Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3764781" data-attributes="member: 30001">But why wouldn't the Vancian system be the perfect fit for the other changes in 4E?  Since we don't know *anything* about 4E, and all reasoning is invalid as a consequence, then why isn't that explicitly recognized in what you're saying, like this:Now I can stonewall your attempt to make this assertion and talk about the logical conclusions of it.  After all, since we presumably no *nothing* about 4E then on what basis do you repeatedly make statements to this effect?   Or I can just accept the hypothetical that what you're saying above is the case, and talk about how the other facts hang together with it.  The fact is that we have a pretty clear statement of a goal by James Wyatt.  How well does his objectives fit with what you're saying here?  How likely is it that Wyatt can accomplish what he wants in the rule system and still preserve existing playstyles?  How relevant are previous experiences with previous editions?  How relevant are the analogies that can be drawn between per-encounter powers in 4E and powers in previous editions of DnD or other systems (like Star Wars).  There is a *substantial* amount of information out there that is relevant to this discussion and I really disagree with the notion that we're as in the dark as you say. Given that you don't know exactly what I'm talking about IMO it's at least prudent to withold judgement about whether or not my statements are sensible until I'm given a chance to clarify?I'm not fixed on anything, IMO that characterization is unecessary.  What I am doing is insisting on getting answers to some statements I've made because me (and others like RC) seem to being going around on some issues that are not being understood or addressed.And some things *can* apparently be considered more universal than others.  Neither Monte Cook nor James Wyatt qualified their statements with anything like "but this issue is entirely a matter of playstyle".  In fact, the nearly explicit idea in both of their idea is that the core rule system as a bearing on how people play the game.  That's why there is a 4E and why the designers concern themselves with how it works.  If it was just a matter of play-style then there would be nothing to fix.Now suppose you're saying that some things are play style and some things aren't.  It's already been established that the resource issues and their impact on the story line is not play-style dependant in Wyatt's opinion.  He establishes this because if it were play-style dependent, there would be no problem.  In Wyatt's example, he presumably describes a game experience where the "plot" elements of the game are significant, and the resource management issues are interfering with that.  Now in spite of the fact that Wyatt's players all care about the plot, they don't *care enough* to keep themselves from camping at 9:15.  IMO the obvious implication here is that the resource management issue has an effect that spans across multple play-styles.  But we don't know enough about the playtest results of 4E to say that this will be the case?  Apparently that doesn't stop Wyatt so why should it stop me?  I don't want to be overly sensitive but saying that my ideas are insensible without any real supporting substance doesn't give me much to respond to.  Talking about how you feel is less controversial IMO so, no, I don't find it insulting at all.  It's the difference between saying "I feel like I"m talking to a crazy person", which IMO is ok, and "you are a crazy person" which IMO is not.</blockquote>

Verification