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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6584106" data-attributes="member: 996">That's neither stated nor implied in 2e nor anywhere else.  It's a construct that seems to serve no function beyond being a foundation for a OneTrueWay. You /can/ choose to imagine it differently.  You don't understand the premise of the whole game.  And, even if you are too dense and stubborn to realize or admit either of those things, you are also just plain being a jerk to the guy who /would/ like to play a fighter that's actually effective and comes off a bit like a martial character might in genre.   You aren't.  The choices in 4e are reasonably balanced, so if you exclude some of them for whatever reason of personal taste, you don't unduly hurt your effectiveness. Yes, I guess the process of exploring the depth of play offered by a game, would include some creativity. 'Rulings' are a good way for the DM to deal with failures of the system - be they intrinsic and mechanical or situational or of omission - the less a system fails, the less they're needed, but no system is perfect.  One point that I think gets overblown is that if you run a really bad system that fails frequently, you'll develop the GMing chops to fix system failures on the fly (or give up on GMing, if not on the hobby as a whole, of course), which'll help you run better games.  Therefor bad rules are good.   The second sort also further illustrates the problems with pretending that optionless martial characters make it up by improvising.  The same folks who claim that hold martial improvised maneuvers to a genre-antithetical standard of RL realism, while letting magic get away with just about anything when it's time to use a spell 'creatively.'   I've seen a player take it and use it fairly enthusiastically.  When it was used well, it was a really nice power.  When used too recklessly, it got him dropped quickly.  Either way, though, the player had a blast with it. That's possibly one of the worst things about the edition war and the Next playtest process.  The real issues were writ large between the lines, but never owned up to.   In case it wasn't obvious enough that all you're doing is pushing a OneTrueWay that D&D was never restricted to. It's a poor fit for any RPG or shared storytelling experience, because it's nothing but a pretext for unnecessary conflict.I've had exactly that 'consensus' experience.  When one player boggled that my Brawling Fighter was able to keep a bulette from tunneling away, I described him wedging up one of its armored plates so that it would hurt if it tried - like a Freman using a maker-hook on a Dune sandworm, a reference that immediately got him back into the narrative and enjoying it.  There's usually a way - but, even when there isn't, the polite thing to do is let the other guy have is fun.  It involves compromise, but that's why games at least make an attempt at balance.</blockquote>

Verification