Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="P1NBACK" data-source="post: 5574485" data-attributes="member: 83768">I think I'm generalizing, and that's being taken out of context as if every single rule in 4E falls under the category I am describing. That's not necessarily the case. I'm talking about a general design shift from previous editions (and other RPGs in general) in 4E. The difference between a 4E fireball and earlier editions lies not in the "description" but in the implications in 4E that a fireball is a "power" that transcends the fiction, whereas in earlier editions, a fireball is a real fiery object being summoned that could potentially wreck equipment, etc. Earlier editions relied heavily on the description of the actions. We described, then applied rules. 4E is largely the opposite. We apply rules, then describe (and that's why there are arguments I describe below about fiction vs. rules). That's a generalized statement about how some people play 4E. As has been pointed out, anyone can house rule 4E or play it however they want. I can change the rules of Monopoly to fit any sort of imagined play I want. But, we see this sort of mentality all the time, especially on this forum, where people will advise DMs against "nerfing" powers because of the fiction. Why is that? I think it's largely to do with a disconnect between some of the mechanics and the fiction actually happening in the game and a general play and design ethos found in 4E.</blockquote>