Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5628656" data-attributes="member: 87792">[php][PHP][/php][/PHP]&nbsp;OK.&nbsp; I should have been taking the initial metaphor apart rather than what I saw as an extension of it into even more indefensible terms.&nbsp;But the case remains.&nbsp; 4e throws realism out of the window.&nbsp; Someone who knows about fencing (either sport or historical swordsmanship) is going to just shrug or stop right there and say they don't want to play a high powered game with something they know something about.&nbsp; If you accept it that's fine.&nbsp; If you don't, it's good to get that out of the way.&nbsp;3e is no more realistic than 4e - it's just a lot quieter about it.&nbsp; However it manages to get most of the points about weapons wrong - rapier vs plate is a very good example of how in this case 3e rapier rules are quite spectacularly wrong for the real world.&nbsp; Wrong enough that using them is going to be a tooth-grinding experience and you can either say that it's holywood physics at play or get annoyed every time you try to do something.&nbsp;Absolutely.&nbsp; But thanks.&nbsp; That people are finding this a problem is something I didn't really get.&nbsp;&nbsp;This is a problem?&nbsp; It makes the game more focussed and immersive IMO.&nbsp;And this I don't understand.&nbsp; 4e does not get in the way of world building at all other than in that the PCs can gain exorbitant amounts of wealth (like Bill Gates).&nbsp; 3e's so called holistic world building in a game that dominated by magic forces me to answer weird questions.&nbsp; Questions like &quot;Why is not every NPC with Wis 11 or higher trained as an Adept?&nbsp; (And every remaining NPC with Int 11 or higher not trained as a Wizard?)&quot;&nbsp; Seriously, a town in which half the people can cast &quot;Purify Food and Drink&quot;, &quot;Create Water&quot;, &quot;Cure Light Wounds&quot;, &quot;Mending&quot;, and &quot;Sleep&quot; is going to get prosperous fast.&nbsp; And laugh at goblin attacks.&nbsp; And &quot;Why don't wizards and clerics rule the world?&quot;&nbsp;These are not questions that help me build the world I want to.&nbsp; These are questions that get in the way of my building anything except a 3.X D&amp;D world.&nbsp; The magic is too strong to do anything other than warp anything.&nbsp; 4e on the other hand simply gets out of the way for world building.&nbsp;&nbsp;I've never seen this happen any more than credulity is strained by a flying dragon.&nbsp; The world itself already has break points - these don't stand at all against the background.&nbsp;&nbsp;In which case, the problem here isn't the dissassociation.&nbsp; It's the narrativism.&nbsp; It's also one of not having picked the right character or not playing him by what you consider plausible conditions.&nbsp; Some powers are harder to fluff than others, and if you can't fluff a power don't use it at that time.&nbsp; We're in Amnesiac Vancian Mage territory.&nbsp; But what we're really in is a simulationist/narrativist clash.&nbsp; Calling it disassociation is just adding a term that obscures the roots of the problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 5628656, member: 87792"] [php][PHP][/php][/PHP] OK. I should have been taking the initial metaphor apart rather than what I saw as an extension of it into even more indefensible terms. But the case remains. 4e throws realism out of the window. Someone who knows about fencing (either sport or historical swordsmanship) is going to just shrug or stop right there and say they don't want to play a high powered game with something they know something about. If you accept it that's fine. If you don't, it's good to get that out of the way. 3e is no more realistic than 4e - it's just a lot quieter about it. However it manages to get most of the points about weapons wrong - rapier vs plate is a very good example of how in this case 3e rapier rules are quite spectacularly wrong for the real world. Wrong enough that using them is going to be a tooth-grinding experience and you can either say that it's holywood physics at play or get annoyed every time you try to do something. Absolutely. But thanks. That people are finding this a problem is something I didn't really get. This is a [I]problem[/I]? It makes the game more focussed and immersive IMO. And this I don't understand. 4e does not get in the way of world building at all other than in that the PCs can gain exorbitant amounts of wealth (like Bill Gates). 3e's so called holistic world building in a game that dominated by magic forces me to answer weird questions. Questions like "Why is not every NPC with Wis 11 or higher trained as an Adept? (And every remaining NPC with Int 11 or higher not trained as a Wizard?)" Seriously, a town in which half the people can cast "Purify Food and Drink", "Create Water", "Cure Light Wounds", "Mending", and "Sleep" is going to get prosperous fast. And laugh at goblin attacks. And "Why don't wizards and clerics rule the world?" These are not questions that help me build the world I want to. These are questions that get in the way of my building anything except a 3.X D&D world. The magic is too strong to do anything other than warp anything. 4e on the other hand simply gets out of the way for world building. I've never seen this happen any more than credulity is strained by a flying dragon. The world itself already has break points - these don't stand at all against the background. In which case, the problem here isn't the dissassociation. It's the narrativism. It's also one of not having picked the right character or not playing him by what you consider plausible conditions. Some powers are harder to fluff than others, and if you can't fluff a power [I]don't use it at that time[/I]. We're in Amnesiac Vancian Mage territory. But what we're really in is a simulationist/narrativist clash. Calling it disassociation is just adding a term that obscures the roots of the problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification