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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5575465" data-attributes="member: 42582">The second paragraph here I regard as non-controversial. But answering the question of what range of Xs a given game suppots I regard as quite controversial - my views about what 4e supports, for example (a certain sort of conflict-via-combat driven thematic play, using traditional fantasy tropes) seems to draw only limited agreement. (Imaro, for example, has consistently disagreed with it over many months and many threads now.)My views about what 2nd ed AD&D supports are equally controversial - consistent with the Forge critique of that edition, I think it best supports psuedo-thematic railroading, but it's an edition with many advocates on this board.But anyway, I think the second paragraph I've quoted pushes somewhat against the first, because optimisation is relevant to some goal of play for which the mechanics are being deployed (and the 4e DMG has a brief discussion of this). So, for example, the wizard in my game is a Tome mage whose feats include Skill Training (Dungeoneering), Deep Sage (a situational bonus to Dungeoneering plus speak, read and write Deep Speech = 4e's version of Undercommon) and two Arcane Familiar feats, and who has a starting 20/14 WIS split but has taken an Invoker (= WIS-based) Paragon Path. And one feature of that path is to give the PC yet another WIS-based power (a Cleric at-will an encounter power). This is a PC that would never pass muster on the Char Ops board, but who plays a crucial role in driving my game, because of his relationship to the worship of the Raven Queen, Erathis, Ioun and Vecna, and of his gradually growing collection of Rod-of-7-parts bit.I don't think that DPR is the be-all and end-all of RPGing, or of 4e RPGing. And more controversially (like I said, settling the relevant values of X is not easy) I think that nothing in the rulebooks for 4e suggest otherwise. (That said, I haven't read the Players' Strategy Guide. It may have a different tone from the other books that talk about PC-build and encounter design.)I think I may have been unclear. What I was saying in reply to Imaro was the point I reiteratd above - that 4e is forgiving of what would be, in the real world, suboptimal tactical play. That is, differently from Imaro's experience, I have found that 4e supports a very flexible and varied approach to play, both across PCs and for any given PC (thus, the abilit of the sorcerer on occasion to hold the front line when the dwarf fighter falters).It is true that it is possible to build a PC who won't play in the way that one hoped (which seems to be Votan's point). This is where a group's basic tactical game playing experience may be relevant - my players are mostly pretty good at seeing the implications, for play, of a particular build choice. GM accommodation is also important, in my view. The *Power books for 4e emphasise that GMs may wish to be accommodating of their players when they want to rebuild to include new options/elements. I go further, and all my players have rebuilt their PCs in the early levels to better achieve the goas they were looking for (three re-stattings, one rebuild as hybrid, one PC change to shift from half-elf warlock to drow sorcerer).This is another area where goals of play matter. For those playing in a certain sort of gamist way, making players live through the in-play consequences of accidental design choices is important. But in the way I prefer to play, it's an unnecessary burden.</blockquote>

Verification