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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 7726822">4E was the first system I started DMing in, in large part because of things you mention below.  The system worked.  Even if people didn't like it, it was, as you say, arguably the most technically sound system.  Being able to reconcile what is "game" and what is "table fiction" is something I'm fairly good at.  So the ideas of "powers" being based on daily/encounter/at will functionality didn't bother me in the least.True, but there are different kinds of commercial failure.  Movies, for example, fail when they fail to meet or exceed their production costs.  Low-budget movies can be quite successful, because they have lower targets.  4E on the other hand had an unrealistic target set for it, based on nothing other than how much money Hasbro wanted it to make, in order for WotC's D&D side to justify it's existence to it's corporate masters.  This kind of thinking has (for now) been reconciled.  Commercial failure can also be induced, unfortunately, when a product begins to appeal to non-target audiences.  Many products and TV programs are ultimately canceled for largely no reason beyond it appeals to girls, for example.It's unfortunate I can't ever get IRL players together for it.  Either too many haters or the well is already poisoned.  No disagreement here.  I have played in far too many games where there is just no reasonable buy-in.  Usually these games have collapsed or otherwise ended prematurely.I think this goes back to the point about "needing a good GM" to be able to redefine failure (like advancing in a new direction!) to avoid areas of the game the rules handle poorly.  Actually, I would love a "Retreat Action", something that combines the idea of Withdrawing but gets you further away, and Total Defense, that as long as you don't attack, you get a buff to your defensive scores and saves.  Maybe, but then I think that questions the need for combat at all.  Do we need to throw down the dice?  Can't we just role-play out how the events happen?  I realize there are systems that do this and D&D is not one of them, but fundamentally, if we know the hero is going to win, lets talk about that because I'm sure it's a lot more interesting than if Orc #7 hits this round or not.I want to jump in to the conversation between you and  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] as I agree with this point.  High-level in 4E required very heavy reliance on the DM to make it interesting.  Fluff, flavor, creative NPCs and locations, all of that.  But by the core game it was a little dry.I think, across editions, levels and combat should be an inverse relationship.  The higher level you reach, the fewer fights you should have, but the more fights of value you should have.  No random tables for squads of Archangels patrolling, but fights against Archangel Prime to determine if Heaven or Hell will control the Realms of Realmsville.</blockquote>

Verification