Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="shadzar" data-source="post: 5431629" data-attributes="member: 6667746">Um....so much stuff some seems disconnected when taken from various posts, but to try to reply to it as parts.....I will read that play report later as I have time and see what I have to say about it, or how it relates to what I was asking for, since that was a while ago.Health playing a part, I will read in the play report and review later when I have more time to go back and see where this threads discussion was at that time. I like anecdotal evidence, because it gives things to think about.Not interest in RQ or RM, as I can do what I want with D&D without being constrained by an overly metagame edition, and add what I want into another addition. I am not a RAW player, and as a DM must be able to adapt things to suit the needs of my players, so suggesting another game to me is just a meh moment. I would rather focus on D&D changes within itself mostly, as opposed to it changing based on other RPGs, as the reasons for change sem to MOSTLY be dealing with competing with larger markets, of which until recently, no other TTRPG could compete with D&D until the recent Pathfinder matching it in sales/market share or whatever.Eye-patch just used as an example of a long lasting effect. ANY D&D edition could have someone with an eye-patch and that NOT product a difficulty in terms of mechanics, but you COULD represent it by the character having a lost eye, but in 4th the mechanics seem more aligned to never losing the eye in the way the entirety of the "healing" system works. The damage would not be lasting enough for the eye to have been lost. Even if only thematically as opposed to mechanically, 4th jsut doesn't seem to want to make sense when you go about wanting to have a character lose an eye as to its natural healing mechanics.Not the 4e posters, but to relate what I was saying to the threads topic. How things have changed based on what people were looking for out of the game, if I am remembering my post context from that quoted portion and overall meaning. The changes to the game were in part due to changes in priority of narrative and mechanics.Thieving as a skill and things associated with the connotation of "thieving" bring with it baggage. If that baggage wasn't wanted, then getting better at it may go against someones character concept. If that person feels that the thieving arts arent something their character would partake in, then why do they keep getting better at it, when then do not directly and purposefully engage in it, or go out of their way to avoid it? Changing the name, or jsut saying think about it another way doesnt work from a psychological standpoint, so why even force this increase of a skill on someone mechanically? It is to be able to help other in skill challenges and such to make the game "balance" as opposed to being able to have your character concept work. So the mechanics are built for the purpose of the mechanics first, rather than a player having a CHOICE in what they want their character to be. Note: choice I not only lists of things to choose from the games mechanics, but attitudes for the character that makes them a character such as Fineas the Bard rather than being CyberMech #187.I'm going to read it, hold on! Got food to eat and other stuff and want to have a clear frame of mind so I can see what your play report shows. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification