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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6578504" data-attributes="member: 6668292">[spoiler]In the future, you can use this spoiler tag: [sblock]Enter text[/sblock]You just "[ sblock] enter text [/sblock]" and it should work for you <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Right. They've just eliminated nearly all forms of magic and races (and left you with Wizard and dwarf). Now, 4e when I've played it has had a very respectable number of options as far as races and classes and backgrounds go. So I'm not complaining there. I'm just pointing out that rules, by their very nature, limit things about the game. So, if rules in my hypothetical Epic-level RPG limit things... well, that's what they're meant to do. So my reaction to that is... okay? Working as intended.A couple of things. First, I agree that taking Fireball or whatever would be fine instead, and shouldn't probably cost a feat (though some combinations definitely might be overpowered... there are, after all, thousands of powers).Second, your point on limiting things for flavor (like swords and Swordmages) is exactly what rules are often used to do: that's why you have Wizards that work the way they do (Vancian casting) and Bladesingers that use swords (elven sword mage guys) and so on. Rules are specifically made to give certain people (like Swordmages) certain abilities for a certain flavor of game.Expanding on my second point, this is exactly what I was pointing out about my hypothetical Epic-level RPG. Yes, my institution of rules would limit the narrative. As all rules do. Most likely for flavor reasons. As rules in RPGS are commonly used. Your reaction seems to be "but that's limiting." Again, my reaction to that is... okay. Working as intended.Not in my opinion (since they have rules for hammers). But, it's not like I stopped the player from doing it. I'm okay with doing it, so it's kind of moot, for the most part, in my 4e game. (Again, though, this is me, as a GM, with the power to change things, not the player.)I don't like "open to interpretation" rules when they're pretty well spelled out. I imagine it is actually "walking" and it is fairly explicitly 24 hours. But yeah, I could see me houseruling it, too, if I wanted to. Hell, I houserule my own RPG from time to time (none of this or that allowed in this campaign).Almost certainly, yep. But again, if nothing else, page 42 was still awesomely useful for me, as the GM.This is the "changing the rules" but I kinda implied when it came to jumping to the moon being impossible.That feels like a lot less support for me when I'm playing (instead of GMing). I have to rely on my GM, table to table, to translate what I can do and how hard it is for me to do. That's a terrible feeling for me, as a player. That pulls me out of immersion constantly, since I have to stop often to assess if I think something is possible, then how hard it is (immersion retained so far), then I have to think if the GM would think it's possible and how hard they think it is, and then I have to determine if I want to go through with asking about it, just going for it, or trying to make a case for what I think. And it's all of those last steps that pull me out of immersion, and they pop up often in broadly vague systems, in my experience. (For others, looking things up in the book will pull them out of immersion. It goes both ways.)It's a hard mix. I have some NPC traits that aren't mechanical, so I get the value. But at the same time, the more that's in the hands of the player, the more empowered they are to make decisions. So, if you have a skill that allows them to fish up personality traits of NPCs (like my system does), it gives insight into how to interact with that character (how to push buttons, what you need to bribe them, etc.).I want my D&D to be in a "medieval type of society" setting anyway. There was a huge turn off moment for me and 13a when I heard of someone's OUT being a jetpack. But, I also despised the idea of Eberron mainly for the dinosaurs and noir and trains. And anything with steampunk elements (sorry EN World publishing).But yeah, it's all preference, there. One of my players once joked about making a guy with a magical ring that made force green objects and TK-moved things and was worthless against yellow things. It's possible within my system, and just knowing that kinda made a deep feeling of regret bubble up inside of me for the briefest of instants. But it's okay; I don't have to use my game that way, even if it's possible. Everyone likes different setting conceits, and everyone likes different amounts of player involvement in making the setting. And that's cool with me (see my sig).[/spoiler]</blockquote>

Verification