Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mxyzplk" data-source="post: 4080668" data-attributes="member: 16450">So from the previous information, and the Massawyrn and D&amp;DE scoops, I think I've put my finger on what's concerning me the most about 4e.&nbsp; It's not the &quot;pure fluff&quot; per se, as in setting info and race origins, and the &quot;crunch&quot; seems fine - it's kinda the fluff about the crunch that I'm finding lacking.In other words, the naming of and terminology about the abilities and suchlike.&nbsp; I'm concerned that the inevitable bleed-over between table talk and in-game talk will harm versimilitude.Examples.&nbsp; * Distances are in &quot;squares.&quot; * Monsters are &quot;artillery&quot;.* PC healers are &quot;leaders&quot;.&nbsp;In the same category are the rules bits that seem to have pretty unclear/gamist origins (&quot;marking&quot;, &quot;healing surge&quot;, etc.) and items with names stolen from MMORPGs (&quot;elite&quot; mobs).&nbsp;I wasn't necessarily against the &quot;Dragon tail cut&quot; kind of cinematic naming of maneuvers, but this practice of using anachronistic terms etc. seems like it'll easily slip into the game and break suspension of disbelief.&nbsp; It also seems to go against a lot of historic game design, where people go to pains to name their stats, skills, combat maneuvers, character class/archetypes, etc. in a way consistent with the genre to minimize disjoint between the lexical space of the game rules and the game play.I value my simulation in a game, and a DM has enough to worry about without having to filter all the terms.&nbsp; So I'm worried I'm going to start playing 4e and hear a DM say &quot;you see three goblin artillery minions appear 6 squares away!&quot; to which I respond with a &quot;f*ck this, I don't play minis games!&quot;Know what I mean?This isn't a 4e hate post, just pointing out something that I think if they changed, it would make things a lot better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mxyzplk, post: 4080668, member: 16450"] So from the previous information, and the Massawyrn and D&DE scoops, I think I've put my finger on what's concerning me the most about 4e. It's not the "pure fluff" per se, as in setting info and race origins, and the "crunch" seems fine - it's kinda the fluff about the crunch that I'm finding lacking. In other words, the naming of and terminology about the abilities and suchlike. I'm concerned that the inevitable bleed-over between table talk and in-game talk will harm versimilitude. Examples. * Distances are in "squares." * Monsters are "artillery". * PC healers are "leaders". In the same category are the rules bits that seem to have pretty unclear/gamist origins ("marking", "healing surge", etc.) and items with names stolen from MMORPGs ("elite" mobs). I wasn't necessarily against the "Dragon tail cut" kind of cinematic naming of maneuvers, but this practice of using anachronistic terms etc. seems like it'll easily slip into the game and break suspension of disbelief. It also seems to go against a lot of historic game design, where people go to pains to name their stats, skills, combat maneuvers, character class/archetypes, etc. in a way consistent with the genre to minimize disjoint between the lexical space of the game rules and the game play. I value my simulation in a game, and a DM has enough to worry about without having to filter all the terms. So I'm worried I'm going to start playing 4e and hear a DM say "you see three goblin artillery minions appear 6 squares away!" to which I respond with a "f*ck this, I don't play minis games!" Know what I mean? This isn't a 4e hate post, just pointing out something that I think if they changed, it would make things a lot better. [/QUOTE]

Verification