My understanding is that they are genere-emulation source books. I have a few concerns about the books (e.g, Steve not being the primary author of the fantasy book). However, I definitely want to see what they have to offer.
Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
My understanding is that they are genere-emulation source books. I have a few concerns about the books (e.g, Steve not being the primary author of the fantasy book). However, I definitely want to see what they have to offer.
My problem with the 3e classes is the hard codiing of many class abilities. A good designed class, imo, lays the basic foundation (e.g, BAB, Save Bonuses, Skill Points, and skill choices but keeps things general so that the player and DM can take the class into different directions rather than prescribing specific abilities unless they truly are necessary to the class (e.g., spellcasting and spell lists for spellcasters and tracking for rangers, sensing and turn/rebuke spirits for a shaman). Otherwise, abilities should be left open to tailor with bonus feat choices and specialize further with additional feats and PrCs.
The fighter is one example of how I like classes designed. So, is AEG's Myrmidon by Mike Mearls despite being horribly named. The class is a warrior mage class gets spells, decent armor, BAB and hit die, but gets bonus feat choices every so often rather than forcing the designer's idea of some cool ability ( for example channeling a spell through a sword, on the player and DM setting. Now, there is nothing wrong with channeling spells through a sword, but that decision is, imo, a player and setting decison and, therefore, better handled as a feat with additional feats or a prestige class to specialize.
This is why, I dislike most of the 3e core classes as written and like the customizing a character (PHB) and Unearthed Arcana style class variants. Rage, Sneak Attack, Precise Strike, Sudden Strike, Favored Enemy- all of these should have been feats that anyone should be able to take, and bonus feats for there respective classes.
Rage: What limits this to a wilderness warrior? There are examples in myth and other stories of characters from more urban or civilized socieities that rage.
Turn Undead: Arent' there examples of non-priests, who just happen to do this through their conviction of faith? Iam thinking of the classic situation of the vampire telling the hero or victim, "You must have faith for that to work against me). Also, in setting where deities have their own portfolios, why is turn/rebuke given to every cleric. And what about settings without undead?
Don't get me wrong, I think a cleric of an appropriate deity should have this ability. I just don't it is an appropriate ability for all clerics or that it should be limited to only clerics when people of the appropriate faith should be able to learn this to represent their strength of faith.
Animal Companion: Why does every ranger or druid need an Animal Companion? It's fine as an option, but not something that should be hard coded into the class. The same for the Paladin's mount.
Sneak Attack, Precise Strike, Sudden Strike: Why should someone have to be a particular class to make a sneak attack, precise strike or sudden strike? Sneak Attack seems like something anyone can learn. Precise Strike and Sudden strike also seem appropriate to those trained for combat with the right weapon or appropriate style making it approriate for warrior types.
The Monk abiltities after level 5 are too specific for every setting. They sound more like prestige class abilities.
Duskblade's Channel: Why is it necessary for duskblades to channel through their weapons? That to me should have been a feat and something that wizards and sorcerers should also be to do through a staff. And, if a warrior mage type of character wants to focus their schtick on this, to me it is better done through feats or a prc. The designers, imo, would have better to have gone with a more general approach as per AEG's Myrmidon.
The fighter is one example of how I like classes designed. So, is AEG's Myrmidon by Mike Mearls despite being horribly named. The class is a warrior mage class gets spells, decent armor, BAB and hit die, but gets bonus feat choices every so often rather than forcing the designer's idea of some cool ability ( for example channeling a spell through a sword, on the player and DM setting. Now, there is nothing wrong with channeling spells through a sword, but that decision is, imo, a player and setting decison and, therefore, better handled as a feat with additional feats or a prestige class to specialize.
This is why, I dislike most of the 3e core classes as written and like the customizing a character (PHB) and Unearthed Arcana style class variants. Rage, Sneak Attack, Precise Strike, Sudden Strike, Favored Enemy- all of these should have been feats that anyone should be able to take, and bonus feats for there respective classes.
Rage: What limits this to a wilderness warrior? There are examples in myth and other stories of characters from more urban or civilized socieities that rage.
Turn Undead: Arent' there examples of non-priests, who just happen to do this through their conviction of faith? Iam thinking of the classic situation of the vampire telling the hero or victim, "You must have faith for that to work against me). Also, in setting where deities have their own portfolios, why is turn/rebuke given to every cleric. And what about settings without undead?
Don't get me wrong, I think a cleric of an appropriate deity should have this ability. I just don't it is an appropriate ability for all clerics or that it should be limited to only clerics when people of the appropriate faith should be able to learn this to represent their strength of faith.
Animal Companion: Why does every ranger or druid need an Animal Companion? It's fine as an option, but not something that should be hard coded into the class. The same for the Paladin's mount.
Sneak Attack, Precise Strike, Sudden Strike: Why should someone have to be a particular class to make a sneak attack, precise strike or sudden strike? Sneak Attack seems like something anyone can learn. Precise Strike and Sudden strike also seem appropriate to those trained for combat with the right weapon or appropriate style making it approriate for warrior types.
The Monk abiltities after level 5 are too specific for every setting. They sound more like prestige class abilities.
Duskblade's Channel: Why is it necessary for duskblades to channel through their weapons? That to me should have been a feat and something that wizards and sorcerers should also be to do through a staff. And, if a warrior mage type of character wants to focus their schtick on this, to me it is better done through feats or a prc. The designers, imo, would have better to have gone with a more general approach as per AEG's Myrmidon.
Last edited:
Oh sure... I just prefer it when the game designers leave the flavor to me (or at least don't design with too much of a specific flavor in mind).
If I had to label myself, I'd call me a 'narrative simulationist'. My games are simulations... of certain kinds of freewheeling fantasy adventures stories. Simulations of texts, not simulations of physical worlds.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
But M&M also has some "flavor first" issues...
Big issue with M&M (or Champions): making a charecter. For some of us, its pretty involved. Why? becuase the genre demands very flexible, option filled, chargen.
I think if you really parsed the system, you will see a bunch of stuff in there that follows from comic book (and I would even dare to say "silver age comic book") conventions and sensibilities.
Big issue with M&M (or Champions): making a charecter. For some of us, its pretty involved. Why? becuase the genre demands very flexible, option filled, chargen.
I think if you really parsed the system, you will see a bunch of stuff in there that follows from comic book (and I would even dare to say "silver age comic book") conventions and sensibilities.
Irda Ranger
First Post
Your below quotes hi-lite the problem.
My point is that flavor implies unspoken rules. The imaginative player or DM will notice opportunities to exploit this.
1. Power Suits must have a power source (that's what makes them Power Suits). That power source is presumably limited in some ways. If you use "power suit flame thrower" to justify your Iron Man flavor, you bring "fusion torch" baggage with that explanation. Otherwise it's a Magic Suit.
2. No, electricity grounds whenever conditions are right. Convenience has nothing to do with it.
3. Boomerangs and arrows may both do 2d6+1 damage, but only the arrow can fit through a 1" wide crack in a wall. They are not the exactly same.
Electrical attacks usually do the same xd6 damage as Fire attacks, but not under water or in a unusually-oxygen-rich atmosphere. For instance, in a Supers game where one of the Supers always (and can only) use "Call Down The Lightning" on his foes I might anticipate his attacks by 6" wearing copper spikes on my shoes that immediately ground all of his attacks.
Since M&M explicitly says "Here are effects; flavor the means as you will", how does M&M suggest you resolve corner cases? I always resolve corner cases with "Flavor wins" because it guarantees game-world consistency. Occasionally this produces results that are not perfectly "game balanced", but life is like that too, so players are fine with it. But then, we're "roleplaying in a fantasy world" not "gaming", so YMMV.
I think my biggest problem is not either approach, but rather when someone tries to do both and then drops the ball. That is the primary difference between M&M on the onside, and Adventure on the other, and 4e and similar.
I would have been fine with 4e being constructed like a Gurps or M&M system, with rules for generating powers and items, and a few sample archtypes to start with. Hell, you wouldn't even need archtypes, though if you wanted to you could have them setup like moderns strong/smart...hero.
