Search results

Well thanks anyways. I didn't even notice that the poster had changed.

Thanks! When you were talking about the back of the book i was looking in the glossary and other actual back of the book areas.

The thing I was getting at was the idea that 40% is a large percentage. Until you realize that it's only 12 people. Like I said early on in this thread. The numbers will get skewed to somehow portray this mechanic in a negative light.

As already pointed out. This mechanic has no singular explanation. And as soon as you realize that things can have several different explanations nothing falls apart.

I really like that mechanics that support my playstyle are represented as a cancer... Yay!

Oh yes, because 12 people not liking something is a great reason to remove it.

What about any player who wants to play a concept but doesnt like the mechanics presented? This isn't a GWF issue.

I am actually on a Savage Worlds kick at the moment. I also just picked up Numenera and am trying to put together a game for that. D&D-wise I am still on 4e, Looking forward to the new amethyst book coming out soon!

Not to mention that the numbers received will be skewed as well. If it is a positive total, the argument will be "well there is a large percentage that dislike it, so remove it" If it is a negative total, the argument will be "well it's disliked more so remove it." If it's a positive...

I find that this is only really an issue when you can only accept one explanation for a single action. when you open up to the idea that an action can be narrated in several different ways then the abstraction is not broken.

I don't understand why these two concepts are separate. If you can accept abstract, then the story and immersion follow.

It that the same for single target spells? They just never miss?

Your right, but really, any ability can be out of range or a character can be killed before being able to use it or an enemy can regenerate to negate any other number of abilities. Not seeing where any of those circumstances do not apply to any other character.

It adds a cool mechanic where a fighter can be dangerous to anyone, what is missing if it is removed is just a fighter's ability. I also disagree the idea that this rule is smaller in scope. Both are rules that govern all characters.

Could you point me to anything that states that?

Really? that's how exception based games work! general rules are superceeded by specific rules. Take any rule. Weapons needing to be drawn with a move action. Feats or abilities change this and let players play by different rules. Feats as a rules element are all exception rules.

So we are at an impasse. We both think our way should be the default. so let's split the difference, you have some of your mechanics in the game and I can have some of mine. Sound good? Edit: Also I prefer fantasy, Anime is just a cheap shot to try and make my stance seem like something it...

If you want to look at it that way sure. For a game that is supposed to be inclusive, why should simulation be the default?

Because it's exception based design silly.

This is a issue in any exception based game. The rules say X, until Feat/Power/Spell/Ability says you do Y. it's not counter-intuitive, it's how the game always worked. In some cases it makes the game easier to understand, in the case of this simple mechanic, sure it can be made more complex...