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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5461554" data-attributes="member: 957">I'm sure some of them are.I strongly object to balanced encounter as being the priority.  But yes, the rules should serve the game and the game should serve the sense of being in the story.  I realize you are going to take exception to me saying 4E doesn't do this.  But it is not a question of claiming 4E is the antithesis of what I want.  It is more a matter of why should I play a game that gets a B- when I have a solid A option.  (And, honestly, there are several B+ and A- alternatives out there as well).The rules are not the same for npcs as they are for pcs.The difficulty of a task is based not on the task but on the character level.All wizards get better at climbing.The black knights and pirate captains ACs are both based first on challenge level, not what they are.Square fireballs and 1-1-1 diagonals.The list goes on and on. And I understand the point of the changes.And it really isn't the changes themselves so much as the driving philosophy that led to them and colors the entire game experience.And I don't claim they ruin anything, but they detract a bit at a time.  In the end it is B-.You can say I'm not describing your game.But I know my opinion.And I know statements made by design team members praising the specific things I don't care for.And I know I've debated many 4E fans who were praising the very things I don't care for.And I know I've talked to a lot of people who dislike 4E for the same reasons that I don't choose it.I am not familiar with the Heroquest pass/fail cycle, and have not read the 4E DMG2.  I will simply readily agree that there are games I like and games I don't.   It may be informative to note that I play some board games, but not often at all.  I don't play warhammer fantasy battles.  I don't play DDM.  I own Arkham Horror, I think it is fun.  I have not played it in well over a year.  It may be fair to say that I am not a gamer.  I am a story-teller role player.People gripe about 3E prep time.  I enjoy prepping, both direct plot and the world at large, AT LEAST, as much as I enjoy sitting around the table with friends.  When I do play I enjoy- the social activity with friends- the being in character role play parts- and, probably rather narcissistically, I enjoy experiencing other people responding to and impacting the world and story that I have created.  My games feature quite regular combat, I think they are typical in that regard.  I enjoy combat, and I enjoy the tactical game.  But I absolutely find myself focused more on seeing how it plays out, and how that impacts the larger story.I can role play in 4E.I know you can role play in 4E.We can both tell the exact same stories in 4E that I love telling in 3E.It is not a question of whether or not I CAN prevent the issues from undermining the story.  I know I could.But the question is, Why should I bother?I have a better game.  It is that simple.  I said this in one of these threads recently.  If I had never heard of RPGs and someone showed me 4E, I am certain I would instantly think it was the most awesome game ever.  I am also certain I would soon learn of even better games and move on.  I don't think your work-arounds would budge my rating up to B+ even.  I think you are mostly just describing things I'd take for granted and are built into the B-.  But even if they did, I've got an A sitting right here.I'm going to play that.I think my comments above about the larger picture offer some reply here as well.  Yes, in non-simulationist games the people at the table can be "in the story" just the same.  But the "just the same" stuff is, by definition, irrelevant to choice of which system is preferable.  The pro-simualtionist approach provides, to me, a much more rewarding reflection of the world that we are otherwise equally imagining.</blockquote>

Verification