Search results

4E is clearly a more focused game, IMHO that's a good news. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "game system", to me, past editions D&D were only somewhat incoherent games.

In D&D yes, but in some RPG, skiping out mooks fight is going "strickly by the rules". For example, in Burning Wheel, it would be considered cheating to throw the dices if there is no conflict* ! *DM and players agree on what should happen in the shared imagined space.

Death is easy to recover from because it's easy to die too in D&D. I suppose 4E will change that a bit, but not drastically, something along : not so easy to recover, but less likely to die. Both are fine for D&D IMHO even if I prefer RPGs where the decision (to die) lie in the hands of the...

What kind of balance are you talking about here ?

"patch" is too nice to describe Illusionism/Participationism ;)

I agree with buzz ;)

Because more than often alone = to ignore what players feel about it.

My point was "every damn game can be house-ruled if all people around the table agree, there is no need to write it down". Even if in board games the competition is between each players (instead of players "agains't" DM in D&D) the idea is that if everyone agree at the table for something, of...

Like in all complex games, board games included ?

I'm also well aware that they are named wealth guidelines, however, the fact that the CR system is built according to these guidelines make them de facto more than vague suggestions. The only gamist relevant impact the Demographics rules have is the acessibility of good and services (done by...

I always said that D&D is a somewhat incoherent gamist/sim game. (4e seems to be more gamist focused) I'm well aware that gamism can be done "on the fly" without any restrictions. My last post only said that the idea of coming up with a ton of stuff to rule out every possible thing that could...

Yeah, RPG have an imagined shared space, board games don't. I would say that DMs were probably making too many rules, mainly "simulationist" kind of rules that aren't needed at all in D&D (think "what happens if while I'm wearing X, Y spell is cast on me while Z is affecting me"). Since I...

Rule 0 is as stupid in D&D than in Monopoly. Of course you can change any damn game if all the people around the table agree to it, don't need to write it down anywhere. You only need to remember that this "changed game" hasn't been tested and that the average player doesn't have the knowlege...

Meh. I was waiting for this and I thought it would be a lot more exciting....

Maybe it's time to say again that the idea that started this discussion about "what D&D is" is that the main explanation for cheating is players or DM wanting something else of D&D than a good-old fantasy gamist RPG. IMHO, adding Actions Points won't help, because it will help those people get...

The reward system is important because it's the engine. However, if you only change that component, others will get in the way. For example, both for sim or nar play, levels don't really make sense.

The idea to have a glossary is to avoid to re-explain the same thing in every topic ;) The idea is to have a system, including a reward sub-system that positively support the playstyle the game is built around. In D&D, if you give XP by RAW, the players are better to use the best strategy...

That's called "simulationist" and your "tournament play" is called "gamist". Problem is, D&D is built (4e even more) to support gamist more than simulationist play (which is known to be a problematic play style, but I won't go in details here). Classes, levels , XP based on overcoming...

Yup, this positive feedback loop is really important and by doing arbitrary leveling, you kill it. If the D&D loop (be good at killing monsters so you'll get XP, than level up and fight bigger monsters with bigger tools) doesn't please you, the best thing is probably to try another RPG.

How it feels to be a abusive DM ?