Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="apiratto" data-source="post: 4082016" data-attributes="member: 60734">you seem to have glossed over the details of my remarks in favor of a straw man, so i'll try to clarify:the rules are there to provide a framework for adjudicating situations involving conflict or risk of failure.  systematized rules are there to make judgments easier and more consistent.  but ultimately adherence to any particular rule is trumped by narrative and logical considerations, according to the preferences of the gaming group.  that is officially written into the core rulebooks of 3rd edition (as if we needed WotC to tell us that we're free to use the rules selectively!), and we'll surely be reminded of this in the 4th edition PHB.  the rules, as offered, are designed to provide a framework for adjudicating the majority of situations that will come up. the healing rules, for instance, would not be as they are if it were not assumed that there is normally a magical healer in the party.in most cases, the rules as stated do a fine job.  but there was never any pretense made to their ability to handle every possible circumstance, and for cases where the vision of the gaming group conflicts with what the rules say, adjudicate on the fly.i always understood the chief virtue of the d20 system to be its flexibility with regard to on-the-fly adjudication.  basically, "when in doubt, roll a d20, apply modifiers based on the character's traits, and compare it against a DC determined by the difficulty of the task".frankly, i don't think you want to argue the question of what would be more work. i'm sure it would be more laborious to try to splice 4e with 3e rules than to use 4e rules with occasional ad-hoc deviations and a house-rule here and there.  indeed, on-the-fly adjudication is an absolutely necessary part of 3e as well, but even if you somehow completely avoided deviating from what is explicitly written in the 3e rulebooks, just playing the game itself involves a ton of work (especially for DMs).  at least on the DM's side of things, it's pretty clear that 4e involves doing much less work (be it designing encounters, awarding loot, creating new monsters and npcs, using traps, etc.).i have my gripes about 4e for sure, but the "fiat machine" is there whether or not you decide to play 4e.  and compared to 3e, it's looking that in standard cases where complex judgments are required (i.e. combat, social challenges, traps, and most skill checks), 4e seems to afford a higher degree of balance, participation, and ease of management.  niggling points of contention with the standard rules are just a fact of life in any RPG, and, in 4e as much as anywhere else, can be dealt with as the gaming group sees fit, without nearly as much fuss as seems to be being made about it here.i for one plan to develop house rules to flavor the game to my liking (as i always do), and i'm sure 3rd party publishers (and even WotC) will, over time, present plenty of alternative rule options.  if you prefer 3e, that's great, but as much as i enjoy d&d, i for one find 3e virtually unplayable at high levels, and chock full of rules that need to be changed or circumvented on all levels of play.</blockquote>

Verification