Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 4293598" data-attributes="member: 18">Contrary to both those claiming &quot;Oh god it's travesty&quot; and those going &quot;OMG IMAGINE HARDER WIMPS!&quot;, I think 4E is rather a mixed bag in terms of it's versimilitude and general amount of &quot;forced suspension of disbelief&quot;.I think in some ways, it's actually easier to suspend disbelief than other games. I find, unlike some others, that the presentation of HP and healing surges and so on is EASIER to swallow than the old &quot;it's all injury and magical healing closes the wounds&quot; deal. It's much more natural-seeming, and fits with the tone and style of the game well.I don't see much, if any, problem with monsters have different powers to the PCs, either, even being built in a completely different way. That doesn't effect the versimilitude, in my opinion.There are problems, however. The idea that powers simply operate as advertised regardless of the &quot;actuality&quot; of the situation is problematic for me, to the point where I'm not having it. I know my players feel the same way because I've spoken to them. The idea that players can simply describe a power &quot;however they like&quot; flies in the face of all versimilitude, for me, but luckily I have players who are always going to describe powers in the most logical, sane way possible.The &quot;quick and easy&quot; treasure placement rules are so granular, that used without alteration, I feel they're a big hinderance to versimilitude. The expected GP amount of treasure/level is a hinderance to versimilitude but not new, so if you could hack it in 3E, complaining about it in 4E seems a little off.The final big problem to versimilitude, for me, is the almost-pathetic, very much half-arsed &quot;multiclassing&quot; rules, which mean that effectively only certain specific classes will ever be able to do certain specific things. I have no doubt that later books will expand on and probably vastly improve these, but they're still deeply unenthusing at this stage.Certainly, I think the versimiltude of 4E is lower than that of 3E. I'd personally rate it just above 1E (and slightly below 2E) in terms of &quot;forced suspension of disbelief&quot; (aka &quot;buy-in&quot;) required. I can't agree that it's &quot;all bad&quot; though. When the outright most unbelievable things I've come across are physical powers likely to shove the Tarrasque and bizarre things like only being able to use one daily power of one item/day, then I guess it's not too bad.I will say this - I suspect the majority of 4E &quot;house-ruling&quot; will be directed towards increasing it's versimilitude, unlike with 3E, where it seemed like most of it was directed to increasing it's playability. I suspect that says a slightly GOOD thing about 4E as a &quot;fun activity&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 4293598, member: 18"] Contrary to both those claiming "Oh god it's travesty" and those going "OMG IMAGINE HARDER WIMPS!", I think 4E is rather a mixed bag in terms of it's versimilitude and general amount of "forced suspension of disbelief". I think in some ways, it's actually easier to suspend disbelief than other games. I find, unlike some others, that the presentation of HP and healing surges and so on is EASIER to swallow than the old "it's all injury and magical healing closes the wounds" deal. It's much more natural-seeming, and fits with the tone and style of the game well. I don't see much, if any, problem with monsters have different powers to the PCs, either, even being built in a completely different way. That doesn't effect the versimilitude, in my opinion. There are problems, however. The idea that powers simply operate as advertised regardless of the "actuality" of the situation is problematic for me, to the point where I'm not having it. I know my players feel the same way because I've spoken to them. The idea that players can simply describe a power "however they like" flies in the face of all versimilitude, for me, but luckily I have players who are always going to describe powers in the most logical, sane way possible. The "quick and easy" treasure placement rules are so granular, that used without alteration, I feel they're a big hinderance to versimilitude. The expected GP amount of treasure/level is a hinderance to versimilitude but not new, so if you could hack it in 3E, complaining about it in 4E seems a little off. The final big problem to versimilitude, for me, is the almost-pathetic, very much half-arsed "multiclassing" rules, which mean that effectively only certain specific classes will ever be able to do certain specific things. I have no doubt that later books will expand on and probably vastly improve these, but they're still deeply unenthusing at this stage. Certainly, I think the versimiltude of 4E is lower than that of 3E. I'd personally rate it just above 1E (and slightly below 2E) in terms of "forced suspension of disbelief" (aka "buy-in") required. I can't agree that it's "all bad" though. When the outright most unbelievable things I've come across are physical powers likely to shove the Tarrasque and bizarre things like only being able to use one daily power of one item/day, then I guess it's not too bad. I will say this - I suspect the majority of 4E "house-ruling" will be directed towards increasing it's versimilitude, unlike with 3E, where it seemed like most of it was directed to increasing it's playability. I suspect that says a slightly GOOD thing about 4E as a "fun activity". [/QUOTE]

Verification