Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4330342" data-attributes="member: 42582">I may have been unclear. When I talk about the flavour and theme being integrated into the mechanics, I mean that the actual mechanical results at the table convey flavour - inspiring paladins and warlords, sneaky rogues and rangers, and so on.In earlier editions of D&amp;D one could narrate that's one's paladin was inspiring, or one's ranger sneaky, or whatever, but in the end they played out in combat just the same as a fighter: roll d20, look up to hit chart/add level in BAB.In this respect 4e is both different and similar from some other fortune-in-the-middle games like HeroWars. Similar, in that there are a very wide range of mechanical elements (powers in 4e, keywords in HeroWars) that contribute to the flavour of the FiTM narration. Different, in that HeroWars keywords shape the flavour of the narration but not its mechanical resolution (a bit like the difference between using Diplomacy or Intimidate in a 4e skill challenge) whereas 4e powers actually mould the mechanical resolution to be expressive of the flavour.As someone who enjoys mechanically heavy simulationists systems like RM or RQ, I like this aspect of 4e.This is no different from explaining why only wizards can cast spells, or why only fighters can gain weapon specialisation. In a D&amp;D-style class-based games, only certain classes can do certain things. (And, btw, it's not a martial vs magic thing at all. How come only clerics are sufficiently beloved by the gods to have miraculous powers bestowed upon them? RQ - a non-class-based game - answers this question quite simply: they're not. Anyone can use Divine magic.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4330342, member: 42582"] I may have been unclear. When I talk about the flavour and theme being integrated into the mechanics, I mean that the actual mechanical results at the table convey flavour - inspiring paladins and warlords, sneaky rogues and rangers, and so on. In earlier editions of D&D one could narrate that's one's paladin was inspiring, or one's ranger sneaky, or whatever, but in the end they played out in combat just the same as a fighter: roll d20, look up to hit chart/add level in BAB. In this respect 4e is both different and similar from some other fortune-in-the-middle games like HeroWars. Similar, in that there are a very wide range of mechanical elements (powers in 4e, keywords in HeroWars) that contribute to the flavour of the FiTM narration. Different, in that HeroWars keywords shape the flavour of the narration but not its mechanical resolution (a bit like the difference between using Diplomacy or Intimidate in a 4e skill challenge) whereas 4e powers actually mould the mechanical resolution to be expressive of the flavour. As someone who enjoys mechanically heavy simulationists systems like RM or RQ, I like this aspect of 4e. This is no different from explaining why only wizards can cast spells, or why only fighters can gain weapon specialisation. In a D&D-style class-based games, only certain classes can do certain things. (And, btw, it's not a martial vs magic thing at all. How come only clerics are sufficiently beloved by the gods to have miraculous powers bestowed upon them? RQ - a non-class-based game - answers this question quite simply: they're not. Anyone can use Divine magic.) [/QUOTE]

Verification