Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6659388" data-attributes="member: 42582">Absolutely.The idea that any RPG is equally likely to produce a fun experience however it is approached, and whatever the player's personal conception of fun, is just crazy!I guess someone, somewhere in the history of RPGing, used Tunnels &amp; Trolls to play a Middle Earth game, but with spell names like &quot;Take That, You Fiend&quot; (rather than magic missile) and &quot;Freeze Please&quot; (rather than ice storm), plus mechanics that contain no non-dungeon exploration dimension at all, such people can't be more than a mere handful of the totality of RPGers.4e has multiple intersecting rationing mechanics. If you play the game in a way that doesn't engage those mechanics, then you'd better hope that they're optional from the point of view of enjoying the game! (My view is that they're not; others might have different tastes, but from [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s posts I get the impression that rationing was desired.)4e has complex movement and positioning mechanics. If you play the game in a way that doesn't engage those mechanics, then once again you'd better hope they're optional to enjoyment.But the more of the system's mechanics that you fail to engage in your play of it, the more the question becomes &quot;Why this system?&quot; It seems to me, for instance, that if you don't engage the rationing and you don't engage the positioning, there's not a lot left of 4e's combat mechanics. You've got hit point ablation and condition infliction, but without engaging the rationing systems (eg for condition removal, unlocking surges, etc) these become less interesting. The game starts to look just like a needlessly complex version of AD&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6659388, member: 42582"] Absolutely. The idea that any RPG is equally likely to produce a fun experience however it is approached, and whatever the player's personal conception of fun, is just crazy! I guess someone, somewhere in the history of RPGing, used Tunnels & Trolls to play a Middle Earth game, but with spell names like "Take That, You Fiend" (rather than magic missile) and "Freeze Please" (rather than ice storm), plus mechanics that contain no non-dungeon exploration dimension at all, such people can't be more than a mere handful of the totality of RPGers. 4e has multiple intersecting rationing mechanics. If you play the game in a way that doesn't engage those mechanics, then you'd better hope that they're optional from the point of view of enjoying the game! (My view is that they're not; others might have different tastes, but from [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s posts I get the impression that rationing was desired.) 4e has complex movement and positioning mechanics. If you play the game in a way that doesn't engage those mechanics, then once again you'd better hope they're optional to enjoyment. But the more of the system's mechanics that you fail to engage in your play of it, the more the question becomes "Why this system?" It seems to me, for instance, that if you don't engage the rationing and you don't engage the positioning, there's not a lot left of 4e's combat mechanics. You've got hit point ablation and condition infliction, but without engaging the rationing systems (eg for condition removal, unlocking surges, etc) these become less interesting. The game starts to look just like a needlessly complex version of AD&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification