Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 4638218" data-attributes="member: 55271">I'm not sure I understand you. The 4th Edition designers have pretty stated outright that 4th Edition is designed to support one style of play. Why would 4th Edition players be upset that people are agreeing with the designers?3rd Edition supports multiple styles of play just fine. It just requires you to be smart enough to recognize when you're not having fun and to stop doing the thing that's not fun for you.I've played in groups that thrived on the &quot;one major, life-or-death encounter per day&quot; dynamic. And I've played in groups where encounters were chewed up. And I like the flexibility of being able to do both.Similarly I've played in groups where the opponents are always perfectly balanced vis-a-vis the PCs and I've played in groups where the PCs will fight absurdly weak opponents or risk running into opponents that completely outclass them.None of these are right or wrong. But when you play in a certain style, there are consequences. And if you don't like those consequences, then you should find the style of play that you do like.4E chose one style of play, labelled the levels where it worked best as the &quot;sweet spot&quot;, and then designed the whole game around it. Which, if that was your sweet spot, is fantastic. But if it wasn't -- or if you enjoy a variety of styles -- then you're screwed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Beginning of the End, post: 4638218, member: 55271"] I'm not sure I understand you. The 4th Edition designers have pretty stated outright that 4th Edition is designed to support one style of play. Why would 4th Edition players be upset that people are agreeing with the designers? 3rd Edition supports multiple styles of play just fine. It just requires you to be smart enough to recognize when you're not having fun and to stop doing the thing that's not fun for you. I've played in groups that thrived on the "one major, life-or-death encounter per day" dynamic. And I've played in groups where encounters were chewed up. And I like the flexibility of being able to do both. Similarly I've played in groups where the opponents are always perfectly balanced vis-a-vis the PCs and I've played in groups where the PCs will fight absurdly weak opponents or risk running into opponents that completely outclass them. None of these are right or wrong. But when you play in a certain style, there are consequences. And if you don't like those consequences, then you should find the style of play that you [i]do[/i] like. 4E chose one style of play, labelled the levels where it worked best as the "sweet spot", and then designed the whole game around it. Which, if that was your sweet spot, is [i]fantastic[/i]. But if it wasn't -- or if you enjoy a variety of styles -- then you're screwed. [/QUOTE]

Verification