Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6320823" data-attributes="member: 957">I agree with you on 3E.&nbsp; CR sucked.&nbsp; (Or should I say, CR still sucks).But I do strongly disagree with you on 4E.&nbsp; Due to recent responses on other topics I'll start with the point that I fully respect other people enjoying different aspects and styles.&nbsp; And I endorse the expectation that WotC strive to provide the best game for everyone.I see 3E CR as a terrible system, that could easily be ignored.&nbsp; &nbsp; I see the 4E system as a great system for making the math work, but a terrible system for modeling diverse, dynamic population of things to encounter.&nbsp; In great stories the authors are never worried about &quot;balance&quot; or if the math works.&nbsp; &quot;You must be this tall&quot; is a filter that excludes things.&nbsp; I don't want things excluded.&nbsp; I get that excluding things and putting brackets around the limits of things provides reliability and reduced prep time.&nbsp; I respect that.&nbsp; But there is another side and there is merit to not having &quot;you must&quot; or brackets or math as prerequisites for your key building blocks of narrative.The good thing is that I can ignore CR in 3E and can do the same in any other version.&nbsp; But because the &quot;math works&quot; was so built into 4E it is reflected in the monsters with unsatisfactory results.&nbsp; (again, &quot;for me&quot;)If 5E takes a mechanical &quot;must be this tall&quot; approach to monster design, that will turn off a lot of people.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6320823, member: 957"] I agree with you on 3E. CR sucked. (Or should I say, CR still sucks). But I do strongly disagree with you on 4E. Due to recent responses on other topics I'll start with the point that I fully respect other people enjoying different aspects and styles. And I endorse the expectation that WotC strive to provide the best game for everyone. I see 3E CR as a terrible system, that could easily be ignored. I see the 4E system as a great system for making the math work, but a terrible system for modeling diverse, dynamic population of things to encounter. In great stories the authors are never worried about "balance" or if the math works. "You must be this tall" is a filter that excludes things. I don't want things excluded. I get that excluding things and putting brackets around the limits of things provides reliability and reduced prep time. I respect that. But there is another side and there is merit to not having "you must" or brackets or math as prerequisites for your key building blocks of narrative. The good thing is that I can ignore CR in 3E and can do the same in any other version. But because the "math works" was so built into 4E it is reflected in the monsters with unsatisfactory results. (again, "for me") If 5E takes a mechanical "must be this tall" approach to monster design, that will turn off a lot of people. [/QUOTE]

Verification