Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5718324" data-attributes="member: 42582">I've frequently expressed the view that the 4e rules aren't as well-expressed as they might be. This is one such case. But I don't think that drifting a slightly abashed ruleset so as to make it coherent is very serious house-ruling. Others may think differently - apparently you're one of them!I don't really agree on the actor-stance point: the player says &quot;I want to check&quot;, the GM says &quot;Roll a Heal check&quot;, and based on the result of the check replies as appropriate: either the inspecting PC sees a stable, non-fatal wound, or is unsure but concerned.That said, my general view, frequently expressed on these forums, is that 4e isn't aimed at those who want to play the game solely in actor stance. It encourages players to take some self-conscious responsibility for shaping the fiction.I can see that. 4e is very heroic/cinemtic/gonzo in this respect.On the other hand, I don't really feel the force of this way of putting it, because (like Hussar) I want to say: in AD&amp;D or 3E the mechanics also determine the story (eg if the damage roll is a fatal amount of hp, they dictate that the story is one about someone being killed).Which is not to deny the contrast between 4e's rules and 3E's rules. My thoughts on that&nbsp; contrast are in the thread I started on Monte Cook's account of the role of rules. (I think it is still on the front page.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5718324, member: 42582"] I've frequently expressed the view that the 4e rules aren't as well-expressed as they might be. This is one such case. But I don't think that drifting a slightly abashed ruleset so as to make it coherent is very serious house-ruling. Others may think differently - apparently you're one of them! I don't really agree on the actor-stance point: the player says "I want to check", the GM says "Roll a Heal check", and based on the result of the check replies as appropriate: either the inspecting PC sees a stable, non-fatal wound, or is unsure but concerned. That said, my general view, frequently expressed on these forums, is that 4e isn't aimed at those who want to play the game solely in actor stance. It encourages players to take some self-conscious responsibility for shaping the fiction. I can see that. 4e is very heroic/cinemtic/gonzo in this respect. On the other hand, I don't really feel the force of this way of putting it, because (like Hussar) I want to say: in AD&D or 3E the mechanics also determine the story (eg if the damage roll is a fatal amount of hp, they dictate that the story is one about someone being killed). Which is not to deny the contrast between 4e's rules and 3E's rules. My thoughts on that contrast are in the thread I started on Monte Cook's account of the role of rules. (I think it is still on the front page.) [/QUOTE]

Verification