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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AZRogue" data-source="post: 4216976" data-attributes="member: 3963">One thing that I think 4E does, and does very well from what we've seen, is worry about what the RESULTS are on the players' side of the table WITHOUT worrying so much about how those results are reached. Which is great, since I've never had a player go through my notes after a game. They only remember what they did and how they did it and the memories they take away from the game. I think this is a design goal and I fully support it. Instead of worrying that the internal parts match perfectly the focus is on making the results at the table important. It doesn't break down unless players are rolling their dice on the DM's side of the screen. The methods aren't the same and the mechanics have been reworked in areas with the goal of making it come together at the table.It's a different approach, though, and I think that's bothering some people. Everyone has a different style when it comes to DMing and some of those styles evolved in very different ways. In previous editions, for instance, it was the norm for me (and those I've watched DM that are far better than I) to discover over time those rules that could be dropped by the wayside because they were pointless. You see what result the rules are trying to achieve and you just make that result happen. For instance I used to know that a tough enemy should roughly hit the highest AC in the party 50% of the time so I would subtract 10 from the highest AC and make that the enemy's BAB with no concern for hit dice, feats, or ability score. I did it with THAC0 and I did it when I ran 3E. It saves time and enriches play. It looks like 4E has a lot of that done for me and it seems like the designers play a similar style.</blockquote>

Verification