Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 4553307" data-attributes="member: 710">My preemptive "strike" on episodic vs. operation play is this:Is it crucial for operational play that the motivation for rest comes entirely from the rules of the game? The entire motivation for entering the game of operation play doesn't come from the rules, either. There is no rule forcing me to even go adventuring and exploring a dungeon or traveling the wilderness. There are no rules telling me that I have to save the princess, that I have to hunt down the six-fingered murderer of my father, that I have to aim for greater glory, that I have to flirt with the barmaid.We do all this without rule incentives to do so. What is so special about extended rests in operation or sandbox play that we need rules to enforce them? And why should these rules be healing in the first place? AD&D and 3E had lots of magical healing that brought people back to full hit points in rarely more then a day. So, even if theoretically you didn't have a Cleric or a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, lasting injuries might be reason to rest for some time. But won't you, in practice, have that Cleric and maybe even those Wands to recover the party? Isn't relying on the wound system for enforcing rests questionable? The way I see it, and probably the 4E designers saw it - whatever hit points are supposed to represent in the game world. For actual gameplay, they are not the tool used to determine long bedtimes. There is to much magic in the game to make that impossible. So no longer try to pretend otherwise, instead go full in and make it all recover automatically. That's the way the game will probably be played anyway. This is exactly one of the things that I find so refreshing and so laudable about the entire 4E design. Thinking things through to the point when the game is played and thinking about what will _really_ happen. And then consequently design the way in the way so that the RAW and RAI match how the game is played.I can see how this is also disconcerting or feels wrong. Just because most people "cheat" with magic doesn't mean that we should make this "cheat" official part of the rules and make it available to everyone. But I see this just as the kind of brutal honesty I wish more games and designers would employ. "We figured most of you play the game this way anyway, so we said - screw it - make the game work exactly like you play it anyway". Yeah, maybe they missed a few people. Maybe there are groups that don't use Wands of Cure Light Wounds in 3E, maybe there are people that don't rely on Clerics to recover the party in a day of rest. But the truth is, they are not using the system to its full "potential". So, if they could do that in AD&D or 3E, they can do it in 4E. If they don't want healing overnight, they pretend it won't exist, just as they pretended that buying or creating Wands of Cure Light Wounds wouldn't be a good strategy. Maybe the designers were wrong in this assumption. Maybe the people that "pretended" instant healing over night didn't exist because the rules allowed them to get into situation were it actually didn't, even if it was not "smart play" or "power-gaming". And now that the rules don't even offer this "illusion" anymore, it's just too much. But maybe even that is a good thing. Now these people can say what they really want, and figure out their goals, likes and dislikes. And maybe they will find a system that suites their needs, or get heard by someone else that will make a system fitting for them.</blockquote>

Verification