• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Once per day non-magical effects destroy suspension of disbelief

Well, that's something new! Something I can... understand. Not agree with, because I think it's nice to hand some narrative control to my players, but it is a position to have.

I'm not a big fan of narrativism. I like simulationism best.

The PCs still can't see it, can they? The players do.

It was a friendly stab.

Damage has - or should have - a visual effect. You should know when you land a hit, and about how effective it was.

For example: if I were to come up and punch you in the face, I could most certainly see the effects of that, right? Sure, there's no numbers attached to it, but if I hit you slightly harder the next time I saw you, a month later, and if I were able to remember things rather clearly, I would be able to see that the second hit was harder than the first.

I got the avatar when Ally McBeal was still around (German TV, of course). I didn't remember that there was song text involved.
But reading up on it: No, I couldn't fight it, but it didn't lead to anything...

Fair enough.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Not only that, but I didn't say anything about 3.5. What, does my hat of 4e automagically make me a fan of 3.5? 'cause I'm pretty sure I don't like either system..


So if you hate 4E and have admitted you don't like 3E system, why o why are you posting on a mainly D&D 3e/4e board?

Also if you think 4E drives your suspension of disbelief into the ground, why don't you just stick with more simulationist games and go post in their respective boards?

Why be a negative here , when you could have been a positive somewhere else?
 

None of us are hard core simulationists, but for god's sake we like to immerse ourselves in the setting and the events of the campaign so a bit of versimilitude is helpful.
You don't realize that you're not even thinking at this point. Everything is a preprogrammed response. Every response is hackneyed. Your response has very little to do with 4e. The only connection to 4e is such reponses are trite, abundant, and unoriginal. I have a hard time believing that you are a sincere critic when your reponses are so banal.

What about daily exploits prevents your "setting immersion"? Nothing other than being informed by the blah,blah-hate threads suggests that it prevents anything. Roleplaying involvement is often performed best without dice. If that wasn't the case then people wouldn't be roleplaying D&D at all because basic edition was terrible. Or is it too gamist for a fighter to never develop a single sword trick in twenty levels?

Simulationist doesn't mean realist. Furthermore, if you wanted to immerse yourself in the setting you would be a Narrativist. In fact, martial exploits with Daily limits is more story driven because it depicts inherent limits and fatigue. Forcing characters to make tough choices makes for better stories. The need for rest and safety as a necessary limitation for all abilities requires characters to rely on each other and the world around them for aid creating both and immersive and narrative system.


Or it's just marketing to kids blah, blah, hate :devil:
 

I'm not a big fan of narrativism. I like simulationism best.



It was a friendly stab.

Damage has - or should have - a visual effect. You should know when you land a hit, and about how effective it was.

For example: if I were to come up and punch you in the face, I could most certainly see the effects of that, right? Sure, there's no numbers attached to it, but if I hit you slightly harder the next time I saw you, a month later, and if I were able to remember things rather clearly, I would be able to see that the second hit was harder than the first.
Since you can't see the numbers, how could you decide if you were using Brute Strike or just a Basic Attack?
Think about an attack that deals 49 points of damage to a foe. It brings him down to 1 hit points. Your next attack deals 11 points of damage, killing him outright. (3E rules). Which attack looked more impressive, more powerful? The one that prepared your enemy for the killing blow, or the killing blow?
 

Dude.

HERO notably limits certain powers (or heavily suggests that certain powers be limited) without providing any in-game rationale for said limitations. The time travel stuff is what immediately comes to mind. I mean, it has the "This power is broken, unbalanced, and not recommended!" icon (i.e., the STOP sign) next to it, right?

How can you genuinely say that you won't play D&D 4e because it fails to provide an in-game rationale for limiting certain things, when HERO does the exact same thing? We all know how you feel about HERO. Are you simply holding D&D to a different standard where supplying in-game rationale for power limitations is concerned and, if so, why?
It's blah, blah, hate mentality. It has nothing to do with 4e. It has everything to do with mealy-mouthed, bandwagon hatred. It's just easier for people to shrug and hate then to think.

In the 60's, during the Civil Rights Movement, Adelai Stevenson was in Texas and had to cross a group of angry picketers. An old woman takes her sign and smashes it over his head. He calls off the Secret Service Agents and asks the woman, "why did you do that?" Her response, "I don't know."


That pretty much sums it up.
 

So if you hate 4E and have admitted you don't like 3E system, why o why are you posting on a mainly D&D 3e/4e board?

To share the light, brother. ;)

I don't hate 4e. I don't hate 3.5. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. 4e has a fantastic combat engine, and viewed in that light, I don't know if there is a system out there that can compare to it, in terms of what it accomplishes. 3.5 is incredibly modular and easy to modify, and Drifts (in the Forge-ist sense) to simulationism with some amount of effort - and since I'm willing to put in that effort, and like simulationism, I find 3.5 to be pretty solid, as well.

That said, in further review and with some amount of soulsearching, I have found that neither system is really what I am looking for in a game system.

I started seriously gaming with 3.5. I've been around here for a long time, and this place feels like home.

...besides, last I checked, this was the general forum, in which we discuss gaming in general...

Also if you think 4E drives your suspension of disbelief into the ground, why don't you just stick with more simulationist games and go post in their respective boards?

Because my homebrew doesn't have a board yet?

And, on a related note, who are you to tell me where to post?

Why be a negative here , when you could have been a positive somewhere else?

A small amount of bitterness is to be expected. We are in the midst of an edition change, after all.

Besides, I'd like to think that - unless folk provoke me - I tend to try to be relatively fair to 4e. I'm not perfect, of course, but I try.
 

Since you can't see the numbers, how could you decide if you were using Brute Strike or just a Basic Attack?
Think about an attack that deals 49 points of damage to a foe. It brings him down to 1 hit points. Your next attack deals 11 points of damage, killing him outright. (3E rules). Which attack looked more impressive, more powerful? The one that prepared your enemy for the killing blow, or the killing blow?
Actually, you described every D&D edition BUT Fourth.

4e is the only system thus far where the effect can be more important than the numbers.
 

Since you can't see the numbers, how could you decide if you were using Brute Strike or just a Basic Attack?

The character would know.

"I will hit him with all my might," vs "I'm going to stab you."

I mean, yes, it is just a difference in damage, but there is something more going on with brute strike, as opposed to just a basic attack.

Think about an attack that deals 49 points of damage to a foe. It brings him down to 1 hit points. Your next attack deals 11 points of damage, killing him outright. (3E rules). Which attack looked more impressive, more powerful? The one that prepared your enemy for the killing blow, or the killing blow?

I admit that I'm not terribly certain.
 


Yes you do. You've already said you hate both of those editions on numerous occasions.

...?

I don't think so.

I think you have me confused for someone else.

Either that, or you have been miscontruing sarcasm as actual trains of thought. Though I didn't think I'd been doing that terribly often, either...

*shrug*
 

Remove ads

Top