Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7006719" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Tony, I've tried very hard to convey it with a lot of words and breakdown of play example analysis of various systems.But how about this.&nbsp; Step over into the &quot;I like the way 4e did monsters better&quot; thread.&nbsp; This is one example of so very many.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?512546-Thing-I-thought-4e-did-better-Monsters&amp;p=7006452&amp;viewfull=1#post7006452" target="_blank">Here is an informative (and pervasive on these boards) quote</a>:This is a statement effectively saying that &quot;a sizable portion of the userbase&quot; prefers an objective D&amp;D game engine (mechanics and procedures) to that of a subjective one.&nbsp; I know you hate it, but in the Forgist sense, this is a Sim priority...which is effectively the prioritization of objective game engines and causal logic to simulate fantasy world processes (&quot;to tell them how the world works&quot;).&nbsp; All for the purpose of serial fantasy world exploration....which is very different from the relentless pacing of action/adventure centered around the thematic conflict and genre tropes important to PCs.&nbsp;&nbsp; The functionality of monsters/NPCs prioritize different things (exhibition of living, breathing, biological entities with discrete agendas which can be entirely PC-indifferent vs interesting complications/obstacles that hook directly into/push back against the PCs' thematic goals...and are likely to be single-scene relevant most of the time), so they're engineered in different ways.&nbsp; All of these component parts are either objective (world-centered and PC-neutral) or subjective (PC centered and play premise relevant).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7006719, member: 6696971"] Tony, I've tried very hard to convey it with a lot of words and breakdown of play example analysis of various systems. But how about this. Step over into the "I like the way 4e did monsters better" thread. This is one example of so very many. [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?512546-Thing-I-thought-4e-did-better-Monsters&p=7006452&viewfull=1#post7006452"]Here is an informative (and pervasive on these boards) quote[/URL]: This is a statement effectively saying that "a sizable portion of the userbase" prefers an objective D&D game engine (mechanics and procedures) to that of a subjective one. I know you hate it, but in the Forgist sense, this is a Sim priority...which is effectively the prioritization of objective game engines and causal logic to simulate fantasy world processes ("to tell them how the world works"). All for the purpose of serial fantasy world exploration....which is very different from the relentless pacing of action/adventure centered around the thematic conflict and genre tropes important to PCs. The functionality of monsters/NPCs prioritize different things (exhibition of living, breathing, biological entities with discrete agendas which can be entirely PC-indifferent vs interesting complications/obstacles that hook directly into/push back against the PCs' thematic goals...and are likely to be single-scene relevant most of the time), so they're engineered in different ways. All of these component parts are either objective (world-centered and PC-neutral) or subjective (PC centered and play premise relevant). [/QUOTE]

Verification