Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6659402" data-attributes="member: 957">Shrug.&nbsp; My approach has not changed and I was told that going back to my approach would be &quot;going backwards&quot;.&nbsp; Now it is praised.&nbsp; I am glad.No, I get it.One key difference here may be that a 12th level 4E wizard gains at least &quot;+6&quot; (whatever than means in model terms) to everything, including climbing mountains in blizzards.&nbsp; In 3E and in 5E, a 12th level wizard can be no better at climbing mountains in blizzards than a peasant.&nbsp; A &quot;typical&quot; L12 Ranger would be &quot;good&quot; at it and an optimized mountain climbing ranger may be &quot;outstanding&quot; at it.&nbsp; There is an implicit lack of &quot;reliable&quot;, though I find it quite robust and dependable.Again, to me this is a very good thing.Edit to clarify: It isn't reliable because you don't know what the capabilities of the PCs will be, but it is robust in being self consistent.I wouldn't say this is accurate.&nbsp; You are right that I put a lot of &quot;control&quot; into setting the stage.&nbsp; But player input is HUGE and letting the players change the world, the path of the plot, everything is key to the fun.&nbsp; It is much more about challenging me to keep all the plates spinning while the players do their thing.Yeah, I loved a greatly respect 2E.&nbsp; I dropped it in a heartbeat when I felt the market left it behind.&nbsp; I also completely missed S&amp;P because I was playing other games, so if that is part of your analysis, keep that in mind.Without getting into the author vs. &quot;being the character&quot; debate, player control over what happens is fundamental to how I run games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6659402, member: 957"] Shrug. My approach has not changed and I was told that going back to my approach would be "going backwards". Now it is praised. I am glad. No, I get it. One key difference here may be that a 12th level 4E wizard gains at least "+6" (whatever than means in model terms) to everything, including climbing mountains in blizzards. In 3E and in 5E, a 12th level wizard can be no better at climbing mountains in blizzards than a peasant. A "typical" L12 Ranger would be "good" at it and an optimized mountain climbing ranger may be "outstanding" at it. There is an implicit lack of "reliable", though I find it quite robust and dependable. Again, to me this is a very good thing. Edit to clarify: It isn't reliable because you don't know what the capabilities of the PCs will be, but it is robust in being self consistent. I wouldn't say this is accurate. You are right that I put a lot of "control" into setting the stage. But player input is HUGE and letting the players change the world, the path of the plot, everything is key to the fun. It is much more about challenging me to keep all the plates spinning while the players do their thing. Yeah, I loved a greatly respect 2E. I dropped it in a heartbeat when I felt the market left it behind. I also completely missed S&P because I was playing other games, so if that is part of your analysis, keep that in mind. Without getting into the author vs. "being the character" debate, player control over what happens is fundamental to how I run games. [/QUOTE]

Verification