Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6986647" data-attributes="member: 996">Nod.&nbsp; In a story, an item of X that does X, when the story needs X to be done in order to progress to a satisfying conclusion, the item is a McGuffin.&nbsp; In a setting with no story assumed, an item that does X is just a thing that exists in the setting (and information about it 'a bit of lore').&nbsp; It's up to the players to grab the item and start doing X until they've told a story.&nbsp; Often along the lines of &quot;how I got rich&quot; or &quot;how I got us all killed&quot; by doing X a whole lot in new and and creative ways.I think folks are too quick to slam the 'codified' label on 4e like it's a bad thing.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; Yes, 4e had solid, clear rules that worked, and experience progression through 3 conceptual 'Tiers' was part of that.&nbsp; But, the scope of the Tiers themselves, like all those little italic power descriptions, was ultimately mutable.&nbsp; In fact, it seemed pretty hard for many DMs, or even WotC, itself, to stick to the Tiers' stated fluff.&nbsp; Neverwinter stuffing epic/paragon themes into an arc that only spanned Heroic levels is the instance Pemerton brought up.&nbsp; Another would be Dark Legacy of Evard.&nbsp;&nbsp; Really depends on the world.&nbsp; (Well, and the relation of mechanics to the world.)&nbsp; In some fantasy genres/worlds a small band of heroes taking on hundreds of enemies would be fine, in others, it'd be an heroic last stand.&nbsp; How well a system lends itself to doing either of those is something it might be judged by.5e hasn't thrown out the swarm mechanic, either (and 3.x originated it, AFAIK). Well, 5e is meant to be simpler.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6986647, member: 996"] Nod. In a story, an item of X that does X, when the story needs X to be done in order to progress to a satisfying conclusion, the item is a McGuffin. In a setting with no story assumed, an item that does X is just a thing that exists in the setting (and information about it 'a bit of lore'). It's up to the players to grab the item and start doing X until they've told a story. Often along the lines of "how I got rich" or "how I got us all killed" by doing X a whole lot in new and and creative ways. I think folks are too quick to slam the 'codified' label on 4e like it's a bad thing. ;) Yes, 4e had solid, clear rules that worked, and experience progression through 3 conceptual 'Tiers' was part of that. But, the scope of the Tiers themselves, like all those little italic power descriptions, was ultimately mutable. In fact, it seemed pretty hard for many DMs, or even WotC, itself, to stick to the Tiers' stated fluff. Neverwinter stuffing epic/paragon themes into an arc that only spanned Heroic levels is the instance Pemerton brought up. Another would be Dark Legacy of Evard. Really depends on the world. (Well, and the relation of mechanics to the world.) In some fantasy genres/worlds a small band of heroes taking on hundreds of enemies would be fine, in others, it'd be an heroic last stand. How well a system lends itself to doing either of those is something it might be judged by. 5e hasn't thrown out the swarm mechanic, either (and 3.x originated it, AFAIK). Well, 5e is meant to be simpler. [/QUOTE]

Verification