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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lutecius" data-source="post: 4364279" data-attributes="member: 60332"> None of which I care for if in the end there is little correlation between the fluff and the crunch. Magic cards have fancy names and flavour text too (and often better art). I expect a little more from an rpg. 1 - Re-fluffing powers according to the order in which they are used is confusing and detracts from the game.2 - I was addressing Mustrum’s notion of "reasonable". Of course someone has to adjudicate improvised descriptions. They have an impact on the adventure’s tone and consistency.3 - I don’t find rpg mechanics "cool". Only what they represent and how they represent it. Otherwise I’d be playing some board game with much cooler mechanics. I completely understand that others don't care about the in-game implications of encounter/dailies. Filling the blanks is ok too. But I don't think the in-game inconsistencies are a feature, or that having to justify and work around them is particularly fun. I’d rather use the time and effort for more creative things like adventure prep and world building.  This is why I hate Vancian magic and wish it was actually gone, but I hate "Vancian fighting" even more. And it’s not just "one such incidence", it’s a core mechanic for every <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f621.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":mad:" title="Mad    :mad:"  data-smilie="4"data-shortname=":mad:" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />ing class. Even 3e spellcasting had more flexibility with Sorcerer and Psion. And I don’t buy that this so-called balance couldn’t be achieved without encounters/dailies either. That was just the lazi…simplest way. I’d rather have slightly more complex but more intuitive rules than resort to convolutions like "this power means that, except when it doesn’t but other ones do, unless you want them to mean something else".  I don’t see flexibility in having to come up with farfetched justifications for something as basic as martial attacks. And I don’t see why it would be harder to change some fluff if the system made sense in the first place.</blockquote>

Verification