Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5462491" data-attributes="member: 59082">Hmm...I'm going to have to think about this one. Part of what happened, as I see, is that the rules system--especially with the jump to 3E and the d20 core mechanic--became more robust and able to model fiction, so &quot;on the fly&quot; rulings were less necessary and the temptation to &quot;rule-ify&quot; everything became greater. Without the core mechanic, AD&amp;D had more of a &quot;heapism&quot; approach where new rules were added on and everything was, in a sense, optional partially because it didn't have that streamlined core.I think there is an argument that 4E turned the corner, that 3.5 was the furthest extreme of &quot;rules first&quot; and then 4E began to return to a more DM's Fiat/Ad Hoc approach. This is exemplified in NPC design, where if you want an NPC to be able to do something they just do it - you don't have to detail every attribute that they have, as in 3.5E. Monster stat blocks only cover what a monster can do, or even is likely to do in a given combat; they aren't meant to be comprehensive, unlike 3.5E stat blocks. That said, what you say applies to combat, I think. 4E's combat rules are more tightly covered. One of things I don't like about powers is that they give so many options to the PCs that they are less likely to wing it and try something creative.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5462491, member: 59082"] Hmm...I'm going to have to think about this one. Part of what happened, as I see, is that the rules system--especially with the jump to 3E and the d20 core mechanic--became more robust and able to model fiction, so "on the fly" rulings were less necessary and the temptation to "rule-ify" everything became greater. Without the core mechanic, AD&D had more of a "heapism" approach where new rules were added on and everything was, in a sense, optional partially because it didn't have that streamlined core. I think there is an argument that 4E turned the corner, that 3.5 was the furthest extreme of "rules first" and then 4E began to return to a more DM's Fiat/Ad Hoc approach. This is exemplified in NPC design, where if you want an NPC to be able to do something they just do it - you don't have to detail every attribute that they have, as in 3.5E. Monster stat blocks only cover what a monster can do, or even is [I]likely[/I] to do in a given combat; they aren't meant to be comprehensive, unlike 3.5E stat blocks. That said, what you say applies to combat, I think. 4E's combat rules are more tightly covered. One of things I don't like about powers is that they give so many options to the PCs that they are less likely to wing it and try something creative. [/QUOTE]

Verification