Implied Setting

[danzig138]

Doesn't these two systems suggest different types of game play? Do you see how these two systems could be suggestive of very different settings?

Not really, IMHO. Despite the different mechanics in different games, IME, people tend to play the way they play. The mechanics just seem to be different expressions on how to achieve the same basic results. YMMV.

 

[tsadkiel]

The benefits for role-playing -- no matter how amazing the depth of acting and emotion -- are minor by comparison (unless, as always, the DM brings in house rules).

Which is a good thing from my point of view, since "experience for acting ability" is rather high on the list of things that drive tsadkiel into a blind killing rage.

 

[mmadsen]

Spells - the way they work is just sooo unique to this sub-genre. Nowhere else in fiction can you find fire-and-forget spells, that I know of. It's quite a difference.

The "fire and forget" spell system comes directly from Jack Vance's first Dying Earth novel. It also models how the princes of Amber "hang" spells in Zelazny's novels -- although they have spontaneous powers as well.

That said, most fantasy fiction makes spellcasting fatiguing and prone to mishaps -- both major and minor. Wizards' apprentices are supposed to make magical mistakes, and even experienced wizards are supposed to bite off more than they can chew -- if only once.

 

[barsoomcore]

In the rational behind his newest book, Arcana Unearthed, Monte Cook said something along the lines of Races and Classes being an implied setting, one for which he wanted to write an alternative.

...

Do you think the good people at WotC have even thought of this? Sure, the D20 gaming system is smooth running and streamlined, but something tells me that it will never be the end all and be all of all games.

If you read Monte's article he does not restrict the notion of implied setting to races and classes. And of course, Monte Cook was in fact one of "the good people" who designed the game in the first place, so I reckon it's pretty safe to assume yeah, they've even thought of this.

Point to one WotC representative who has described d20 as "the end all and be all of all games." They don't think that, or if they do, they sure don't say it. Why do you think they do?

Of course setting is implied by rules. That's self-evident -- it's why there's more than one role-playing game in the world. Playing WoD games is a completely different experience from playing d20 games -- which is a completely different experience than playing MERP games. Different types of systems for different types of worlds and different types of stories.

*shrug*

Big deal.

 

[Ranillon]

Which is a good thing from my point of view, since "experience for acting ability" is rather high on the list of things that drive tsadkiel into a blind killing rage.

And that's fine if you prefer power gaming (or something similar) over depth role-playing. My point is that D+D encourages power gaming whether or not that is your preference.

I don't see this as merely a matter of style -- a system that promotes a certain attitude toward playing tends to >create< that attitude in the game whether or not it was originally intended. As a result a DM looking for depth role-playing has to >actively< fight this influence in order to have the sort of game he (and his players) prefer.

 

[barsoomcore]

My point is that D+D encourages power gaming whether or not that is your preference.

Nonsense.

Or rather, yes, but ALL games promote "power gaming" in that they reward certain types of actions or results. Figuring out how to get rewards and then seeking them -- that's "power gaming".

I agree that in the core rulebooks of D&D, "power gaming" manifests itself in acquiring higher attack bonuses and other combat-related abilities -- which is what I think you mean by "power gaming".

Make your campaign about something other than killing things and you very simply remove the urge to turn characters into powerful killing machines. Less combat with drooling monsters and more interactions, emotional conflicts and haunting storylines and there you are. There's nothing the DM needs to fight against.

Sure, the core rulebooks don't provide much guidance for that sort of thing. But in no way do they work against it -- unless your players are more interested in getting Whirlwind Strike than in overcoming their character's psychological problems. And if that's the case, your problem isn't the system -- it's your players.

 

[Ron]

Not really, IMHO. Despite the different mechanics in different games, IME, people tend to play the way they play. The mechanics just seem to be different expressions on how to achieve the same basic results. YMMV.

Not really, some people loathes games such as Traveller because its limited room for character growth with experience. Others, hate D&D for having characters change from fairly incompentent to superheroes in a short time -- some even hate the idea of superheroic gaming in a Fantasy travesty seting that high level D&D games imply.

I know a few people that love D&D because they can hack a lot of things in this system. They hate to play using GURPS or other grittier engine because their characters get killed too fast. As you said, they play as they play, but, if the game doesn't help, they just drop that particular game.

 

[Ron]

Nonsense.

Or rather, yes, but ALL games promote "power gaming" in that they reward certain types of actions or results. Figuring out how to get rewards and then seeking them -- that's "power gaming".

[...]

Not exactly true. In my experience, Call of Cthulhu (BRP edition) promotes survival of the body and, specially, of the mind. I couldn't care less if my character gets any better in his skills, I am satisfied with he survives relatively sane.

You could argue that CoC rewards players with the satisfaction of uncovering the mystery that they are investigating. That's truth, but I would never associate it to power gaming.

 

[Apok]

Not exactly true. In my experience, Call of Cthulhu (BRP edition) promotes survival of the body and, specially, of the mind. I couldn't care less if my character gets any better in his skills, I am satisfied with he survives relatively sane.

You could argue that CoC rewards players with the satisfaction of uncovering the mystery that they are investigating. That's truth, but I would never associate it to power gaming.

Well, if the ultimate object of desire in CoC is to gain the satisfaction of uncovering a mystery, then wouldn't building a character that is exceptionally able to fulfill that desire Powergaming? I'd say so.

The ultimate goal of the game is irrelevant. Weather it be killing stuff, diplomacy, problem-solving or plain survival, if you build a character that uses the various game elements (skills, points, feats, ect) to their maximum effectiveness in achieving the goal of that game, you are powergaming.

 

[barsoomcore]

I couldn't care less if my character gets any better in his skills, I am satisfied with he survives relatively sane.

Right. Ergo, you are not a power-gamer. But one could still power-game in CoC, though I agree that "normally" this is less common.

But that has to do more with relative power levels than actual rules of play. Who cares if you got an extra +2 in Bluff (or whatever) when Great Cthulhu rises and swats your brain like a soggy loaf of bread?

CoC discourages power-gaming by providing a setting in which the characters are wildly outmatched, thus rendering relative power levels indistinguishable. D&D encourages power-gaming by providing a setting in which the characters are carefully matched so that small changes in relative power levels translate into large game effects.

Neither are more or less "power-gamey" in terms of rules, you see. It's the DM who sets the "power-gaminess" of a given game, not the rules. What I was objecting to was the notion that it was somehow "Extra-difficult" to run a non-power-gamey D&D game.

Huh. There is one way to create a less power-gamey game: greater reliance on random or unilateral effects. The greater the role of random chance or unilateral effects (by this I mean effects the character cannot have any control over) in a game system, the less power-gamey it will be because the rewards for power-gaming are so much lower.

That's kind of interesting, says I.