Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4914979" data-attributes="member: 71571">See, I'm even older school than that.&nbsp; BECMI was my bread and butter.&nbsp; I -loved- the Rules Cyclopedia, and the 'fast and loose' DMing by the seat of your pants.&nbsp; That's a lot of what I like with 4th is that it makes certain things -easier- for a DM so that he can spend time being challenged by the actual gameplay itself.One thing I'd like to see, perhaps, is -more- of D&amp;D becoming informed by other rpgs and their successes.&nbsp; I wouldn't want to get rid of the at-will/encounter/daily system so much, just because of how it's organized to me in my mind, in terms of it being Primary Attacks/Strategic Advantages/Effects to Swing Battle.This way, you can simply balance them across a category, rather than worry whether or not being able to give +1 to attack for the entire battle is a balanced choice against Cleave, or what not.&nbsp; Again, going back to the keeping a direction and focus for a class through -what they do- on these three levels, rather than keeping things unfocused.Plus, Psion is showing us that they -are- thinking outside the box with class design.&nbsp; However, the trick is defining the box first, as -having- the box is important as a basis.&nbsp; Thinking outside the box is only useful when it creates beneficial play opportunities and enhances the system as a whole; it should not be done for its own sake and is not a virtue of design in the same sense that 'eats with a spoon' is not a virtue for a human to have.It is a process, and as such, should be used as a tool to reach a desired end, but should not be the feature or end in itself.&nbsp; An example of this is the Avenger, where Oath is a very real 'outside the box' way of looking at Strikers.&nbsp; But it's goal is 'Be a Striker based on accuracy' not 'Let's do something different cause we can.'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DracoSuave, post: 4914979, member: 71571"] See, I'm even older school than that. BECMI was my bread and butter. I -loved- the Rules Cyclopedia, and the 'fast and loose' DMing by the seat of your pants. That's a lot of what I like with 4th is that it makes certain things -easier- for a DM so that he can spend time being challenged by the actual gameplay itself. One thing I'd like to see, perhaps, is -more- of D&D becoming informed by other rpgs and their successes. I wouldn't want to get rid of the at-will/encounter/daily system so much, just because of how it's organized to me in my mind, in terms of it being Primary Attacks/Strategic Advantages/Effects to Swing Battle. This way, you can simply balance them across a category, rather than worry whether or not being able to give +1 to attack for the entire battle is a balanced choice against Cleave, or what not. Again, going back to the keeping a direction and focus for a class through -what they do- on these three levels, rather than keeping things unfocused. Plus, Psion is showing us that they -are- thinking outside the box with class design. However, the trick is defining the box first, as -having- the box is important as a basis. Thinking outside the box is only useful when it creates beneficial play opportunities and enhances the system as a whole; it should not be done for its own sake and is not a virtue of design in the same sense that 'eats with a spoon' is not a virtue for a human to have. It is a process, and as such, should be used as a tool to reach a desired end, but should not be the feature or end in itself. An example of this is the Avenger, where Oath is a very real 'outside the box' way of looking at Strikers. But it's goal is 'Be a Striker based on accuracy' not 'Let's do something different cause we can.' [/QUOTE]

Verification