Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5952216" data-attributes="member: 64209">I've read the whole thread, but I mainly just wanted to respond to two things:  1. Yes, hit points, levels, and other gamist conceits have always been there. Adding more gamist conceits makes the game more gamist. Some are fine with that. Some prefer that. Some dislike that. It's a matter of opinion. It is also a change. No, it's not a change of kind, but a change of degree (how gamist the game overall is). It bothers me when people utilize the "4e isn't so different" argument. It IS quite different from 3e. For some that may mean it's better, for others, less desirable. But it is different. There is no such thing as "exactly the same, but better." That's a logical infallibility (at least as applied to rpgs). Additionally, I like 4e. I dislike encounter powers (and AEDU). I also disliked that all classes used the same power framework. Essentials was FANTASTIC for me. It really fixed a lot with the system that bugged me. Comparing something I don't like in 4e to something identical in 3e doesn't make me like it. If I don't like it in 4e, I probably disliked it in 3e as well.   2. Encounter powers are NOT identical to Bo9S maneuvers. There are at least two meaningful reasons for this. The first is the "recharge during combat" element. A game element was incorporated to describe how a character could recharge himself that was somewhat more narratively forgiving than the attempts at explaining 4e's encounter powers. Secondly, and quite importantly, Bo9S were powers. They were "fluffed" as semi-mystical, semi-magical. They are easier to describe in game because they're intended to be non-mundane (mundane meaning "real worldy" rather than "boring").    Overall...I find the original post a bit troubling. I don't think it was entirely intended this way, but could be read as "ok 4e haters, take a look at this: encounter powers were in 3e, so they're fine".  What this take (which, again, I don't think was entirely the message or intent of the OP) misses is that: 1. people can like and dislike elements of 4e whether or not they were present in prior editions (they may have disliked them in prior editions as well), 2. people can dislike elements of 4e (or any edition) but still like the edition itself, 3. the maneuvers were similar, but not the same and the differences could be substantial to some while being irrelevant to others, 4. while present, they were in a single optional book that some may have liked and some may not have (as opposed to being the core/only way to play upon 4e's release). Imagine a Bo9S and Tome of Magic ONLY 3e game. I doubt most 3e players would recognize it as "3e" even though the books were supplements for 3e, and therefore optional parts of the edition.   So, to answer the title, Even supposing I liked 3e, I could:1. Have disliked Bo9S (hence encounter power hate).2. Have liked Bo9S as a mystical fighter variant (but not mundane, hence encounter power hate for mundane fighters).3. Have liked Bo9S as an element of my D&D, but still wanted the option to play a character without maneuvers and/or encounters (hence encounter power hate).4. Found Bo9S more realistic with its recharges than 4e encounter recharges (hence encounter power hate).</blockquote>

Verification