Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Primitive Screwhead" data-source="post: 5304240" data-attributes="member: 20805">Regretfully, I have had players who approach roleplaying as a mechanical puzzle and do indeed use the 'I bluff, and rolled a 34'... they learned this style of play before arriving at my table and are reticent to change.Consistant descriptions that support the PCs reliable use of powers is a good thing. But at some tables it won't be happening soon. The option should be there, but if Mike isn't willing or able to describe how his encounter power trips a swarm... either the GM provides to supporting fiction or accepts the bland approach. The GM should not deny the powers effect when an experienced player is reticent to pony up the fictional story.*Mike is the kind of players who had a diplo-monkey paladin in 3.x, and is completely uninterested in anything beyond the mechanical puzzle game of skill tests.Is this a rule-set issue? I don't think so. However, my experience with 4e is that combat length plus power cards tends to limit the fiction telling. I almost would rather a free-form power system that uses stunts, player description, and an "elements of magic" building block approach.  But that kind of game is harder to learn.Sent from my SPH-M900 using Tapatalk</blockquote>