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="pemerton" data-source="post: 4547169" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't quite follow. What rule are you suggesting I am ignoring in order to improve the play of 4e?OK. If you won't say such things, then you may have trouble using 4e's healing and damaging system without retconning. But no part of the 4e rules forbid one saying such things. Indeed, the rules appear to presuppose that one will, from time to time, say such things, precisely at the point at which the rules (on page 293 of the PHB) tell us that hit points "represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation." This definition of hit points practically entails that a PC can be at 0 hit points yet unwounded (because her resolve has failed her for some other reason) or that she can be at full hit points yet wounded (because despite her wounds she is undaunted).This is a non-sequitur. By limiting actions in game the rules set parameters for the narration of the game. But you are correct to infer that they do not dictate that narration. That is the whole point of fortune-in-the-middle action resolution.Well, if that's how you want to narrate your PC's heroic adventures, go to town! Presumably, though, what will stop you is that it's silly.Part of the point of a game like 4e is that what counts as silly narration or stirring narration at any given table is not part of the game rules, but rather is up for grabs at each gaming table - in this respect 4e is different from some (perhaps more traditional?) RPGs, and more closely resembles other (mostly indie?) RPGs.The key is to vary the narration so as to keep it (relatively) fresh and engaging rather than silly and repetitive. This requires player skill. This is one of the player skills that 4e rewards. If the game rules already purported to dicate the narration, and tell us what is silly and what not, then this player skill would have no scope to flourish.It appears that you like sandbox RPGing. I think that you would agree that it would be a flaw in sandbox design for a campaign description to predetermine for the players where their PCs should go. Part of the point of sandbox RPGing is for these choices to be made as part of play, and for the question of whether they turn out to be good or bad choices to similarly be answered during the course of play. Well, think of 4e as supporting "sandbox narration". It would be a flaw in this sort of design for the rules to predetermine for the players where the narration should go. Part of the point of play is for choices about to narration to be made during the course of play, and for the merits or demerits of those choices (did I succeed in being stirring, or did I just make an idiot of myself?) to emerge in the course of play.Turning to the issue of extended rests:You seem to be ignoring a further possibility, namely, that if the players think it is non-verisimilitudinous for their PCs not to require rest, they can have their PCs rest (just as in 3E many players have their PCs sleep despite the absence of mechanics for it).If players won't have their PCs do something unless the rules require it, and then complain that the game is suffering from a lack of verisimilitude, I think they have only themselves to blame.Who is saying that it should? The only poster in this thread whose come close to suggesting it is you, in the following passages:</blockquote>

Verification