconceptions about it, and like you, I would like nothing more to "set the record straight," as you say. And, like you, I have "valid concerns" about other editions, which, having played them, have decided do not work as well for me as 4th does. Speaking for my group, it has actually proved liberating, as we no longer have to deal with "if it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage." In general, we have found a lot of concepts easier to realize, without having to hunt down mechanical representation for every idea. So if anything, moving to 4e has actually improved our roleplaying experience. As gamers, and role-playing gamers specifically, what more could we ask for?

At the same time, I fully acknowledge that not all gaming groups share this experience. And that's fine. Going by your response to CJ, I think we're actually on the same page with that notion.

There is an implication within the D&D community (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) that because the mechanical elements of 4e are more blatantly gamist than before, that all people who enjoy the game are somehow less into roleplaying than those who prefer other editions or games (i.e. Doing It Wrong, No True Scotsman, etc). I find that irritating and seek to dismiss that notion for the needlessly divisive fiction that it is.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Yeah, I see it that we hit that point of fruitlessly circling around the drain without getting anywhere. The kind of thing, where if we sat down face to face and played some games for a few months, and talked about it a lot, understanding would finally be reached--but the outcome would be, "Oh, I see--but I still don't want to do that." So why waste the time?

Admittedly, part of my reaction is directed at others not even participating in this thread, that have lately shown a much harder and more antagonistic side of this same issue. If we keep circling this drain, I'm liable to get frustrated, and then go vent it by lowering myself to their level, and probably get suspended in the process. I'd rather not, for several reasons.

 

[pemerton]

There is an implication within the D&D community (sometimes subtle, sometimes not) that because the mechanical elements of 4e are more blatantly gamist than before, that all people who enjoy the game are somehow less into roleplaying than those who prefer other editions or games (i.e. Doing It Wrong, No True Scotsman, etc). I find that irritating and seek to dismiss that notion for the needlessly divisive fiction that it is.

I also find this irritating.