Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5699237" data-attributes="member: 957">You aren't making sense here.&nbsp; I mean, my D&amp;D combats are unrealistic in the sense that human's can take on giants ans wizards can throw fireballs, etc, etc, etc....They are INTENDED to be fantastic.&nbsp; And they are NOT intended to be perfect models of true combat.&nbsp; They are intended to produce the feel of fantasy literary battles.&nbsp; And, for that, it works great.&nbsp; I completely reject the idea of &quot;stupid&quot; and &quot;absurd&quot;.&nbsp; And, besides, it is the pro-surge people who have been saying &quot;come on, it is so abstract already that this isn't going to hurt anything&quot;.&nbsp; The anti-surge people have been saying &quot;we made it this far without giving in to the absurd, don't expect us to start now.&quot;That is great.&nbsp; I'm glad you have a game you love.&nbsp; But that is a million miles from what I want.A narrative that &quot;makes sense&quot; is a foundation to me.&nbsp; I require a lot more than that.&nbsp; But without that foundation, nothing else matters.Which isn't to argue right or wrong.&nbsp; It is just to demonstrate that 4E, when all is said and done, doesn't even TRY to be the game experience that I get from other systems and even other editions of the brand.I want the RPG experience to feel like I'm inside an awesome novel.&nbsp; And if I'm reading a novel and the narrative doesn't make sense it is far far removed from awesome.&nbsp; It is more like, throw it away and find something else to read.This really doesn't say anything.&nbsp; You could replace combat with a game of checkers and say that it would &quot;work well and be fun&quot;.&nbsp; Ok, and if I've never once forced a player to play ANY character they didn't want to what does that mean?&nbsp; (Again, it never ceases to amaze me how people can think insulting their own gaming history will win a debate.)Also, it ISN'T anywhere close to the same mechanic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5699237, member: 957"] You aren't making sense here. I mean, my D&D combats are unrealistic in the sense that human's can take on giants ans wizards can throw fireballs, etc, etc, etc.... They are INTENDED to be fantastic. And they are NOT intended to be perfect models of true combat. They are intended to produce the feel of fantasy literary battles. And, for that, it works great. I completely reject the idea of "stupid" and "absurd". And, besides, it is the pro-surge people who have been saying "come on, it is so abstract already that this isn't going to hurt anything". The anti-surge people have been saying "we made it this far without giving in to the absurd, don't expect us to start now." That is great. I'm glad you have a game you love. But that is a million miles from what I want. A narrative that "makes sense" is a foundation to me. I require a lot more than that. But without that foundation, nothing else matters. Which isn't to argue right or wrong. It is just to demonstrate that 4E, when all is said and done, doesn't even TRY to be the game experience that I get from other systems and even other editions of the brand. I want the RPG experience to feel like I'm inside an awesome novel. And if I'm reading a novel and the narrative doesn't make sense it is far far removed from awesome. It is more like, throw it away and find something else to read. This really doesn't say anything. You could replace combat with a game of checkers and say that it would "work well and be fun". Ok, and if I've never once forced a player to play ANY character they didn't want to what does that mean? (Again, it never ceases to amaze me how people can think insulting their own gaming history will win a debate.) Also, it ISN'T anywhere close to the same mechanic. [/QUOTE]

Verification