Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5509392" data-attributes="member: 11300">And thank you theNater for the effort spent (XP coming your way) and the courtesy and helpful intentions of your response - much appreciated compared to the dismissive &quot;they&quot; quoted above. I think sometimes some of us forget that we all like some flavour of D&amp;D, we all sit around a table with our friends roleplaying and crafting fantastic stories and ideas, and that we all carry (if sometimes hidden) a big shiny &quot;nerd badge&quot;. I much prefer &quot;We&quot;, &quot;us&quot;, or &quot;some of us&quot;; not &quot;them&quot;.I understand the route that the designers took with powers in terms of transferring narrative control to the players and as you highlight, that from a gamist perspective, the encounter/daily restriction is the plain easiest way of dealing with this. As a simulationist-type player though, I am more than happy and tolerant to suffer a little complexity if it means that the mechanics presented mirror the &quot;fantastic realism&quot; that I enjoy to play with in the game. You highlight &quot;It is rare enough that a target will react that way to make rolling for it impractical...&quot; where as from my perspective, there is always a possible and efficient mechanic that would be practical enough. To explain a little further, if you have a look at when daily attack powers are used, they are heavily skewed towards boss monsters or the &quot;tougher&quot; ones so to speak. This sets off my mental probability alarm when viewed as a whole. Why does my character's best abilities always come off against the tougher monsters but never against the mooks? This heavy skewing highlights the metagaming aspect of powers and saving them for when your character needs them - something that is a little hard to interpret in-game from a simulationist perspective.You highlight however the true divide that is attack from non-attack daily powers. Non-attack daily powers becomes something a little harder to rationalise in or out of game from a simulationist perspective.In any case, I think this all correctly highlights one of the ways that (to answer the thread title) 4e took simulation away from D&amp;D.And to answer Dannager and from a personal perspective, I have accepted this partial removal of simulationism from 4e D&amp;D compared to previous editions otherwise I wouldn't be playing and enjoying it. Surely though I am still permitted to have an alternative preference in terms of style of play without being dumped into the category of &quot;them&quot;?Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Herremann the Wise, post: 5509392, member: 11300"] And thank you theNater for the effort spent (XP coming your way) and the courtesy and helpful intentions of your response - much appreciated compared to the dismissive "they" quoted above. I think sometimes some of us forget that we all like some flavour of D&D, we all sit around a table with our friends roleplaying and crafting fantastic stories and ideas, and that we all carry (if sometimes hidden) a big shiny "nerd badge". I much prefer "[B]We[/B]", "[B]us[/B]", or "[B]some of us[/B]"; [I]not [/I]"[B]them[/B]". I understand the route that the designers took with powers in terms of transferring narrative control to the players and as you highlight, that from a gamist perspective, the encounter/daily restriction is the plain easiest way of dealing with this. As a simulationist-type player though, I am more than happy and tolerant to suffer a little complexity if it means that the mechanics presented mirror the "fantastic realism" that I enjoy to play with in the game. You highlight [I]"It is rare enough that a target will react that way to make rolling for it impractical..."[/I] where as from my perspective, there is always a possible and efficient mechanic that would be practical enough. To explain a little further, if you have a look at when daily attack powers are used, they are heavily skewed towards boss monsters or the "tougher" ones so to speak. This sets off my mental probability alarm when viewed as a whole. Why does my character's best abilities always come off against the tougher monsters but never against the mooks? This heavy skewing highlights the metagaming aspect of powers and saving them for when your character needs them - something that is a little hard to interpret in-game from a simulationist perspective. You highlight however the true divide that is attack from non-attack daily powers. Non-attack daily powers becomes something a little harder to rationalise in or out of game from a simulationist perspective. In any case, I think this all correctly highlights one of the ways that (to answer the thread title) 4e took simulation away from D&D. And to answer Dannager and from a personal perspective, I [I]have[/I] accepted this partial removal of simulationism from 4e D&D compared to previous editions otherwise I wouldn't be playing and enjoying it. Surely though I am still permitted to have an alternative preference in terms of style of play without being dumped into the category of "them"? Best Regards Herremann the Wise [/QUOTE]

Verification