Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4775299" data-attributes="member: 80487">My post <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/254848-how-important-magic-dungeons-dragons-third-edition-vs-fourth-edition-30.html#post4774571" target="_blank">on page 30</a> concerning the view of RuneQuest as "more realistic" than Dungeons & Dragons notes some of the elaborations in supplements to the original set. Note that where they treat matters that have real-world referents, such as combat, the aim consistently is to model those -- not to erect complex barriers between the game and common sense.More significant, though, is the effect of fewer rules than have become par for the course in recent versions. There was neither a generic "page 42" system nor such a host of specific rules governing non-magical activities. Nor, for that matter, were magical effects so rigidly defined in board-game terms.As a consequence, reality was often the only common grounding.Moreover, that rules-lightness reflected a fundamental principle that was stated pretty explicitly: The referee is the final arbiter in all cases. Theoretically, one might say that the principle still applies to 4E. As a practical matter, the inertial mass of rules makes that less tenable.It would be a simple matter to make an old-style D&D game as devoid of verisimilitude as 4E. It would be much more difficult to restore some sense of realism to 4E without negating most of the value in having the voluminous rule books in the first place. I reckon it would probably be less work to design a whole new game from scratch!</blockquote>

Verification