D&D 4E The problem with 4e

[Thasmodious]

However, 4e is a system of the kind that I mentioned in my post: one that is unclear and generally nebulous. You want to say that the RAI says one thing, but the system is so muddled that my interpretation could be equally supported by the "RAI." Because of the unclear RAW, we can't see the RAI.

To you. The rules are not at all muddled or unclear to me, nor to many, many others here and all around the world who are playing this edition. I think its the clearest, most concise ruleset I've seen for D&D. And I think most of your whinging comes from exactly what the OP is talking about - a willful intent to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary. The RAI is obvious in most every case and the RAW is simple and clear. Some people choose to make it "nebulous" and argue that it is nebulous even when no one other than themselves seems to have any problem understading the words on the page.

The inability of some people to comprehend what they are reading does not constitute failure on the part of the writer, not when most other people can read and understand it just fine.

 

[GnomeWorks]

And I think most of your whinging comes from exactly what the OP is talking about - a willful intent to be contrary just for the sake of being contrary.

Bite me.

Welcome to my ignore list.

EDIT: And again, I'll come back and explain more thoroughly why this crap irritates me.

"Whinging"? Oh, really. I am attempting to provide cogent arguments. I am not personally attacking anyone, I'm not being a prick. And what happens? Ad hominem. That's really fantastic, real classy.

So, until you learn to grow up and actually make an argument against my argument, rather than attack me personally, I'm not going to bother reading what you have to say.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

While I agree with you for the most part Thasmodious, the rules are internally inconsistent. There is a fair bit of fail in a lot of posters' reading comprehention, but it would be nice to have an internally consistent set of rules.

Crap, now I sound like one of those sim guys.

 

[Bialaska]

My major problem with 4e is the fact that they went in a completely wrong direction from what I was expecting. With each new edition (1st to 3.X) you have gotten more and more opportunities and it has been easier to do things that wasn't all combat. Both 1st edition and mostly 2nd edition gave the player very few opportunities for making their character, but 3rd edition was a little miracle when it came out and introduced it's opportunities of free multiclassing and millions of combinations, some good some bad, but you always had the opportunity. When 4e came out (and I still feel that way), it was a major step back. 4e removed a lot of the character options, in particular all of the non-combat options, such as enchanter and bard. All the Wizard can do is damage, turning it into the Evoker. And there is such a great focus on combat, you need several encounters each day to make a difference between Daily and Encounter powers.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Crap, now I sound like one of those sim guys.

Oh yes, and we all know how terrible it is to be called a simulationist.

Because that's badwrongfun. It's not the one true way.

 

[Thasmodious]

While I agree with you for the most part Thasmodious, the rules are internally inconsistent. There is a fair bit of fail in a lot of posters' reading comprehention, but it would be nice to have an internally consistent set of rules.

Crap, now I sound like one of those sim guys.

That there are some inconsistencies does not merit calling the rules "internally inconsistent", though. We're talking 600 pages of rules, surely there's going to be a clash or two, that's what errata is for. But I think its a really big stretch to actually call the ruleset ambiguous, inconsistent or nebulous. Demanding a totally error and problem free ruleset is not a realistic demand (which I know is not what you are saying, just clarifying myself there).

To gnomeworks (not that it matters): its amusing when someone tells you to "grow up" and then sticks their fingers in their ears and chants, nyah nyah can't hear anything you say now.

 

[GnomeWorks]

And here I was hoping that you would actually say something worthwhile...

To gnomeworks (not that it matters): its amusing when someone tells you to "grow up" and then sticks their fingers in their ears and chants, nyah nyah can't hear anything you say now.

Yet more ad hominem. Do you enjoy being childish?

But I think its a really big stretch to actually call the ruleset ambiguous, inconsistent or nebulous. Demanding a totally error and problem free ruleset is not a realistic demand (which I know is not what you are saying, just clarifying myself there).

I demanded no such thing. You're sticking words in my mouth, now. That's awesome.

The ruleset is ambiguous, inconsistent, and nebulous, in a good number of places. There are places where rules do not interact well with each other, and the result and ramifications of those combinations are unclear.

 

[Thasmodious]

Yet more ad hominem.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

And I didn't stick anything in your mouth, as I didn't credit you with making any such statement. Maybe that's the problem? You spend too much time trying to read between the lines that things become ambiguous, inconsistent, and nebulous.

And no, that wasn't ad hominem either.

 

[Klaumbaz]

I read all these twisted rules discussions (and have ever since forums existed for it), but I don't let it get to me, or irk me. Seeing someone cut-n-paste the same response about Cloud of Daggers and minions go on for 6 pages is nothing to get irked over.

Just be happy that guy isn't in your game.

I just use the ludicrous rule-twisting as a litmus test at the game shop when someone is talking about their game, to judge if I'm really interested in hearing about it.

And this is after Xorn has been chewed on for his belief's on how "hidden" works.

If he can be happy, so can you.

and it's not just role playing games. it's ANY game (do not play Monopoly with my family, it's sad, just sad...)

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Oh yes, and we all know how terrible it is to be called a simulationist.

Because that's badwrongfun. It's not the one true way.

I think that you misinterpret here. I would consider myself a nar/gamist on the whole. I am saying that there are elements of the sim paradigm that would benefit 4e if included. This was a little poking of fun at myself, and of f4nbois like myself, and an admission that there is no one pure way of gaming that is superior. It was admitting a vulnerability in myself. I even put a smiley there to suggest that I was meaning to be the happy/fun kind of amusing. I can understand your shock because it is not often that someone admits vulnerability on an internet forum, and an even rarer moment when that someone is not doing it to gain any advantage. I was ultimately being sincere. I would suggest that you lower your sensitivities a little so as not to appear uptight and rude on these forums. Sorry for the confusion, but I will understand when it happens again, because that is the nature of anonymous text based communication.