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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
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="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 6052894" data-attributes="member: 52073"><p>As I said before, I'm not claiming that D&D's way is the One True Way of gaming, and other games play much differently than D&D does. The way Maelstrom RPG plays has no impact on how D&D plays; Maelstrom has a passage telling you that distances don't really matter compared to the emotional impact of the scene, and D&D has mechanics that tell you exactly how many feet you can jump. Again, in a more narrative system "The fighter gets an ability to make himself the center of battle because that's where he's dramatically appropriate" works fine and is perfectly acceptable for me, but it doesn't really fit as well in D&D given its more technically-minded slant to the mechanics.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The difference here is that with magic it's the origin that's the black box. Physicists can tell you a heck of a lot about gravity to several decimal places of precision, but not what exactly causes gravitational attraction; they know the how, but not the why, same with magic. With martial powers it's the method that's the black box, and since it's the "how" that's important for internal consistency more so than the "why," that's a problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't see why this qualifies as genre emulation rather than process simulation, as they're two different things. Genre emulation is "Elves live for 1000 years and they go across the sea instead of dying because of Tolkien" and process simulation is "Given a race that lives for 1000 years and knows for a fact that their afterlife exists, what does their society look like? What is their religion like?" and so on. Process simulation is all about modeling and the tools you use for that; you can use those methodologies for processes biological, chemical, physical, sociological, and mathematical (among others). Physics simulations aren't invalidated because you're running them on Mars instead of Earth, because the underlying variables differ but the process is the same.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>1) Nitpick: Evasion doesn't work while immobilized.</p><p></p><p>2) If you'll recall, I argued <em>against</em> 1-minute rounds and gp-as-XP and said that moving rounds to 6 seconds in 3e was better and that they should have removed the last vestige of XP as an in-game resource (item creation and spell components) as well. Same goes for one-time lock picking and other mechanics that were simulation-ified. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm saying AD&D and 3e were all perfect and 4e is a crime against gaming; I originally entered the conversation to talk about why <em>those specific mechanics</em> that pre-4e players didn't like in 4e shouldn't be included in a 5e incarnation of the warlord because including <em>those specific mechanics</em> wouldn't achieve 5e's goal of One Edition to Rule Them All and you could achieve the same goals in other ways that don't use <em>those specific mechanics</em> and pre-4e fans would find more acceptable.</p><p></p><p>There were bad things in AD&D that were tossed in the move to 3e that I'm glad to see gone, and there were good things in AD&D that were tossed in the transition that I feel should have stayed around. There are some good mechanics in 3e that could be easily back-ported to AD&D and that I tend to houserule in when I run AD&D games these days, and there are some bad mechanics that my AD&D groups avoid like the plague. Same with 3e -> 4e and 4e -> 3e, and even AD&D -> 4e and 4e -> AD&D (for instance, rituals in 4e are basically the same as Vancian casting plus expensive components minus the ability to stop casting near the end to "prepare" them, so I houseruled in to one AD&D game that you can prepare a spell, cast it as soon as it's prepared instead of putting it in a slot, and it doesn't use up the slot for the day, which is a nice way to make obscure spells useful without siloing spells).</p><p></p><p>And also as I said before, the level of hatred for mechanics on either side is often blown out of proportion. I didn't absolutely refuse to play 4e because my group didn't like a few of its mechanics, I got together with them and wrote up a page or so of houserules to bring the disliked mechanics in line and we proceeded to enjoy our houseruled 4e. Similarly, a lot of people who say 3e is brokenly unplayable and a chore to DM for and so forth played it for years without too many problems and without spending days preparing sessions, and these talking points are what you hear online because the people who <em>did</em> have lots of problems with them are the ones talking about them, so someone who says "Yeah, I wouldn't have minded a simpler stat block" is lumped in with the people who say "OMG, 4e is a breeze to DM for, 3e is such a boring chore, how did I ever survive!?"