Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4292234" data-attributes="member: 2011">The issue is that 4E (sometimes strongly) sacrifices believability in some areas in the name of simplicity.The entire concept of healing, for example, is not. It's not healing if the PC never really gets damaged. So, on the one hand, we are led to believe that the PC is not really taking damage and jumps back to full capability between combats or after a good nights rest, and on the other hand, we have terms like Cure and Healing Surges and Damage.That's not internally consistent.And, what's most interesting is the extreme justifications and rationals concerning it.It's merely a mechanic for ease of play. Rationalizing it doesn't work because the rationalizations are after the fact. The explanation did not come first, the mechanic came first. The WotC designers did not say &quot;How can we emulate a willpower or morale type system&quot;? Instead, they said &quot;How can we speed up play?&quot;. Hence, these types of rationalizations are artificial and not internally consistent because the rule did not come from the explanation, the explanation came from the rule.And sometimes, simplicity is a good thing. Other times, it affects some people's verisimilutude. The fact that it does so is not a cause for criticism of those people. They just have a different believability threshold than the OP.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 4292234, member: 2011"] The issue is that 4E (sometimes strongly) sacrifices believability in some areas in the name of simplicity. The entire concept of healing, for example, is not. It's not healing if the PC never really gets damaged. So, on the one hand, we are led to believe that the PC is not really taking damage and jumps back to full capability between combats or after a good nights rest, and on the other hand, we have terms like Cure and Healing Surges and Damage. That's not internally consistent. And, what's most interesting is the extreme justifications and rationals concerning it. It's merely a mechanic for ease of play. Rationalizing it doesn't work because the rationalizations are after the fact. The explanation did not come first, the mechanic came first. The WotC designers did not say "How can we emulate a willpower or morale type system"? Instead, they said "How can we speed up play?". Hence, these types of rationalizations are artificial and not internally consistent because the rule did not come from the explanation, the explanation came from the rule. And sometimes, simplicity is a good thing. Other times, it affects some people's verisimilutude. The fact that it does so is not a cause for criticism of those people. They just have a different believability threshold than the OP. [/QUOTE]

Verification