Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bert1001 fka bert1000" data-source="post: 9064996" data-attributes="member: 7029588">Yeah, I get why some people want more tightly tethered player choice to character choice.&nbsp; Nothing wrong with that preference.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't think you are doing this, but what I don't like is when people refuse to evaluate 4e under the paradigm that makes things make sense.&nbsp; &nbsp; If you look at it under X (abstract player button martial powers, etc.) everything makes pretty good sense.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you look at it under Y paradigm (HP are only meat points and you are shouting wounds closed, etc.) then the game would be not as good.&nbsp;&nbsp; People can certainly say they don't like X and therefore didn't like the game.&nbsp;&nbsp; But don't insist on Y and make these silly arguments that it isn't good because Y leads to bad things.&nbsp; We know that now, so use X or don't go past that.I think this is true.&nbsp;&nbsp; 4e could have been much more explicit about abstract powers,&nbsp; effects based and re fluffing prone and the like,&nbsp; HP as not only meat points,&nbsp; the assumption that the rules are PC oriented and not meant to be used for anything other than resolving challenges for PCs, DC level tables and the assumption that the challenges would be narratively different as the level went up to reflect the DC, etc.4e was a radical change but at the same time tied down by D&amp;Dism as well.&nbsp;&nbsp; HP could have been renamed to Heroic stamina Points or whatever to reflect their original intention and 4e use, etc.I'm not even sure the designers really fully grasped the paradigm shift needed to really make the game hum when it came out.&nbsp;&nbsp; But we know now and think if you are ok with that mindset, it's a decent game and very consistent and &quot;sensical&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bert1001 fka bert1000, post: 9064996, member: 7029588"] Yeah, I get why some people want more tightly tethered player choice to character choice. Nothing wrong with that preference. I don't think you are doing this, but what I don't like is when people refuse to evaluate 4e under the paradigm that makes things make sense. If you look at it under X (abstract player button martial powers, etc.) everything makes pretty good sense. If you look at it under Y paradigm (HP are only meat points and you are shouting wounds closed, etc.) then the game would be not as good. People can certainly say they don't like X and therefore didn't like the game. But don't insist on Y and make these silly arguments that it isn't good because Y leads to bad things. We know that now, so use X or don't go past that. I think this is true. 4e could have been much more explicit about abstract powers, effects based and re fluffing prone and the like, HP as not only meat points, the assumption that the rules are PC oriented and not meant to be used for anything other than resolving challenges for PCs, DC level tables and the assumption that the challenges would be narratively different as the level went up to reflect the DC, etc. 4e was a radical change but at the same time tied down by D&Dism as well. HP could have been renamed to Heroic stamina Points or whatever to reflect their original intention and 4e use, etc. I'm not even sure the designers really fully grasped the paradigm shift needed to really make the game hum when it came out. But we know now and think if you are ok with that mindset, it's a decent game and very consistent and "sensical". [/QUOTE]

Verification