You didn't read the thread did you?
Bits and pieces.
Hit, Miss and Effect ARE clearly explained, but the OP is wilfully misinterpreting; I repeat my assertion they are either a troll, or can't comprehend english.
And again, this is all subjective.
You know, I get that you're a 4e hater, but don't use the inability of some posters to read as a grindstone for your axe.
Way to be dismissive, jerk.
Plane Sailing said:
No, all it requires is for people to exercise a bit of common sense and come to a consensus.
Common sense, it turns out, isn't so common. What seems obviously true to you may seem like a completely arbitrary decision to me.
The things the game deals with are not things that we interact with in our normal lives. Thus, the only thing we can relate them to is the ruleset itself. What common sense can exist in a world that throws simulationism out the window, as the presumed setting in 4e surely does? Certainly not the brand that I follow.
It's what has been done for dozens of years with dozens of RPGs.
Sins, past, future, you know the drill here.
Where you see a problem I (and I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people who buy the rules and play the game) do not.
That's fine.
Sometimes there are rules which are unclear, and one of the main purposes of the ENworld rules forums is so that people can chat with one another about the way that they are interpreting particular rules.
And again, I'll point out that the general weakness of the ruleset framework provided by 4e means that these discussions will devolve into RAI, which is totally subjective - making it pretty much useless to have rules discussions.
PrecociousApprentice said:
EDIT: By the way, the thread title can almost not help but make this into an edition war. Just the way it is.
At this point in the conversation, only if you want it to be.
Ulthwithian said:
At the very least, there are a few RAI views (which I admit should be more subjective than RAW) that should end all arguments; namely, the views of the people who wrote the RAW. Especially in what is essentially a technical document, they should be able to clearly define this. If they can't, they have serious issues.
And this is what I am saying - the rules framework is weak and inconsistent in several places. The RAI is unclear, and "common sense" can't really apply, because we're dealing with gamist mechanics and a setting that contains things that we do not encounter in everyday life.
hong said:
The job of the rules is to resolve conflicts in gameplay, not to resolve conflicts on D&D mailing lists such as this one.
And to provide a reasonable framework for doing so. The ruleset should not conflict with itself, or be inconsistent.