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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5765034" data-attributes="member: 54877">And this is where I say, and while you are at it, I won't a pony for Christmas too. That is, it is theoretically possible--you aren't trying to make the sun rise in the west--but in practical terms it often isn't going to happen. To satisfy many 4E players, you must keep the essential part of the healing surge in some form. You can camoflague it, rename it, and all sorts of things like that, to try to make it more palatable to folks. You can put in options to expand what the related systems can do (e.g. long-term injury). But there isn't any way to get, "people use non-magical means to get hit points back rapidly from a reserve, that nonetheless is not completely available in combat"--and not tick some people off. Or maybe an example that is more clear, you can't both have high level wizards using something close to the 1E Wish, and also not have them using it. You can introduce some options that lets people turn that one and off. You can make it easy for them to do so. You can make the consequences more or less clear. You can be a bit inconsistent with Wish when it is included to smooth out some of the rough edges. But if Wish is in there as an option, that affects the rest of the system (i.e. see attribute gain expectations).  Or take the transparency of 4E mechanics.  For fans, this is a feature, not a bug.  If I want to change it or reskin it, how is often obvious.  But this very transparency is a bug to anyone with world consistency concerns.  If they don't want to hear, "impose your own consistency," then tools that make it obvious you are expected to are not going to go over well.   At this point, I'm not even sure we disagree about the main thrust of such an effort. I do think we have disagreements about the practical effects of certain means.</blockquote>

Verification