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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6350101" data-attributes="member: 957">I would completely argue that a persistent dedication to that as a primary goal *does* distinguish some of those games from others.Again, I'm not claiming that 4e rejects the idea of "being the character".  That would be absurd.  But in the cases I listed, amongst others, it openly embraces the idea that "anti-sim" is better.  Again, I'm not claiming that this is anything other than a matter of taste.  But you can't have it both ways either.  If you are only going to look at it in the most broad of terms ("involves 'simulating'") then you can't claim any real merits for any game.  They are all equivalent but the conversation doesn't tell you anything.  If you start turning over the rocks and looking at the mechanics, such as the very short list of typical examples I gave, then you start seeing how the games very much do become distinguished from one another.This I completely buy.  I mean, from an ogre's PoV one good strike with his club will kill a normal human.  One good strike = 1 success.  A fighter with 10 times the HP means the ogre needs 10 successes.  There is an analogy to be seen there.Before anyone ever heard of 4E I had events in my 3E games that could be called "skill challenges" and though the specifics were different, I think anyone would reasonable agree the core idea is there.  There was mystic shamanistic ritual that the party had to endure in an orc encampment.  They were put inside a tent with various burning herbs.  As smoke filled the tent everyone started making CON saves.  The ones how got through gain status and some perks, the ones how didn't suffered great harm.  One PC actually died.  I also recall an event that involved getting through a mountain pass during a blizzard.  There are plenty of cases where the narrative nature of the event makes these mechanics work.  But as I used to always say, the mechanics should follow the narrative, not the other way around.  You and I had this debate back when it mattered and we never agreed.  As a default mechanic it becomes very unsatisfactory for me.  Because there are plenty of time when it really doesn't fit.  You can't always say X success or Y failures is the answer.  Or, I should say, if "simulating being a character" in a quasi-naturalistic world is you highest goal, there are times when this is a substandard option.Anything I dislike about 4E can, and almost certainly does, have specific circumstances in which it does work within a 3E (or other system) game that I would love.  If it just so happens that the narrative leads to that mechanic.  If a particular fighter goes through a ritual or just experiences a crazy event, or through 1 of 10,000 possible explanations he gains the ability to self heal, then I WANT that guy to be able to bounce back 4E style.  Maybe a thieves guild has a magic door they use to test members and it always changes itself to challenge the person trying to open it.But the point is, being able to show examples where the mechanics happen to fit the narrative doesn't come close to saying that the mechanics are a good foundation for consistent use throughout the system.  At least, not if your goal is dedication to never being "anti-sim".</blockquote>

Verification