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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5474336" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I think you're wrong on that score. I think 4e DOES EXACTLY provide the tools to marry those elements. That is in fact what it does in spades. Things have standard definitions and when no other consideration overrides everyone knows what is meant and what the rule is. A wall that is blocking terrain does X. If it doesn't do X then IT ISN'T BLOCKING TERRAIN. Now, maybe the game doesn't provide a definition that is suitable to whatever the DM is trying to portray at that point, so he improvises. That's fine. If the other players don't like the way the rules were applied and don't feel that they support the fiction the way they would like then they SHOULD be able to speak up. If the DM is going to try to be authoritarian that isn't a game system issue at all.The problem with a system that tries to work the way 3e's cover 'system' did or which just names some terms but never defines them like AD&D did is that you are always having to negotiate with the DM what it all means. It is all just either an endless time suck or everyone just assumes the DM knows what he's talking about since nobody else has a clear idea what is what unless they ask about every detail on the map.The main reason that AD&D worked was really because it was such a BAD tactical game that it just didn't matter. Now, admittedly, 4e is a more tactical game, which some will or won't like, but GIVEN THAT IT IS its rules are formulated in an appropriate fashion.</blockquote>

Verification