Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4673281" data-attributes="member: 162">To be fair, I'm unemployed and a philosophy major. I have a lot of time on my hands, and have no problem spending hours committing rules to memory.For me, gaming is not just about killing things and "racking up the XPs," a phrase that irks me to no end. The purpose of gaming is to experience and immerse oneself in the setting at hand, and that includes having consistent in-game physics. For 3.5, people will point to OotS and say how ridiculous such a stance is, and my argument is that OotS is what the world should look like, as a result of the way the rules function (though OotS is a bit more metagame-y than necessary).That isn't to say that I dislike combat. In the sorts of worlds in which we game, violence tends to be a viable solution, and my players are free to resolve the issues at hand with whatever means they see fit. Since we have largely played D&D in the past, which has heavy leanings towards combat, most conflicts have been resolved via combat.Dealing with things like whether or not a fireball sets things on fire, or what the precise effects of that strange fungus on the cave floor are, is an important part of gaming. It's important because it shows the players that they are not the center of the universe, that the world continues to function around them even when they are not around to see it happen. It speaks to the idea that actions have consequences, and that things will continue to happen whether the PCs interact directly with it or not.To use a GNS term, I am firmly in the simulationist camp.To try to bring this post back in line with the idea of the thread, my heavy simulationist leanings are why I feel 4e is incredibly limited in terms of what it can offer me. Mechanics are trimmed in such a way as to make a multitude of processes all follow the same mechanics, which is nonsensical to me. The same action has differing DCs based upon the level of the PCs, which irks me - why should this lock be more difficult to pick because you are higher level?While the equalization of martial and spellcasting classes is not something that bothers me, the streamlining of spells to make them have only obvious combat utility irks me. Removal of various subsystems makes it difficult for me to play the sort of game that I want to play, because the processes matter; I don't enjoy the "black box" approach to how things happen.The kind of game I want to play, I want the PCs to worry about how much food they can reasonably carry on their trek to the Temple of Elemental Evil.I want their wounds from weeks before to - if left untreated - impact their performance today.I want them to pay attention to the surrounding terrain of a city, so that they can understand the sort of raw materials that city is abundant with, and in turn understand the local economy to some degree.I want the idea of doing something typically termed "heroic" to be a generally bad idea, because then it means that much more if a PC does it.I want them to spend their evenings repairing their gear, and after a fight with orcs, take what is valuable - and not just magic, but normal run-of-the-mill weapons and armor, because such things can be turned into raw materials for other equipment.The game I want to play is as much about exploration as it is combat, as much about economics as it is uncovering ancient mysteries, as much about crafting your own equipment as it is about building an artifact from pieces scattered across the globe. There is wonder to be found there, because the extraordinary must be couched in the ordinary in order for it to be extraordinary - or else it becomes ordinary.</blockquote>

Verification