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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 5764764">I don't think that is difficult to show at all. People who didn't make the transition to 4E have explictly stated things like many of the per encounter powers that aren't based in magic or being tired strain belief for them. They've stated that healing surges when they aren't magic strain belief. Many of these things existed in the game before. D&D has never been a pure simulationist engine. The problem for lots of gamers is there was no real attempt to "nod to realism" in their view with 4E. Explanations seemed handwave, even if they became problematic under scrutiny. If you are dealing with a handful of class powers here and there no big deal, but 4E is built around the powers, so it just called attention to itself.  Mind you, I am not saying you are wrong if you find everything in 4E perfectly believable. Obviously there are ways to explain how the powers work and how healing surges work that produce consistent and believable results for many gamers. But I think it is pretty self evident that 4E ran into a believability problem with a large number of gamers.  I think throwing one's hands up in the air and not trying because it is challenging isn't the solution here. The answer is actually pretty simple: begin with common sense, ask why with every mechanic and see what playtesters have to say about the believability of the game.  Bottom line is this, ignoring or handwaving believability is going to lose you a large chunk of customers or potential customers. It is pretty obvious just perusing online forums like this, talking to gamers in real life, and just paying attention to my own group that believability is very important to lots of people. I don't know the precise number of people it matters to, but I am going to guess the range is something like 20-30% off hand.    The evidence goes way beyond en world alone. Look at virtually any forum and you will see endless debates about realism and believability in 4E. Look at the sales figures we've been seeing, statements from people who work at WOTC, etc. I very well could be wrong. But to me arguing that there isn't widespread concern about believability in 4E is like arguing that there wasn't widespread concern about balance in 3E.   D&D is a product and players are the customers. You should always understand what your customers want. Now you can divide customers into groups and say "we don't need to worry about group X, let's focus on group Y". But clearly ignoring group X in this case wasn't wise. If the game is missing an essential ingredient for 20% of the customer base, no amount of consensus building at the table is going to convince them its a great product. You can consider more than one measure while developing a game. They can make sure the mechanics work in play and make sure they are believable. It isn't an either or thing here. It is possible to design with balance, flavor and believability as goals.</blockquote>

Verification