Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lizard" data-source="post: 4293624" data-attributes="member: 1054">There are many games that work like that; the key is, the CHARACTERS aren't deciding, the PLAYERS are.Imagine, for simplicities sake, a system whereby the players have 10 &quot;damage tokens&quot; and two &quot;plot immunity&quot; tokens. The pit trap does two &quot;tokens' worth of damage. Alternatively, the player can spend one plot immunity to negate it, or take double damage now to earn another Immunity token to use later. Each player decides (normal damage, no damage, or double damage) and then describes what happens. One might say &quot;I fall, but roll to minimize the hurt -- normal damage&quot;. One might say &quot;I fall badly, bruising my head&quot; -- double damage. One might say &quot;I grab the ledge at the last minute and leap out, unharmed&quot; No damage, and spend a token. From the perspective of the CHARACTERS, none of these decisions were conscious; they are unaware of the narrative context.4e shoves D&amp;D much more strongly towards this type of system than ever before, though hit points and saving throws have always been part of it -- read EGG's essays on those two mechanics in the original 1e DMG -- he talks about them as narrative conventions, not as simulations.I have an initial adverse reaction to 4e because 3x fit in my mental 'simulationist' box, wherase other games I've played and enjoyed, such as Vampire or Sailor Moon, are more firmly abstract/narrativist. Once I accept that 4e is basically no longer the same KIND of game 3e was (mostly simulationist, a bit gamist, only a touch narrativist), it becomes much more tolerable judged on its own merits as its own game, and not really as a continuation/upgrade ofr 3e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lizard, post: 4293624, member: 1054"] There are many games that work like that; the key is, the CHARACTERS aren't deciding, the PLAYERS are. Imagine, for simplicities sake, a system whereby the players have 10 "damage tokens" and two "plot immunity" tokens. The pit trap does two "tokens' worth of damage. Alternatively, the player can spend one plot immunity to negate it, or take double damage now to earn another Immunity token to use later. Each player decides (normal damage, no damage, or double damage) and then describes what happens. One might say "I fall, but roll to minimize the hurt -- normal damage". One might say "I fall badly, bruising my head" -- double damage. One might say "I grab the ledge at the last minute and leap out, unharmed" No damage, and spend a token. From the perspective of the CHARACTERS, none of these decisions were conscious; they are unaware of the narrative context. 4e shoves D&D much more strongly towards this type of system than ever before, though hit points and saving throws have always been part of it -- read EGG's essays on those two mechanics in the original 1e DMG -- he talks about them as narrative conventions, not as simulations. I have an initial adverse reaction to 4e because 3x fit in my mental 'simulationist' box, wherase other games I've played and enjoyed, such as Vampire or Sailor Moon, are more firmly abstract/narrativist. Once I accept that 4e is basically no longer the same KIND of game 3e was (mostly simulationist, a bit gamist, only a touch narrativist), it becomes much more tolerable judged on its own merits as its own game, and not really as a continuation/upgrade ofr 3e. [/QUOTE]

Verification