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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5706003" data-attributes="member: 42582">Good point.Another good point. This is one thing that 4e does that 3E (and earlier editions) don't.I don't know if I agree with this or not.I agree that 4e provides better support for cinematic, gonzo play than does 3E (which in turn supports it more than does RQ or RM). Is 4e therefore more narrow than 3E? I think it's more focused. I think it more reliably delivers a particular play experience.If I wanted a different play experience - including the experience of cinematic vs gritty healing depending on the dice and the presence of a cleric in the party - then I'd play 3E. I don't think this shows that 3E is less narrow, however, because I don't really have any metric on which to compare the limitations to narratives.This strikes me as completely orthogonal to the healing surge issue. I also "want the narrative to be dramatically alterable based on the luck of the dice". This is one reason I play 4e - it is a mechanically tight game in which the dice do their job of coming out when drama is in the offing, and delivering that drama via their results. Because of this, GMing advice for games that are more upfront about the relationship between dice and narrative - Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling - is in my view very applicable to GMing 4e.And my comment upthread about not wanting cinematic vs gritty to turn on the luck of the dice doesn't contradict the previous paragraph at all. I want the dice to help shape the plot. I don't want the dice to help shape the genre - which is settled when the game is chosen - or the themes, which are injected by the players and the GM.</blockquote>

Verification