Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4269495" data-attributes="member: 957">If you see it that way then you need to start educating the 4e defenders who trumpet the virtues of &quot;the rules are not physics&quot; and &quot;the rules apply to PCs differently&quot; and &quot;the rules shouldn't need to handle things that happen when the characters are not on stage.&quot;Why did Mearls say it wouldn't appeal as much to world builders?This double standard has repeated over and over.&nbsp; People praise 4e for cutting through so much stuff and then turn around and try to act like it has not cut through anything when the down sides are pointed out.4E can not come close to providing the quality of model that I've been enjoying for years now.&nbsp;Please, there has been thread after thread praising this exact aspect of 4e.&nbsp; In 4e things are not designed to be a persistent element of the world.&nbsp; They are designed to function in a certain way, within certain mathematical constraints, during the limited time that they are on stage with the PCs.&nbsp; They are skewed into being only presented relative to PCs and they are skewed to having all their stats fit allowable ranges (right down to just saying that magic items over X limit just don't work) based purely on the meta concept of level.Wrong.&nbsp; The constraints on a creature based on level are much tighter than they were in 3E based on CR.&nbsp; When I was initially optimistic about 4e, the restrictions in place on monsters were the type thing I wanted to see cleared up.&nbsp; Instead they&nbsp; tightened the grip.&nbsp; &nbsp;No.&nbsp; it isn't.&nbsp; In 3e the mechanics don't change.That is just simply false.&nbsp; Some mechanics do a vastly superior job of modeling the way a world works than others.&nbsp; I could build a campaign setting for the game Descent.&nbsp; So at the very extreme minimal level, yeah, you can do it for any system.&nbsp; But the rules of Descent do not allow me the latitude to mechanically tie the setting elements to how the world works.&nbsp; 4E is much better than Descent and much worse than 3E for this.&nbsp; Both 4E and Descent are no where good enough for my expectations.4E is streamlined and faster and easier.&nbsp; Those were design goals and they appeared to have achieved them.&nbsp; That people are trying to act like there was no trade off for these &quot;gains&quot; is laughable to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 4269495, member: 957"] If you see it that way then you need to start educating the 4e defenders who trumpet the virtues of "the rules are not physics" and "the rules apply to PCs differently" and "the rules shouldn't need to handle things that happen when the characters are not on stage." Why did Mearls say it wouldn't appeal as much to world builders? This double standard has repeated over and over. People praise 4e for cutting through so much stuff and then turn around and try to act like it has not cut through anything when the down sides are pointed out. 4E can not come close to providing the quality of model that I've been enjoying for years now. Please, there has been thread after thread praising this exact aspect of 4e. In 4e things are not designed to be a persistent element of the world. They are designed to function in a certain way, within certain mathematical constraints, during the limited time that they are on stage with the PCs. They are skewed into being only presented relative to PCs and they are skewed to having all their stats fit allowable ranges (right down to just saying that magic items over X limit just don't work) based purely on the meta concept of level. Wrong. The constraints on a creature based on level are much tighter than they were in 3E based on CR. When I was initially optimistic about 4e, the restrictions in place on monsters were the type thing I wanted to see cleared up. Instead they tightened the grip. No. it isn't. In 3e the mechanics don't change. That is just simply false. Some mechanics do a vastly superior job of modeling the way a world works than others. I could build a campaign setting for the game Descent. So at the very extreme minimal level, yeah, you can do it for any system. But the rules of Descent do not allow me the latitude to mechanically tie the setting elements to how the world works. 4E is much better than Descent and much worse than 3E for this. Both 4E and Descent are no where good enough for my expectations. 4E is streamlined and faster and easier. Those were design goals and they appeared to have achieved them. That people are trying to act like there was no trade off for these "gains" is laughable to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification