1.) A first level PC in 4E is similar in power level, survivability, etc... to a 5th level 3.5 (and earlier PC). A 30th level 4E PC is similar to a 13th level PC in prior editions. In other words, 30 levels of advancement feels like about 8 levels of advancement to experienced players. We don't really feel like we're struggling through the early era we remember where a single goblin arrow could spell disaster - and we don't experience those high level days where we shape the world around us. Those were part of the D&D game - and I miss them when I play 4E.
2.) The classes are too similar. In 3.5 and earlier, a wizard felt, looked and operated differently than a fighter. In 4E, there are a plethora of powers out there - spread across all of the classes - that feel too similar. This took the magic out of magic. The 4E system is great for martial classes, but I feel like it robbed the other classes of their core.
3.) The game is too safe. The game is designed to keep the PCs up and fighting if you play it according to the recommendations in the books. I often feel like I'm playing a video game on 'easy' as opposed to 'normal' or 'hard'. I need there to be a risk of failure for combats to mean something. The most common failure risk should be death. If PCs use horrible tactics, have horrible luck, or have a combination of poor luck and poor tactics, they should DIE. The most memorable moments in my 30+ year D&D experience has been the death of my favorite PCs.
4.) The game is too balanced. The designers of 4E were very good at identifying things that broke the game by giving something too much of an advantage. Being able to fly up in the air and attack with a bow against an army of ogres with no ranged weapons was devastatingly powerful. However, the efforts to prevent these types of antics by removing flight (or the most part) from the hands of PCs stole the feeling of a magical world. Invisibility, flight, teleportation, etc... mayhave been broken in old editions, but they were part of the core of the game and the absence of the old ways these things worked is felt.
5.) The plethora of spells that wizards, clerics, druids, etc... had at their disposal was a big part of prior editions. The transition of some of these things to rituals was a nice idea in theory, but failed in practice.
How would I address these faults?
1.) Change the 'power structure' of the classes so that they feel different. If I were designing wizards, all wizards would get magic missile as their only at will. Then, they'd get utility powers at every level. They'd also start with 3 daily powers, and get a new daily power every other level. No encounter powers - and they'd never lose access to powers. Fighters would get very few utility powers or daily powers, but a wider selection of encounter and at-will powers.
2.) I'd bring back the days of high risk at low levels. Low level PCs would have 12 to 20 hps, not 25 to 35. PCs would need to cut their teeth before getting to that level of survivability where they feel fairly safe if everything goes right.
3.) I'd bring back the days of high power at high levels. In 3.5 and earlier, levels 17 and above were world altering levels of power. PCs that played from levels 17 to 30 were reshaping the world. I'd bring that back for the last 10 to 15% of a character's existence before forced retirement / power capping.
4.) I'd reintroduce the iconic broken abilities of the past, but hedge them with ways to keep themfrom being totally broken. Invisibility might not return at 3rd level, but it'd be the invisibility of old and it'd be very effective - although maybe not quite as devastatingly powerful as in the old days (perhaps invisibility would not be as foolproof as it was inthe past). PCs would be able to gain the ability to fly, although I might introduce rules for grounding flying enemies by throwing things at them.
Those types of chages would bring back a lot of the feeling that was lost in 4E.
D&D & Boardgames If I have everything I need to run great games for many years without repeating stuff, why do I need to buy anything right now?
find it to be extremely DM-unfriendly, making it annoying or frustrating to provide unique and balanced situations for my players.
I'm not sure it's possible for me to disagree with this statement any more than I do. For me, DMing 4th Edition is such a breath of fresh air that I will never. EVER. DM a previous version of D&D again. Even if I'm roped into playing I will never be the DM. Here's a few points that hit home for me:
a) The rules are clear, well organized and balanced meaning I can spend less time adjudicating and rules lawyering and more time describing an evocative scene. b) The XP Budget makes creating balanced fights trivial meaning I can spend less time worrying about a TPK and more time making them interesting and memorable. c) Creating and reflavoring adversaries is easy meaning I can spend less time choosing feats and spells more time choosing quirks and motivations. d) Many "plot-busting" spells like scrying, teleportation and wish were nerfed or removed completely meaning I can spend less time caster proofing my dungeons and more time creating an immersive world.
YMMV, I guess but I'm honestly having a very hard time trying to figure out where you're coming from here.
1.) A first level PC in 4E is similar in power level, survivability, etc... to a 5th level 3.5 (and earlier PC). A 30th level 4E PC is similar to a 13th level PC in prior editions. In other words, 30 levels of advancement feels like about 8 levels of advancement to experienced players. We don't really feel like we're struggling through the early era we remember where a single goblin arrow could spell disaster - and we don't experience those high level days where we shape the world around us. Those were part of the D&D game - and I miss them when I play 4E.
2.) The classes are too similar. In 3.5 and earlier, a wizard felt, looked and operated differently than a fighter. In 4E, there are a plethora of powers out there - spread across all of the classes - that feel too similar. This took the magic out of magic. The 4E system is great for martial classes, but I feel like it robbed the other classes of their core.
3.) The game is too safe. The game is designed to keep the PCs up and fighting if you play it according to the recommendations in the books. I often feel like I'm playing a video game on 'easy' as opposed to 'normal' or 'hard'. I need there to be a risk of failure for combats to mean something. The most common failure risk should be death. If PCs use horrible tactics, have horrible luck, or have a combination of poor luck and poor tactics, they should DIE. The most memorable moments in my 30+ year D&D experience has been the death of my favorite PCs.
4.) The game is too balanced. The designers of 4E were very good at identifying things that broke the game by giving something too much of an advantage. Being able to fly up in the air and attack with a bow against an army of ogres with no ranged weapons was devastatingly powerful. However, the efforts to prevent these types of antics by removing flight (or the most part) from the hands of PCs stole the feeling of a magical world. Invisibility, flight, teleportation, etc... mayhave been broken in old editions, but they were part of the core of the game and the absence of the old ways these things worked is felt.
5.) The plethora of spells that wizards, clerics, druids, etc... had at their disposal was a big part of prior editions. The transition of some of these things to rituals was a nice idea in theory, but failed in practice.
Sadly, most of what you want to bring back would make me not at all interested in D&D. Simply put, I always play video games on easy, enjoy the "once class design, many ways to play" type model (MMOs get this right, in my opinion, powers for EVERYBODY!), and find a balanced base much easier to build up from than a "broken" one. I hate dying in video games. I don't want to feel fragile, and I totally see the ability to make levels 11-20 and 21-30 more than just a string of "same as heroic" encounters. Basically, I think you and I are as far apart as can be when it comes to what we want out of a game.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
Some people have claimed that 4th edition doesn't have a D&D feel of the previous editions (I don't personally feel so). I would like to hear from people who do, what is the cause of this feeling, i.e. what in 4e causes it. Could that feeling be restored without sacrificing class balance and lots of customization options in all classes?
I played AD&D a lot and 4e some and not much what was in-between. The differences are extreme. Powers make the game very different. Feats. Skills. Vast piles of hps constantly renued by 'surges.'
Rules and setting is up front. In AD&D the game was often a puzzle set by the DM. You asked questions about what you saw. Described exactly what you did. Paid attention to the results. 4e everything is right there. You have a map with little triangles for difficult terrain, and if there's a trap you can find it 'passive' without even trying and once it goes off you know exactly how it works and how to disarm or destroy it.
AD&D was more like a battle of wits with the DM. 4e DM is more like a coach.
First, a few notes: I am glad to get even one more person to look at the DMG 2. Yes, what was in it should have been smooshed into the original 4th ed DMG. Still, the book is awesome. Also, My point of view is coming from a major in fine art, and a minor in english (mainly from literature classes) and nearly a life time of making art and playing games. I do not pretend to understand physics, and am at best an armchair psychologist. Also, I have no idea what critical thinking means. That said, on I go. . .
I'm always jealous of artists because I'm terrible at it
Also, I apologize if my writing strikes any of your nerves as an English minor...I have the tendency to do so
How does a system balanced around encounters not allow character abilities to be balanced for any situation? Are we speaking instead of balancing them around time? They have to have some structure to build upon; mechanics shouldn't exist without thought to the structure of play. Are you saying that the structure of play is combat encounters, and that is what hinders the design? If that is the case, though I cannot agree, I can at least understand where you are coming from.
Yes, there does need to be structure for design, but not structure of play. For instance, in an open field melee medieval combat environment with battalion sized forces (~1,000), a single skirmish can take 10 minutes or more (but not much more) before a retreat may be called or negotiations resume (100+ rounds). Having PC's fight within that scenario can be brutish without adjusting the structure of play. An easy thing to do is say that rounds have a 30 second or 1 minute duration (vice 6 seconds). How do you handle the spirit of the rules for powers that might say "until the end of your next turn" or "until the end of the encounter" when the "encounter" structure those abilities were designed for are significantly shorter?
As a specific example, our Wizard this weekend has a Daily Power that allows him to use Magic Missile as a minor action until the end of the encounter. It became significantly unbalanced in this new setting. I had to build new sets of rules to handle allowing the PC's to use their abilities and attacks within the battle. Sure, Skill Challenges could be used, but I wanted the PC's to get to use their attacks, feats, and powers in this combat situation (it's a combat situation, after all, and the success of the force they were fighting with was improved by, and reliant on, the damage that the PC's were able to do). There are many times when you may desire to change the structure of play -- in both combat and non-combat environments -- and yes, you can wing it...but it's cumbersome when there isn't much support to do what you want. Not only that, but will you wing it the same way next time (does your decision maintain perfect integrity from month to month) without noting it down or having a player remind you?
I will say that as a creative type, artist, storyteller and all-around artisan of craft and artistic works, 4th edition feels like so much paint and brushes, with me making the decisions on almost everything but the initial hues of red, blue, yellow, black and white. I feel like it has everything I need, and am dismayed when others do not find what they are looking for.
I care very much about how mechanically precise and constant my decisions wind up being. I look for the ability to be flexible with the structure of play yet still be able to allow my players to use everything at their disposal within a new structure.
That said, I have difficulty understanding how tables of basic NPCs helps to build a town any better than using "Easy, Medium, Hard" DCs of, for example, 8, 12 and 19 (if I remember the revised numbers right) for a first level character when they try to socially interact with an NPC. If they try and fight them, I'd most likely use the stats for the Human Rabble or the Human Lackey "monster" in the original Monster Manual. Most NPCs will be minion type monsters, not trained, not able to even fight back, and dying in a single hit. Permutations of the Human Guards, or other racial equivalents work just as well if the player decides to take a swing, and throwing an encounter of X level [race] guards against something is as simple as using a humanoid stat block with the appropriate racial power subbed in or tacked on to another monster block. All in all, five minutes max to whip up an encounter. And I do have a few random encounters saved on my computer just in case. So, why the "binomial (not even sure what that means)" cities? Is this a math versus art thing? An improvisation versus prepared mathematical computation? Or is it something else? Again, asking to understand, not to insult. Some people will say you are horrible, I just don't understand and am trying to. I'm glad you like what you like.
8, 12, and 19 are there...but it isn't thorough enough for me, honestly. Let's say my goal is to provide a high tension combat environment, and one of the players says, "If you had dealt 2 more damage, I would have been dead," I feel as though I didn't do good enough. I want him to be in the position of having only 1 hit point left. I don't want someone to succeed against a DC that should be difficult for them by 3, I want them to succeed by *exactly* the correct number. I'm in the process of building the tables for 4e myself, but I dislike that I have to -- having them in 3e was really a very key thing to have available. It separated the level of quality that I felt D&D resources provided vs. other games.
Most NPCs will be minion type monsters, not trained, not able to even fight back, and dying in a single hit.
This we differ on in DMing style I never allow level 1 players to get the feeling that they are more powerful than most other NPC's. On the contrary, when players start at level 1, I make as clear as possible that most NPC's are more powerful than them. The median level of an NPC in a large city in a typical one of my games is 5-7 (half above that level, half below). Players shouldn't start feeling like they are really making a name for themselves in the region until around level 10. That's not a hard and fast rule for me, I've run some games differently -- but that's how I generally DM. And, here is what I mean by a probability distribution (the purple line is typically what I'm after, that might represent a large town, or a barony within a kingdom).
Several of those things have been done as Skill Challenges, one is a sample in the DMG (audience with a Duke, rather than a King, IIRC).
The main difference is that there actually /is/ structured support for such things. It's a new aproach, though, and though it's improved with each update, it's still far from ideal.
Okay, so yes, I suppose I exaggerated by saying *no* support -- but the general solution people are posing is Skill Challenges. I don't find that to be enough. I want players to be able to have feats and abilities available in those settings, as well. Relying on Skill Challenges for everything "non-adventuring" seems dull and predictable. And even then, in the core rulebooks, Skill Challenges are still typically presented as Encounters anyways....which still feels like it's pigeonholing me into a structure of play -- a structure I may want to break free of often.
Some people have claimed that 4th edition doesn't have a D&D feel of the previous editions (I don't personally feel so). I would like to hear from people who do, what is the cause of this feeling, i.e. what in 4e causes it. Could that feeling be restored without sacrificing class balance and lots of customization options in all classes?
I played AD&D a lot and 4e some and not much what was in-between. The differences are extreme. Powers make the game very different. Feats. Skills. Vast piles of hps constantly renued by 'surges.'
Rules and setting is up front. In AD&D the game was often a puzzle set by the DM. You asked questions about what you saw. Described exactly what you did. Paid attention to the results. 4e everything is right there. You have a map with little triangles for difficult terrain, and if there's a trap you can find it 'passive' without even trying and once it goes off you know exactly how it works and how to disarm or destroy it.
AD&D was more like a battle of wits with the DM. 4e DM is more like a coach.
I actually like the last line of this post, and would much feel like a coach than an antagonist.
However, there's nothing saying that players know how to stop a trap once they find it, or see it go off. Also, Offical maps use triangles, but I draw my own, and only use triangles on my maps. I want them to think, but I don't want them to hate me. And they would if I just revealed everything to them.
Which is why my custom monster tokens have little Ms for Minions. Nothing worse than blowing a single target daily on a minion.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
Beyond spells versus powers, I could create the same feeling in AD&D and 4E, if you aren't going to throw preference of mechanics into the mix. Because once you do, any other game will fail based on your preference. And just like AD&D, a good DM would mix things up to keep the adventures both varied and interesting. The hardest part about any game system is finding a good set of players and a DM.
First, a few notes: I am glad to get even one more person to look at the DMG 2. Yes, what was in it should have been smooshed into the original 4th ed DMG. Still, the book is awesome. Also, My point of view is coming from a major in fine art, and a minor in english (mainly from literature classes) and nearly a life time of making art and playing games. I do not pretend to understand physics, and am at best an armchair psychologist. Also, I have no idea what critical thinking means. That said, on I go. . .
I'm always jealous of artists because I'm terrible at it
Also, I apologize if my writing strikes any of your nerves as an English minor...I have the tendency to do so
It might bother my English Major of a wife, but I'm the one who likes to write poetry. You know, where you can get away with murdering the English language in the name of art?
Also, You are one of the most level-headed people yet. I include you in a short list, at least currently of people such as Foxface, Wrecan, Mbecon (sp?) and very few others that I actually feel like I can talk to, instead of feeling like no matter how polite I am, I'm still "arguing". So you have that going for you.
How does a system balanced around encounters not allow character abilities to be balanced for any situation? Are we speaking instead of balancing them around time? They have to have some structure to build upon; mechanics shouldn't exist without thought to the structure of play. Are you saying that the structure of play is combat encounters, and that is what hinders the design? If that is the case, though I cannot agree, I can at least understand where you are coming from.
