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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 4921413" data-attributes="member: 55966">homOh I'm not trying to convince you that you should play 4e.  As long as people stop saying "4e uses combat as a hammer and all problems are nails" and such, I'll be happy enough.  It is the insult to my creativity that is implied by statements such as that which really get under my collar.   I want people to say what you just said, that 4e is a system that can tell a complex story.I think it has advantages over prior editions in telling stories in fact, since it places such a strong emphasis on narrative.   I do not believe however that it is necessarily better for other DM's to tell stories with.   For example, "Come and Get It" bothers some DM's but doesn't bother me in the slightest.  I like the fact that powers describe what happens, rather than what the characters are capable of doing.   Another DM would be driven to distraction, because he can't tell the story without describing it in terms of what the characters do.This is the same with the skill system.  I think it gives me more tools to tell a story than 3.5's skill system because it is more broadly encompassing and describes what happens.  Other DM's hate it because it doesn't describe what a character can do.  They might hate the fact that use rope isn't a skill and assume that everyone has it, or that everyone can do it.  I don't view it that way at all.    In my games, the character has a skill if he uses it, not if the rules say he has it marked down as a trained skill on his character sheet.  A druid might mechanically have the ability to tie ropes or set snares, but if he never does it then obviously he isn't practiced in the skill because he would have used it to overcome obstacles.   What happens as a style of play rather than what the character can do works for my way of thinking and my way of storytelling.I can say with complete confidence that you will have more fun at my table if you are playing a 4e game, even if you don't like 4e, than you would if I was DMing any other version of D&D.To get back on topic, If I can convince people that 4e and 3e both have homogeneous and divergent properties in their rules systems, I'll be ecstatic.  I genuinely think people notice things that bother them more.  And I can accept that your way of thinking and play style works better with another rules system.  I myself don't play 3e or Pathfinder because rogues (rogues are my favourite) don't act and fight enough like rogues for me.   I think 3e does the best job of portraying wizards and polytheistic clerics as I tend to think of them, but thanks to 4e using very modular rules and increasing number of character build options I think it is already a matter of time before 4e catches up.  (I have a house rule that makes 4e wizards as diverse in spell ability as 3e, but we're talking RAW here).I'm left to wonder as well if the "what happens" vs. "what my character can do" mindset also contributes to the feeling of being homogeneous.  Having more character options for the latter type of player can definitely increase the feeling that all characters are same.</blockquote>

Verification