Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9341575" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I think it here is referring to 4e D&amp;D?My sense of the game is as follows:* Player-authored Quests + Goal &amp; Stakes-driven noncombat conflict resolution w/ table-facing resolution governed by fail forward/change the situation-state upon resolution + the the deep theme &amp; premise loading of the cosmology/PoL setting/and all the various build components (Background, Class, Theme, Paragon Path, Epic Destiny) + the default transparency and player control of the game engine = either Story Now design and priorities or NeoTrad design and priorities.&nbsp; The pivot points here are the difficulty dial and stakes.&nbsp; If encounters are difficult and stakes/consequences/fallout can dynamically change the course of play, then its a Story Now meets Gamist hybrid.&nbsp; If the difficulty and stakes are muted (with similarly muted dynamism of situation-state and gamestate), then its NeoTrad.* Alternatively, a GM can &quot;say no&quot; (which you're specifcally told to &quot;say yes&quot;) and control the Quest system, forgo Skill Challenges, and try to work against all of the other aspects of system and ethos that really make Traditional play rather difficult with 4e.&nbsp; Good luck (but why would you when there are plenty of better alternatives?)!* Alternatively alternatively, the group can basically play and prep a Pawn Stance action-adventure, Gamist crawl.&nbsp; It won't work like Classic D&amp;D crawling, but it absolutely works swimmingly in its own way.&nbsp; [HR][/HR]But 4e trivially works best (and was clearly intentfully design) as a Story Now meets Gamist hybrid or a NeoTrad experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9341575, member: 6696971"] I think [I]it[/I] here is referring to 4e D&D? My sense of the game is as follows: * Player-authored Quests + Goal & Stakes-driven noncombat conflict resolution w/ table-facing resolution governed by fail forward/change the situation-state upon resolution + the the deep theme & premise loading of the cosmology/PoL setting/and all the various build components (Background, Class, Theme, Paragon Path, Epic Destiny) + the default transparency and player control of the game engine = either Story Now design and priorities or NeoTrad design and priorities. The pivot points here are the difficulty dial and stakes. If encounters are difficult and stakes/consequences/fallout can dynamically change the course of play, then its a Story Now meets Gamist hybrid. If the difficulty and stakes are muted (with similarly muted dynamism of situation-state and gamestate), then its NeoTrad. * Alternatively, a GM can "say no" (which you're specifcally told to "say yes") and control the Quest system, forgo Skill Challenges, and try to work against all of the other aspects of system and ethos that really make Traditional play rather difficult with 4e. Good luck (but why would you when there are plenty of better alternatives?)! * Alternatively alternatively, the group can basically play and prep a Pawn Stance action-adventure, Gamist crawl. It won't work like Classic D&D crawling, but it absolutely works swimmingly in its own way. [HR][/HR] But 4e trivially works best (and was clearly intentfully design) as a Story Now meets Gamist hybrid or a NeoTrad experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification