Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Terraism" data-source="post: 3809315" data-attributes="member: 278">Obviously I'm sneaking in here late, but I'm more inclined towards Celebrim &amp; Henry's arguments than the contrary - I am, in fact, one of those freaks who hates the Saga skill system.And I think the disconnect lies in one place.&nbsp; People who like the Saga system want people to be able to do things, even if it's tetchy.&nbsp; Then, there are those of us - like myself - who don't mind telling their players &quot;no.&nbsp; Your character cannot do that.&nbsp; You fail.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; Your old, crippled wizard who's never worked out or jumped more than a few inches in his life can't cross.&nbsp; Not gonna happen.&nbsp; Sucks to be you - but that's a person.&nbsp; They have limitations.&quot;I know it's not cinematic.&nbsp; That's fine by me - I'm not playing for high-action cinema.&nbsp; I actually find my cinema more engaging when the protagonist runs into something he can't do without aid or going about it a different way.&nbsp; That pulls me in far more than heroes having the cajones to manage it if they just push.Personally, I don't think either side is wrong.&nbsp; I know what I prefer.&nbsp; And, yes, I know that D&amp;D has always been a high-action game.&nbsp; So I don't terribly begrudge the fact that 4E is probably going to be using the Saga system, even though I don't like it, personally.&nbsp; I'm comfortable house ruling, and I'll do so.&nbsp; (If there weren't other things I do like about 4E, I'd just stay with 3E.&nbsp; As is, I'll probably end up with some Lovecraftian, half-fiend lovechild of the two systems.&nbsp; I'll just grumble a little bit 'cause it's extra work, but...)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Terraism, post: 3809315, member: 278"] Obviously I'm sneaking in here late, but I'm more inclined towards Celebrim & Henry's arguments than the contrary - I am, in fact, one of those freaks who [i]hates[/i] the Saga skill system. And I think the disconnect lies in one place. People who like the Saga system want people to be able to do things, even if it's tetchy. Then, there are those of us - like myself - who don't mind telling their players "no. Your character [i]cannot[/i] do that. You fail. Period. Your old, crippled wizard who's never worked out or jumped more than a few inches in his life can't cross. Not gonna happen. Sucks to be you - but that's a person. They have limitations." I know it's not cinematic. That's fine by me - I'm not playing for high-action cinema. I actually find my cinema [i]more[/i] engaging when the protagonist runs into something he can't do without aid or going about it a different way. That pulls me in far more than heroes having the cajones to manage it if they just [i]push[/i]. Personally, I don't think either side is wrong. I know what I prefer. And, yes, I know that D&D has always been a high-action game. So I don't terribly begrudge the fact that 4E is probably going to be using the Saga system, even though I don't like it, personally. I'm comfortable house ruling, and I'll do so. (If there weren't other things I [i]do[/i] like about 4E, I'd just stay with 3E. As is, I'll probably end up with some Lovecraftian, half-fiend lovechild of the two systems. I'll just grumble a little bit 'cause it's extra work, but...) [/QUOTE]

Verification