Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5523891" data-attributes="member: 82106">Ironically, IMHO, the biggest critics of 4e seem to be people that from my perspective are way too caught up in the mechanics. We tell stories. We use the rules to help us tell those stories. Good solid rules that work for most situations and give all the players a reasonably even amount of plot power seem to work best for us. Honestly, why are effects, areas of effect, ranges, etc standardized? Because these things get these details OUT OF THE WAY. Instead of play being about the game it can be much more about the story. I don't need a 'fiction first' version of the rules for instance. I just don't know what else could ever possibly be first before the story. Sure, I can imagine a group of people playing tactical skimish game, but honestly 4e isn't even close to the best set of rules for that in and of itself. I can understand arguments from the perspective of level of abstraction, where someone might say &quot;well, Seventh Sea works better because it makes combat abstract and moves the focus to other things.&quot; That would be an argument. The &quot;zomg! an ooze can be made prone and there are only 10 conditions, this is gamist!&quot; doesn't. It just doesn't reach me.I don't want complicated powers with open-ended (and IMHO usually not well conceived) ramifications. I can handle players doing oddball stuff. As page 42 says &quot;You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine.&quot; I'm not really buying the whole idea that somehow 4e lobotomized all the RPers and they can't or won't describe what they do anymore. I've DMed a LOT of different groups over the years. I've seen plenty of dry-as-dust mechanics focused play in every version of the game, and conversely plenty of highly descriptive imaginative play, again in all different versions of the game. I don't think the game system is the driver for this, it is the people at the table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5523891, member: 82106"] Ironically, IMHO, the biggest critics of 4e seem to be people that from my perspective are way too caught up in the mechanics. We tell stories. We use the rules to help us tell those stories. Good solid rules that work for most situations and give all the players a reasonably even amount of plot power seem to work best for us. Honestly, why are effects, areas of effect, ranges, etc standardized? Because these things get these details OUT OF THE WAY. Instead of play being about the game it can be much more about the story. I don't need a 'fiction first' version of the rules for instance. I just don't know what else could ever possibly be first before the story. Sure, I can imagine a group of people playing tactical skimish game, but honestly 4e isn't even close to the best set of rules for that in and of itself. I can understand arguments from the perspective of level of abstraction, where someone might say "well, Seventh Sea works better because it makes combat abstract and moves the focus to other things." That would be an argument. The "zomg! an ooze can be made prone and there are only 10 conditions, this is gamist!" doesn't. It just doesn't reach me. I don't want complicated powers with open-ended (and IMHO usually not well conceived) ramifications. I can handle players doing oddball stuff. As page 42 says "You make it possible for the players to try anything they can imagine." I'm not really buying the whole idea that somehow 4e lobotomized all the RPers and they can't or won't describe what they do anymore. I've DMed a LOT of different groups over the years. I've seen plenty of dry-as-dust mechanics focused play in every version of the game, and conversely plenty of highly descriptive imaginative play, again in all different versions of the game. I don't think the game system is the driver for this, it is the people at the table. [/QUOTE]

Verification