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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 5955558" data-attributes="member: 16586">It's not about assuming that PCs are the only capable folks around. It's about realizing that the mechanical needs of PCs and NPCs are very different. PCs are an ever present feature of the fiction and need to be modeled on a long term basis and since they are controlled by one person you can get more in depth with them. The needs of NPCs are different in the fiction. They interface with the fiction of the game only briefly and are controlled by a player (the DM) who must juggle a multitude of characters all at once. Of course this all comes down to what you see as the needs of a game when it comes to rules. When NPC A faces down NPC B in a situation off stage do you roll dice? I sure don't.  If you notice when I talk about gaming I never refer to some 'game world'. I always refer to the game's fiction because to me that's what gaming is about - generating shared fiction that no one person would anticipate. I see characters and setting as extremely fluid. They exist only in the minds of the participants and serve to suit the whims of those  involved in the game. 4e is a game that embraces this view.Note: I'm not entirely opposed to attempting sand box play or process simulation although I think D&D is a game not particularly suited to the task because the resulting simulation is nothing like anything found in fiction or history. I also think abstract mechanics like AD&D saving throws, armor that can be completely overcome with combat skill, and mixed metaphor of hp don't jive well with process simulation.If it tells you anything about the way I approach gaming even when I want to go sandboxy I reach for a system that is middle of the road between process simulation and more narrative play. I love Legend/MRQ but probably wouldn't touch classic RuneQuest with a 10 foot pole.</blockquote>

Verification