Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Edition Wars – Does the edition you play really have an impact on the game?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6028709" data-attributes="member: 87792"><p>Here you're illustrating one of the weaknesses of 3.5 - that it's an incomplete simulationist system. This is not about system inherently being bad. It's about simulationism only simulating what it simulates.</p><p> </p><p>In 4e there aren't really rules for an impromptu shot at the eyes. But if you want to take a character who specialises in going for the eyes, it's easy enough. You're unlikely to actually blind people most of the time (a tiny target, very hard to hit, and normally fatal). But you take powers that debuff the target's to hit roll or daze them to simulate blood in the eyes from a forhead cut or them flinching. And then you take temporary blinding powers like Blinding Barrage, Sand in the Eyes, or Go For The Eyes for the big stuff. And voila. You have your rogue who shoots or stabs for the eyes. In 4e the better you know the rules the <em>more</em> you know how to do and can evaluate - and there are good rules for improvisation (p42). Of course that you need to grok 4e to see how to do things like this and the rules don't explicitely tell you how is a flaw.</p><p> </p><p>So this is a limit of 3.5 not one of knowing the rules. As @pmerton points out above, the problem is that the players who know the rules don't know how attempts to go for the eyes will work in 3.5 because they need to read the DM's mind with ... limited support from the rules.</p><p> </p><p>Now, let's instead of a gamist/narrativist system go for a narrativist system - <a href="http://www.crackmonkey.org/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html" target="_blank">Spirit of the Century</a> will do because the rules are online (the rules for Leverage and Marvel Heroic roleplaying which I mentioned earlier are similar - and if you want a fantasy version of SotC it's called Legends of Anglerre). Let's see what Spirit says on blinding.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>Blinding </strong></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Whether it’s throwing sand in someone’s eyes, spraying someone with a harsh chemical or tossing a can of paint in his face, the goal is the same: keep him from being able to see. This likely involves the attacker rolling Weapons and the defender rolling Athletics, with the maneuver succeeding if the attacker gets at least one shift. A successful maneuver puts the aspect “Blinded” on the target, which may be compelled to add to the defense of their target, or to cause them to change the subject or direction of an action. It can’t force them to take an action they don’t want to (so a blinded character can’t be compelled to walk off a cliff if the character is not moving around). </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p>Sounds complex? Tagging aspects is one of the core mechanics of SotC. So this boils down to "Make a maneuver in place of an attack - and if you hit instead of doing damage you've set them up for anyone to be able to invoke a debuff". This isn't a rule, it's an illustration of a general rule that you can do any maneuver like that and set someone up with an aspect they don't want for others to tag.</p><p> </p><p>Spirit of the Century, because it is not simulationist, doesn't limit your imagination in the way you are claiming rules do. And the players have a clear idea of the expected outcome when they do so.</p><p> </p><p>So once again, I suggest you try games that aren't D&D for a while. And recommend Dread and Dogs in the Vineyard. I'll also add <a href="http://danielbayn.com/wushu/WushuOpen.rtf" target="_blank">Wushu</a> to the recommended list. They all actively enable their style of play by creating rules that enable a playstyle rather than attempt to simulate a world. And they don't get in the way.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6028709, member: 87792"] Here you're illustrating one of the weaknesses of 3.5 - that it's an incomplete simulationist system. This is not about system inherently being bad. It's about simulationism only simulating what it simulates. In 4e there aren't really rules for an impromptu shot at the eyes. But if you want to take a character who specialises in going for the eyes, it's easy enough. You're unlikely to actually blind people most of the time (a tiny target, very hard to hit, and normally fatal). But you take powers that debuff the target's to hit roll or daze them to simulate blood in the eyes from a forhead cut or them flinching. And then you take temporary blinding powers like Blinding Barrage, Sand in the Eyes, or Go For The Eyes for the big stuff. And voila. You have your rogue who shoots or stabs for the eyes. In 4e the better you know the rules the [I]more[/I] you know how to do and can evaluate - and there are good rules for improvisation (p42). Of course that you need to grok 4e to see how to do things like this and the rules don't explicitely tell you how is a flaw. So this is a limit of 3.5 not one of knowing the rules. As @pmerton points out above, the problem is that the players who know the rules don't know how attempts to go for the eyes will work in 3.5 because they need to read the DM's mind with ... limited support from the rules. Now, let's instead of a gamist/narrativist system go for a narrativist system - [URL="http://www.crackmonkey.org/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html"]Spirit of the Century[/URL] will do because the rules are online (the rules for Leverage and Marvel Heroic roleplaying which I mentioned earlier are similar - and if you want a fantasy version of SotC it's called Legends of Anglerre). Let's see what Spirit says on blinding. [INDENT][B]Blinding [/B] Whether it’s throwing sand in someone’s eyes, spraying someone with a harsh chemical or tossing a can of paint in his face, the goal is the same: keep him from being able to see. This likely involves the attacker rolling Weapons and the defender rolling Athletics, with the maneuver succeeding if the attacker gets at least one shift. A successful maneuver puts the aspect “Blinded” on the target, which may be compelled to add to the defense of their target, or to cause them to change the subject or direction of an action. It can’t force them to take an action they don’t want to (so a blinded character can’t be compelled to walk off a cliff if the character is not moving around). [/INDENT] Sounds complex? Tagging aspects is one of the core mechanics of SotC. So this boils down to "Make a maneuver in place of an attack - and if you hit instead of doing damage you've set them up for anyone to be able to invoke a debuff". This isn't a rule, it's an illustration of a general rule that you can do any maneuver like that and set someone up with an aspect they don't want for others to tag. Spirit of the Century, because it is not simulationist, doesn't limit your imagination in the way you are claiming rules do. And the players have a clear idea of the expected outcome when they do so. So once again, I suggest you try games that aren't D&D for a while. And recommend Dread and Dogs in the Vineyard. I'll also add [URL="http://danielbayn.com/wushu/WushuOpen.rtf"]Wushu[/URL] to the recommended list. They all actively enable their style of play by creating rules that enable a playstyle rather than attempt to simulate a world. And they don't get in the way. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Edition Wars – Does the edition you play really have an impact on the game?
Top