Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Lanefan]

But, you mention the paladin being unhappy about leaving his mount behind. Now, here's another textbook example of what I'm talking about. In earlier editions, you had to quest to get your mount. Great, fantastic flavour - the chosen of the gods goes out to secure his trusty steed.

Then came play at the table. What does the rest of the group do while Mr. Paladin goes out to get this mount?

Easy. Mr. Paladin leaves the party, and his player and the DM sit down during the week over a beer and sort this out before the next session, while the main party goes without its Paladin for a while. In other words, the main session carries on as usual (with the Paladin's player running a different character), knowing that by next week the Paladin will either have his mount or not, and will be back in circulation once the rest of the party catches up in game-world time.

And, after Mr. Paladin gets his steed, what does he do with it? Most adventures don't allow for horseback riding. Unless you happen to be doing outdoor adventures in fairly clear terrain, horses are pretty much useless.

This is a much better question. I've always kind of seen the mount's role as more a matter of looking imposing while riding into town, and for jousts and tournaments, than being involved in hard field work. And, if the Paladin ever gets involved in an army war, the mount again adds to the aura of imposingness. But it's quite true, horses and dungeons don't mix well; other than the horse providing food for the opposition.

A game first approach would think, "ok, what do adventuring PARTIES (not individual PC's) do? What does a paladin need to help him do that and act within the party? Would a mount help? Is a mount a good idea for a fairly major ability for the class?"

If the answer is no, then the mount is simply not added and you go with something else.

You're running aground on the 4e design paradigm of the PCs being special flowers, and the world and its rules revolving around the Party. Me, I'd just add a few lines of text in the call-for-warhorse write-up explaining how horses and dungeoneering don't often mix, and leave it alone.

Lanefan

 

[Mallus]

If a player finds a clever way to use a 10' pole (or copper shoe spikes) I always allow it.

Oh, so would I. Like I said, creative one-time things like the copper shoes would yield a bonus during the encounter. But if the player wanted that bonus to be a permanent part of their character's repertoire, then they'd need to spend the points. That's just how effects base systems like M&M and Champions work.

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.

It's no different from 'making' PC's spend XP to level. Except that abilities are bought a la cart, at a much finer grain/level of detail. Players get character points after every adventure and usually spend them immediately.

Yuck. I've heard very good things about M&M, but it's clearly not my kind of game. See my sig.

Don't let me put you off an excellent system (best of the d20 crop IMHO). I do think you're misinterpreting what I said though; the Hero Point mechanic isn't about enabling the GM to tell a specific predetermined story. It's supposed to be used to enable specific kinds of challenges (commonly found in comics). A typical use would be something like a GM declaring that the PC's are automatically captured by the villain and placed in a 'foolproof' deathtrap. Each PC would receive a Hero Point because the GM Fiated them into the scenario, and then play would resume with the PC's trying to escape the trap. This is no different from old-school AD&D modules with puzzle rooms that were immune to spells (which forced players to overcome the challenge in a certain way).

 

[Mallus]

Mechanics without flavor are meaningless.

Then it's a relief no one here is advocating mechanics without flavor.

 

[Delta]

... the Hero Point mechanic isn't about enabling the GM to tell a specific predetermined story... A typical use would be something like a GM declaring that the PC's are automatically captured by the villain and placed in a 'foolproof' deathtrap.

Heh, I don't think you're going to sway him -- that's clearly a predetermined story.

In fact, it's possibly worse (for non-narrativists) -- it's a predetermined story, with the implied obligation that you pay back the players with their own "story points" in exchange for it. Non-narrativists will soooo not groove on that.

 

[Mallus]

Heh, I don't think you're going to sway him -- that's clearly a predetermined story.

In fact, it's possibly worse (for non-narrativists) -- it's a predetermined story, with the implied obligation that you pay back the players with their own "story points" in exchange for it. Non-narrativists will soooo not groove on that.

I think we're using radically different definitions of the word 'story'. Dumping superhero characters into a deathtrap is no more a predetermined story than placing a dungeon room with a chess board puzzle between some AD&D characters and the treasure room. They are both obstacles. Challenges to overcome. How you do that is the story... or at least a part of it.

 

[Delta]

I think we're using radically different definitions of the word 'story'. Dumping superhero characters into a deathtrap is no more a predetermined story than placing a dungeon room with a chess board puzzle between some AD&D characters and the treasure room. They are both obstacles. Challenges to overcome. How you do that is the story... or at least a part of it.

Your original anecdote used the phrases "automatically captured" and "GM Fiated them into the scenario", which you have deleted in this passage. That is the crucial difference.

 

[GlaziusF]

People are really really good at making up stories. We start doing it even before we can actually talk.

People are really really terrible at math involving more numbers than we have fingers. We need to train for it through adolescence and beyond, and even then it's something of a labor.

Unless the game we're playing is pure narrative, there are going to be numbers butting heads with other numbers at some point, and I want really really really REALLY sturdy numbers.

There's a REASON why nobody ever does improv math.

 

[Mallus]

Your original anecdote used the phrases "automatically captured" and "GM Fiated them into the scenario", which you have deleted in this passage. That is the crucial difference.

OK. Add the words 'automatically captured' back in. That's what I meant by 'dumped into a deathtrap'. Doesn't change the point I'm making.

I'll say it again: the DM/GM using fiat in order to present a specific challenge has nothing to do with narritivism, simulationism, or predetermined storytelling. In fact, it's a lot like those magic spell-proof rooms so common in AD&D tournament modules which were big puzzles that the players had to solve using specific means.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're not getting it.

<snip>

Superhero RPGs adhere to that genre convention. As a result, they need different rules for gadgets and loot than you need in a fantasy RPG, where slaying the lich-king and stealing his sword is a key part of the story.

Which is another way of saying that, in M&M, mechanics are based on flavour, instead of the other way 'round. My point exactly.


RC

 

[Delta]

I'll say it again: the DM/GM using fiat in order to present a specific challenge has nothing to do with narritivism, simulationism, or predetermined storytelling. In fact, it's a lot like those magic spell-proof rooms so common in AD&D tournament modules which were big puzzles that the players had to solve using specific means.

If they could choose not to go in, then no, it's not like those.