Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pentius" data-source="post: 5632846" data-attributes="member: 6676736">That may be true, but there's an implication I think I'm seeing here that in 4e, the mechanics must come first, and then the narrative must fit.&nbsp; That isn't necessarily true, either mechanics or narrative can come first, and furthermore, I think most systems work this way.As an example, we've talked a bit about Trick Strike, and how it can be explained in the narrative as the Rogue being an awesome fencer.&nbsp; But why is the Rogue's player using Trick Strike?&nbsp; He could have it in mind that this encounter would be the best one of the day to use it in, which would be the closest I can come to thinking how the mechanics would be put first.&nbsp; Alternately, the Rogue's player could be wanting to express, in the narrative, how awesome a fencer their Rogue is, and think Trick Strike is a good way to do that.&nbsp; In that case, the narrative is the driving force, and the Trick Strike just a tool for the player to do it with.A good bit of words have been had here on how the narrative may be made to fit the mechanics, without exploring why the mechanics might be brought up.&nbsp; Now, as a player or DM, I usually consider it common courtesy to make the narrative fit the mechanics, as soon as the specific mechanics are brought out.&nbsp; Because if you're going to bring the mechanic out, you should use it, not use half of it and then say &quot;just kidding, guys.&quot;&nbsp; But I also usually don't bring a specific mechanic into play until I have an idea of what narrative I want to get going. I assume this is fairly normal, I mean, you don't start talking about Power Attack if you want your character to make a careful, precise shot that trades damage for accuracy.Possibly.&nbsp; &quot;The rules providing context and consistency&quot; would seem to imply that you could look on the rules as a model for world physics, and if that is what you mean, then I wouldn't try to make the case.&nbsp; On the other hand, if you look at the rules not as pseudo-physics but just as rules for a game(per my long-ago made &quot;tools for interacting, not physics for modeling&quot; post), then I probably could.&nbsp; They are fairly consistent, after all, just consistently modeling PCs' adventures in a fantasy world, as opposed to consistently modeling a world that adventures could take place in.Whether I will make the case is another story.&nbsp; I'm not actually here to sell 4e, and I don't really think you're buying, anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pentius, post: 5632846, member: 6676736"] That may be true, but there's an implication I think I'm seeing here that in 4e, the mechanics must come first, and then the narrative must fit. That isn't necessarily true, either mechanics or narrative can come first, and furthermore, I think most systems work this way. As an example, we've talked a bit about Trick Strike, and how it can be explained in the narrative as the Rogue being an awesome fencer. But why is the Rogue's player using Trick Strike? He could have it in mind that this encounter would be the best one of the day to use it in, which would be the closest I can come to thinking how the mechanics would be put first. Alternately, the Rogue's player could be wanting to express, in the narrative, how awesome a fencer their Rogue is, and think Trick Strike is a good way to do that. In that case, the narrative is the driving force, and the Trick Strike just a tool for the player to do it with. A good bit of words have been had here on how the narrative may be made to fit the mechanics, without exploring why the mechanics might be brought up. Now, as a player or DM, I usually consider it common courtesy to make the narrative fit the mechanics, [b]as soon as the specific mechanics are brought out.[/b] Because if you're going to bring the mechanic out, you should use it, not use half of it and then say "just kidding, guys." But I also usually don't bring a specific mechanic into play until I have an idea of what narrative I want to get going. I assume this is fairly normal, I mean, you don't start talking about Power Attack if you want your character to make a careful, precise shot that trades damage for accuracy. Possibly. "The rules providing context and consistency" would seem to imply that you could look on the rules as a model for world physics, and if that is what you mean, then I wouldn't try to make the case. On the other hand, if you look at the rules not as pseudo-physics but just as rules for a game(per my long-ago made "tools for interacting, not physics for modeling" post), then I probably could. They are fairly consistent, after all, just consistently modeling PCs' adventures in a fantasy world, as opposed to consistently modeling a world that adventures could take place in. Whether I will make the case is another story. I'm not actually here to sell 4e, and I don't really think you're buying, anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification