A question from a 4E apologist.

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:16 am

RandomCasualty2 wrote:
Psychic Robot wrote: No, 3e is better than 4e because it's designed with the assumption of "no dickery here." 4e is designed to protect dick players and dick DMs from each other--which fails, as dicks are dicks and will continue to be dicks even if the system doesn't allow for tricky dick things.
Seemed kinda like the opposite to me. 3E really seemed to have that tight codified rules emphasis of protecting PCs from DMs who tried to hose them by creating a rule for everything. 4E definitely loosened its restrictions and let the DM freeform a bit more.

As far as protection, 3E was more of a DM straitjacket.

I think we've long ago established that a DM who "makes up rules" will almost always have rules that suck. As in, all of their rules will suck.

The amount of DMs that make up a rule that is good the first time are few and far between. I'd imagine that it's moreso for a GM that doesn't really think about the ramificiations of their decisions.

I mean, look at how many GMs want to have "low-magic" worlds?

MartinHarper · Post by **MartinHarper** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:07 am

Psychic Robot wrote:4e is designed to protect dick players and dick DMs from each other

I think it's more about incompetence. I mean, my 3e group can't work out how iterative attacks work with the Many Shot feat.

Roy · Post by **Roy** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 10:39 am

Judging__Eagle wrote:Epic Win is Epic.

This post is awesome and you should be given awesome.

Also, what's with all the Paizil Fallacy?

And as for the whining about me, she got crazy before I started smiting.