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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6088775" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm in the variant of the latter group that thinks that heroically pushing on through injuries, while sometimes unrealistic, is part of the heroic fantasy genre. (And the superhero genre that is closely related to it.)This may signal a fundamental divergence of preferences. And, to my mind at least, it relates back to  [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]'s post upthread about using certain key design elements as a litmus test.There is an approach to RPG design - with The Forge at the centre, but the ripples have reached pretty far by now (Marvel Heroic Roleplaying thanks Vincent Baker and Clinton R Nixon in its acknowledgements!) - which holds that every episode of play should be awesome; that every episode of play should deliver dramatic thrills. (When Ron Edwards talks about playing for "story now", the emphasis is not on "story", it's on "NOW!")At least in my own experience, real life - the weeks between sessions, and the moments during sessions when people eat food or take other sorts of breaks - delivers the necessary downtime to make the pursuit of ingame drama at every opportunity desirable.If I'm looking at a system, and I'm seeing that in order to get the awesome I'm going to have to game through hours of non-awesome - eg combats or traps that nickle-and-dime away the first third or half of PC hit points; calculating encumbrance, inventory etc - then I don't think I'm interested. Whatever pleasure I am able to get out of that sort of thing I can get solving crosswords by myself.So for me, the litmus is - when I look at this system can I see where it is going to deliver all awesome, all the time? And for me, the warlord in 4e was one marker of that. The very fact that the game has as part of its core build that class, with those abilities and that function, tells me something about what the game apsires to. (Whether it also meets its aspirations is important too - in my own experience 4e mostly does, though it's not without its flaws.)Thank you.Because I thought board rules mandated respect for other posters? And putting that to one side - after all, in the real world we all know people who don't actually warrant respect - because discussion generally proceeds more productively when the ideas in play are described using language that is neutral as between the preferences of various sides, and (where possible) is acceptable to both sides.I didn't think my response was hyper-emotional - it was a one line request. I'm sorry it came across differently to you.From my point of view, everyone posting on ENworld is doing so voluntarily and for recreational purposes. I do my best not to make fun of other peoples preferences, even though I don't always share them, and I do my best to describe their play and their play experiences in language they themselves might use, because I figure that's a way to make their recreation more pleasant for them.</blockquote>

Verification