</p><p></p><p>If fortune-in-the-middle mechanics make it into a 5e module, I won't mind at all, I'll just houserule or not use them. If they make it into core, I'll be a bit upset that WotC is putting in stuff from 4e that people have vocally said they didn't like alongside the stuff from pre-4e that people have vocally said they didn't like (e.g. fighters getting very few, very boring options) instead of including the <em>best</em> of each edition, but I can still houserule it and ignore the problem. I'm just saying that there's no <em>need</em> to do that when some very minor flavor changes (similar to the change from "memorizing" to "preparing" spells from 2e to 3e, or the change from one type of medium per Perform rank to one Perform skill per medium from 3.0 to 3.5) can solve the problem.</p><p></p><p>3) Regarding square-cube-violating monsters, you forgot to mention the conservation-of-mass-violating trolls, sentient blocks of Jello, and other crazy monsters. Plenty of them are silly thematically and break the laws of physics in half, but when a vampire stares into your eyes to mind control you you still get a Will save, and when a doppleganger wants to convince you it's your mother you still roll Spot vs. Disguise. It's okay with me if monsters violate the laws of physics of our world, but not if they violate the laws of reality of their world--if everyone's combat trickery/heroic persuasion/etc. was automatic like the fighter's, that would at least be consistent (if unfair) and people could take precautions against it and know what to look for, but it's <em>only</em> the fighter who can do that, which is just as jarring and stupid as 3e's Searing Spell letting you burn fire and its <em>orb of force</em> conjuring up a nonmagical orb of magical energy.</p><p></p><p>Perhaps it seems like I'm hammering the "what NPCs can do and know" aspect of things a bit too hard, but then my parties frequently run into and befriend or summon up and control monsters, both the parties and the monsters pick up each others' abilities (via items, feats, spells, etc.) when particular tactics turn out to work well, and so forth; having monsters and PCs use the same things the same way is important to me. I'm one of those DMs who thought that 4e monsters being built completely differently from PCs was a terrible idea because the differing scales made monster vs. monster fights play completely differently from classed character vs. monster fights play completely differently from classed character vs. classed character fights (AD&D statted monsters up differently, but at least they were on the same scale as PCs, so PCs and monsters had similar numbers by HD and getting a monster on your side wouldn't drastically change combat) and that 3e LA was a crime against gaming because it existed mostly to dissuade PCs from playing monsters and made making classed monsters a pain, and because if an ability is too broken for a PC to get access to at a certain level than a monster probably shouldn't have it then either.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My games are similarly diverse, though a bit lighter on the G.R.R. Martin grit and horror and heavier on the Brandon Sanderson analytical magic, and not at all "D&D emulating D&D." I think our differences lie in what fictional tropes we go for. In my case, I prefer my swashbucklers to beat a dozen mooks in a sword fight because the swashbuckler is actually that skilled, not because the mooks <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MookChivalry" target="_blank">use</a> <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall" target="_blank">bad</a> <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodTactics" target="_blank">tactics</a> like charging someone for no reason. I want my heroes to be consistently competent, not have their powers be limited-use <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForgotAboutHisPowers" target="_blank">for some reason</a> without adequate in-game explanation or rely on <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OutOfCharacterMoment" target="_blank">metagame</a> <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnlyTheAuthorCanSaveThemNow" target="_blank">resources</a> when something can be accomplished that makes more sense in-game. I want characters who are supposed to be <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChessmaster" target="_blank">great tacticians</a> to have that backed up on their sheet in multiple ways (high Int, Knowledges, tactical feats, etc.) rather than having just one power that relies on that explanation <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute" target="_blank">and no corroboration</a>.</p><p></p><p>In my games, I like to see Indiana Jones <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CuttingTheKnot" target="_blank">shoot the swordsman</a> if that's something he's capable of doing, I like my villains to <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DangerouslyGenreSavvy" target="_blank">follow the Evil Overlord List</a> when appropriately instead of necessarily being <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainBall" target="_blank">the scene-chewing monologue-spewing type</a>, and I much prefer player-driven wacky plans driven by their knowledge of <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA" target="_blank">how the world works</a> to a reliance on <a href="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotCoupon" target="_blank">plot devices</a>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So hopefully that gives you a better idea where I'm coming from. If our positions are indeed irreconcilable and this derail is getting nowhere, I'd be willing to drop it; I know pemerton has been involved in some arguments over this topic with me before and it looks like we're not going to see eye to eye on this.