Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5433122" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think that I do, but I suspect not as much as you. As long as I've got a general idea of what's going on, I'm happy - especially in combat - for rules talk to act as a bit of a placeholder (I suspect a bit like Mallus described upthread).When I was GMing Rolemaster it was similar - which meant that we often had only a very general sense of where each individual was on the battlefield, because RM doesn't depend upon positioning in the way that 4e does, and so I often just sketched up a map on scrap paper and drew crosses or initials to mark the starting points of the various characters, and the occassional arrow to indicate significant movement.So as far as this part of combat is concerned, 4e gives me a better sense of the gameworld than RM did. On the other hand, RM mechanics do give a lot more information about the details of injuries than 4e!I think my appproach is a bit more freeform - at least outside of combat - but I think this is more just a habit from traditional play than a conscious preference. I'm trying to get a bit more procedural in the way I run skill challenges, in particular to try to get every PC present in the situation engaged with the challenge.I like how the 4e rulebooks present exploration in a type of procedure. Even though it didn't tell me anything new, and I haven't literally followed the procedure in play, I think it helped me reflect on the role of exploration in the sessions I'd been running, and hence to consciously prepare an exploration-heavy scenario.Thanks, and agreed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5433122, member: 42582"] I think that I do, but I suspect not as much as you. As long as I've got a general idea of what's going on, I'm happy - especially in combat - for rules talk to act as a bit of a placeholder (I suspect a bit like Mallus described upthread). When I was GMing Rolemaster it was similar - which meant that we often had only a very general sense of where each individual was on the battlefield, because RM doesn't depend upon positioning in the way that 4e does, and so I often just sketched up a map on scrap paper and drew crosses or initials to mark the starting points of the various characters, and the occassional arrow to indicate significant movement. So as far as this part of combat is concerned, 4e gives me a better sense of the gameworld than RM did. On the other hand, RM mechanics do give a lot more information about the details of injuries than 4e! I think my appproach is a bit more freeform - at least outside of combat - but I think this is more just a habit from traditional play than a conscious preference. I'm trying to get a bit more procedural in the way I run skill challenges, in particular to try to get every PC present in the situation engaged with the challenge. I like how the 4e rulebooks present exploration in a type of procedure. Even though it didn't tell me anything new, and I haven't literally followed the procedure in play, I think it helped me reflect on the role of exploration in the sessions I'd been running, and hence to consciously prepare an exploration-heavy scenario. Thanks, and agreed. [/QUOTE]

Verification