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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5756454" data-attributes="member: 58416">@ ScribbleThat's a perfectly viable way to play.  Personally, I too like flexibility.  However, I also like things to make some sort of sense.  When what's happening in the game seems to have no connection at all to what's happening with the rules, I enjoy the game less.  An example would be what I gave elsewhere when talking about the uber-Devils of 4E being annihilated by the party.  It doesn't make any sense that anyone in the game world would have the fear of those creatures that they are supposed to invoke if they are so easily squashed.  Likewise, while I too see the merit to having monsters and PCs designed differently, it's a little jarring when PCs can blow through a door using sparse at-wills while a powerful dragon struggles to scratch the same door.  Even if we're talking in-game 'realism' and what the characters living in the game world would know as realism, a lot of those things don't make any sense to me.I'd like to believe there's some middle ground between where I stand and where you do.  If there's not, that's fine; I completely understand why 4th Edition wanted to be more focused and choose more of a defined direction.  A I've said elsewhere, I look back at 3rd edition and often feel that -while I did enjoy the game- it's failure was trying to be two different (conflicting) styles of game at the same time.  In that regard, I feel 4th's more defined direction is good for the game and the game's identity.  However, I feel there are a few areas in which -at least for me- 4th Edition took a few too many steps and moved outside of the ballpark in which my interests reside.   For me, and some of the things I want a rpg to be able to do, there are often times when I feel 4th is less flexible than the other games I play.  I believe there is a certain realm of playstyles which 4th encourages, and I am aware of the ideals the game was stated to be built upon.  It's been my experience that trying to move away from those styles and ideals while still using 4th can lead to frustration and less enjoyment (unless I take the time to modify things to work significantly differently.)  In particular -while I'm perfectly fine with monsters and PCs following different rules- I'd like more consistency between how the numbers PCs can generate and their abilities interact with the game world versus what the monsters are capable of doing and how their abilities interact with the game world (my door example above...)  I want that because I feel it spins off into other problems such as what we had with the early monster books and monsters becoming bloated bags of HP because they had a ton of HP and no damage output.Not everyone plays the game the same way.  If 5th Edition takes 4th's concepts and goes even further with them, that's perfectly fine.  I'm sure there are plenty of people (yourself included) who will love that.  It's perfectly viable for a company to want a more defined identity.  However, I'm inclined to believe that there will also be plenty of people (myself included) who will not want that product and will (like I did a few years ago) seek out a different company to satisfy my wants and needs.  I'm only one man, so I'm sure WoTC doesn't care; I have no hard feelings toward them for that.  I'm one guy expressing how I feel; how I feel right now is that I enjoy 4th, but I have no motivation to spend money on it.</blockquote>

Verification