Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5433387" data-attributes="member: 22779">Gonna jump the fence here for a second.There is a problem with disassociating mechanics from narrative in that if the players are not fully engaged, or lazy, or just plain tired after a long day, the game can very quickly turn into nothing more than <a href="http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=719" target="_blank">complicated Bingo calling</a>.Also, there can be a real disconnect when the narrative that the player has decided upon becomes excessively unbelievable.&nbsp; For example, in our current campaign, one of the players took a Bard and then narrated his players in a sort of &quot;killing joke&quot; fashion.&nbsp; He'd make people's head explode from embarrassment.&nbsp; Very Celtic bard tradition sort of thing.The problem was, the adventure meant facing giant slugs and bullywugs.&nbsp; I mean, how much offense can a giant slug really take when you insult it's mother?&nbsp; It became something of a distraction at the table and resulted in a lot of jokes about the mechanics.&nbsp; In other words, it really drew us out of the game.In 3e, that same bard simply would not be able to affect the giant slug.&nbsp; His abilities would be language dependent.&nbsp; It's not much different than the rogue trying to sneak attack undead.&nbsp; It just doesn't work.&nbsp; And, to a large degree, I think most people can see why it works that way.&nbsp; It certainly makes a fair bit of sense.But, 4e divorces mechanics from narrative, so, insulting the slug causes the slug pain.&nbsp; There's certainly strengths and weaknesses in both the 3e and the 4e approach.&nbsp; I think, and this is my personal opinion only, that 4e allows a lot more flexiblity for the players to narrate what's going on in the game.&nbsp; On the downside, 4e allows a lot more flexibility for the players to narrate what's going on in the game.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5433387, member: 22779"] Gonna jump the fence here for a second. There is a problem with disassociating mechanics from narrative in that if the players are not fully engaged, or lazy, or just plain tired after a long day, the game can very quickly turn into nothing more than [url=http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=719]complicated Bingo calling[/url]. Also, there can be a real disconnect when the narrative that the player has decided upon becomes excessively unbelievable. For example, in our current campaign, one of the players took a Bard and then narrated his players in a sort of "killing joke" fashion. He'd make people's head explode from embarrassment. Very Celtic bard tradition sort of thing. The problem was, the adventure meant facing giant slugs and bullywugs. I mean, how much offense can a giant slug really take when you insult it's mother? It became something of a distraction at the table and resulted in a lot of jokes about the mechanics. In other words, it really drew us out of the game. In 3e, that same bard simply would not be able to affect the giant slug. His abilities would be language dependent. It's not much different than the rogue trying to sneak attack undead. It just doesn't work. And, to a large degree, I think most people can see why it works that way. It certainly makes a fair bit of sense. But, 4e divorces mechanics from narrative, so, insulting the slug causes the slug pain. There's certainly strengths and weaknesses in both the 3e and the 4e approach. I think, and this is my personal opinion only, that 4e allows a lot more flexiblity for the players to narrate what's going on in the game. On the downside, 4e allows a lot more flexibility for the players to narrate what's going on in the game. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification