Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="marune" data-source="post: 4258718" data-attributes="member: 18243">You don't know how much it's cool to heard that coming from one of the most important designer of D&D.You are right; Edward's Big Model (evolution of GNS) was not build for game design purpose, but to analyze the behavior of the players at the table.However, one can look at a game text (crunch and fluff) and see elements that have good chances to promote one creative agenda (G/N/S) more than another one at the table. Edward has done it in his reviews.What my OP said, is that in 4E, like in all editions of D&D, I see G and S elements that in some places, are in conflict. (BTW, that doesn't mean that valid hybrid games are not possible).I would also add again that I said that it seems more easy in 4E than in 3.xE to resolve those conflicts, mainly by ignoring some fluff text that push the S agenda.To be honest, there was a lot of work done to avoid these conflicts, for example the freedom given to the Paladin and the Cleric. In fact, I realize that it is such very nice examples that made me angry when I saw the remaining pro-S elements.I'm also glad that thing such as puzzles and clues gathering done in "conversation mode" have been clearly identified as being tricky.IMHO comparing the effect of incoherence in games vs in movies isn't a good idea.Thanks for your input on this matter !</blockquote>