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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PeterWeller" data-source="post: 4078746" data-attributes="member: 55795">I hate this argument because it assumes that roleplaying has to take place in a "believable" world.  Now, I'm pretty sure you mean internally consistent more than you mean realistic when you say, "believable," but still, the argument stands, why do you give two craps about believability when you're shooting magic lasers at dragons?  Dungeons & Dragons is a game about heroic adventures.  I think you burden that when you try to make the world too believable.  In fact, I feel it's detrimental to roleplaying a heroic adventurer when you strive for believability because then you spend you're time concerning yourself with banalities instead of pretending you're an adventurer or creating heroic narratives and situations.  The 3E focus on modeling everything with rules was detrimental to DMing because it forced you to think about how stuff would work with the rules instead of providing a framework with which to develop interesting and exciting stuff.  I think you're own thread about magic-less dragons illustrated this nicely.  You ended up pigeon holing a lot of really great ideas because they wouldn't "work."It looks to me that while 3E made an attempt to consistently model a world where fantastic adventures could take place, it ended up failing at both of these because focusing the rules around the former ended up actually limiting the latter, and now 4E is trying to simply model fantastic actions and letting the whole, "so, just how does all this interact, actually?" bit slip back into the background.  This appears to be a return to earlier editions.  In fact, aside from the changes to healing and magic, 4E looks more like TSR's editions than 3E.</blockquote>

Verification