Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="lutecius" data-source="post: 4109868" data-attributes="member: 60332">i.e. gamist/abstraction/evil over immersion/simulation/believabilityNow that we know more about 4e and since <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221017" target="_blank">the designers came out about it</a> (sort of), I think it is safe to say that the new fun and balance came at the cost of some believability issues (at least for some of us)So it comes down to whether it bothers you or not. I don't think there has been a poll yet.me: hurtsI know the previous editions had some counterintuitive rules too, like the added abstraction of hit points and AC or the fire-and-forget spells, but I was hoping 4e would actually fix those issues. Instead it seems to have an even more gamist approach (or is it narrativist?)&nbsp; No matter how you justify the mechanics, the in-game explanation feels like an afterthought.As for the thread, instead of yet another debate over how you could or could not rationalize the new rules, my question is more whether it was absolutely necessary to drop simulation for simplicity, balance or fun tactical options.Are the two approaches that incompatible? More specifically:- Isn’t there any other way to balance mundane classes vs spell-casters than the per encounter martial powers?- couldn’t powers make more sense than “teleport or heal every time you off someone, just because you’re a striker or leader” and still be cool? really, i’ve seen Magic cards with more narrative consistency.Those 2 are the worst offenders for me, but there are surely others, like how would you have fixed HP depletion and the ensuing rest periods without the 2nd wind mechanic?Or why would AC as damage reduction bog down or imbalance the game?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="lutecius, post: 4109868, member: 60332"] i.e. gamist/abstraction/evil [B]over[/B] immersion/simulation/believability Now that we know more about 4e and since [URL=http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221017]the designers came out about it[/URL] (sort of), I think it is safe to say that the new fun and balance came at the cost of some believability issues (at least for some of us) So it comes down to whether it bothers you or not. I don't think there has been a poll yet. me: hurts I know the previous editions had some counterintuitive rules too, like the added abstraction of hit points and AC or the fire-and-forget spells, but I was hoping 4e would actually fix those issues. Instead it seems to have an even more gamist approach (or is it narrativist?) No matter how you justify the mechanics, the in-game explanation feels like an afterthought. As for the thread, instead of yet another debate over how you could or could not rationalize the new rules, my question is more whether it was absolutely necessary to drop simulation for simplicity, balance or fun tactical options. Are the two approaches that incompatible? More specifically: - Isn’t there any other way to balance mundane classes vs spell-casters than the per encounter martial powers? - couldn’t powers make more sense than “teleport or heal every time you off someone, just because you’re a striker or leader” and still be cool? really, i’ve seen Magic cards with more narrative consistency. Those 2 are the worst offenders for me, but there are surely others, like how would you have fixed HP depletion and the ensuing rest periods without the 2nd wind mechanic? Or why would AC as damage reduction bog down or imbalance the game? [/QUOTE]

Verification