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
Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012
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="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5953198" data-attributes="member: 6668292"><p>Well, I don't really buy the "it makes the players suffer" argument, since this seems to be a <em>really</em> isolated incident. A [fire] power doesn't make them feel warm, a [fear] power doesn't make them feel afraid, etc. Unless, that is, you apply a broad definition to certain things, like you did here, in my opinion.</p><p></p><p>That is, if I deal psychic damage in any game with hit points, you might "feel suffering" because you're worse off than you were before. If a creature makes your character afraid, you might worry that it will get to attack you while you can't defend yourself or your friends adequately (fear --> worry). But, these work in <em>any</em> system, and I don't think that there's any great reason to place 4e above others in this regard.</p><p></p><p>I, too, prefer a story emerge from the mechanics. I love that concept. It's why I use things like my Hit Chart, where you can lose limbs or gain bonuses, or have people roll on the Background Chart during time skips, to see what they encountered during this time (were they injured? Did they make an ally? Did they simply train, or did they blaze a new trail? Did they learn a secret, or play politics?).</p><p></p><p>Now, 4e does do this, but I do not believe that it's the sole method to achieve those results. And, I'd also posit that the way the mechanics should (in my view) be created is "here's what I want the story to produce --> here's the mechanics that make the story be produced in play." This, I think, is where people are talking past one another. I think that both pemerton and I (and others in this conversation, probably) want the mechanics to produce the story that <em>should</em> be implied. That is, if goblins are supposed to be fragile, then we need mechanics to reflect that. It goes "I want goblins to be fragile --> give goblins small amounts of HP and AC."</p><p></p><p>This can be applied to <em>everything</em>, and if you want the story to <em>unfold</em> due to the mechanics, you need to carefully craft mechanics that produce that story. But, you must know what story you want, first, which is why I think you're getting "you have to start with the flavor first!" as a reply to your statements in this thread.</p><p></p><p>Well, if a chained cambion can make <em>players</em> feel the suffering that their characters feel, and that's a good mechanic, then maybe the <em>players</em> feeling fear and loss of control (forced fear effect) is also a good thing? I see it working both ways, here.</p><p></p><p>Yep, this is the upshot. A sense of fairness that the clear mechanics produce.</p><p></p><p>What about a hobgoblin raised by goblins? Or hobgoblins that are more barbaric in nature? Or goblins who are integrated into human lands, and no longer flanking goblins? What's the default human combat style? If there is none, why is there for other races? Perhaps there should be a leaning that can be expressed mechanically ("hobgoblins prefer to use a phalanx; here are the rules on them that anyone can use")? I think that's the point about flexibility.</p><p></p><p>Different sorts of humanoids are not there to give us "flanking vs phalanx" distinctions, though giving mechanical incentive to do so is helpful. It's not strictly <em>necessary</em>, mind you. There's a lot about humans that isn't represented mechanically ("humans are sexual creatures" for example). That's fine, sometimes. Some things are that way because "society taught them this, so they prefer it" or "elves just taste bad to bulettes."</p><p></p><p>The races, then, contribute new mindsets to the game. New antagonists. New allies. New aspects of the setting. We don't <em>need</em> all hobgoblins to form a phalanx to gain something. We have a race that is highly organized, militaristic, and generally decently equipped. Does the phalanx mechanic tell us this, or produce these things? No, not really. It has a hint of "militaristic" and "highly organized" but falls short of giving us their real place within the setting. The same holds true of the goblin and his flanking ability.