Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5594404" data-attributes="member: 2067">Interesting that Mearls isn't saying that any style is the "wrong way to do it." He's saying that lots of folks do it this way, and that maybe 4e does, maybe it doesn't (though I still think that immersion is very important for many elements of 3e and 4e grid combat, it's kind of the exception rather than the rule here).I think one of the reasons the vocabulary is so contorted is that he was avoiding "simulation," specifically because it's usually just knocked down by folks who say exactly that: "You CAN'T have a perfect simulation!"The game system, when it does this, isn't trying to give you a perfect simulation. It's trying to give you the sense of being an imaginary character in an imaginary world, rather than of being a dude at a table rolling dice. When the mechanics leap out at you and scream at you that you are clearly playing an artificial construct, that you are obviously spending your weekend afternoons pretending to be a magical gumdrop elf, it can be very off putting to people who want to get into character. It breaks the fourth wall too hard. Some folks are fine with it, others, it clearly hurts their ability to play the game. I think part of the weakness here is that D&D has exactly that kind of patchwork, even in 4e. If you're not a fan because 90% of the rules are too abstract for you, AND 10% are too deeply immersive for you, adjusting that "grid" isn't going to help you get a better grasp on what you want to play. It's not that the game is sitting at the wrong point, it's that its application is all out of whack. Making the game more immeserive overall isn't going to help you on that 10% that you think is already too immersiveI've always kind of contended that people want more immersive mechanics ("more rules") for things that they want to spend a lot of time doing, and more abstract mechanics for things that they want to breeze by. Simple helps you resolve fast, complex helps you feel more in control. I think a big box of D&D that can grab the whole grid would have to include the ability of DMs to pick and choose which points to have at which level of complexity. It can't say "The only rules for combat are these grid combat rules," it has to say "One way to do combat is to use these grid combat rules. Another way is to roll a d20 and the highest wins. Another way is to make a foam sword and go out and wail on your buddies." It also has to say "One way to convince an NPC of something is to have a conversation in-character at the table. Another way is to roll a series of "social attacks," slowly wearing away their "social defenses." Another way is to use your Charm Person ability." It has to say that for every kind of conflict usually found in D&D (exploration, interaction, combat, and discovery). Which seems like a tall order. I dunno....I just had the idea that maybe all this is WotC leading up to the announcement of old edition stuff going up as Print On Demand or OGL or something. Certainly would be very all-inclusive! <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