Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7714810" data-attributes="member: 6704184">Never saw that in 4e, even a little bit. And I credit both the actual text of the 4e core books, and good DMing, for that, so varying extents, but mostly I credit the players, whether I was a player or the DM. People looked at their powers and asked, how can I riff off this? The rest of the time, it was, just like every other roleplaying game. The player wants to do a thing, checks if they have an ability that just lets them do it, and if not asks the DM. The only time we came close to what you describe is brand new players (and brand new players do it in 5e just as much), which only lasts a session or two, and 1 DM we had who had a mindset toward 4e that it was more video-gamey, and we had to, as players, push back against that and point out things like page 42 of the DMG, and just the fact that the game is more fun when we improvise. The fighter is better and more reliable at taunting enemies into attacking them, because he has powers that just *do that*. The rogue has to use skills and roll well, on top of making attacks, to pull it off, and even then it is going to work differently, because the rogue doesn't have extensive training and experience (class features) in being &quot;sticky&quot; in combat. My point is, the issue that you and some others had in 4e was an issue your group had, not an inherent function of codified rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="doctorbadwolf, post: 7714810, member: 6704184"] Never saw that in 4e, even a little bit. And I credit both the actual text of the 4e core books, and good DMing, for that, so varying extents, but mostly I credit the players, whether I was a player or the DM. People looked at their powers and asked, how can I riff off this? The rest of the time, it was, just like every other roleplaying game. The player wants to do a thing, checks if they have an ability that just lets them do it, and if not asks the DM. The only time we came close to what you describe is brand new players (and brand new players do it in 5e just as much), which only lasts a session or two, and 1 DM we had who had a mindset toward 4e that it was more video-gamey, and we had to, as players, push back against that and point out things like page 42 of the DMG, and just the fact that the game is more fun when we improvise. The fighter is better and more reliable at taunting enemies into attacking them, because he has powers that just *do that*. The rogue has to use skills and roll well, on top of making attacks, to pull it off, and even then it is going to work differently, because the rogue doesn't have extensive training and experience (class features) in being "sticky" in combat. My point is, the issue that you and some others had in 4e was an issue your group had, not an inherent function of codified rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification