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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gadget" data-source="post: 5594708" data-attributes="member: 23716">p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }  Yes, I definitely agree with the "there is no wrong way to do it” argument.  There may be a “wrong way” at my table or your table due to particular style and taste preferences, but it is a good attitude for a designer to have.  It is a spectrum, and I think it is generally a good a idea to keep from going too far toward one end of the spectrum.     I think people who cry “You CAN'T have a perfect simulation!” are not doing so out of some academic design aesthetic that is being offended; but rather the imperfect simulation tends to take certain mechanics into the simulation without the many varied complex interactions that may combine to keep the effect in check in the fictive “reality” under simulation.  Take, for example, a Trip Monkey build, or many of the various other mechanics that end up having the exact opposite of the simulationist goal of immersion: a result that does not match up very well with expected outcome in the fiction under simulation.  This can be, IMHO, very fourth wall breaking as well.  So more simulation focused mechanics need to be added to try and make the result more in line with the expected outcome...which often leads to more mechanics in a cycle.  I think the to consider with the “grid” combat, with both 3e & 4e, but particularly in 4e, is that they are there largely to satisfy the tactical side of the tactical/story axis on Mike's chart, rather than exclusively the Immersion/Abstraction axis.  I would say AD&D favored the story side of this axis, while 3e & 4e favor the tactical side.  Can it be that a lot of the rules complexity comes from this axis rather than the other?  I don't know.</blockquote>

Verification