Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8494562" data-attributes="member: 7032025">I agree, I would word this as consistency of the game world (in being diverse, and rich, and not necessarily predictable especially when dealing with people &quot;living&quot; in there), and that consistency influencing the way the rulings are being made.The problem is that there is no such thing as &quot;undifferentiated circumstances&quot; in real life, and therefore, for me and the people at our tables. That is the problem with 4e for me, it forces people to think that a all guards are the same, all crates are the same, all circumstances are the same because it's the only way it can model it &quot;consistently&quot; in terms of rules. That, in turn, allows consistency of playing the same game using the same rules. But that is assuming that this the game that you want to play. It might be fine for some people, but for me, it's not only a game, it's a roleplaying game, where you assume the personality of a character and the DM does the same thing for all NPCs. And this is not something that is predictable, that quand be cut and dried and put in neat little boxes.It's a false good reason that you need all these things to play a character with confidence, because even if you fix them arbitrarily (all guards are the same, all crates re the same, you can only be in a neat little square that perfectly determines what you can see or not), there can still be surprises put in place by the DM, a crate might be a mimic or whatever. And I really hope that this happens, otherwise, for me, the games would be very boring.And for me, there is a much, much better place to put your confidence in than in a set of rules and a straight-jacketing of the world to make sure the rules are applicable, and that's your DM - which is why it's a good thing that 5e restored him to his rightful place as the lead storyteller rather than being mostly a referee of the above rules. If you trust your DM to provide you with fun, then you don't need rules to act with confidence.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8494562, member: 7032025"] I agree, I would word this as consistency of the game world (in being diverse, and rich, and not necessarily predictable especially when dealing with people "living" in there), and that consistency influencing the way the rulings are being made. The problem is that there is no such thing as "undifferentiated circumstances" in real life, and therefore, for me and the people at our tables. That is the problem with 4e [U]for me[/U], it forces people to think that a all guards are the same, all crates are the same, all circumstances are the same because it's the only way it can model it "consistently" in terms of rules. That, in turn, allows consistency of playing the same game using the same rules. But that is assuming that this the game that you want to play. It might be fine for some people, but for me, it's not only a game, it's a roleplaying game, where you assume the personality of a character and the DM does the same thing for all NPCs. And this is not something that is predictable, that quand be cut and dried and put in neat little boxes. It's a false good reason that you need all these things to play a character with confidence, because even if you fix them arbitrarily (all guards are the same, all crates re the same, you can only be in a neat little square that perfectly determines what you can see or not), there can still be surprises put in place by the DM, a crate might be a mimic or whatever. And I really hope that this happens, otherwise, for me, the games would be very boring. And for me, there is a much, much better place to put your confidence in than in a set of rules and a straight-jacketing of the world to make sure the rules are applicable, and that's your DM - which is why it's a good thing that 5e restored him to his rightful place as the lead storyteller rather than being mostly a referee of the above rules. If you trust your DM to provide you with fun, then you don't need rules to act with confidence. [/QUOTE]

Verification