Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6003415" data-attributes="member: 58416">I got the idea of what 4E was saying. I in no way had difficulty understanding what was written.  I just do not feel the game plays out the same way it is portrayed to play out.  I also have no issue with refluffing.  However, I am someone who believes fluff and crunch should have a coherent relationship. Even if I were to refluff some of the things into something resembling more of what I wanted, I do not feel the mechanics of the game would support it very well.  Likewise, I also do not feel that the 'Points of Light' concept really made sense when paired with 4E mechanics. I do not feel that a world built upon the mechanics of 4E would look anything like what the fluff says the 4E world would look like.  Putting myself in the shoes of a character living in that world, it was difficult to take some of the things seriously. In particular, I remember the first campaign I played to 30 ending with Orcus (as well as pretty much everything leading up to him) being crushed so handily by the party that the DM ruled it was viable for him to surrender to an intimidation check from my warlord character.  According to the fiction, he was supposed to be feared; a scourge to the world.  In 'reality' he ended up being my butler.  Also, as mentioned in other threads I've been in, I could easily smash through walls and even the literally gates of hell with my PC; in contrast, some of the supposedly most feared monsters could scarcely scratch a flimsy structure.  From the players side of the table, that made it difficult for me to take the idea that I was living in a 'Points of Light' world very seriously.  From the DM side of the table, it was frustrating because a lot of challenge types I wanted to use weren't really viable.  Outside of combat I had issues as well; I've elaborated on those in other threads. The short version is that I feel the 4E advice and structure makes it very easy to get to the minimum bar required to get a game moving. That is a good thing for a group just starting out.  However, I do not feel the 4E advice nor structure necessarily makes it easy to run a good game.  I suppose that means I'm contradicting myself now that I think about it because that would mean I didn't feel some of the advice was really all that good. I do believe I've commented in the past that some of my most successful games came after I started to ignore the 'official' 4E advice.</blockquote>

Verification