Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 9098393" data-attributes="member: 86653">That's all due to the designers knowing what they wanted, what rulebooks actually are (technical manuals with maybe some pretty art), and designing the game to be a game.The whole fiction vs rules thing is weird to me. Fiction is like roleplaying, you can slap that onto just about anything. You can RP your chess pieces if you want to. Fiction is also like story, it is an emergent property of playing the game. In the best games the rules and fiction feed into each other. If you were after a superheroic fantasy adventure game, 4E delivered that in spades. If you were after a gritty dungeon crawler, not so much.The rules don't prevent you from having fiction. They can't stop you from having fiction. Further, the rules will inevitably produce fiction. The problem is people's preconceived notions of what that fiction should be before engaging with the rules. The rules produce a different fiction than you assumed it would, or should. That's not a rules problem. That's a you made an assumption problem. Preconceived notions of what the game should be is also why I think a lot of people bounced off it. They wanted something different than what 4E delivered. That doesn't make 4E a bad game, just a bad game for you because it didn't deliver what you wanted. For people who wanted what 4E delivered, or learned to accept 4E on its own terms, liked it or even loved it.</blockquote>