Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7588752" data-attributes="member: 82106">Right. I haven't been exposed to BW, and I can't say that I consciously had 13a in mind, but I was part of the 13a playtests, so I have certainly seen most of what you've quoted there. It is common practice in 4e to at least put narrative gates on the use of long rest as well, but much like the way 13a does, I simply updated that logic to form an explicitly 'story now' kind of a construct. I agree with the logic both authors put forward, setbacks and expenditure of resources should be meaningful (IE HoML does have a type of resource game) and it makes sense to give the players another decision point: do we push forward now with what we have, or do we gather new resources and potentially suffer narrative losses? The GM should be seen as honoring this choice point by imposing such consequences and making the campaign interesting.Yes, HoML is a sort of refactoring and rewriting of 4e to produce a game with a more explicit narrative/story now focus. Instead of casting things in terms of in-world explanations, it explains them in terms of how to structure a narrative and bring the game to focus on the PC's story. So in 4e you can have a long rest once every day. This is fundamentally a gamist rule that is meant to discourage the PCs from taking a long rest after each encounter by mandating that a day has to pass. I would presume that the GM is then supposed to consider what else happens during that day, though this is unspoken in 4e's rule. HoML simply goes directly to the underlying gamist/narrativist motivation, keeping pressure on the PCs and making resource management meaningful and challenging. Thus the "in world logic" one rest per day rule becomes the HoML "take a rest now and suffer a terrible price" rule.To Be Honest that isn't a very nuanced version of things either. There are times when the consequences of resting are negligible or nothing at all (IE after you achieve victory in a story). The price may not be 'terrible' per se, it might be more just a ratcheting up of the overall difficulty of achieving that victory. However, it is quite possible that the PCs can be on the horn of a real dilemma; let the villagers be sacrificed, or go into the orc camp with half our resources expended. Players get to decide what it means to be a 'Legendary Hero' for themselves. It seems like an interesting choice. I would say it is still fundamentally containing a conceit that 'in game logic' is the rule's motivation, so it is 'simulating' a person going to extremes of exertion. The reduction of the party-wide aspect is good, although I'm not sure in an overall sense how much different that is from 4e's use of per-character HS to achieve basically the same thing (HoML also has Vitality Points which serve mostly the same purpose). In any case the tying of game system process to in-game-world factors is a straightforward concept which satisfies a lot of player's in terms of roleplaying 'day to day life' of a character.</blockquote>

Verification