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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 4022202" data-attributes="member: 5038">Regarding mechanics.  Mechanics often favor specific playstyles.  There are several threads in this forum regarding that.  I'll be happy to point you to those threads if you are not familiar with gamism, narrativism and simulation.  Second, I am familiar with the mechanics, I have already posted the sources that served as playtests and I will gladly provide links to the design journals and designer comments where they state their design philosophy that went into the 4e mechanics.  Granted they might not work exactly the same, but they are supposed to be close enough that you could be pretty much playing 4e now according to WOTC.As for competency, it can affect mechanics.  That said, I believe WOTC has very competent designers (even if I agree with publisher and former WOTC employee, Chris Pramas, that WOTC does not always bring out the best of them).  With the exception of a few WOTC products, I just tend to prefer DND mechanics and products that the designers have done for companies other than WOTC prior to joining or after leaving WOTC or just material that they have placed on their websites.  The Book of Iron Might, which I think is far superior to TOB:Bo9S is by Mike Mearls, the lead designer of 4e. I also happen to like much of his work prior to BOIM.  Why my tendency to prefer non-WOTC? The playstyle of the mechanics. Let me demsonstrate using BOIM and TOB: Bo9s.   BOIM lends itself to simulationist, because its maneuvers are based on the premise that in combat fancy maneuvers are a gamble.  They carry risks for payoffs.  The bigger the reward, the bigger the risk involved. Its the risks of using maneuvers (e.g., sacrafice accuracy (to hit penalty), losing Dex bonus to AC, suffering an immediate attack from the opponent that can ruin the maneuver or combinations of penalties) that discourage players from repeatedly using the same maneuver.    TOB is much more gamist using  per encounter mechanic which makes no sense from a simulationist perspective, because you should be able to repeatedly attempt a  non-supernatural maneuver even if and when its not the wisest choice to do so.</blockquote>

Verification