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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5760045" data-attributes="member: 95493">I used it because people are describing a simulationist game and I prefer it to the vague "make it up" game.In the way they were describing, I want a game that models the real world. When I play someone without magic, I don't want or expect a magical result. This would include if I swung my sword and moved an enemy back 2 squares. I am a strong man, at 6'1-6'2, and I am very capable of doing a number of impressive things with a weapon in my hand. I cannot force an enemy back 10 feet just by swinging my muscly arms at them. I could force them back if I ran into them and pushed them but that is a different mechanic entirely. Yes, I do want realism but as that post previously stated, the "nods to realism" that this thread is about has very little connection with actual realism or realistic outcomes. Instead it seeks things which seem realistic while being improbable.I'm actually failing to see the real difference in what you're saying, vicious mockery aside.A. I want the game to describe how the world works, and hopefully it resembles things I can relate to but in terms of magic not necessarily.B. I want to understand how the rules relate to the capabilities of character, creatures and objects in the game. Anything that effect will likely intersect with. I don't really need to know what happens if a lightning bolt were to hit the pea (or globe as of 4e)-sized fireball before it exploded but it would be good to know if it is meant to set things on fire, or how it works underwater, or why it hurts things which are left on their own vs something held.What does the power currently look like in 4e? I haven't been able to find an online quote of the power exactly how it is now. Does it suit my sensibilities better? *rereads* I guess so. I can't imagine what circumstances it might be missing but it does seem to address the skeleton problem from before - so I'm happier.For the record, once again, I never said that vicious mockery shouldn't affect the skeleton. Though, based on this description, I could find reason against it. All my points on the subject were how little sense it made for vicious mockery to hurt the (shadow) magic which binds the skeleton, its dead creator, or the god who has the portfolio associated with the spell.My main issue with many of the assumptions of those on your side Balesir is that you are saying 4e works very different then (i) it actually does and (ii) 3e.Beyond that, if you need me feel free to quote or summon, but I'm just going in circles with you people. I'm tired of replying to (nearly) everything that is addressed and in turn only getting quoted with individual lines. It is especially bothersome when I feel as though you make no real counterpoints to my comments and concerns. (Not you/just you Balesir.)</blockquote>

Verification