Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4687437" data-attributes="member: 18280">I would be happy to discuss this to whatever depth you desire in the RCFG thread.  I'd hate to derail this thead by so doing.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />As others have said, if your idea of fun matches the narrow definition of WotC's idea of fun, then this isn't a bad thing.  However everyone's idea of fun is somewhat narrow, and while there may be significant overlap, a better design (IMHO) acknowledges that the author and the player(s) might have different ideas of fun, and therefore attempt to achieve some form of depth of possibilities rather than being good only at one fairly specific focus.Which is why, Primal (and others), if you want to discuss specifics of RCFG design (and design goals), please jump to the thread in my sig.  Otherwise, in a general sense, (1) breadth of action, (2) world informs crunch, not vice versa, (3) flatter power curve, and (4) better combat resolution are all things I'd have liked to see in 4e, and did not (or, at least, did not to anything resembling the degree I'd have liked).As always, YMMV.RC</blockquote>