Search results

I suppose the difference, then, is that I consider changes in specific mechanics largely irrelevant if their collective result is similar gameplay. It seems more important, in terms of the game being identifiably Dungeons and Dragons, for the game to play like D&D than for the game to have...

In terms of design goals and style of gameplay, it more closely resembles 1st and 2nd edition than 3.x did. I have read many comments in this very forum from people who are coming back to the game from a background in 2nd edition for whom 4th unquestionably feels like the game they know. And I...

And I would consider narrative control to be one of the intents of abstract game rules, rather than a definition of the nature of those rules. For one thing, such a statement makes no sense: narrative control is a quality, not a description. Yes, because saying that you don't share the...

Those who disagree that a simulationist rules system is the only one which allows for or even encourages roleplaying are legion. In fact, I would guess that there are nearly as many who not only disagree, but who would argue exactly the opposite - that rules which are meant to reflect the...

The power system in 4th edition -indeed the system as a whole- is explicitly not intended to simulate an in-game reality. The rules are an abstraction operating at a level above the imagined world the characters are living in. This separation is deliberate, and serves the intended design goals...