Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Falling Icicle" data-source="post: 4108726" data-attributes="member: 17077"><p>There's a big difference between imagination, which all RPGs require, and complete suspension of disbelief, which only more contrived rules require. Everyone who plays an RPG is using their imagination, whether it's imagining your character, the castle he's exploring, or the orcs he's fighting. Labeling anyone who is opposed to a rule in 4th edition as lacking or being opposed to imagination is not only condescending and rude, it's simply not true.</p><p></p><p>The previous poster nailed it. Some games start with imagination, fluff, story, drama and then translate those things into mechanics. The result are rules which are usually pretty well-founded in their universe. Since what characters can do is based upon drama and imagination, the resulting rules tend to be believable. Others always takes mechanics first, and often don't even bother to try to translate that into drama. The result is that what the characters do often makes little to no sense from a dramatic point of view. It's not about imagining it, it's about simply accepting that outcome whether or not it's believable. 4th edition, unfortunately, seems to have been born of the latter approach to game design.</p><p></p><p>And to those who say "magic isn't realistic, so nothing else has to be realistic either", this really is entirely missing the point. No, magic is not realistic, neither are orcs or elves. But those things can be believable, whether or not they are realistic. Realism and believability are two very different things. Many games go to great lengths to explain how and why magic works in their setting. It's often believable, even though it is obviously not real. And those are the magic systems I tend enjoy the most. In D&D, with the old vancian style magic, it was mechanics first, fluff last. The result was a magic system that left many who saw it thinking to themselves "I can't imagine that if magic were real it would work this way." </p><p></p><p>And the various explanations that they came up with over the life of the game were quite contrived. From 2nd edition's memorize and forget system to 3rd editions "partially cast in advance", stockpiled spells explanation, the whole system really felt artificial and, dare I say, lame. I think the lack of believability around vancian magic is perhaps the main reason it was so unpopular. From a mechanics standpoint, it worked great. It helped balance magic and provide alot of strategic elements to playing a spellcaster. But it just didn't make much sense. Ironically, 4th edition has largely eliminated vancian-style magic, but lost alot of believability in other areas.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Falling Icicle, post: 4108726, member: 17077"] There's a big difference between imagination, which all RPGs require, and complete suspension of disbelief, which only more contrived rules require. Everyone who plays an RPG is using their imagination, whether it's imagining your character, the castle he's exploring, or the orcs he's fighting. Labeling anyone who is opposed to a rule in 4th edition as lacking or being opposed to imagination is not only condescending and rude, it's simply not true. The previous poster nailed it. Some games start with imagination, fluff, story, drama and then translate those things into mechanics. The result are rules which are usually pretty well-founded in their universe. Since what characters can do is based upon drama and imagination, the resulting rules tend to be believable. Others always takes mechanics first, and often don't even bother to try to translate that into drama. The result is that what the characters do often makes little to no sense from a dramatic point of view. It's not about imagining it, it's about simply accepting that outcome whether or not it's believable. 4th edition, unfortunately, seems to have been born of the latter approach to game design. And to those who say "magic isn't realistic, so nothing else has to be realistic either", this really is entirely missing the point. No, magic is not realistic, neither are orcs or elves. But those things can be believable, whether or not they are realistic. Realism and believability are two very different things. Many games go to great lengths to explain how and why magic works in their setting. It's often believable, even though it is obviously not real. And those are the magic systems I tend enjoy the most. In D&D, with the old vancian style magic, it was mechanics first, fluff last. The result was a magic system that left many who saw it thinking to themselves "I can't imagine that if magic were real it would work this way." And the various explanations that they came up with over the life of the game were quite contrived. From 2nd edition's memorize and forget system to 3rd editions "partially cast in advance", stockpiled spells explanation, the whole system really felt artificial and, dare I say, lame. I think the lack of believability around vancian magic is perhaps the main reason it was so unpopular. From a mechanics standpoint, it worked great. It helped balance magic and provide alot of strategic elements to playing a spellcaster. But it just didn't make much sense. Ironically, 4th edition has largely eliminated vancian-style magic, but lost alot of believability in other areas. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Design & Development: Warlord Article UP!
Top