Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tripgnosis" data-source="post: 4484335" data-attributes="member: 27760">Ok, so in 4e every creature, pc and NPC is fully aware of any effects upon them. They know when they're marked by the fighter and what that means.... I don't like this...I understand that the reason for this is that players tend to metagame. This way monsters and other enemies get to metagame too. But I don't think WOTC is giving us enough credit. If players are acting too much on metagame knowledge the DM can easily balance this by acting on that same metagame knowledge on behalf of the enemies. But I don't think it's fair to make that the default policy and an actual rule in the books. Obviously just cuz its a rule doesn't mean that we have to stick to it, but I hate houseruling anything. I mean it's a complex system and the balance is precarious at best, I don't like the idea of messin with that balance. Personally, I hate metagaming and have always made it a point to act not on what I know but what my character knows. Everyone in our group has always been good about that, including the DM. But apparently the designers of 4e think we can't do this and had to balance it out themselves. I think it makes combat less interesting, and it makes the enemies behave in much the same way they would in a video game with poor AI. I absolutely love 4e. It's infinitely more well organized and balanced than 3.x IMO, This is really my only big gripe....ANy other opinions on this?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tripgnosis, post: 4484335, member: 27760"] Ok, so in 4e every creature, pc and NPC is fully aware of any effects upon them. They know when they're marked by the fighter and what that means.... I don't like this... I understand that the reason for this is that players tend to metagame. This way monsters and other enemies get to metagame too. But I don't think WOTC is giving us enough credit. If players are acting too much on metagame knowledge the DM can easily balance this by acting on that same metagame knowledge on behalf of the enemies. But I don't think it's fair to make that the default policy and an actual rule in the books. Obviously just cuz its a rule doesn't mean that we have to stick to it, but I hate houseruling anything. I mean it's a complex system and the balance is precarious at best, I don't like the idea of messin with that balance. Personally, I hate metagaming and have always made it a point to act not on what I know but what my character knows. Everyone in our group has always been good about that, including the DM. But apparently the designers of 4e think we can't do this and had to balance it out themselves. I think it makes combat less interesting, and it makes the enemies behave in much the same way they would in a video game with poor AI. I absolutely love 4e. It's infinitely more well organized and balanced than 3.x IMO, This is really my only big gripe.... ANy other opinions on this? [/QUOTE]

Verification