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Eldritch_Lord, post: 6052894, member: 52073"] As I said before, I'm not claiming that D&D's way is the One True Way of gaming, and other games play much differently than D&D does. The way Maelstrom RPG plays has no impact on how D&D plays; Maelstrom has a passage telling you that distances don't really matter compared to the emotional impact of the scene, and D&D has mechanics that tell you exactly how many feet you can jump. Again, in a more narrative system "The fighter gets an ability to make himself the center of battle because that's where he's dramatically appropriate" works fine and is perfectly acceptable for me, but it doesn't really fit as well in D&D given its more technically-minded slant to the mechanics. The difference here is that with magic it's the origin that's the black box. Physicists can tell you a heck of a lot about gravity to several decimal places of precision, but not what exactly causes gravitational attraction; they know the how, but not the why, same with magic. With martial powers it's the method that's the black box, and since it's the "how" that's important for internal consistency more so than the "why," that's a problem. I don't see why this qualifies as genre emulation rather than process simulation, as they're two different things. Genre emulation is "Elves live for 1000 years and they go across the sea instead of dying because of Tolkien" and process simulation is "Given a race that lives for 1000 years and knows for a fact that their afterlife exists, what does their society look like? What is their religion like?" and so on. Process simulation is all about modeling and the tools you use for that; you can use those methodologies for processes biological, chemical, physical, sociological, and mathematical (among others). Physics simulations aren't invalidated because you're running them on Mars instead of Earth, because the underlying variables differ but the process is the same. 1) Nitpick: Evasion doesn't work while immobilized. 2) If you'll recall, I argued [I]against[/I] 1-minute rounds and gp-as-XP and said that moving rounds to 6 seconds in 3e was better and that they should have removed the last vestige of XP as an in-game resource (item creation and spell components) as well. Same goes for one-time lock picking and other mechanics that were simulation-ified. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm saying AD&D and 3e were all perfect and 4e is a crime against gaming; I originally entered the conversation to talk about why [I]those specific mechanics[/I] that pre-4e players didn't like in 4e shouldn't be included in a 5e incarnation of the warlord because including [I]those specific mechanics[/I] wouldn't achieve 5e's goal of One Edition to Rule Them All and you could achieve the same goals in other ways that don't use [I]those specific mechanics[/I] and pre-4e fans would find more acceptable. There were bad things in AD&D that were tossed in the move to 3e that I'm glad to see gone, and there were good things in AD&D that were tossed in the transition that I feel should have stayed around. There are some good mechanics in 3e that could be easily back-ported to AD&D and that I tend to houserule in when I run AD&D games these days, and there are some bad mechanics that my AD&D groups avoid like the plague. Same with 3e -> 4e and 4e -> 3e, and even AD&D -> 4e and 4e -> AD&D (for instance, rituals in 4e are basically the same as Vancian casting plus expensive components minus the ability to stop casting near the end to "prepare" them, so I houseruled in to one AD&D game that you can prepare a spell, cast it as soon as it's prepared instead of putting it in a slot, and it doesn't use up the slot for the day, which is a nice way to make obscure spells useful without siloing spells). And also as I said before, the level of hatred for mechanics on either side is often blown out of proportion. I didn't absolutely refuse to play 4e because my group didn't like a few of its mechanics, I got together with them and wrote up a page or so of houserules to bring the disliked mechanics in line and we proceeded to enjoy our houseruled 4e. Similarly, a lot of people who say 3e is brokenly unplayable and a chore to DM for and so forth played it for years without too many problems and without spending days preparing sessions, and these talking points are what you hear online because the people who [I]did[/I] have lots of problems with them are the ones talking about them, so someone who says "Yeah, I wouldn't have minded a simpler stat block" is lumped in with the people who say "OMG, 4e is a breeze to DM for, 3e is such a boring chore, how did I ever survive!?" If fortune-in-the-middle mechanics make it into a 5e module, I won't mind at all, I'll just houserule or not use them. If they make it into core, I'll be a bit upset that WotC is putting in stuff from 4e that people have vocally said they didn't like alongside the stuff from pre-4e that people have vocally said they didn't like (e.g. fighters getting very few, very boring options) instead of including the [I]best[/I] of each edition, but I can still houserule it and ignore the problem. I'm just saying that there's no [I]need[/I] to do that when some very minor flavor changes (similar to the change from "memorizing" to "preparing" spells from 2e to 3e, or the change from one type of medium per Perform rank to one Perform skill per medium from 3.0 to 3.5) can solve the problem. 