Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6292341" data-attributes="member: 6668292">It depends on how you like your fiction (I love Game of Thrones, for example, and I love gritty games), but I get where you're coming from. If you think having your Fighter's throat slit in the night is bad fiction, then 4e is actually pretty good at avoiding this. I personally don't think inspiring words being done every battle is good fiction, but I try not to focus on the specifics of healing when I play 4e (the party has a cleric, so we handwave it as magic).I totally get this, too. My house rules for 3.X (which eventually evolved far and away into its own thing) made things &quot;make more sense&quot; to me, but it got grittier. A Hit Chart was added, as were long-term wounds, the separation of fatigue and body wounds, etc. I quite like it (or I wouldn't have made it), but I get it fits a more niche play style than what many others like.In 4e, they went basically the other direction, but they're still aiming to make a game that produces a fiction that doesn't jar you out of the game (just like what I aimed for, even if the end results are drastically different). You can still have an in-depth game with lots of details in 4e (I feel like my sessions have them, and I put them up for everyone here to read), it's just a different experience than what you'd get from a game that aims for a different aesthetic.Regardless of our preferences, I totally get where you're coming from. I can have the most realistic game rules in the world, but if it takes twenty minutes to resolve each and every attack roll, I'm probably getting pulled out of any sense of &quot;immersion&quot; I had going for me, which kind of defeats the purpose of the rule most of the time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 6292341, member: 6668292"] It depends on how you like your fiction (I love Game of Thrones, for example, and I love gritty games), but I get where you're coming from. If you think having your Fighter's throat slit in the night is bad fiction, then 4e is actually pretty good at avoiding this. I personally don't think inspiring words being done [I]every battle[/I] is good fiction, but I try not to focus on the specifics of healing when I play 4e (the party has a cleric, so we handwave it as magic). I totally get this, too. My house rules for 3.X (which eventually evolved far and away into its own thing) made things "make more sense" to me, but it got grittier. A Hit Chart was added, as were long-term wounds, the separation of fatigue and body wounds, etc. I quite like it (or I wouldn't have made it), but I get it fits a more niche play style than what many others like. In 4e, they went basically the other direction, but they're still aiming to make a game that produces a fiction that doesn't jar you out of the game (just like what I aimed for, even if the end results are drastically different). You can still have an in-depth game with lots of details in 4e (I feel like my sessions have them, and I put them up for everyone here to read), it's just a different experience than what you'd get from a game that aims for a different aesthetic. Regardless of our preferences, I totally get where you're coming from. I can have the most realistic game rules in the world, but if it takes twenty minutes to resolve each and every attack roll, I'm probably getting pulled out of any sense of "immersion" I had going for me, which kind of defeats the purpose of the rule most of the time. [/QUOTE]

Verification