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="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6230693" data-attributes="member: 59082">Pemerton, I've already told you that I haven't played 3E in ten years. If you really want to know the specifics as per the RAW, ask someone who plays it now or look it up.I probably can't satisfy your point of view because we're operating from differing paradigms about how to play D&D and how situations might be resolved. You seem to want very clear, very defined rules, while I'm happy to come up with rulings on the fly - target numbers, etc. To use Mearls' term, "rulings not rules."I don't now what you mean by "dimensions of resolution." If you mean stepping out of the action economy, that's not the point of the fate pool. The purpose of the fate pool is that it gives the player a resource whereby they can apply bonuses to "heroic actions." So it both encourages players to improvise and gives them a means, a resource, whereby they can increase their chances of success.That said, I think there's a problem with stepping out of the action economy - getting free actions and with some of the effects of certain powers - to the degree that the "gamist" element supercedes the "simulationist-narrativist" immersion. If we go back to good old GNS Theory, 4e is far more gamist than past editions, and I think therein lies the beef many more "traditional" folks have with it. As I understand it, one of the main differences between the three categories is what is views as primary in importance. Gamism holds the rules and logic of the game system itself as primary - what makes sense within the rules of the game is what is "true." Simulationism tries to be realistic to a specific genre, venue or context. Narrativism seeks to stay true to the narrative or story.While I'm not a huge advocate of GNS Theory, mainly because I think all three are "true but partial," our difference could be defined by me being a bit more narrativist than you, and you being a bit more gamist than me. But neither of us are probably extreme advocates of one or the other. If we have 7 parts to divvy up, I'm probably 3 parts N, and 2 parts each of G and S.I've never liked the fact that there's no real spontaneous casting in D&D, but that criticism applies to all editions.But if anything, I find that 4e reduces the options for casters, both by teasing out rituals and by reducing and homogenizing spell choices. The problem I see--and we haven't even discussed this part--is that in 4e it feels that the classes are just fluffed versions of the four "real" underlying classes, which 4e calls roles. All strikers, for instance, start feeling rather similar - just with different fluff. One of the things I like about Next, from what I can tell so far at least, is that it has re-differentiated classes, so that their distinctiveness goes beyond the surface.Well it was viable for 34 years until 4e came along! Bad math(s) were a feature and not a flaw in the D&D game. But to be serious, I think this highlights the difference between the two paradigms that you and I roughly adhere to. It has a lot to do with the microscope I mentioned in the previous post; you prefer more detail, more granularity - the little things (in terms of rules) really matter to you. They don't matter (as much) to me. They do matter, but are just secondary and meant to be in the service of the narrative, the story.This is not an advocacy for a railroading story game, but that the rules (crunch) "serves" the narrative (fluff). This takes the pressure off the rules needing to be perfect.The penalty depends upon numerous factors: the context, DM, PC, etc etc etc. There is no absolute law that must be adhered to. Yes, this makes it subjective. It is the DM's call. Rulings rather than rules.This is the same basic idea as the fate pool, if different in details. The fate pool allows players to compensate a very difficult ("heroic") action by "tapping into fate," so to speak.You start falling into either/or thinking here, as if either the rules offer options for every possible contingency or the GM is just telling a story.You are right - Moldvay Basic lacks the specific rules for a two-arrow shot. But if a player wants to give it a shot, a flexible DM can give the option. The tricky part is coming up with a number that makes it worthwhile to do at times, not so much at others....that would be realistic, no? Sounds good to me! I'm not sure how what you wrote above differs from what I've been saying. I generally don't "fudge" DM die rolls unless I feel that it will improve the drama of a situation, and then I'll have no qualms about it. I'm not sure what you mean by "tweak," but I will modify DCs as I see fit, depending upon the situation.But if we both agree on that paragraph, the difference, then, may be in what you and I see as "solid guidelines" and, perhaps, to what degree we adhere to those guidelines.</blockquote>

Verification