NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6995360" data-attributes="member: 42582">I play the game by the rules. But I don't define the action within the world by the rules. I define the action within the world by the intentions of action declarations: if the rules tell us that the declarant succeeded, then they get what they were aiming for with their action; otherwise not.If you want I've got a lot of actual play posts I can point you to.Your characterisation of 4e is mistaken.Just to give one example: the 4e fireball spell description is practically identical to that in Moldvay Basic. Both describe the range, the AoE, and mention the damage vs creatures. Both leave it as an issue of table adjudication to determine the effect the fireball has on objects/structures other than creatures.I agree that there is a trend of increased spell description length from classic D&D through to 3E - following Ron Edwards I call it "karaoke", by which I mean that stuff that was originally someone's ruling at their table becomes codified for everyone else to follow. But I don't think it's tenable to notice that (i) 4e breaks from this trend, and goes back to very short, crisp descriptions, yet (ii) assert that 4e is an instance of the same trend. 4e breaks from the trend, disavows karaoke, and via p 42, its rules for dealing damage to objects and its skill challenge rules returns to the idea of adjudication at the table - though using a more "indie"-style framework for doing so than existed in the classic game.</blockquote>

Verification