Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9514648" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, I'm a person who has been playing D&amp;D (on-and-off) since 1982. You don't own D&amp;D, or what it is, or what it permits by way of RPGing. I don't understand where you think you get the authority to tell me that my experiences of D&amp;D are deviant; or that the way I was playing D&amp;D in the second-half of the 1980s (as per my post 1986 just upthread) is deviant.I don't feel the force of your contrast: the intent of a rule is, generally, encoded in the rules text.4e D&amp;D has a whole discussion of &quot;actions the rules don't cover&quot; - found on p 42 of the DMG. It has a rich set of keywords, whose main function is to anchor mechanics onto fiction. It has a clear action economy, and - as well as the damage-by-level charts on p 42 - it&nbsp; has a reasonably intuitive set of conditions and buffs for expressing mechanical consequences.So when the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen, confronting his former ally (from a previous session) now raised as a wight (? I think it was?), declared that his PC speaks a prayer against the undead, it wasn't hard to resolve: a minor action, resolved as a Religion check, with combat advantage on a success and psychic damage (due to the Raven Queen's refusal to hear the prayer) on a failure.This sort of thing seemed to me at the time, and still seems to me now, to be exactly the sort of thing that 4e is built to support: high action FRPGing, with colourful (even gonzo) cosmologically-oriented fantasy. After all, the PHB is replete with accounts of how various character build elements relate a character to the cosmology of the setting. The Monster Manual is replete with descriptions of how various creatures relate to the cosmology of the setting. The example artefacts in the DMG, in continuity with the original D&amp;D, are all about cosmology and its interplay with the ancient and legendary history of the setting. EtcYou wouldn't include all this stuff in a book if you didn't mean it, would you?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9514648, member: 42582"] Well, I'm a person who has been playing D&D (on-and-off) since 1982. You don't own D&D, or what it is, or what it permits by way of RPGing. I don't understand where you think you get the authority to tell me that my experiences of D&D are deviant; or that the way I was playing D&D in the second-half of the 1980s (as per my post 1986 just upthread) is deviant. I don't feel the force of your contrast: the intent of a rule is, generally, encoded in the rules text. 4e D&D has a whole discussion of "actions the rules don't cover" - found on p 42 of the DMG. It has a rich set of keywords, whose main function is to anchor mechanics onto fiction. It has a clear action economy, and - as well as the damage-by-level charts on p 42 - it has a reasonably intuitive set of conditions and buffs for expressing mechanical consequences. So when the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen, confronting his former ally (from a previous session) now raised as a wight (? I think it was?), declared that his PC speaks a prayer against the undead, it wasn't hard to resolve: a minor action, resolved as a Religion check, with combat advantage on a success and psychic damage (due to the Raven Queen's refusal to hear the prayer) on a failure. This sort of thing seemed to me at the time, and still seems to me now, to be exactly the sort of thing that 4e is built to support: high action FRPGing, with colourful (even gonzo) cosmologically-oriented fantasy. After all, the PHB is replete with accounts of how various character build elements relate a character to the cosmology of the setting. The Monster Manual is replete with descriptions of how various creatures relate to the cosmology of the setting. The example artefacts in the DMG, in continuity with the original D&D, are all about cosmology and its interplay with the ancient and legendary history of the setting. Etc You wouldn't include all this stuff in a book if you didn't mean it, would you? [/QUOTE]

Verification