Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5030696" data-attributes="member: 18280">If there is a universal truth out there, it is out there whether we see it or not.If I make statements about, say, my design goals in RCFG, I feel reasonably certain that there is some level of truth about those goals.  If I make statements about what RCFG is, or is not, about, I feel reasonably certain that there is some truth that my statements relate to my design goals.I tend to assume that, when the 4e designers made statements about their design goals, and as to what they thought the game was (and was not) about, that there is some level of truth to be found there, especially when I see it objectified in the final product.It is a simple enough process to see if "the intended result is the same" -- simply read through Gary Gygax's advice to players in the 1e PHB, and his advice to DMs in the 1e DMG, then compare it to what what one gets in 4e.  Does the advice still apply?  Is the intended result still the same?  You can say "Yes", of course, but that answer is a horse pill that I can't swallow.Erm......Where did you get that from?I am on record as saying that 4e does admirably what the designers set out to do.  I am willing even to agree that the designers of 4e more clearly achieved their design goals in the game than Gary Gygax did in his.  But they are not the same design goals, and if your goals are more in keeping with Gary Gygax's, then you need to fit square pegs into round holes when using 4e.  If your goals are more in keeping with those of the 4e designers, then you are fitting round pegs into round holes.4e is a great game, if it is the game you want.  Not the first time I've said so, surely not the last.  That doesn't mean it is without problems -- no game is -- but that they met their design goals admirably.If, as some insist, their design goals are the same as those of 1e, then they did a piss-poor job instead.  But that isn't what happened.Having one's head in the sand occurs only when one insists that there is no change in those design goals.  That is, AFAICT and IMHO, as self-deluding in claiming that there is no mechanical change between editions.Of course, if you like, you can simply decide that I am irrational.(Shrug)Makes little difference to me.RC</blockquote>

Verification