3) Regarding square-cube-violating monsters, you forgot to mention the conservation-of-mass-violating trolls, sentient blocks of Jello, and other crazy monsters. Plenty of them are silly thematically and break the laws of physics in half, but when a vampire stares into your eyes to mind control you you still get a Will save, and when a doppleganger wants to convince you it's your mother you still roll Spot vs. Disguise. It's okay with me if monsters violate the laws of physics of our world, but not if they violate the laws of reality of their world--if everyone's combat trickery/heroic persuasion/etc. was automatic like the fighter's, that would at least be consistent (if unfair) and people could take precautions against it and know what to look for, but it's [I]only[/I] the fighter who can do that, which is just as jarring and stupid as 3e's Searing Spell letting you burn fire and its [I]orb of force[/I] conjuring up a nonmagical orb of magical energy. Perhaps it seems like I'm hammering the "what NPCs can do and know" aspect of things a bit too hard, but then my parties frequently run into and befriend or summon up and control monsters, both the parties and the monsters pick up each others' abilities (via items, feats, spells, etc.) when particular tactics turn out to work well, and so forth; having monsters and PCs use the same things the same way is important to me. I'm one of those DMs who thought that 4e monsters being built completely differently from PCs was a terrible idea because the differing scales made monster vs. monster fights play completely differently from classed character vs. monster fights play completely differently from classed character vs. classed character fights (AD&D statted monsters up differently, but at least they were on the same scale as PCs, so PCs and monsters had similar numbers by HD and getting a monster on your side wouldn't drastically change combat) and that 3e LA was a crime against gaming because it existed mostly to dissuade PCs from playing monsters and made making classed monsters a pain, and because if an ability is too broken for a PC to get access to at a certain level than a monster probably shouldn't have it then either. My games are similarly diverse, though a bit lighter on the G.R.R. Martin grit and horror and heavier on the Brandon Sanderson analytical magic, and not at all "D&D emulating D&D." I think our differences lie in what fictional tropes we go for. In my case, I prefer my swashbucklers to beat a dozen mooks in a sword fight because the swashbuckler is actually that skilled, not because the mooks [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MookChivalry]use[/url] [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall]bad[/url] [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodTactics]tactics[/url] like charging someone for no reason. I want my heroes to be consistently competent, not have their powers be limited-use [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ForgotAboutHisPowers]for some reason[/url] without adequate in-game explanation or rely on [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OutOfCharacterMoment]metagame[/url] [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnlyTheAuthorCanSaveThemNow]resources[/url] when something can be accomplished that makes more sense in-game. I want characters who are supposed to be [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChessmaster]great tacticians[/url] to have that backed up on their sheet in multiple ways (high Int, Knowledges, tactical feats, etc.) rather than having just one power that relies on that explanation [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute]and no corroboration[/url]. In my games, I like to see Indiana Jones [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CuttingTheKnot]shoot the swordsman[/url] if that's something he's capable of doing, I like my villains to [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DangerouslyGenreSavvy]follow the Evil Overlord List[/url] when appropriately instead of necessarily being [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/VillainBall]the scene-chewing monologue-spewing type[/url], and I much prefer player-driven wacky plans driven by their knowledge of [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA]how the world works[/url] to a reliance on [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlotCoupon]plot devices[/url]. So hopefully that gives you a better idea where I'm coming from. If our positions are indeed irreconcilable and this derail is getting nowhere, I'd be willing to drop it; I know pemerton has been involved in some arguments over this topic with me before and it looks like we're not going to see eye to eye on this. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
Top