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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5746777" data-attributes="member: 957">I'm absolutely certain that they could conceive of it.  The proof is that these same people did it on other games.  But, beyond that, there are quotes from them promoting this change.  I don't claim RPG design is remotely this simple, but for the topic at hand there are two major options.A) Think of a narrative and build mechanics which model that and keep them as balanced as you can.B) Build mechanics which are balanced and then make up narrative justifications for those mechanics.One of the big fundamental changes between prior editions of D&D and 4E is the move from A to B.It was a conscious choice which they thought would grow their fan base.  It would be silly to claim that either A or B are right or wrong for a random specific game group.  But I do think it is very wrong to claim that going from one to the other doesn't dramatically change the fundamental nature of the game experience.  (And, just for the record, unless my memory is way off pemerton has clearly stated that he agrees that it is a fundamental change).  A complication comes in because I firmly believe that A is vastly moire flexible than B.  So much so that it is absolutely possible to play A in a manner that feels the style of B.  So it is completely reasonable to say "4E plays EXACTLY like 3E, only with a lot of major problems fixed".  However, the person saying that need to realize that the statement needs to include "... for my play style and this may not be at all true for your play style."</blockquote>

Verification