That would have been a better idea and really you could have saved yourself a great number of pages. Have the class/powersource splats have additional bases or mechanics, along with some more samples. Settings would have more flavor and sample powers, along with any specific powers that exist only within the setting.
Approaching it the other way works best when you take a much more rules light approach than I think that many are comfortable with. I can conjure fire and do X damage with it. Toss in stunts and a few high flying mechanics and let the players hand the rest. Cut everything down the simplest mechanics possible to remove any conflict with flavor. Let Flavor be your guide.
If you want a balance approach, than everything has to be internally consistant. It is more difficult and frankly not something you can do half or quarter assed.
I would have been fine with 4e being constructed like a Gurps or M&M system, with rules for generating powers and items, and a few sample archtypes to start with. Hell, you wouldn't even need archtypes, though if you wanted to you could have them setup like moderns strong/smart...hero.
That would have been a better idea and really you could have saved yourself a great number of pages. Have the class/powersource splats have additional bases or mechanics, along with some more samples. Settings would have more flavor and sample powers, along with any specific powers that exist only within the setting.
Approaching it the other way works best when you take a much more rules light approach than I think that many are comfortable with. I can conjure fire and do X damage with it. Toss in stunts and a few high flying mechanics and let the players hand the rest. Cut everything down the simplest mechanics possible to remove any conflict with flavor. Let Flavor be your guide.
If you want a balance approach, than everything has to be internally consistant. It is more difficult and frankly not something you can do half or quarter assed.
To a certain extent, yes. The trick is to reward creative play while still maintaining fidelity to the rules.
No. It's only limited if you buy the power with limits. The 'power suit' is really just a kind of container/framework for a set of powers.
What's the difference? This looks like semantics to me. To be clear, an M&M character with a power suit a la Iron Man could have a limited 'battery', or their powers could be limitless in use/duration. They're both 'power suits', except one has a lithium-ion battery and the other a Zero-Point generator (and one would cost fewer power points to construct because of the limitation).
In the real world. In the comic book narrative, science operates in a more dramatically appropriate fashion.
Sure. And a simple GM ruling handles this.
Aha... I understand you're point better... here's how to handle this in M&M. All abilities are paid for in character building points. If you want to ground Dr. Lightning's bolts with copper spikes, you buy a certain amount of energy immunity to lightning --and describe it as fancy copper Nikes. If you want to improvise an electrical defense on the spot, I'd allow a limited circumstance bonus to resist the damage (for wrapping yourself in scads of copper wiring pulled from a conveniently-placed wall). If you wanted that to be permanent, you'd eventually have to pay the build points for it.
Such is the gentleman's agreement that all point-buy games I've seen use.
Through common sense and GM Fiat. M&M has a lovely mechanism for handling GM Fiat; anytime the GM uses fiat to negate or harm a character, that character receives a Hero Point; which can be used as a bonus to rolls, to reverse certain conditions, and to directly manipulate the narrative.
Irda Ranger
First Post
Ah, I see the problem. I took to heart Dragon articles like "101 Uses for a 10' Pole". If a player finds a clever way to use a 10' pole (or copper shoe spikes) I always allow it. I don't make them spend finite feats or skill points on something that burning a couple hours on an A-Team Build-Anything Montage can handle.
Yuck. I've heard very good things about M&M, but it's clearly not my kind of game. See my sig.
Irda, I think you've got your answer, but I'll pile on some more. I've played M&M a small number of times as a player:
In M&M: (a) they don't, (b) it doesn't, and (c) they're not. Personally I think M&M is okay, it's not my favorite system because of issues like these. It sort of makes sense in a high-level comic book/ action-hero-who-never-runs-out-of-bullets way. (Or 3E+ D&D stipulating that electricty doesn't arc in water, and most equipment is almost always immune to fire while worn by a PC.)
My experience with M&M benefited from a master comic artist who runs the sessions and makes professional stand-up illustrations for every PC/ NPC/ scene/ figure in play ( THE BIGFELLA MACHINE ).