Yes, there does need to be structure for design, but not structure of play. For instance, in an open field melee medieval combat environment with battalion sized forces (~1,000), a single skirmish can take 10 minutes or more (but not much more) before a retreat may be called or negotiations resume (60+ rounds). Having PC's fight within that scenario can be brutish without adjusting the structure of play. An easy thing to do is say that rounds have a 30 second or 1 minute duration (vice 6 seconds). How do you handle the spirit of the rules for powers that might say "until the end of your next turn" or "until the end of the encounter" when the "encounter" structure those abilities were designed for are significantly shorter?
As a specific example, our Wizard this weekend has a Daily Power that allows him to use Magic Missile as a minor action until the end of the encounter. It became significantly unbalanced in this new setting. I had to build new sets of rules to handle allowing the PC's to use their abilities and attacks within the battle. Sure, Skill Challenges could be used, but I wanted the PC's to get to use their attacks, feats, and powers in this combat situation (it's a combat situation, after all, and the success of the force they were fighting with was improved by, and reliant on, the damage that the PC's were able to do). There are many times when you may desire to change the structure of play -- in both combat and non-combat environments -- and yes, you can wing it...but it's cumbersome when there isn't much support to do what you want. Not only that, but will you wing it the same way next time (does your decision maintain perfect integrity from month to month) without noting it down or having a player remind you?
I was lost on the math, but I get the intent: if a long battle is basically several encounters strung together in one huge encounter (they give suggestions for how to do this in the DMG 2, niggle niggle), when does the DM call "end of an encounter" on the power use. Instead of saying it takes 5 minutes, and saying each round takes 6 seconds, so the DM can then figure out the exact round the effect ends off.
Now, for the time thing, I personally say fudge it. Then again, as an artist talking to a mathemetician, that's like saying "do magic, now". I know, I have a math friend, computer chip engineer, and I know the disconnect between mathematical and artistic. So here might be a better way: every round is 6 seconds, Encounters are assumed to last about 5-6 rounds (at least I remember reading that somewhere), so you could call time up on the power after 5-6 rounds. And, per the guidelines in the DMG2, youi could then, later in a multi-encounter encounter (say, 10 encounters in one encounter), give the player back the use of an encounter, daily power, daily magic item power, get an action point, etc. And you can give them for varied achievements, such as killing a really big guy on the field, or having reinforcements arive to back the heroes, or have the heroes secure a fortified position, among other things.
Also, if I wing it the first time, I always write it down. That way I don't have to make it up twice. It's like mixing a certain color; I could do it by eye twice, or I could give myself a break and mix a bunch of it once. I prefer to give myself a break.
I will say that as a creative type, artist, storyteller and all-around artisan of craft and artistic works, 4th edition feels like so much paint and brushes, with me making the decisions on almost everything but the initial hues of red, blue, yellow, black and white. I feel like it has everything I need, and am dismayed when others do not find what they are looking for.
I care very much about how mechanically precise and constant my decisions wind up being. I look for the ability to be flexible with the structure of play yet still be able to allow my players to use everything at their disposal within a new structure.
I love flexibility; I also have a spiral notebook at hand in case I need to write down my "ruling" using the page 42 rules so that everything stays consistent within my game.
That said, I have difficulty understanding how tables of basic NPCs helps to build a town any better than using "Easy, Medium, Hard" DCs of, for example, 8, 12 and 19 (if I remember the revised numbers right) for a first level character when they try to socially interact with an NPC. If they try and fight them, I'd most likely use the stats for the Human Rabble or the Human Lackey "monster" in the original Monster Manual. Most NPCs will be minion type monsters, not trained, not able to even fight back, and dying in a single hit. Permutations of the Human Guards, or other racial equivalents work just as well if the player decides to take a swing, and throwing an encounter of X level [race] guards against something is as simple as using a humanoid stat block with the appropriate racial power subbed in or tacked on to another monster block. All in all, five minutes max to whip up an encounter. And I do have a few random encounters saved on my computer just in case. So, why the "binomial (not even sure what that means)" cities? Is this a math versus art thing? An improvisation versus prepared mathematical computation? Or is it something else? Again, asking to understand, not to insult. Some people will say you are horrible, I just don't understand and am trying to. I'm glad you like what you like.
