Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 4343819" data-attributes="member: 46713">Well, I've experienced exactly the same thing in my 3E group and I wouldn't say it's a bad group at all.There's lots of metagame thinking and talking going on but it's clearly separated from in-game speaking and (mostly) actions. They accept abilities they cannot explain during play, but they'll typically ask me about them after the session: 'How did they do this?' More often than not, I feel it's better if I can tell them that everything that happened can be explained within the game rules, i.e. it was a feat/spell/item that allowed them to do it.'Require' is a bit too strong a word for this. I'd say the system encourages it, though. Since there are quite clear rules for everything, players expect them to be applied to everything, including npcs.In fact that's one of the main points that initially drew me to 3E: identical rules for monsters, npcs and player characters. As years went by and the campaign progressed into higher levels I began to realize the disadvantages of this approach.The 4E approach also has disadvantages, though. I dislike that there is no way to tell if a monster's stats are exactly as intended or in error. Unless something is blatantly out of order, every deviation from the design guidelines can be explained away by exceptional design.Good for the 4E designers, bad for DMs:I can always change statblocks if I feel they're in error, but comparing stat blocks to the guidelines to make sure they're not in error is exactly the kind of thing the new approach was supposed to render unnecessary.Errors like the hill giant's damage don't exactly help to make me trust the stat blocks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jhaelen, post: 4343819, member: 46713"] Well, I've experienced exactly the same thing in my 3E group and I wouldn't say it's a bad group at all. There's lots of metagame thinking and talking going on but it's clearly separated from in-game speaking and (mostly) actions. They accept abilities they cannot explain during play, but they'll typically ask me about them after the session: 'How did they do this?' More often than not, I feel it's better if I can tell them that everything that happened can be explained within the game rules, i.e. it was a feat/spell/item that allowed them to do it.'Require' is a bit too strong a word for this. I'd say the system [i]encourages[/i] it, though. Since there are quite clear rules for everything, players expect them to be applied to everything, including npcs. In fact that's one of the main points that initially drew me to 3E: identical rules for monsters, npcs and player characters. As years went by and the campaign progressed into higher levels I began to realize the disadvantages of this approach. The 4E approach also has disadvantages, though. I dislike that there is no way to tell if a monster's stats are exactly as intended or in error. Unless something is blatantly out of order, every deviation from the design guidelines can be explained away by exceptional design. Good for the 4E designers, bad for DMs: I can always change statblocks if I feel they're in error, but comparing stat blocks to the guidelines to make sure they're not in error is exactly the kind of thing the new approach was supposed to render unnecessary. Errors like the hill giant's damage don't exactly help to make me trust the stat blocks. [/QUOTE]

Verification