Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 4985099" data-attributes="member: 20998">Disagree. Superman definitely uses the powers when they "fit the need," but when they fit the need is when the story says they do. So both Superman and 4e use powers when the "rules permit." However, in a Superman story the rules are the rules of storytelling. In 4e, the rules are encounter/daily/at-will. Different means but for the same end result. Producing a good story.If players could use their dailies and encounters until they're blue in the face, they would do just that. Encounters and dailies would lose their specialness and at-wills would likely never get used. Actually maybe not even encounters would be used. But if you want a good story, you can't use these powers all the time or it's just uninteresting. It makes no more sense that a rogue can't tumble through an entire fight than it does that Superman doesn't just heat vision the crap out of all his foes before getting close to them.  But neither case is about simulating the "real world." These things are done sparingly so when they occur they are meaningful. If the Superman example doesn't do it for you, think Karate Kid and the Crane Kick. That's a daily power at work. To be honest, I don't think this is a system specific concern at all. Being able to whip around a polearm and hit all adjacent enemies would be akin to the whirlwind feat in 3.x. If you're doling that out for free in a 3.x game, you could do the same in 4e by inventing a power to replicate the effect. Anyway you slice it, the minotaur is unbalanced. If you and your players are cool with it, there's no issue. But it's unfair to presume its somehow more balanced in one edition of D&D vs. another. I'd argue that 3e "purists" would argue that the minotaur and his abilities aren't fair as well.I think what you're trying to pinpoint it the third part of the triangle. It's not a slider actually. Folks refer to it as GNS theory - Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist. To take a quick stab at it (and likely produce a bevy of angry people <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-P" title="Stick out tongue    :-P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":-P" />), I'd say 4e does Gamist and Narrativist and mostly ignores Simulationist. 3e would probably be pegged as Gamist and Simulationist with nods to Narrativist. I think that the missing part of the "triangle" can vary in difficulty regarding how easy it is to bring into the game based upon what part is missing. For example, I don't really see 4e supporting aspects of Simulation. By it's fundamental design it just doesn't support it. On the flip side, putting Narrative into a 3e game is clearly simple to do. I would argue that 4e can produce some interesting Narrative scenarios that 3e can't unless everyone at the game table is sold on the concept of playing their characters at a meta-level to build a great story. Great narrative moments, in my experience, in 3e games come from doing the unexpected or scoring a timely crit, etc. Whereas the encounter/daily power structure provides some built in tools to engender great narrative moments.A lot of the above falls into the "to each his own" category of course. And I'm certainly not trying to sell one edition over the other. I'm just trying to tell it like I see it and hopefully adjust misconceptions. Both editions get panned for countless reasons, many of which are likely valid. But I'd argue that a lot of other complaints out there should be debunked.</blockquote>

Verification