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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zustiur" data-source="post: 5892717" data-attributes="member: 1544">Just to be clear; I wasn't arguing that we should adopt that system for DND, merely pointing out that it would have made more sense when coupled with the 'powers represent an opportunity in combat' rationale.I can't speak for other groups, but your group certainly differs from mine. Specifically; focus on the available mechanical resources does not help our immersion in the fictional situation. Quite the opposite. Speaking for myself, rather than my whole group; it's the focus on mechanical resources that makes 4E feel like a board game. Agreed.I do understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree.I think narrativism would be better supported by martial powers all being at will, but with a reduced chance of success (to accommodate balance). Attempting something a second time and failing is part of the story. Not attempting something a second time because you did it earlier removes that event from the story. We don't say, "I attempt Strike of the Manticore, but only manage to achieve Twin Strike". We say, "Bugger, I'm out of powers. I guess I'll just use Twin Strike".Technically there's nothing to stop you describing it the first way, but I'd be truly amazed to see a group that does play that way. I find nothing narrativist about being reduced to at will attacks. In fact it is generally a sign that the battle is dragging, and thus becoming boring. That never helps the story.(Rightly or wrongly) I've always felt that DND was a system of rules that tried to approximate the real world chance of succeeding at manual tasks. Magic notwithstanding. AEDU does nothing to simulate the real world as I see it. If anything, I feel that AEDU reverses the situation; now the story has to approximate the mechanics, instead of the mechanics approximating the story.</blockquote>

Verification