</p><p></p><p>You might ask "what is the point of his place in <em>combat</em> instead of other humanoids, then?" To this, all I can say is that not every race needs to be mechanically different in this respect on a base level. I'm not opposed to it, though. It's just not necessary. Because, to many people, the role within the world that hobgoblins fulfill is more than just forming a phalanx when you fight them. Their ability to equip themselves, their militaristic nature, and their highly organized nature are more important to the overall setting than their ability to fight adventurers. And, yeah, let's see some mechanics reflecting these things, too. As always, play what you like <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JamesonCourage, post: 5953198, member: 6668292"] Well, I don't really buy the "it makes the players suffer" argument, since this seems to be a [I]really[/I] isolated incident. A [fire] power doesn't make them feel warm, a [fear] power doesn't make them feel afraid, etc. Unless, that is, you apply a broad definition to certain things, like you did here, in my opinion. That is, if I deal psychic damage in any game with hit points, you might "feel suffering" because you're worse off than you were before. If a creature makes your character afraid, you might worry that it will get to attack you while you can't defend yourself or your friends adequately (fear --> worry). But, these work in [I]any[/I] system, and I don't think that there's any great reason to place 4e above others in this regard. I, too, prefer a story emerge from the mechanics. I love that concept. It's why I use things like my Hit Chart, where you can lose limbs or gain bonuses, or have people roll on the Background Chart during time skips, to see what they encountered during this time (were they injured? Did they make an ally? Did they simply train, or did they blaze a new trail? Did they learn a secret, or play politics?). Now, 4e does do this, but I do not believe that it's the sole method to achieve those results. And, I'd also posit that the way the mechanics should (in my view) be created is "here's what I want the story to produce --> here's the mechanics that make the story be produced in play." This, I think, is where people are talking past one another. I think that both pemerton and I (and others in this conversation, probably) want the mechanics to produce the story that [I]should[/I] be implied. That is, if goblins are supposed to be fragile, then we need mechanics to reflect that. It goes "I want goblins to be fragile --> give goblins small amounts of HP and AC." This can be applied to [I]everything[/I], and if you want the story to [I]unfold[/I] due to the mechanics, you need to carefully craft mechanics that produce that story. But, you must know what story you want, first, which is why I think you're getting "you have to start with the flavor first!" as a reply to your statements in this thread. Well, if a chained cambion can make [I]players[/I] feel the suffering that their characters feel, and that's a good mechanic, then maybe the [I]players[/I] feeling fear and loss of control (forced fear effect) is also a good thing? I see it working both ways, here. Yep, this is the upshot. A sense of fairness that the clear mechanics produce. What about a hobgoblin raised by goblins? Or hobgoblins that are more barbaric in nature? Or goblins who are integrated into human lands, and no longer flanking goblins? What's the default human combat style? If there is none, why is there for other races? Perhaps there should be a leaning that can be expressed mechanically ("hobgoblins prefer to use a phalanx; here are the rules on them that anyone can use")? I think that's the point about flexibility. Different sorts of humanoids are not there to give us "flanking vs phalanx" distinctions, though giving mechanical incentive to do so is helpful. It's not strictly [I]necessary[/I], mind you. There's a lot about humans that isn't represented mechanically ("humans are sexual creatures" for example). That's fine, sometimes. Some things are that way because "society taught them this, so they prefer it" or "elves just taste bad to bulettes." The races, then, contribute new mindsets to the game. New antagonists. New allies. New aspects of the setting. We don't [I]need[/I] all hobgoblins to form a phalanx to gain something. We have a race that is highly organized, militaristic, and generally decently equipped. Does the phalanx mechanic tell us this, or produce these things? No, not really. It has a hint of "militaristic" and "highly organized" but falls short of giving us their real place within the setting. The same holds true of the goblin and his flanking ability. You might ask "what is the point of his place in [I]combat[/I] instead of other humanoids, then?" To this, all I can say is that not every race needs to be mechanically different in this respect on a base level. I'm not opposed to it, though. It's just not necessary. Because, to many people, the role within the world that hobgoblins fulfill is more than just forming a phalanx when you fight them. Their ability to equip themselves, their militaristic nature, and their highly organized nature are more important to the overall setting than their ability to fight adventurers. And, yeah, let's see some mechanics reflecting these things, too. As always, play what you like :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012
Top