Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RefinedBean" data-source="post: 4772616" data-attributes="member: 55016">Fine, fine.&nbsp; I was looking more for the mechanics aspect, just throwing out dice rolls/random chance as an example.&nbsp; Amber rocks!&nbsp;The context is given by the players of the game.&nbsp; That's the whole point of the powers system of 4E, I believe.&nbsp; The players provide the context.&nbsp;???&nbsp; I certainly didn't mean to insinuate this.&nbsp; Groups should play their favorite games.&nbsp; If 4E just doesn't do it for 'em, so be it.I'm simply trying to explain that in 4E, it seems that the connection between the mechanics and the fluff/flavor of the game are provided by the players themselves.&nbsp; The fluff is there...I'll be the first to admit that it's not particularly good fluff, but it's there, and it's mutable.If some players or groups can't/don't want to do this, it's not a reflection on the system OR the group in question!&nbsp; I dislike WFRP, but I don't see it as WFRP's fault.But when these same arguments against 4E are trotted out time and again, it just gets...tiring.&nbsp; In my games, there certainly is a difference between arcane and martial, divine and primal, what have you.&nbsp; When ENworld posters come through and say &quot;Well, no there's not,&quot; it's very hard to provide whatever evidence they're looking for other than &quot;Hey, it's working for us!&quot;&nbsp;See, that's exactly how I see it working in 4E as well.&nbsp; Mechanically similar, but different when used in play.&nbsp; The mechanics are secondary, it's the spin the character puts on it that makes all the difference.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RefinedBean, post: 4772616, member: 55016"] Fine, fine. I was looking more for the mechanics aspect, just throwing out dice rolls/random chance as an example. Amber rocks! The context is given by the players of the game. That's the whole point of the powers system of 4E, I believe. The players provide the context. ??? I certainly didn't mean to insinuate this. Groups should play their favorite games. If 4E just doesn't do it for 'em, so be it. I'm simply trying to explain that in 4E, it seems that the connection between the mechanics and the fluff/flavor of the game are provided by the players themselves. The fluff is there...I'll be the first to admit that it's not particularly good fluff, but it's there, and it's mutable. If some players or groups can't/don't want to do this, it's not a reflection on the system OR the group in question! I dislike WFRP, but I don't see it as WFRP's fault. But when these same arguments against 4E are trotted out time and again, it just gets...tiring. In my games, there certainly is a difference between arcane and martial, divine and primal, what have you. When ENworld posters come through and say "Well, no there's not," it's very hard to provide whatever evidence they're looking for other than "Hey, it's working for us!" See, that's exactly how I see it working in 4E as well. Mechanically similar, but different when used in play. The mechanics are secondary, it's the spin the character puts on it that makes all the difference. [/QUOTE]

Verification