Will all spells be attacks?

[Felon]

Exactly. My initial post was basically supportive of his position, so digging in his heels on this point is pretty self-defeating.

 

[Rechan]

Good lord. Arguementative much?

As opposed to insulting much by just saying "You don't understand, you missed it completely"?

I was correcting you; I understood what you said. I just disagreed with it. And you're calling me argumentative? You're the one who's insisting that it does! I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

Game mechanics implicitly affect certain aspects of a setting. If you want characters to have access to magical resource X, then the rules may dictate that you have to include element Y in your setting, and that can have effects that ripple outwards to affect other elements. Take Heroes of Battle for instance. They go into what a historical medieval armies resources are, then they explain how an army set in D&D would be dramatically different.

And that doesn't imply a particular setting to me.

The suggestions of the rules of how x works doesn't mean "And thus y must exist in the world" to my interpretation.

You're welcome to type "It is it is it is" until you're blue in the face, but that won't make me agree with you. And really, if you want to keep insisting that it is, then that makes you the argumentative one by continuing to argue the point when I've said my opinion on the matter.

 

[Rechan]

How do you reconcile the concern you have, that 4e won't allow you to play a certain type of character with the belief that mechanics do not affect or lead to an implied setting? The two statements seem contradictory.

Not to me. So a Character cannot be played at the gaming table. But that doesn't tell me how the world must operate.

 

[Mort]

Not to me. So a Character cannot be played at the gaming table. But that doesn't tell me how the world must operate.

No - it's not that a character cannot be played at the table - it's per the rules x cannot be done. If at any point you say "well x can be done just not at the table" then you are changing the rules to conform to your view of the setting - which really confirms the entire point.

OK - lets say in published setting x, there are no spells that can be cast in less than 10 min (all magic is essentially ritual magic), - by definition there can be no standard wizard duels no direct confrontations between mages as we see in traditional D&D (and of course magic may be useless in a standard fight). Magic is completely different. How does this mechanic not impact the setting?

 

[Mort]

Not to me. So a Character cannot be played at the gaming table. But that doesn't tell me how the world must operate.

To respond differently to this point - telling a player something cannot be done, or must be done in a certain way - which is what the rules do, form the players perception of the setting. I'd argue that the players perception of the setting is the most important perception that exists and if they have perceptions that imply something about the setting - than the rules imposing on the setting has already happened.

 

[Rechan]

lets say in published setting x

I stopped reading here.

You're all ready talking about a published setting that says x. Not the universal RULES that require that all settings must operate this way, but one setting that has decided how things work in that setting.

You just did the exact opposite of what you're trying to argue. The rules didn't dictate the setting, the setting dictated the rules.

 

[Rechan]

Doublepost.

 

[Felon]

As opposed to insulting much by just saying "You don't understand, you missed it completely"?

I was correcting you; I understood what you said. I just disagreed with it. And you're calling me argumentative? You're the one who's insisting that it does! I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

If someone keeps saying they disagre with you about something that's an objective matter of fact, then you can only figure A) there's a miscommunication, or B) they are being willfully obtuse. I gave the benefit of the doubt and thought I needed to explain the concept. I've laid it out now, explained it in as straightforward as possible. The reaction was defensiveness and indignation, which indicates a chip that was on a shoulder long before I got there.

You're welcome to type "It is it is it is" until you're blue in the face, but that won't make me agree with you. And really, if you want to keep insisting that it is, then that makes you the argumentative one by continuing to argue the point when I've said my opinion on the matter.

The way I see it, the point of an putting forth an arguement in a discussion forum isn't to win over an individual, but rather to make sure that the readers in general understand whose position has credibility and whose doesn't. Ask yourself if telling people you're just going to dig in your heels and disagree no matter what anyone says is a benefit or a detriment to one's credibility.

 

[Mort]

I stopped reading here.

You're all ready talking about a published setting that says x. Not the universal RULES that require that all settings must operate this way, but one setting that has decided how things work in that setting.

Huh? what universal rules? I'm not talking about a published setting I'm talking about a published rules system. You know: D&D 3x, Deadlands, Palladium etc. - all different game systems for modeling the world. Or more specifically there are no "universal rules" and there won't be until 1 game system gets 100% market share (which is realistically an impossibility).

Each system presents rules that model the world in the way the system designers want it to be modeled. And each will not only play differently but imply a certain setting solely because the rules function in a certain way.

I guess I'm just extraordinarily puzzled how you can be concerned that a system dictates how something must be done but not think that it impacts the setting - the two go hand in hand.

 

[Felon]

Not to me. So a Character cannot be played at the gaming table. But that doesn't tell me how the world must operate.

It tells a person something about how that world operates. There's nothing about acknowledging that the rules create an implied setting that requires every implication to be sweeping and obvious.