Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9099943" data-attributes="member: 6790260">My assertion for the past...oh, almost a decade now I guess, is that this was born almost purely from DM unfamiliarity. It had literally nothing to do with the quality of the system.When a DM is really familiar with a system, they feel free. They can tweak things because they know how things should work, and have the experience to more or less predict how &quot;breaking&quot; the rules will pan out. They can flex, showing off sufficient mastery to do &quot;wrong&quot; things in such a way that it is actually good and right, just as very talented authors can break the &quot;rules of writing&quot; to produce better writing. That doesn't reflect badly on the rules, which almost always DO produce better writing. Instead it reflects just how skillful these authors are.Conversely, when a DM is unfamiliar with a system, what do they do? In my experience, they shut down, in more ways than one. Only and exclusively what is explicitly mentioned is permitted. Creativity is curtailed because the DM does not know what consequences might arise. Rules are utterly unbreakable bindings. Etc., etc., etc.Hence why so many describe 4e as being confining and anti-creative. DMs ran it that way.I have had a brand-new 4e DM (literally; old-school guy bought the books on the cheap and felt like running it after doing a Let's Read thread) do absolutely amazing, brilliant things with it because he approached it on its own terms and truly worked to understand what it was doing and why, so that then he could spindle, fold, ans mutilate it with confidence. Despite ending early because he had IRL problems needing his full attention, that campaign remains one of the best I've ever played. And Skill Challenges were an essential part of how cool that game was.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9099943, member: 6790260"] My assertion for the past...oh, almost a decade now I guess, is that this was born almost purely from DM unfamiliarity. It had literally nothing to do with the quality of the system. When a DM is really familiar with a system, they feel free. They can tweak things because they know how things should work, and have the experience to more or less predict how "breaking" the rules will pan out. They can flex, showing off sufficient mastery to do "wrong" things in such a way that it is actually good and right, just as very talented authors can break the "rules of writing" to produce better writing. That doesn't reflect badly on the rules, which [I]almost always[/I] DO produce better writing. Instead it reflects just how skillful these authors are. Conversely, when a DM is [I]unfamiliar[/I] with a system, what do they do? In my experience, they shut down, in more ways than one. Only and exclusively what is explicitly mentioned is permitted. Creativity is curtailed because the DM does not know what consequences might arise. Rules are utterly unbreakable bindings. Etc., etc., etc. Hence why so many describe 4e as being confining and anti-creative. [I]DMs ran it that way.[/I] I have had a brand-new 4e DM (literally; old-school guy bought the books on the cheap and felt like running it after doing a Let's Read thread) do absolutely amazing, brilliant things with it because he approached it on its own terms and truly worked to understand what it was doing and why, [I]so that then[/I] he could spindle, fold, ans mutilate it with confidence. Despite ending early because he had IRL problems needing his full attention, that campaign remains one of the best I've ever played. And Skill Challenges were an [I]essential[/I] part of how cool that game was. [/QUOTE]

Verification