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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scribble" data-source="post: 5756413" data-attributes="member: 23977">I prefer games that give me a rule and are flexible enough in the flavor of said rule to let me explain it however I want. I'm not a huge fan of the idea that a rule needs to be set in place based on some random designer's random view of the universe and how it works, and if whatever else you want to do is outside of that idea then you need a new rule. To me, that idea seems way too overly complex for no reason aside from some people needing things to be set in stone like an instruction manual for the D&D universe.Just give me a basic idea and my brain will run with it from there. That's part of the fun for me.I pretty much HATE the idea of rules being looked at as a "concrete" expression of something in the game world. It's way too structured and science textbook for me, and ends up removing some of the magic of the game itself.This is one of the reasons I like 4e. I like that the monsters behave differently then the players. I like that just because there is a class called "fighter"it doesn't mean that all things that fight need to use that as an expression of that idea.I can build a monster, give it some fighter type powers, but also a magic spell or something to boot. When a monster approaches you don't know what to expect, and to me this only serves to heighten the "magic" feeling of the game itself.Games that choose the other method tend to inevitably lead to someone crying foul when something seems "out of place" from their expectations about the game world. Instead of adding to the magic, out of place items just lead to long rules arguments. Instead of In Search of The Unknown, it becomes In Search of The Properly Formulated Rules Elements.I like that the martial power source isn't strictly defined as mundane. It's a mix of mundane and magicish, just not arcane, and flexible enough to allow you to mold whatever type of fighter you want. Do you want to explain your fighters abilities as a sort of mystic power? Go for it... Do you want to say he's just a master manipulator able to make stuff happen that the untrained eye might think is magic? Go for it.When I see people say something like CAGI can only be explained as magic, or that healing from a warlord can only be explained  by magic... I feel like the problem is in their own heads. It's honestly hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that there can/should be only one interpretation of how a rule "displays" itself in the game universe, and if it doesn't match their own expectations it's somehow wrong...The idea that a named element should have only one interpretation bugs the heck out of me. Personally I think those people are missing what I consider the best thing about tabletop RPGs... The ability of the human mind to flex around concepts so that it matches whatever you need it to.Shrug. Thems just muh thoughts. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification