Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 5027831" data-attributes="member: 51942">It's not just a matter of preference, however - there's clearly a tradeoff to be made between "simulation accuracy" and rules simplicity, afterall, so I understand that each edition finds its own equilibrium there.  The gamist rule-centric view in favor of simple rules is a fine option - it becomes problematic when they give up any sense of in-game meaning.  This is problematic because the game is so very, very complex, and because the rules are invariable inconsistent and/or ambiguous because of it.  That's why there's a DM - not just to provide a story, but also to run it and make quick judgements about those rules imperfections.  But, if rules don't have any meaning, how is the DM to rule... and how can players guess what he'll say?There's no big problem with extremely simplistic simulation, but there is a problem for a common-sense adjudicated game when rules don't have any sense.  Not to mention the roleplaying issues with using powers that are merely some creative combination of number games.Most powers and items don't have this kind of problem (which isn't limited to 4e, though admittedly it seems more visible now).  I don't think it's anything inherent in this edition anyhow; at worst it's a more common design flaw due to the shifted focus.  In any case, it's a shame whenever it happens.</blockquote>