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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5718557" data-attributes="member: 957">And that is certainly fair enough.If I speak purely for my own interest the fact that 4E had turned away from that style is no skin off my nose.  I still have awesome games.But I do feel that there would be some merit to the idea that the benchmark brand name both stay more true to its roots and also do a better job of casting a wider net for its fan base.If 4E was a different game and you and I both completely loathed it for completely different reasons, but (1) we both still had games that offered what we each wanted and (2) D&D had a maximum possible appeal to the market as a whole, then that would be "better".Agreed, there are certainly "third wall" plays on fiction out there.  If someone wanted to play in that style the debate would be a whole new thing.eh, I often and readily incorporate ideas like these from my players.  But never in a way that is any different than what you would accept, and expect in reading a novel.You could be 400 pages into a novel and have a protagonist use an old dwarven greeting that has never been previously established in the narrative, and then proceed to have a conversation with a dwarf about a fallen human city that has also never been mentioned before.  As long as these new elements don't *contradict* existing elements, then they are awesome.  But this has nothing to do with the point I made.  "Shaping the fiction" as you describe here is completely compatible with being in the story.  Shaping the fiction by actually changing the world around you by whim is a completely different matter.  And whether that comes from explaining why an unintelligent plant responds to Come And Get It or why no fighter may EVER be wounded in a way that requires medical care, these are elements that create the break down in the narrative merit.I remember being a little kid, maybe 9 or 10, and first hearing of D&D.  It was like lightbulbs going on in my head.  I already enjoyed various board games in which your pawn might be a "wizard", and I also enjoyed kids make believe.  And I knew that this new thing had elements of each but fully transcended either one.  And, truly, the only difference now is the level of sophistication.  Again, most of this gets back to substituting things that DO fit into novels.  So it really doesn't help make the "fighters NEVER need medical care" and other disconnect problems that the 4E rule set does generate.Every player in my games constantly advocates for their character.  Have I ever suggested that they would do any less?  But they accept and embrace that there are limits on what they can do in pursuit of that advocacy.  You are turning the fact that your players have a lot more power into an incorrect suggestion that my players have both no power and no intent.They have all the desire, but they also have all the power they want and we agree that more would actually make the game LESS satisfying.</blockquote>

Verification