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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4861614" data-attributes="member: 48965">Good post with some very good points.I'm just curious, when discussing the actual merits of a game, and it's rules how does this factor in to it?  Not trying to be snarky just trying to clarify what you mean.I disagree with you here to a point.  I agree that in previous editions hp's were a function of  fantasy biology... but I don't see 4e as making hp's a function of narrative role.  Instead they've become a function of balancing out in-game challenge to PC's according to role and level.  This is mechanics not narrative based design.Yes, but didn't 3e/3.5 porovide you with the tools for both.  You could have a world populated by rank and file kobolds, kobolds modified to fit the narrative and/or a mixture of both. The problem, IMO, is that 4e only provides one aspect as opposed to giving you both and letting one decide the type of game he wants.I'm curious, why do you feel 4e is great for.. "the situation will be the foundation for the mechanics"... I guess what I'm wondering is what does it do specifically that makes it great for this type of game.  I think it's a great "challenge based on interaction of mechanics in play game",  but I fail to see how it in any way promotes or encourages "narrative" first.  If anything I feel it promotes mechanics first and applied narrative to fit the mechanics.  Now granted the mechanics can often be interpreted in many ways but that still isn't "narrative" first... it's mechanics first.I agree and while I have issues with 4e I still play it, though I honestly can't say I prefer it over 3.5 with E6 (well E8 for my group), C&C or even Exalted 2e  for my fantasy fix.</blockquote>

Verification