Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5869713" data-attributes="member: 42582">Are you saying that it's easier to add mechanics, or to subtract/ignore them?Either way I don't think this can be answered without knowing what the mechanics are.For example, in 4e it's trivial to change the rate of recovery of healing surges via extended rests, therefore making the game less gonzo. This is an easy subtraction/alteration of a mechanic to enhance grittiness.In AD&D or 3E it's trivial to add action points that let a player reroll (say) one d20 roll per session, thereby adding a mechanic to reduce grittiness.But amending a game like Runequest to make it less gritty - whether by addition or subtraction - is far from trivial. Likewise, amending 4e to make it even remotely as gritty as RQ would, in my view at least, be non-trivial also. At a minimum, you'd have to work out how to get healing surge recovery onto something like a disease track, and you'd have to work out how you want to change incombat healing, and you'd have to work out a new mechanic to replace psychic damage, and you'd have to do something about falling damage, and fix a bunch of other stuff that I haven't thought of.And that's even ignoring the implications for the mechanics of differences in playstyle preference between the process-simulation that you (from your posts) appear to prefer, and the fortune-in-the-middle approach (ie work out the result via the mechanics, and then narrate a fictional process - such as angels or helicopter swords - around that outcome) that [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] is advocating.</blockquote>

Verification