NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5306238" data-attributes="member: 42582">There's nothing tacit about the "admission". From the time some of the rules details of 4e started to be announced I have stated frequently and forcefully that it's a very different game from either AD&D or 3E. If it wasn't, I'd have no interest in playing it.Not all 4e players agree with me. Not all see the game through the same "indie design" framework that I do. Not all are FoREs (= Friend of Ron Edwards, as coined by The Shaman). But to the extent that they disagree with me, they can speak for themselves.More generally, I have to ask whether there is really a need to treat everyone's remarks as an attempt to score points. You've stated why you don't like a "scene" or "encounter" based game. Fine. A lot of other people do like such a game. I don't think you will persuade them (us) that this enjoyment is misguided by playing "gotcha" with everything they (we) say.If you think that an encounter or scene based game makes forewarning or player choice impossible, I think you have a strange conception of such a game. In a by-the-book Forge-style encounter based game, it is entirely the choices of the players that drive the sequences of scenes/encounters. And given this, the forewarning is ample.As for the suggestiong that consistency is impossible or moot, I have no idea where that comes from or why you think it must be so. I run a scene-based 4e game. Not only is gameworld consistency maintained, but it is essential - it is the interaction between coherent backstories of players and gameworld that drives the game (for examples of what I have in mind, see the <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/291766-settings-empty-vs-richly-detailed-locations.html" target="_blank">thread I started</a> on different ways of using setting material).I have GMed scene-based Rolemaster games in which save-or-suck is part of the game. Resolving encounters in such a game can involve resolving the suckage. (Various features of the Rolemaster spell lists and dying rules mean that save-and-literally-die is fairly rare in anything but very high level play.) I now GM a 4e game in which there is no SoD. I prefer the 4e approach, because dealing with the suckage pre-emptively (by giving bonuses to saving throws, making heal checks etc) is on the whole more engaging play for everyone at the table, including the player of the affected PC, than is dealing with the suckage after the event.In a scene-based game the notion of avoiding the encounter altogether through careful forewarning, or waiting for the medusa to go shopping and burgling her house while she's gone - that is, the sort of responses to save-or-die threats that make sense in exploration-based play - are simply not applicable. The point of a scene-based game is that - for whatever thematic reason - the players want their PCs to engage the medusa. The game therefore benefits from rules that enhance the playing out of that engagement. In my view, this is the rationale, in a game like 4e, for going from SoD to SSSoD.And to conclude - as far as I know, no one is trying to steal your or Ariosto's books or make you change your game. All I'm trying to do (and this is also how I read Mr Myth) is explain why a game without SoD but with SSSoD can be a better game for a particular and highly viable approach to play.</blockquote>

Verification