Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZzarkLinux" data-source="post: 6860636" data-attributes="member: 77932">I'm gonna try to wade through the loaded discussion of &quot;leveling mechanics&quot; and &quot;suspension of disbelief&quot; and OotS and Modelling. Hope my constitution modifier is high enough <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />I would go farther and say that 4e starts with the STORY. My understanding is that 4e uses a story-first approach, and &quot;spotlight&quot; mechanics. 4e used a lot of abstractions, like hitpoints, hitpoint-recovery, healing surges, generic &quot;attacks&quot;, turn based combat, initiative, powers that only worked &quot;in combat&quot;, minions, solos, controllers, and of course the artwork which was sometimes above realism.I'd say 4e's goal was to be story-first, and function as a storytelling tool. I really like 4e for this approach.I would argue that the point of RPGs is to (1) express the author's thoughts and (2) make money <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />But I think you're right that 2e tried to be more. And that 2e was used as a &quot;reality model&quot; more than 4e was. At the dawn of modern entertainment, creators went with what was acceptable, and wanted to avoid &quot;exceptions&quot;. 2e authors wanted to be compatible with existing homebrew settings and existing mideval fiction. So there was more of an emphasis on &quot;believability&quot; and &quot;compatability with existing culture&quot; during the 2e era.I think you are mixing &quot;objective modelling&quot; with &quot;exception-based design&quot; though. IMO no D&amp;D version is an acceptable model, using HP and turn-based combat and such. But I agree 2e was much better with consistency across tables, simplicity with character creation, and avoiding exception-based design. After all, &quot;Exception-Based Design&quot; was 4e's middle name!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZzarkLinux, post: 6860636, member: 77932"] I'm gonna try to wade through the loaded discussion of "leveling mechanics" and "suspension of disbelief" and OotS and Modelling. Hope my constitution modifier is high enough :-) I would go farther and say that 4e starts with the STORY. My understanding is that 4e uses a story-first approach, and "spotlight" mechanics. 4e used a lot of abstractions, like hitpoints, hitpoint-recovery, healing surges, generic "attacks", turn based combat, initiative, powers that only worked "in combat", minions, solos, controllers, and of course the artwork which was sometimes above realism. I'd say 4e's goal was to be story-first, and function as a storytelling tool. I really like 4e for this approach. I would argue that the point of RPGs is to (1) express the author's thoughts and (2) make money :-) But I think you're right that 2e tried to be more. And that 2e was used as a "reality model" more than 4e was. At the dawn of modern entertainment, creators went with what was acceptable, and wanted to avoid "exceptions". 2e authors wanted to be compatible with existing homebrew settings and existing mideval fiction. So there was more of an emphasis on "believability" and "compatability with existing culture" during the 2e era. I think you are mixing "objective modelling" with "exception-based design" though. IMO no D&D version is an acceptable model, using HP and turn-based combat and such. But I agree 2e was much better with consistency across tables, simplicity with character creation, and avoiding exception-based design. After all, "Exception-Based Design" was 4e's middle name! [/QUOTE]

Verification