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: 5500350" data-attributes="member: 957">Exactly right.  At least as far as I am concerned.But I do think the point of disconnect is the idea of what constitutes "narrativist".For me (and I'm pretty confident you as well) it means that the narrative is in control.  You provide a narrative and the mechanics provide a result and then you move on from there with the mechanics constantly chasing right behind the narrative.But for some others "narrativist" seems to just mean that the mechanics define the action and so long as a narrative can be created after the fact which fits the dictates of the game, it is all good.You are exactly describing Andy Collins' great quote here."In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience. ...since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece. It's got to have a hook (or multiple hooks, preferably) for every class because it’s got to be compelling for people to play it. Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming"Complications with a pact and things like that get all hung up in that undesirable "interesting simulation" stuff.  And if anything created any inconsistencies in balance might cause people to prefer a different "game piece".  And certainly lets never design the Warlock to be a warlock in his own right, but instead he needs to be designed to with the presumption of fitting into a team.One of my common descriptions of 4e: role playing "on top" of the system.  You can role play ANYTHING in 4E that you can in 3E.  But the game comes first and you are left to role play "on top" of it.Again agreed.  There is no argument at all that there may be great reasons for loving 4E and hating 3E.  But there seems to be a consistent attempt to try to equate them in ways they were not designed to be equivalent.  They have very different focuses, strengths, and weaknesses.  I think a big part of the issue is that 3E doesn't really have any safety nets built in.  3E can be played very very badly.  It seems to me there are some people who simply never had the fortune of getting into a really good 3E game, so they don't see 4E as having any relative weaknesses and, frankly, don't know what they are missing.  If you compare 4E to 3E run poorly by a bad DM, then 4E shines.  Even when run by a bad DM, 4E has a strong, resilient system to mitigates the issues.  That is why 3E fans are always saying they don't recognize the descriptions that 4E fans insist are so important.</blockquote>

Verification