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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5566875" data-attributes="member: 82106">It is just a different level of abstraction and different representational tools. I don't agree that there is something fundamentally different going on between Sorcerer and 4e (or say DitV either for a similar example). You can no more resolve an action in 4e without making the relevant choices than you can in Sorcerer. Fundamentally it boils down to the same thing. 4e simply has a STRONG concrete representation framework (a battle map with a grid, etc). That may allow you to be LAZY, but you can likewise be lazy in Sorcerer, just at a slightly different level. Notice in both games there may be preconditions for or favorable adjustments for specific actions in specific contexts.With a given group of players you probably WILL get slightly different results. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses. Nor does one or the other directly enable more or less creativity in play. A more abstract representation may demand that the players spend more time negotiating and clarifying details, but if those details matter that will have to happen somehow (usually automatically in 4e). Really I would say what I see is that 4e tends towards a more expositive mode where you explain the results of things "the wall was slippery, I fell" where you might work it out more ahead of time in other systems (since you will need to clarify the operant conditions enough to decide what to try in the first place). Some differences there, but IMHO less than some people make out. Both types of games are fun though and quality narrative should happen in both cases (and may not in either case).</blockquote>

Verification