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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5501972" data-attributes="member: 98032">Again, give me an example here if you could. Not trying to be annoying or anything but that's the X time I've seen a "PCs have I win DnD" spells sort of declarative and no real substantive example. Besides, campaign stories are really fun to read.  Both your interpretation and Heinsoos claim designated the "good DM" qualifications, not mine. I just built on what was stated.  That said, once again, we're talking about "session destroying abilities" and as a wise poster mentions - we're both talking from different experiences. I haven't had a "Session destroying" ability show up in my game when it comes to a standard action I win DnD. As I've tried to make clear, I react and adjust and have fun with it. I also think I made it clear, I DO see some session destroying abilities when the term "System Mastery" is taken to mean someone doing silly stuff like "Pun-Pun" which is technically sound, but unequivocally game destroying. I DO agree 3e in that sense got very silly and efforts in any pre-3rd edition to limit things like that is a good idea. However, again, IME, IMO etc, etc. I've never seen the "I win DnD" spell.  Put that way its a bit Lawful Evil sounding eh? Heh. But I intended no draconian ultimatium. What I intended to say was for anyone (Heinsoo etc) to assume that say Divination spells and other abilities which allow the player to take control of the scenario in powerful ways are a massive problem for DMs is a "problem" that needs to be fixed, is a bad assumption.  I agreed I may be in the minority to concede the point, however I have no clue about actual statistics. Frankly, I've never, from personal experience, seen a DM say it was such a huge problem it needed fixing. Have I seen DMs say certain spells/feats/items or combinations thereof were broken? Sure. Again, in the sense that system mastery means someone cherry picking stuff from the dozens of available books and making a super powered PC, I readily agree there were things that needed to be fixed.  If you took that from my assertion I apologize. What I have always maintained throughout this debate is that I felt 4e, IMO was well suited for dungeon romps and the like. It seemes again IMO very well designed for that. Much better than 3.5. The fact that some people think I am attacking 4e because I make this claim is irrational. As pointed out, I loved the earlier editions of DnD where a good dungeon romp in a rail car was par for the course. Check out some old modules. I've got one right here that says at several points things like "the players CANT capture the Big Bad Guy at this point; he disappears in a puff of smoke." Its at the very root of the game we all play! Somewhere though, my style completely diverged from that. My point has been that I see 4e going back to these roots more so than 3.5 which was built on the world exploration / simulation which 2e started to divert to. For me, this was a welcome diversion. As such, for me, going back is not a sign of progress. Strip away some of the rules complexities of 3.5 and streamline some things? Sure. I have not problem with that. Strip away the wildly creative, world exploring, earth shattering type stuff which goes beyond just pushing figures around a battlemat, I'm not so down with.</blockquote>

Verification