Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5538940" data-attributes="member: 2067">You don't need human agency or rules to tell you that an axe can chop. You just need to kind of know what an axe is. The game and the DM, I feel, are both safe in assuming that you know what an axe is (or can find out). 4e's default position is &quot;It's entirely up to the DM!&quot;, which seems pointless to me. If my character's axe can't chop, it's not doing a very good job of being an imaginary axe. I assume the primary goal of D&amp;D is to play a game of imagination, and if the DM suddenly rules that axes can't chop wood, that makes the game pretty clearly fail its primary goal. It's pointless micromanagement. Now we're turning a little closer back to Spellcaster/Warrior balance: according to 4e's rules, the way to balance the two is to make axes and magic behave the exact same way.I can't burn down that tree with fireball (unless I have special DM permission).I also can't cut down that tree with my axe (unless I have special DM permission). This balances the two, really well. But it fails to provide a satisfying play experience, by failing to give a player reasonable agency over their own abilities, by failing to live up to the standards required of my willing suspension of disbelief (e.g.: that axes and fire in the game work something kind of resembling how axes and fire work in reality), and by failing to let me be creative with my character's abilities.So I don't think it's a great way to solve the Spellcaster/Warrior balance issue, despite its remarkable ability to strictly balance their capabilities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5538940, member: 2067"] You don't need human agency or rules to tell you that an axe can chop. You just need to kind of know what an axe is. The game and the DM, I feel, are both safe in assuming that you know what an axe is (or can find out). 4e's default position is "It's entirely up to the DM!", which seems pointless to me. If my character's axe can't chop, it's not doing a very good job of [I]being an imaginary axe[/I]. I assume the primary goal of D&D is to play a game of imagination, and if the DM suddenly rules that axes can't chop wood, that makes the game pretty clearly fail its primary goal. It's pointless micromanagement. Now we're turning a little closer back to Spellcaster/Warrior balance: according to 4e's rules, the way to balance the two is to make axes and magic behave the exact same way. I can't burn down that tree with fireball (unless I have special DM permission). I also can't cut down that tree with my axe (unless I have special DM permission). This balances the two, really well. But it fails to provide a satisfying play experience, by failing to give a player reasonable agency over their own abilities, by failing to live up to the standards required of my willing suspension of disbelief (e.g.: that axes and fire in the game work something kind of resembling how axes and fire work in reality), and by failing to let me be creative with my character's abilities. So I don't think it's a great way to solve the Spellcaster/Warrior balance issue, despite its remarkable ability to strictly balance their capabilities. [/QUOTE]

Verification