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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheFindus" data-source="post: 5758328" data-attributes="member: 75791">The 3.5 rules for the spell fireball describe explicitely what kind of sound the fireball creates, that it creates no pressure, what the hand movement of the wizard looks like, that it starts out as a pea-sized bead and then stretches out, etc., that you have to make a touch attack in certain situations and on and on.Oh, and it says that unattended objects will burn. If an attended object is concerned, I guess we have to look up a different rule in a different book.Do you really think all of this is neccessary, that a rule like that for a spell is somehow better than the 4E version, which states the raw numbers and then presents us with a flavor text as a basic guideline?Why not let the players (or the GM, which I think is the default) narrate what the smell, the sound, the gestures are? And fall back on a basic guideline for all powers when a specific question pops up, such as: does the fireball burn the paper in the room?As somebody else upthread has already mentioned, 4E requires less books at the table because it was designed that way. Less talk about rules, even less time spent searching for a specific rule.Using the word "excelled" makes it sound so positive when in my experience it was certainly not. Because what a rule like the 3.5 fireball spell does is take away room for an individual narrative because it sets a more in depth default line from which it is harder to part. Want a louder version than a "low roar"? Want more pressure? Want a different hand movement? In 3e you cannot just "reflavour", because all these things are set into a rule that is part of the crunch of the spell description. And then you might end up with more talk at the table, because you just cannot change the crunch, can you? It is hard for some people to change that because it is crunch. In 4E on the other hand, it is flavor to begin with, and that is easy to change.The basic setup of 4E is that there are general rules, which are overruled by specific rules that you find in the power description. And a lot of times the rules say: you decide on how to play this in the situation when this comes up. Page 42 sets a clear example for this: basic, but very enjoyable and playable rules that can apply to a certain narrative. I do not recall something like this in 3e. THIS is what 4E excels at.I think it is a good thing that you can have the powers on cards (like Magic), because that makes the game at my table easier for everybody. You know, read what is on the card and then discard it after you used the power. It makes the game easier. I like the fact that there are general rules in one rules compendium and specific rules for individual powers on these cards (like Magic). Other than that, two seperate games.What does balance have to do with this? The question of how much narrative is prescribed in a rule text is not about balance. A more narrative game can just be as unbalanced as 3e was and still is.But to leave those things out that obviously can be subject to different narratives for different people in different groups, even in small ways, and to focus on what is really important for a power to work in which way, which is numbers and keywords and a basic description, empowers the players to fit the power to what kind of narrative they like to play with.</blockquote>

Verification