Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5791371" data-attributes="member: 2011">I prefer to draw the line at what the PC can do, and what the PC cannot do. That makes the most sense from a plausibility and roleplaying standpoint. The PC knows that he has a Str and a Dex and a Con. He might not know that he has 6 of these abilities and might not call them that (he might call Dex reflexes), but they directly represent the human (and non-human) condition.The PC knows that he has the ability to avoid attacks (AC, Fort, Reflex, Will). He might not have names for them, but the mechanics again represent a concept that the PC himself knows about. The same position holds for magic items, feats, class abilities and powers.Action Points are in that gray area. I personally consider them gamist, but I can see the argument that the PC knows that he can push himself once in a while.To me, fate points are almost like retraining. The PC knows certain abilities one day, but totally forgets them the next. It strains verisimilitude, but with 30 levels, I definitely understand the concept that the player trained the PC into a given direction and the PC is no longer fun to play for whatever mechanical set of reasons. I can buy into the fact that players need some sort of gamist mechanic like this. On the other hand, gaining the ability to go from level 1 to level 30 in 2 game months strains verisimilitude as well a bit, but that's possible in game as well.But, I don't buy that players need fate points. The game has been played for what, 37 going on 38 years without them?Quite frankly, 4E is SO very easy anymore (with the thousands of options in the splat books) that I had one recent PC not even start with an 18 (or 19 or 20) stat, but start with a 16 and his racial modifiers had nothing to do with his primary or secondary ability scores and he was one of my more effective PCs. I really don't understand the concept that players need yet another way to game the system.Of course every game element is gamist in some fashion, but we don't have to rub the nose of the DM into the dirt over it. The DM has his own model of what he wants in a campaign and it is often one where PCs are challenged, death is a real possibility, and fate points kind of defeats the purpose of that. Put fate points as an optional rule into DMG 2 at best (or in my opinion, at worst). They shouldn't (again, IMO and I know you disagree) be part of the core game.</blockquote>

Verification