Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5706107" data-attributes="member: 6668292">No, he's not. He believed in some things being better than other things in certain conditions. His example was Toughness:If certain feats or powers are better than comparable feats or powers in 4e (Twin Strike, from what I hear), they did the same thing Monte wanted: rewarding mastery of the game. His regret was that there wasn't enough guidance in helping people determine what things were meant for (as expressed in the second portion of the quote).Monte Cook didn't think it would be fun to screw people, he thought certain choices should be better than others (seemingly conditionally, from the examples given). This is true of nearly any game that allows choice, and I believe this remains true in 4e. He didn't want to "build intentional traps" in the game at all, and saying so is missing the context of the quote. He wanted to have some options be better than others, but not in all circumstances. Toughness is worse than other feats, unless used in a certain way. Longswords are better than many other one-handed martial weapons, but not better than most, and not better than all one-handed weapons all of the time.His quote has been taken out of context for years. If you dislike 3.X, it makes sense if you don't want him working on 5e. That's cool, and it's totally a matter of preference. However, he didn't purposefully "build in intentional traps into a RPG to increase the fun." It's totally fine if you don't like his work, or his way of doing things, but let's not claim he's done something that isn't the case. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification