Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 4773724" data-attributes="member: 55966">So you are saying Kask that commander's strike, a warlord power in which you command an ally to hit an enemy is a magical ability?&nbsp; If not, why is it any different when someone compels an enemy to do something?You are telling a story, only the players now have some input on how their enemies act during the combat scene.&nbsp; D&amp;D has shifted from a storyteller game that had conceits of simulation (and it never did it at all well) to a purer storytelling game.&nbsp; The tactical combat side of the game doesn't try to simulate medieval fantasy warfare, it simply tries to be a cinematic scene.&nbsp; Likewise, skills are not trying to simulate what an elf might have plausibly learned over the course of his life, it is trying to make available character archetypes who would have access to the skills needed for a particular scene.&nbsp; What do science officers on the Star Trek Enterprise, or characters in comic books know as a skill set?&nbsp; Whatever the scene requires them to know within their designated archetypal role on the team.&nbsp;&nbsp; Likewise it is the same for a 4e D&amp;D party.Now maybe you miss the conceit that D&amp;D had rules for living a mundane existence with an overlay of rules for fantastic elements.&nbsp; I can understand why someone might think was the case, given that the D&amp;D books of prior editions generally had that as one of their design goals.&nbsp; It was a poorly executed dismal failure, but it was a design goal.&nbsp; But don't say that just because it is switching to a more narrative voice that it is a bad simulation.&nbsp; You're just missing the entire point of the design shift.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ferratus, post: 4773724, member: 55966"] So you are saying Kask that commander's strike, a warlord power in which you command an ally to hit an enemy is a magical ability? If not, why is it any different when someone compels an enemy to do something? You are telling a story, only the players now have some input on how their enemies act during the combat scene. D&D has shifted from a storyteller game that had conceits of simulation (and it never did it at all well) to a purer storytelling game. The tactical combat side of the game doesn't try to simulate medieval fantasy warfare, it simply tries to be a cinematic scene. Likewise, skills are not trying to simulate what an elf might have plausibly learned over the course of his life, it is trying to make available character archetypes who would have access to the skills needed for a particular scene. What do science officers on the Star Trek Enterprise, or characters in comic books know as a skill set? Whatever the scene requires them to know within their designated archetypal role on the team. Likewise it is the same for a 4e D&D party. Now maybe you miss the conceit that D&D had rules for living a mundane existence with an overlay of rules for fantastic elements. I can understand why someone might think was the case, given that the D&D books of prior editions generally had that as one of their design goals. It was a poorly executed dismal failure, but it was a design goal. But don't say that just because it is switching to a more narrative voice that it is a bad simulation. You're just missing the entire point of the design shift. [/QUOTE]

Verification