Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3816157" data-attributes="member: 3192">See, this design decision comes completely from a DM-driven game style and not a Player-driven one.&nbsp; It limits player freedom and player choices from actually being consequential.&nbsp; 3rd edition play often assumed this inversion.&nbsp; It gave players power over the rule dictation and assumed DMs dictated PC/Player decision making.&nbsp; From a simulation POV, that's just backwards.If the point is to reward players for their skillful play, then they should have control over where they go and achieve or suffer resulting combats from those decisions.&nbsp; If the point is for DMs to run a game world for Players/PCs to explore and be surprised by, then the rules - essentially how the world functions - must be in the DMs' hands and unknown (but learnable as the &quot;feel&quot; of the world) by Players/PCs.What Players choose to do is not dictated by DMs.&nbsp; How the DM functions the world as a result to these choices is not dictated by Players.3e didn't do so well at this.&nbsp; The new 4e Monster talk sounds like it is attempting to solve the second issue.&nbsp; The first has yet to be addressed openly.Removing the focus of the game from strategy and solely placing it on tactics means everything that happens out of combat is effectively meaningless to combat.&nbsp; I referred to this above in my previous post.&nbsp; Play becomes pointless outside of discrete &quot;encounters&quot; when it comes to challenging the players with combat.&nbsp; Of course, healing, if it is still a per yay resource, will arbitrarily limit the number of combats per day regardless of your preference.&nbsp; Also, somewhere in the designer blogs it was mentioned that a limit would be placed on how often PCs could effectively engage in battle. This means, the limitation on your playstyle you originally lament will almost certainly be in the game unless you houserule it.&nbsp; I like your OP suggestion about alternative rules for alternative playstyles.&nbsp; I've been suggesting a modular ruleset since I heard 4th edition was being published.&nbsp; You know, the same Per Encounter playstyle could be had in 3rd edition quite easily.&nbsp; (All per day abilities simply become per encounter ones).&nbsp; Saying that either Strategy-based or Tactic-based play should be &quot;The Core Rule Style&quot; is futile IMO.&nbsp; Make both options available.&nbsp; I've stated my reasons for why strategy is a viable playstyle above and why it doesn't work with (most) Per Encounter rules.&nbsp; The idea that it should be tossed after 33 years is a bit drastic just because people's tastes are shifting, don't you think?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 3816157, member: 3192"] See, this design decision comes completely from a DM-driven game style and not a Player-driven one. It limits player freedom and player choices from actually being consequential. 3rd edition play often assumed this inversion. It gave players power over the rule dictation and assumed DMs dictated PC/Player decision making. From a simulation POV, that's just backwards. If the point is to reward players for their skillful play, then they should have control over where they go and achieve or suffer resulting combats from those decisions. If the point is for DMs to run a game world for Players/PCs to explore and be surprised by, then the rules - essentially how the world functions - must be in the DMs' hands and unknown (but learnable as the "feel" of the world) by Players/PCs. What Players choose to do is not dictated by DMs. How the DM functions the world as a result to these choices is not dictated by Players. 3e didn't do so well at this. The new 4e Monster talk sounds like it is attempting to solve the second issue. The first has yet to be addressed openly. Removing the focus of the game from strategy and solely placing it on tactics means everything that happens out of combat is effectively meaningless to combat. I referred to this above in my previous post. Play becomes pointless outside of discrete "encounters" when it comes to challenging the players with combat. Of course, healing, if it is still a per yay resource, will arbitrarily limit the number of combats per day regardless of your preference. Also, somewhere in the designer blogs it was mentioned that a limit would be placed on how often PCs could effectively engage in battle. This means, the limitation on your playstyle you originally lament will almost certainly be in the game unless you houserule it. I like your OP suggestion about alternative rules for alternative playstyles. I've been suggesting a modular ruleset since I heard 4th edition was being published. You know, the same Per Encounter playstyle could be had in 3rd edition quite easily. (All per day abilities simply become per encounter ones). Saying that either Strategy-based or Tactic-based play should be "The Core Rule Style" is futile IMO. Make both options available. I've stated my reasons for why strategy is a viable playstyle above and why it doesn't work with (most) Per Encounter rules. The idea that it should be tossed after 33 years is a bit drastic just because people's tastes are shifting, don't you think? [/QUOTE]

Verification