NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9216743" data-attributes="member: 22779">That part of your quote, right there, I think highlights the entire crux of the issue.  That, the idea that the game itself doing the heavy lifting, and that's the way it should be, is the heart of the difference between the reactions to 4e and 5e.  For fans of 4e, it's not a problem that the game doesn't do the heavy lifting.  It just doesn't bother me that "Come and Get It" (to name a hoary old chestnut) looks like magical mind control.  It just doesn't faze me in the slightest.  I have no problems squaring that circle and coming up with fifteen different in game world justifications as to why and how it works.  I can do it as the DM or as the player.  It's 100% not a problem for me.But, and again, this is a bit of an epiphany for me and ties into [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER]'s point about how logic arguments just don't work here, there is a fundamental difference in the language we are using to describe games.  You are saying that it's a good thing that the game defines these in world effects.  That the game becomes nonsensical if the game doesn't define these.  Which is why we (and others) keep butting heads.  We're fundamentally not speaking the same language.  Which also goes a long way towards explaining why I think that it's so much about how these rules are presented.  See, again, to me, damage on a miss does not create any cognitive dissonance because I do not expect the rules to explain the game world.  To me, D&D has never done so.  Note, this is how I interpret the game, and, I suspect, how a lot of people who don't have problems with 4e view the game (for example [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER], I don't think, will have any problems with what I'm describing).  Which means you, [USER=8461]@Alzrius[/USER], and @Bill91 and others won't be able to come to any sort of agreement here because fundamentally, we're not communicating.  You want the system to define this stuff.  Which is what you mean by "simulation", I think.  Which, again, explains why we keep talking past each other.  For me, D&D has never defined the in game reality in anything more than very broad, vague strokes.  Alive/Dead is about the only thing I think D&D actually defines.  Any point in between is up to the table to decide.Interesting.</blockquote>

Verification