Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KidSnide" data-source="post: 4121164" data-attributes="member: 54710">This is the classic difference between a game and a toy.&nbsp; A game is about the activity or process of playing in which you attempt to complete certain goals based on the game.&nbsp; A toy is a thing that you use to invent your own activity.&nbsp; One of the interesting things about RPGs is that (generally) they are games from the perspective of the players and toys from the perspective of the GMs.&nbsp; (Players who go off to build castles and towns are also using it as a toy.)My take on 4E is that it is going to be a much better game than 3E, but a worse toy.&nbsp; That is, the tactical decisions that PCs get to make are going to be more interesting, and there will be fewer rules that block gameplay &quot;because that's the way the universe would work&quot;.&nbsp; But, of course, because the rules are designed to make the best game, the (sometimes foolish, but very interesting) internal consistency that was a hallmark of 3E is not as strong in 4E.&nbsp; That makes it less fun as a toy because you can't imagine a world in your head by starting with a few assumptions and letting all the rules go click-click-click to generate interesting results.&nbsp; (I note that those results were often interesting to think about, but did not necessarily generate interesting decisions for the PCs.)&nbsp; As has been observed by many others, this &quot;less of a toy&quot; effect is particularly harsh if you are of the &quot;the rules are the physics of the world&quot; camp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KidSnide, post: 4121164, member: 54710"] This is the classic difference between a game and a toy. A game is about the activity or process of playing in which you attempt to complete certain goals based on the game. A toy is a thing that you use to invent your own activity. One of the interesting things about RPGs is that (generally) they are games from the perspective of the players and toys from the perspective of the GMs. (Players who go off to build castles and towns are also using it as a toy.) My take on 4E is that it is going to be a much better game than 3E, but a worse toy. That is, the tactical decisions that PCs get to make are going to be more interesting, and there will be fewer rules that block gameplay "because that's the way the universe would work". But, of course, because the rules are designed to make the best game, the (sometimes foolish, but very interesting) internal consistency that was a hallmark of 3E is not as strong in 4E. That makes it less fun as a toy because you can't imagine a world in your head by starting with a few assumptions and letting all the rules go click-click-click to generate interesting results. (I note that those results were often interesting to think about, but did not necessarily generate interesting decisions for the PCs.) As has been observed by many others, this "less of a toy" effect is particularly harsh if you are of the "the rules are the physics of the world" camp. [/QUOTE]

Verification