In M&M: (a) they don't, (b) it doesn't, and (c) they're not. Personally I think M&M is okay, it's not my favorite system because of issues like these. It sort of makes sense in a high-level comic book/ action-hero-who-never-runs-out-of-bullets way. (Or 3E+ D&D stipulating that electricty doesn't arc in water, and most equipment is almost always immune to fire while worn by a PC.)
My experience with M&M benefited from a master comic artist who runs the sessions and makes professional stand-up illustrations for every PC/ NPC/ scene/ figure in play ( THE BIGFELLA MACHINE ).
Andor
First Post
Mechanics without flavor are meaningless.
Here is a game: Flip a coin, heads you win, tails you lose.
Satisfying game? No? Let's continue.
Mechanics (except in puzzle games) are always intended to present a resolution mechanic abstracted from some fictional reality.
Another game: It is the final battle of good vs evil. Armageddon day has dawned and all the souls of mankind hang in the balance. Terribly the sides are exactly balanced. Flip a coin, heads good wins, tails evil wins.
Satisfying? Not really, it's still too abstract, but it's better than the first one.
Real satifaction in gaming comes when the story that emerges from the resolution of the conflict is one that the players can sink their teeth into.
Another game: Set up a 100 combatant ladder match of good vs evil. Resolve each match by flipping a coin, heads good wins, tails evil wins. Play out the tournament to decide the fate of the future.
Still too abstract but zeroing in on the individual fights gives us a better sense of story. If we name the combatants it becomes more interesting as we find combatants to root for.
A coin flip may be an accurate way to resolve an evenly matched fight, but it's over too quickly. There is no anticipation, no clenched teeth and beaded brows.
Another game: Good vs Evil has boiled down to the final 10 champions. 5 Paladins of righteousness and 5 vile Warriors of Darkness. Set up the ladder, name each combatant. Each match is resolved by the best 2 out of 3 flips as the champions trade blows.
Now it's starting to get interesting. As each match plays out you can write the story in your mind. A good character who loses each first throw but rallies and wins the next two seems different from some brutal villain who slaughters his foes in the first 2 flips without allowing them to draw blood. The potential back and forth allows us to imagine that drama hangs on each flip.
I could continue but I hope I've made my point. Mechanics uninformed by flavor are meaningless. You might as well flip that quarter. It is the stories that the rules allow us to tell that entertain us. Without flavor there are no stories, and there is no game.
Here is a game: Flip a coin, heads you win, tails you lose.
Satisfying game? No? Let's continue.
Mechanics (except in puzzle games) are always intended to present a resolution mechanic abstracted from some fictional reality.
Another game: It is the final battle of good vs evil. Armageddon day has dawned and all the souls of mankind hang in the balance. Terribly the sides are exactly balanced. Flip a coin, heads good wins, tails evil wins.
Satisfying? Not really, it's still too abstract, but it's better than the first one.
Real satifaction in gaming comes when the story that emerges from the resolution of the conflict is one that the players can sink their teeth into.
Another game: Set up a 100 combatant ladder match of good vs evil. Resolve each match by flipping a coin, heads good wins, tails evil wins. Play out the tournament to decide the fate of the future.
Still too abstract but zeroing in on the individual fights gives us a better sense of story. If we name the combatants it becomes more interesting as we find combatants to root for.
A coin flip may be an accurate way to resolve an evenly matched fight, but it's over too quickly. There is no anticipation, no clenched teeth and beaded brows.
Another game: Good vs Evil has boiled down to the final 10 champions. 5 Paladins of righteousness and 5 vile Warriors of Darkness. Set up the ladder, name each combatant. Each match is resolved by the best 2 out of 3 flips as the champions trade blows.
Now it's starting to get interesting. As each match plays out you can write the story in your mind. A good character who loses each first throw but rallies and wins the next two seems different from some brutal villain who slaughters his foes in the first 2 flips without allowing them to draw blood. The potential back and forth allows us to imagine that drama hangs on each flip.
I could continue but I hope I've made my point. Mechanics uninformed by flavor are meaningless. You might as well flip that quarter. It is the stories that the rules allow us to tell that entertain us. Without flavor there are no stories, and there is no game.
Similar Threads
