Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6006998" data-attributes="member: 82106">No, its a reminder to look at the system you're talking about in order to intelligently comment on it, but lets move on...The fact is that you're applying a double standard. When 3.x talks about doors you assume this is a rule to explain what the DC to break a given type of fictional door is. When 4e talks about the same thing in the same terms it is a mechanical framework that you just slap some narrative paint on like an afterthought. In order to discuss the whole topic in a sensible fashion some people need to leave their bias at the door. That's all.I disagree strongly that one system emphasizes math or flavor more or less than the other. I'm tempted to just leave it at that, but then it seems to me that the heart of the whole scaling debate is really the same debate. My feeling is that players are aware of math and it colors their perceptions. If a PC doesn't really advance and become tougher in a mathematical sense, then the players are at least partly taken out of the illusion. They are handed an extra cognitive task, imaging why it is that they're required to go kill the dragon when the town guards are mechanically quite as much up to it as they are. This is one of the greatest sources of success for D&amp;D, that it has over all the years consistently portrayed a steep power curve and a wide range of PC power over the course of the game. It isn't TOTALLY unique, but the game hit a pretty nice balance in that respect right off from the start. IMHO messing with that is foolish. 4e was already flatter than AD&amp;D. I'm not real sure they want to go even flatter. Especially when flat math mostly disadvantages melee combatants.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 6006998, member: 82106"] No, its a reminder to look at the system you're talking about in order to intelligently comment on it, but lets move on... The fact is that you're applying a double standard. When 3.x talks about doors you assume this is a rule to explain what the DC to break a given type of fictional door is. When 4e talks about the same thing in the same terms it is a mechanical framework that you just slap some narrative paint on like an afterthought. In order to discuss the whole topic in a sensible fashion some people need to leave their bias at the door. That's all. I disagree strongly that one system emphasizes math or flavor more or less than the other. I'm tempted to just leave it at that, but then it seems to me that the heart of the whole scaling debate is really the same debate. My feeling is that players are aware of math and it colors their perceptions. If a PC doesn't really advance and become tougher in a mathematical sense, then the players are at least partly taken out of the illusion. They are handed an extra cognitive task, imaging why it is that they're required to go kill the dragon when the town guards are mechanically quite as much up to it as they are. This is one of the greatest sources of success for D&D, that it has over all the years consistently portrayed a steep power curve and a wide range of PC power over the course of the game. It isn't TOTALLY unique, but the game hit a pretty nice balance in that respect right off from the start. IMHO messing with that is foolish. 4e was already flatter than AD&D. I'm not real sure they want to go even flatter. Especially when flat math mostly disadvantages melee combatants. [/QUOTE]

Verification