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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4511476" data-attributes="member: 2067">And if you don't, there is a divide.I'm with you, here.I'm saying that, for me, it is the best when they both address the behavior of the game world, when they inform each other and, together, shape the behavior of the game world.When one or the other has to "win out," it is unsatisfying. They should work together. The story should lead naturally into mechanics which should lead again into story which leads again into mechanics. They should work together, rather than be separate. When mechanics has to win out (when you "trip" an ooze because it would be unfair to rob someone of their ability), it doesn't satisfy me. When story has to win out (when you have to decide an NPC's role in a metagame sense before the PC's even deal with it), it doesn't satisfy me. When the two work together (a mechanic that erodes your Sanity score and thus causes character twitches) it is the most satisfying.There is all the difference in the world between a system that the DM adjudicates, and the DM simply handwaving it. If there wasn't, I wouldn't need 900 pages of rules.They don't have to be drawn from the same pool of resources. They just have to have a mechanically measurable effect, somewhere. They can be silo'd away from combat easily enough.Shoulda, woulda, coulda...4e didn't. And this isn't OK for some people, because other games DO, and the desirability of an impact may, in fact, trump whatever failings the system does have.If there was an explicit link between class title and character description, yeah, that might be a problem. In fact, I believe this was one of the reasons that it's not called "thief" anymore? So that the class title can be applicable to a broader range of archetypes? Yeah.Fortunately for most, that's a relatively minor offender when compared to the complete lack of a crafting system (for instance). Well, the OP offered a system they thought should be good enough for anyone.I told them why it wasn't (and, by extension, why 4e's isn't). Defending that position has pretty much been my MO. That position doesn't need solutions, it just needs to be accepted ("Yes, 4e is lacking a detailed crafting system, and I can see, if it is very important to you, how 4e might be lacking, in that respect!") or denied ("No, 4e is not lacking a detailed crafting system. Here is what you missed:"). Once we're aware of what the problem is, we can worry about solutions for it, but I feel like I'm having enough difficulty even establishing the presence of a problem (and I can't understand why it is this difficult to establish).</blockquote>

Verification