Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fieari" data-source="post: 4053319" data-attributes="member: 16221">I'd like to reiterate a point I saw made much earlier in the thread that was never really addressed.1/1/1 is bad for Gamists, because fun for them is playing the tactical game and getting every benefit possible out of things, and this rule is BROKEN for them, due to the &quot;going around the defender&quot; thing.1/1/1 is horrible for simulationists.&nbsp; 1/2/1 isn't perfect either, but it's a huge improvement at least.1/1/1 makes no difference to narrativists, although they'll be annoyed if there's a gamist in the group who disrupts the story by going around the defender.1/2/1 takes a moment to learn, and there's some small delay in how long it takes to play a turn-- the time saved depending on the group, of course.&nbsp; The cost here is variable, but the other price... of fun in tactics, in simulation, and in abusability... that's pretty fixed.&nbsp; How can this be a gain?So far, this is the 2nd thing I've disliked about 4e.&nbsp; The first being the old &quot;Dragon Tail Cut&quot; thing.&nbsp; I'm gung-ho for everything else.&nbsp; Yeah, sure, I could house rule it, and I will if I have to, but the fact is... I -have- to house rule it.&nbsp; I honestly can't imagine the small amount of time it takes to 1/2/1 outweighing the HUGE decrease in fun for everyone at the table for a broken rule.I would also prefer 2/2/2 to 1/1/1 ANY day.&nbsp; It may not be as good for simulationists, but it works fine for gamists, and still won't effect a narrativist at all, except that the broken rule won't potentially get in the way of the story in case a gamist slips into the group.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fieari, post: 4053319, member: 16221"] I'd like to reiterate a point I saw made much earlier in the thread that was never really addressed. 1/1/1 is bad for Gamists, because fun for them is playing the tactical game and getting every benefit possible out of things, and this rule is BROKEN for them, due to the "going around the defender" thing. 1/1/1 is [i]horrible[/i] for simulationists. 1/2/1 isn't [i]perfect[/i] either, but it's a huge improvement at least. 1/1/1 makes no difference to narrativists, although they'll be annoyed if there's a gamist in the group who disrupts the story by going around the defender. 1/2/1 takes a moment to learn, and there's some small delay in how long it takes to play a turn-- the time saved depending on the group, of course. The cost here is variable, but the other price... of fun in tactics, in simulation, and in abusability... that's pretty fixed. How can this be a gain? So far, this is the 2nd thing I've disliked about 4e. The first being the old "Dragon Tail Cut" thing. I'm gung-ho for everything else. Yeah, sure, I could house rule it, and I will if I have to, but the fact is... I -have- to house rule it. I honestly can't imagine the small amount of time it takes to 1/2/1 outweighing the HUGE decrease in fun for everyone at the table for a broken rule. I would also prefer 2/2/2 to 1/1/1 ANY day. It may not be as good for simulationists, but it works fine for gamists, and still won't effect a narrativist at all, except that the broken rule won't potentially get in the way of the story in case a gamist slips into the group. [/QUOTE]

Verification