8, 12, and 19 are there...but it isn't thorough enough for me, honestly. Let's say my goal is to provide a high tension combat environment, and one of the players says, "If you had dealt 2 more damage, I would have been dead," I feel as though I didn't do good enough. I want him to be in the position of having only 1 hit point left. I don't want someone to succeed against a DC that should be difficult for them by 3, I want them to succeed by *exactly* the correct number. I'm in the process of building the tables for 4e myself, but I dislike that I have to -- having them in 3e was really a very key thing to have available. It separated the level of quality that I felt D&D resources provided vs. other games.
Most NPCs will be minion type monsters, not trained, not able to even fight back, and dying in a single hit.
This we differ on in DMing style I never allow level 1 players to get the feeling that they are more powerful than most other NPC's. On the contrary, when players start at level 1, I make as clear as possible that most NPC's are more powerful than them. The median level of an NPC in a large city in a typical one of my games is 5-7 (half above that level, half below). Players shouldn't start feeling like they are really making a name for themselves in the region until around level 10. That's not a hard and fast rule for me, I've run some games differently -- but that's how I generally DM. And, here is what I mean by a probability distribution (the purple line is typically what I'm after, that might represent a large town, or a barony within a kingdom).
Yes, our differences are clear at that point; I prefer my players to succeed and feel good about doing so by a plentiful amount if they rolled well. I'm not a "skin of your teeth" type of DM. I understand some people are, and perhaps a second set of hard DCs meant for "hardcore" mode should be included in further D&D editions to allow DMs to really grind at the players. I want a game system that says, "even now, at level one you are heroes; you just have a destiny that is going to make you great". And yes, 4th ed gives me that in spades; I expect them to be well known by level 4-5 for their heroic deeds. So conversely, I can see how someone who wants a bit harsher and closer of a game would want more like "you dirty pukes, if you survive you might be heroes, but right now you are scum" kind of a world. One is the coach, the other is that drill seargent from Full Metal Jacket.
Also, you show me the purple line, and I have no clue what it even means.
Several of those things have been done as Skill Challenges, one is a sample in the DMG (audience with a Duke, rather than a King, IIRC).
The main difference is that there actually /is/ structured support for such things. It's a new approach, though, and though it's improved with each update, it's still far from ideal.
Okay, so yes, I suppose I exaggerated by saying *no* support -- but the general solution people are posing is Skill Challenges. I don't find that to be enough. I want players to be able to have feats and abilities available in those settings, as well. Relying on Skill Challenges for everything "non-adventuring" seems dull and predictable. And even then, in the core rulebooks, Skill Challenges are still typically presented as Encounters anyways....which still feels like it's pigeonholing me into a structure of play -- a structure I may want to break free of often.
I think the big thing here is not to see encounters as single, solitary units; they can be squished together (think of a long skill challenge running over an entire city filled with zombies interspersed with combats when the PCs fail to be Stealthy of fast enough to move, and making those combats high level enough to scare the piss out of players using things like the Monster Throng rules in Open Grave, basically using medium or larger creatures as a swarm creature instead of the usually tiny creatures for a swarm creature,sending Throngs of zombies to grasp the players, stop them and try to eat them) they can have "recharge encounter powers" elements embedded in long stretches where the PCs can't rest, or you can strain their resources by not allowing them to recharge anything even when stringing one fight after another, stringing them out to the last possible encounter power, the last possible daily, that one final healing surge and beyond. IF that's your style, it can be accomplished, but it takes more than the standard rules to do so, which I suppose is what this is more about: what should or should not be standard, or in the standard rules. Mbec and I have had this discussion too.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
So, why the "binomial (not even sure what that means)" cities? Is this a math versus art thing? An improvisation versus prepared mathematical computation? Or is it something else? Again, asking to understand, not to insult. Some people will say you are horrible, I just don't understand and am trying to. I'm glad you like what you like. 
