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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 4680136" data-attributes="member: 1003">3E was the high water mark there. 4E has backed away from that by (essentially) saying that only adventuring-related skills are reduced to rules. The removal of Craft, Profession and Perform from the Skills list and the separation of Rules & Fluff in the Powers section are examples of moving away from a rule-based approach to "roleplaying stuff."As long as we focus on your use of the word "cool", I agree. But defining them exactly (and putting them in a rulebook, not a house rules doc) is necessary to make sure they're more widely playtested and stress-tested than I could ever do working on my own time.That isn't meta-game knowledge. The PC is a trained warrior (or wizard, whatever). He more or less knows the how "attacking with more power" will effect his odds of success, just a pro baseball player can decide whether to swing for the fences or just try to get a base hit. The PC's not thinking in terms of "-2 Att, +3 Dmg" (those numbers are meta), but the concept of "high-momentum swing" if perfectly knowable within the game.Leaving the rules unwritten creates confusion and ambiguity that some players will exploit and others will be handicapped by. Putting the rules in writing (whether in a book or house rules doc) equalizes the ability of all players to make tactical decisions. The benefit of written rules is equal access to knowledge. The benefit of "in the book" rules is superior access to playtesting.</blockquote>

Verification