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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of Epic Level Play?
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6285644" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I am a bit confused.</p><p></p><p>Upthread, I suggested that breaking out BattleSystem - a distinctive mechanical framework for resolving mass combats - is not a particularly significant marker of paragon tier play. And part of my evidence in favour of that point was that, in my 4e game, we were able to use the skill challenge framework to resolve the PCs' leadership of the duergar during the latter's defence of their citadel against a purple worm incursion.</p><p></p><p>In post 67 you seemed to dispute this.</p><p></p><p>Now you are saying that it counts as mechanical differentiation to bring a different skill to bear based on the fictional positioning. But in a system with multiple skills/abilities, when does this not happen? And even in the imagined game where both climbing and swimming are covered by a generic Athletics or Survival skill, the fictional positioning will still matter to whether or not pitons, or "spider-like finger-pads", can be used as an augment to the attempt (typically yes for climbing, typically no for swimming).</p><p></p><p>Also, I would add: I'm not sure I agree that a wall is defined as an obstacle on which Climb skill can be applied, and a pool or stream as one on which Swim skill can be applied. This may be true in programming computer games (that is not a field with which I'm familiar). I don't think it is has to be true for a table-top RPG, and I think for many table-top RPG's it is not true. "Climb skill" is often defined simply as ability at climbing. And Swim skill as ability at swimming. Then, when we are told that a challenge involves the need to ascend steep or sheer surfaces, we know that Climb skill is relevant because we know what climbing is, and what steep/sheer surfaces are. Likewise, with appropriate substitutions, for challenges involving streams or pools, Swim skill and swimming.</p><p></p><p>There are some aspects of RPG mechanics which frequently are defined in the sort of fashion you describe: for instance, this is true of most combat stats in D&D (attack bonus, AC, damage dice, hp), which have no clear meaning within the fiction that can be prised off their system-given mechanical definitions.</p><p></p><p>A strength of this system-oriented definition of character abilities is that it supports robust tactical gaming with a wide range of technically sophisticated options. A weakness is that a large amount of purely system-to-system resolution, that doesn't need to go via the fictional positioning, undermines what is distinctive about an RPG and renders it more of a boardgame. (This is a common criticism of 4e combat. Interestingly, both 4e and Burning Wheel use <em>movement and positioning</em> as a key anchor point for linking the system-to-system interplay of combat mechanics to the ingame fictional situation. I can't comment on 3E in this respect; as far as classic D&D combat with its one-minute rounds is concerned, it's so abstract that I'm not sure fictional positioning matters at all to its resolution in the typical case, which is one reason why I think many D&D players regard combat as contrasting with, rather than an instance of, roleplaying.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6285644, member: 42582"] I am a bit confused. Upthread, I suggested that breaking out BattleSystem - a distinctive mechanical framework for resolving mass combats - is not a particularly significant marker of paragon tier play. And part of my evidence in favour of that point was that, in my 4e game, we were able to use the skill challenge framework to resolve the PCs' leadership of the duergar during the latter's defence of their citadel against a purple worm incursion. In post 67 you seemed to dispute this. Now you are saying that it counts as mechanical differentiation to bring a different skill to bear based on the fictional positioning. But in a system with multiple skills/abilities, when does this not happen? And even in the imagined game where both climbing and swimming are covered by a generic Athletics or Survival skill, the fictional positioning will still matter to whether or not pitons, or "spider-like finger-pads", can be used as an augment to the attempt (typically yes for climbing, typically no for swimming). Also, I would add: I'm not sure I agree that a wall is defined as an obstacle on which Climb skill can be applied, and a pool or stream as one on which Swim skill can be applied. This may be true in programming computer games (that is not a field with which I'm familiar). I don't think it is has to be true for a table-top RPG, and I think for many table-top RPG's it is not true. "Climb skill" is often defined simply as ability at climbing. And Swim skill as ability at swimming. Then, when we are told that a challenge involves the need to ascend steep or sheer surfaces, we know that Climb skill is relevant because we know what climbing is, and what steep/sheer surfaces are. Likewise, with appropriate substitutions, for challenges involving streams or pools, Swim skill and swimming. There are some aspects of RPG mechanics which frequently are defined in the sort of fashion you describe: for instance, this is true of most combat stats in D&D (attack bonus, AC, damage dice, hp), which have no clear meaning within the fiction that can be prised off their system-given mechanical definitions. A strength of this system-oriented definition of character abilities is that it supports robust tactical gaming with a wide range of technically sophisticated options. A weakness is that a large amount of purely system-to-system resolution, that doesn't need to go via the fictional positioning, undermines what is distinctive about an RPG and renders it more of a boardgame. (This is a common criticism of 4e combat. Interestingly, both 4e and Burning Wheel use [I]movement and positioning[/I] as a key anchor point for linking the system-to-system interplay of combat mechanics to the ingame fictional situation. I can't comment on 3E in this respect; as far as classic D&D combat with its one-minute rounds is concerned, it's so abstract that I'm not sure fictional positioning matters at all to its resolution in the typical case, which is one reason why I think many D&D players regard combat as contrasting with, rather than an instance of, roleplaying.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of Epic Level Play?
Top