Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Someone" data-source="post: 5970250" data-attributes="member: 5656">I don't know, I've seen a quite wide divide at things that are very basic, and I'm not even talking about if a fighter jumping 10 meters through non-supernatural, if unusual means or what resource system should spellcasters use, but if the ruleset should be more gamist or simulationist (nobody seems to argue for a more narrativist approach)To put an example there are people who likes the fact that in 3e dragons have a 1d12 hit die because they are very tough. Others like the fact that 4e abstracts that and just gives the monster the stats it needs,&nbsp; and then tries to pay some service to the fluff with power names and whatnot. Some people find it only one step below repugnant and find 3e's approach aesthetically pleasant, others find the simulationist approach unnecessarily convoluted or problematic (because they have no problem divorcing game stats which purely dictate how the monster interacts with the PCs in skirmish combat with the in-game monster and how it lives and breathes) and like the ease and balance they bring.I don't see how these can be made modules short of rewriting each core rulebook two or three times.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Someone, post: 5970250, member: 5656"] I don't know, I've seen a quite wide divide at things that are very basic, and I'm not even talking about if a fighter jumping 10 meters through non-supernatural, if unusual means or what resource system should spellcasters use, but if the ruleset should be more gamist or simulationist (nobody seems to argue for a more narrativist approach) To put an example there are people who likes the fact that in 3e dragons have a 1d12 hit die because they are very tough. Others like the fact that 4e abstracts that and just gives the monster the stats it needs, and then tries to pay some service to the fluff with power names and whatnot. Some people find it only one step below repugnant and find 3e's approach aesthetically pleasant, others find the simulationist approach unnecessarily convoluted or problematic (because they have no problem divorcing game stats which purely dictate how the monster interacts with the PCs in skirmish combat with the in-game monster and how it lives and breathes) and like the ease and balance they bring. I don't see how these can be made modules short of rewriting each core rulebook two or three times. [/QUOTE]

Verification