Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4255814" data-attributes="member: 1054">See, this is real interesting. This right here.3e, the design philosophy was "We give you the tools to build a world. You decide what kind of world to make."4e, the design philosophy is, "We've built the world. Now we'll sell you modules for it." This isn't just limited to this one example. Many of the design blogs, etc, have talked about the need to make it easier to write adventures, produce art, and so on. The assumption that the DM is a worldbuilder is reduced; the assumption that the DM will buy, and run, modules is increased. From the pre-made city in the DMG to the more strongly defined "assumed world" to the emphasis on building monsters for combat roles as opposed to building them as races, 4e places worldbuilding as low as possible on the list of design priorities. Obviously, the WOTC ninjas will not storm your house if you design your own world, but the 4e rules, as written[1], are, if not actively hostile to it, then not remotely supportive of it -- unless your world consists mostly of a string of kick-ass fight scenes. Then you're golden.Based on my KOTS experiences, 4e is fun to run combats in, no doubt there, but it's really hard to see how a DM can have any fun worldbuilding with it. The pieces seem to be just too big. 3e was lego; 4e is duplo. Looking at the way the NPCs in KOTS were assembled, it looks like you can create interesting individuals if you try, but they're still going to be rough around the edges. Look at the spy. She lacks skills like Streetwise, Bluff, and Insight, because the duplo block of trained/untrained doesn't let her spread out skill points, and giving her training in all the skills she should have makes her too powerful and unbalanced. In 3e, a rogue/ranger is the perfect spy/archer; in 4e, it can't (seemingly) be done and still be balanced; NPCs are supposed to have 1-2 "tricks" at most.I suppose I'll need to see a few more unique individuals and look at the bits of info coming from those with the books. I want to believe I can make interesting characters in 4e -- and to me, interesting means "their personalities have mechanical support".I mean, exception based design, right? So if I want to give someone 2 skills at +3 instead of one at +5, that's my call, isn't?In any event, I suppose I can always start writing rules to ratchet up the level of detail in 4e; I'll be there's a market for it. There's going to be people who like the fact you CAN be quick&dirty with 4e, but want the option to drill down more when the need arises. The neat thing about duplo is...you can fit lego blocks onto it.[1]Based on what we're hearing from people with the books.</blockquote>

Verification