Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kurotowa" data-source="post: 4110179" data-attributes="member: 27957">Yes, I see the shift (they've pretty much said it outright in the podcasts), and no, I don't have a problem with it.&nbsp; Quite the opposite in fact.World building is well and good, but I subscribe to the philosophy that what RPGs are for is fun.&nbsp; I sit down with friends and dice so that we can all have a fun time.&nbsp; Everything else either supports that goal or is a secondary priority.&nbsp; I'll agree that an internally consistent world build on a rational structure is a useful thing.&nbsp; But only as long as it doesn't get in the way of a fun game.&nbsp; And, let's be honest here, there's a great deal of range to work with in &quot;internally consistent&quot; and &quot;rational structure&quot; in a game world.So the fighter is pulling off tricks that are nigh-impossible under the constraints of real world physics?&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; She's fighting a giant whose skeleton can't support his weight while her wizard friend throws imaginary fireballs and that non-existent elf sneaks up from behind.&nbsp; There's no reason to draw a line and portion this side of the game world as magical and free to act as it pleases, and that side of the game world as mundane and constrained by arbitrary standards of &quot;realism&quot;.If 4e is a game where the designers sat down to figure out as best they could what was fun, and then from there reverse engineered a game and setting that maximally supported that fun, I say good for them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kurotowa, post: 4110179, member: 27957"] Yes, I see the shift (they've pretty much said it outright in the podcasts), and no, I don't have a problem with it. Quite the opposite in fact. World building is well and good, but I subscribe to the philosophy that what RPGs are for is [b]fun[/b]. I sit down with friends and dice so that we can all have a fun time. Everything else either supports that goal or is a secondary priority. I'll agree that an internally consistent world build on a rational structure is a useful thing. But only as long as it doesn't get in the way of a fun game. And, let's be honest here, there's a great deal of range to work with in "internally consistent" and "rational structure" in a game world. So the fighter is pulling off tricks that are nigh-impossible under the constraints of real world physics? So what? She's fighting a giant whose skeleton can't support his weight while her wizard friend throws imaginary fireballs and that non-existent elf sneaks up from behind. There's no reason to draw a line and portion this side of the game world as magical and free to act as it pleases, and that side of the game world as mundane and constrained by arbitrary standards of "realism". If 4e is a game where the designers sat down to figure out as best they could what was fun, and then from there reverse engineered a game and setting that maximally supported that fun, I say good for them. [/QUOTE]

Verification