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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 4270007" data-attributes="member: 3887">Ask him. He posts here. I can only speak for myself, and so far, 4e looks to present no significant difficulties for modeling my homebrew.See, I never though D&D provided a 'quality model'. I think the only simulationist elements D&D ever had were the ones people brought to it themselves. They didn't find them in the rules.  What does persistent in the game world mean in the context of RPG play outside of 'the DM remembers some of what happened'? D&D isn't a weather model running on a lab computer.I think some mechanics provide a better play experience that others, and I think some gaming groups are better at mutually creating the sense of a persistent, living world, which is largely independent of the rules.But modeling a world? No rule set does that. Some just dampen the arguments between players better. 3e... a world modeling system in which inertia doesn't exist (see the Charging rules), aging invariably makes one smarter and wiser, broken limbs are impossible, limb loss is impossible, except in special cases involving magic cutlery, everyone has a lot of gold, illiteracy only exists among the very angry... need I do on?All those things make perfect sense in the context of facilitating a certain kind of action-oriented FRPG play. But taken as the actual underpinnings for a simulated world and they look silly, as does the resulting world.Again, D&D was never good at simulation. The real imperatives where always gameplay oriented. 4e is just more honest about that then its predecessors, as was 3e in it's time.Go ahead and laugh, and I'll go ahead and not have problems using 4e.</blockquote>

Verification