Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 6247597" data-attributes="member: 6688277">Actually I follow S'mon's reasoning, our group played with an inherent bonuses simply for the sim-world reasoning, my answer was merely in response to your previous comment where you said it is hard for you to distinguish between an increasing BAB and treasure parcels as 'player-entitlement'. The mechanical system of 4e forced treasure, previously a reward system, to become part of the core mechanics of the game which according to my personal view fuels 'player entitlement'.&nbsp;&nbsp; Here's the thing, by the mechanics being as they are (PCs must have treasure parcels), it affects the setting/the world. The 200hp of a fighter in 3ed should be compared to the increase in hp of the monsters in 3e - not to the hp of a fighter in AD&amp;D. The hp change of a class did not affect the setting, the inclusion of treasure parcels do. And the players know they're 'entitled' to treasure, its in their deity-damn book which gives rise to player entitlement.So the mechanics force upon me a specific setting (not the one I want to play) through treasure parcels thereby increasing 'player entitlement' and you're saying I cannot judge those mechanics as wrong? I'm not bashing 4e here, please, I played it I had plenty of fun out of it, even used the inherent system, we are probably going to steal plenty of ideas from it for Next, but treasure parcels (for me, it appears not for you) created a sense of 'player entitlement' that was certainly there in previous editions (for mag items), tacitly perhaps, but when it became part of the core mechanic fueled that entitlement fire.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadras, post: 6247597, member: 6688277"] Actually I follow S'mon's reasoning, our group played with an inherent bonuses simply for the sim-world reasoning, my answer was merely in response to your previous comment where you said it is hard for you to distinguish between an increasing BAB and treasure parcels as 'player-entitlement'. The mechanical system of 4e forced treasure, previously a reward system, to become part of the core mechanics of the game which according to my personal view fuels 'player entitlement'. Here's the thing, by the mechanics being as they are (PCs must have treasure parcels), it affects the setting/the world. The 200hp of a fighter in 3ed should be compared to the increase in hp of the monsters in 3e - not to the hp of a fighter in AD&D. The hp change of a class did not affect the setting, the inclusion of treasure parcels do. And the players know they're 'entitled' to treasure, its in their deity-damn book which gives rise to player entitlement. So the mechanics force upon me a specific setting (not the one I want to play) through treasure parcels thereby increasing 'player entitlement' and you're saying I cannot judge those mechanics as wrong? I'm not bashing 4e here, please, I played it I had plenty of fun out of it, even used the inherent system, we are probably going to steal plenty of ideas from it for Next, but treasure parcels (for me, it appears not for you) created a sense of 'player entitlement' that was certainly there in previous editions (for mag items), tacitly perhaps, but when it became part of the core mechanic fueled that entitlement fire. [/QUOTE]

Verification