Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5994235" data-attributes="member: 54877">Yes and no. The Oberoni fallacy only really applies to embedded rules, if it is to have any usefulness.  People can always find a monster or feat or something they don't care for. I think what trips people up in 4E on this particular question is illustrated by a comparison with 1E psionics:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If you don't like psionics in 1E, don't use them. They are a tiny minority of available stuff, and are called out in a separate section mostly, and then the DM probably won't use particular monsters either.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If you don't like metagaming powers in 4E, don't use them. They are a tiny minority of available stuff, but aren't explicitly called in a separate section (or any other way), and then the DM will need to survey monster powers for an occasional one that might not make sense.</li> </ul>Which is why a bunch of us that like 4E have been saying for some time, "presentation problem." 4E would immediately be more palatable to more people if it simply explicitly called out, by keyword, organization, etc. which effects are geared towars a more narrative style. Then it would be trivial to ignore them, as there are plenty of other options. This is always why I have been saying that modules in Next should be clearly labeled as to their purpose and likely effect.</blockquote>