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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 5757882" data-attributes="member: 48965">You know upon further reflection I agree... your interpretation is perfectly valid and, the more I think about the design of 4e, almost necessary. I'll explain... 4e has so many powers with effects that activate with either a successful hit or,even if the hit isn't successful, the power being used with a valid target that the balance would be thrown out of whack if powers were granted the object as a universally valid target... or even if players could designate an objedct as a valid target on their own. You'd end up with the bag o' rats problem only times 1,000. So yes I do agree that this is the way it's done in 4e and for good reason, though I don't agree about the reasoning being suggested by most... Given the interaction of powers it isn't simpler or less to adjudicate and I don't think it was done for narrative reasons because it is always a DM call. It was done so that the game could function smoothly and with a greater degree of balance.  Edit: It's really starting to become apparent to me that it is the gamist design of 4e that I don't like. I play narrative games and I play simulationist games but I have never been a fan of more gamist systems. I guess this is also why I have such a problem when people claim 4e is narrative... it just doesn't strike those same chords for me as a game like Legends of Anglerre does, without me overlaying narrative conventions onto it. Very little in it's mechanics remind me of the narrative games I am familiar with but it's mechanics almost always scream gamist to me. This is all IMO and all that...</blockquote>

Verification