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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="smathis" data-source="post: 4113992" data-attributes="member: 56465">Yet in Rodney's own post, his paladin chooses (essentially) a Narr-style sub-optimal choice by not going after his shield.If he was tuned into G mode, he would have gone for the shield for the bonus.If he was tuned into S mode, he would have probably just taken a breather. He was just dropped to negative hit points only seconds before.But, in N mode, he jumped back into the fray (sans-shield) because that's what was good for the story. And because that's what he felt his character would do. He chose a sub-optimal choice, unencumbered by any sense of "realism" applied to the environment.If anything 4e has downplayed D&D 3e's Simulationist foundation. Hence, you see all the grognards who are pissed off because Healing Surges don't make sense or because getting fully healed up between encounters isn't "realistic".I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I see 4e as a boon to Narr-play.Or at least as much of one as we could ask for from D&D.Hong stated it well that GNS is only good for arguing about GNS.But I don't understand how 4e could simultaneously screw over Sim by becoming a boardgame/CCG/MMO and at the same time decrease Narr possibilities by boosting/retaining Sim while implementing undoubtedly the most Narr D&D subsystems in the history of the game.Sure. It's not Burning Wheel. But it was never going to be.Maybe selecting a more realistic basis for comparison might help.I mean, if you were going to do Narr D&D, would you rather have 3e?</blockquote>

Verification