Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5458637" data-attributes="member: 42582">My view is that game system makes a difference here, but is not determinative.I don't think it's determinative, because I've run Rolemaster - a very simulationist set of mechanics - with the same &quot;just in time&quot; approach that I use in 4e. But I believe it makes a difference: part of my reason for moving from RM to 4e was that I hoped to get better results for a &quot;just in time&quot; game from 4e than RM, and I believe my decision has proved right.For the reasons why 4e helps with this, see <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/300674-reason-why-d-d-4th-edition-not-popular-could-have-been-13.html#post5454625" target="_blank">this post upthread</a> - the short version is that 4e has mechanical techniques for making the amount of time something takes at the table reflect its thematic importance to the players at the table, which don't require the GM to railroad the players, and also 4e has encounter-building guidelines that let the players have confidence that they are not being unduly reckless with their PCs, without relying on the GM to just coddle them or fiat them a la the notorious Dragonlance no-death rule. And these two features of the 4e mechanics are tightly integrated - in combat by the monster design rules plus the combat resolution mechanics, and out of combat by the default DC rules and the skill challenge resolution mechanics.I've especially highlighted the &quot;without railroading&quot; in the previous paragraph, because railroading is an obvious threat to the viability of non-sandbox play, of which &quot;just in time&quot; is one version. When I used to do it in Rolemaster, I had to do a lot more guess work to make the encounters work (RM has nothing like 4e's approach to challenge levels) and I occasionally had to suspend the action resolution rules to handle pacing issues, which is always a bit tricky when trying to avoid railroading.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5458637, member: 42582"] My view is that game system makes a difference here, but is not determinative. I don't think it's determinative, because I've run Rolemaster - a very simulationist set of mechanics - with the same "just in time" approach that I use in 4e. But I believe it makes a difference: part of my reason for moving from RM to 4e was that I hoped to get better results for a "just in time" game from 4e than RM, and I believe my decision has proved right. For the reasons why 4e helps with this, see [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/300674-reason-why-d-d-4th-edition-not-popular-could-have-been-13.html#post5454625]this post upthread[/url] - the short version is that 4e has mechanical techniques for making the amount of time something takes at the table reflect its thematic importance to the players at the table, [I]which don't require the GM to railroad the players[/I], and also 4e has encounter-building guidelines that let the players have confidence that they are not being unduly reckless with their PCs, [I]without relying on the GM to just coddle them or fiat them a la the notorious Dragonlance no-death rule[/I]. And these two features of the 4e mechanics are tightly integrated - in combat by the monster design rules plus the combat resolution mechanics, and out of combat by the default DC rules and the skill challenge resolution mechanics. I've especially highlighted the "without railroading" in the previous paragraph, because railroading is an obvious threat to the viability of non-sandbox play, of which "just in time" is one version. When I used to do it in Rolemaster, I had to do a lot more guess work to make the encounters work (RM has nothing like 4e's approach to challenge levels) and I occasionally had to suspend the action resolution rules to handle pacing issues, which is always a bit tricky when trying to avoid railroading. [/QUOTE]

Verification