Search results

Useless post.

The problem with stuff "written in the background" is its usage during encounters, i.e. when XP is given. When they are used to flesh out things, they are fine. What's the problem? Problem is to be fair to all the players. One of them can be lucky and have wrote a background that inspire the...

- Elixirs are mentioned in various places, but not included in the magic items chapter. - In the MM glossary, the last sentence of the Change Shape entry is not clear at all (The creature must have seen the individual it is imitating and gains a +20 bonus to its Bluff check.) - In the PHB...

I don't think you group will be much influenced by the fluff text of the DMG anyway ;) If you appreciate the Big Model, don't tell me that you wouldn't prefer vanilla Nar play between encounters than Sim-by-habit :)

Cool, first interesting reply. Of course there is some pro-Gamism parts in the books, I even said that most of it is. Maybe your right that the PHB quote was not meant as an pro-Simulationist thing, but as a gentle intro. I still fear the effect on the new players. However, many parts of the...

Please, again, stop it folks.

My rewrite has poor wording, I wrote it in less than a minute and English is my second language. The key idea is that in D&D, the decision should be made according to the best way to beat the challenge. The roleplay kicks in when you share with the other players at the table, using narration or...

Because it creates lose-lose situations for the players. My character is a elven paladin of Correlon, Lawful Good and with X and Y as personality traits. If I choose my action using my character definition, I'll do A. If I choose my action using the best strategy, I'll do B. If I do A...

I said I wasn't gonna talk about the theory itself, but I'm tired of this one. It's not a gamist vs simulationist elements problem. 100% gamist doesn't translate to a board game. You can have a pretty high level of Exploration in a gamist RPG, without having a simuliationist gameplay. A...

This thread is not about the merit/flaws of RPG theory nor about it's definitions. If you don't want to talk about RPG theory in 4E, just ignore the thread. Please don't fill up this thread with other "RPG suck" posts.

I didn't put much effort in the wording, sorry. The key idea is to prevent nailing down to new players that roleplaying is defined as / limited to actor stance. I'll come back with other ugly things coming from the DMG later. BTW, I put RPG theory in the title, if you don't care for it...

Like some designers' comments hinted to it, D&D is still a confused gamist/simulationist RPG. In opposition to 3.x, where some of the mechanical parts were confusing on the entailed playstyle, in 4E the confusion comes from the fact that the mechanics is yelling G and the fluff text of both PHB...

Natural 1/20 aren't automatic failure/success for skill checks.

What's the Tarrasque's level and status (elite/solo ?)

Did you forget one or the warlock is the only one with 3 p.p. ?

I think I agree that mammoths or even dragons could be done as higher-level minions.

I like those analogies, however, watching movies / reading books fit more High-Concept than Purist-for-System Sim. Playing old versions of games like Flight simulator, Civilization, Sim City, etc. would be more like it, no ?

The Big Model Creative Agendas (current form of GNS) describe the behavior of players during instances of play, not games. It is usual however to say that a given game will help or go against one of the CA.

Look at Shadows of Yesterday for a fantasy RPG that is much more "player permissive" than Feng Shui. Burning Wheel is also a good one (but the rules aren't freely available).

Narration / In-character acting are components of a role-playing game, like is character creation and resolution of actions (with dice rolls) in the imagined universe. I.E. Playing a role-playing game means to create a character, use mechanisms defined in rules books to interact in the shared...