Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5512038" data-attributes="member: 11300">From my own experience, I can bash and bend the 3e ruleset to my preferred style of play more easily than I can 4e. 4e has quite a few features (that I highlighted upthread) that make the effort seem not worth it. When I play/GM 4e, I prefer to embrace these things and play/run it as it seems the designers intended it (aside from some skill challenge adjustments). While not my preferred style, it is still very enjoyable.From an interview with <a href="http://critical-hits.com/2008/03/05/dd-xp-interview-sara-girard-rob-heinsoo/" target="_blank">Rob Heinsoo</a>, he talks about a variety of things but the following being most pertinent to this thread:In terms of my own position which this thread has helped me articulate, I would say that the big shift here is the "black box" design philosophy that Mike Mearls talked about on a D&D podcast (I can't remember which one so please excuse the lack of reference). If the end result matches up with what you are after, it doesn't really matter what was in the black box that produced the result. In other words if the process that produces the desired result is simple and easy to use, then that is good enough as it will keep gamers focused on the game rather than the mechanics that make it happen. Cool, fine and dandy. However, the simulationist picks apart the black box, sees how the process does not follow the perceived, logical "reality" of what the action is "supposed" to be simulating and comes to the conclusion that the process does not make sense - even if the result is suitable. For me, I love seeing good mechanics that mesh really well with the flavour they are attempting to represent.I suppose I have two primary modes when I play/DM: the first is actor mode and the second is mechanics mode. Actor mode encompasses all the personalities, voices, the story, the description I give the players or the characteristics and personality I display when just playing a character. Mechanics mode is when I'm calculating the result of actions to determine what happens. The thing is I also use the mechanics to help me provide some commentary and details of what's going on. If these mechanics are simulating the action then it's a nice help and assists in keeping in the zone of gameplay. 4e compared to 3e gives me a different set of information and so is a little more disjoint for me if I try to do things in my traditional way. Instead, I just go with the flow a little more.I hope that helps explain my position on why personally I feel 3e does a better job (for me) in simulating things compared to 4e. The two are very different but certainly enjoyable in their own way.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification