Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[pemerton]

I don't think so. The mechanics of a game directly inform the "win conditions" of the game, as has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently through games theory. In this case, character hit points rather drastically and directly impact the odds of given actions resulting in a "win", and this directly informs player action (assuming he understands the game at all).

If someone cannot determine that the mechanics of having 5 hp instead of 80 hp is going to directly affect how a character is played, and how effective that character is in a fight, what hope do any words of mine have?

No one that I've read in this thread is disputing that hit point totals affect player decisions. But this is not the same as saying that moral damage is inflicted via the action resolution mechanics. For example, AD&D draws a very clear and obvious difference in this respect between NPCs, who are subject to morale rules, and PCs, who are not.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No one that I've read in this thread is disputing that hit point totals affect player decisions. But this is not the same as saying that moral damage is inflicted via the action resolution mechanics. For example, AD&D draws a very clear and obvious difference in this respect between NPCs, who are subject to morale rules, and PCs, who are not.

Sure, because the DM doesn't necessarily have the same investment in any particular creature that the player has in his PC. I have a hard time imagining anyone being successful in an even halfway challenging game where the action resolution mechanics don't directly affect PC actions in a way very consistent with "morale resolution".

Once more, with feeling, if you fail to understand how "win conditions" affect play, you fail to understand the game. No matter what that game is.


RC

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Im not reading 11 pages of replys. So I'll comment on the started topic.
Basically if you play a character such as the rogue and you twiddle your thumbs in the corner, your not playing the Rogue right. You arent using tactical movemnt and flanking you arent sneaking ahead and if your DM allows it your not using Skil tricks. The Rogue when played right can unleash his Sneak Attack every round. If you arent thats you and your parties fault. Players flaws, not the games.

I tell people off the bat with the ranger Im not telling them what enemies im throwing at them so tehy better be prepared to have useless Favored enemeies. And the Paladin andhis strict code can add some great roleplaying opportunities. Believe me, Ive seen it. A Paladin having to come to grips with working with evil characters is just plain fun.

Flavor and mechanics at the same time.

 

[Scribble]

I houseruled it (d10, roll each round), and ultimately it caused more good feeling at the table and great moments in the game than the effort to houserule it had cost me.

Yeah I was doing similar, but as we tended to play late on a thursday night, and my group consisted of 8 players... Oye... It just became a headache of keeping track of things.

Perhaps. But when the rules have this much disconnect, have this much erratta, have this little playtesting, and fail to have this many qualities that were advertised, I'm thinking that it isn't too much of a stretch to believe that they rushed things, and (as a consequence thereof) didn't think everything through.

A possibility... I don't agree though. I honestly think a lot of the failure to have x qualities is people taking small bits of information and inserting their own expectations, then being upset when their idea was incorrect. But shrug. Anything is possible.

EDIT: And I don't mean here that they produced a mechanically bad game. A lot of problems could be resolved, as has already been said, by terminology. If you accept that 4e is gamist before simulationist (i.e., that some things are simply meant to exist as game constructs without simulating anything) then it succeeds in its design goals phenomenally well. If you argue that it is intended to simulate in-world events, then it is less successful (IMHO). And the amount of erratta makes me suspect that 4.5 is a real possibility in 3-4 years.

Eh... I've never been a fan of the simmulationist/gamist thing. Admittedly I'm not an expert in it though. I can see the merrits in the idea, but I don't think you can really be too strict about the terms.

But yeah sure, I'll give you it leans more towards the gamist side. I guess it works for me, because that's always been my way of running the game no matter what edition. (I don't need to know the exact workings of how the goblin shot the fireball, only that it did because 9 times out of 10 it won't matter. On the 10th time we'll figure it out.)

I guess I also preffer it because I think it seems more "real" to me. In real life there are countless variables that effect a situation (Go Dr Malcom!.) The gamist idea seems to allow for those variables without a bazillion tables and subset tables...

As for errata... I get the feeling it's not much more then previous editions. It's just that they seem to be trying to stay on top of it. Probably since they've been accused of being too slow about it in the past.

Absolutely. And thank you for your courtesy!


RC

If I've seemed any other way then for that I appologize. (It's most ikely because sometimes I'm posting here and also answering a bazillion work emails.)

I like to debate, and am always happy to debate about things I like (and sometimes things I dislike) but it's all in the name of fun. Especialy when it concerns a game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah I was doing similar, but as we tended to play late on a thursday night, and my group consisted of 8 players... Oye... It just became a headache of keeping track of things.

I count down initiative, and if you're not paying attention, you go when you notice your turn was passed (i.e., you held your action). If you don't know what you want to do on your turn, you hold your action until you figure it out. If a new round comes up, sucks to be you.

Eh... I've never been a fan of the simmulationist/gamist thing. Admittedly I'm not an expert in it though. I can see the merrits in the idea, but I don't think you can really be too strict about the terms.

Well, yeah. Sure. More of a shorthand to help you think about things than something that is strictly defined. Lots of grey and nebulous corners.

(Actually, almost all language is like that, if you examine it closely enough.)

I guess I also preffer it because I think it seems more "real" to me. In real life there are countless variables that effect a situation (Go Dr Malcom!.) The gamist idea seems to allow for those variables without a bazillion tables and subset tables...

Whatever floats your boat is where you gotta dip your paddle, my friend!

As for errata... I get the feeling it's not much more then previous editions. It's just that they seem to be trying to stay on top of it. Probably since they've been accused of being too slow about it in the past.

Perhaps. Just seemed to be a lot of it, breathing down the neck of the initial release. Seems rushed to me. But I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Or the second. Or the third.

If I've seemed any other way then for that I appologize. (It's most ikely because sometimes I'm posting here and also answering a bazillion work emails.)

I like to debate, and am always happy to debate about things I like (and sometimes things I dislike) but it's all in the name of fun. Especialy when it concerns a game.

Not a problem. You didn't seem otherwise; I was contrasting to other threads, actually. Even what little "snark" there has been in this thread seems minor to me. I really, really appreciate that, and thought I should actually thank you for using the voice of reason. Not that you are the only one! Just sometimes that's something I forget to do -- tell someone how much I appreciate their reasonable approach to discussing something.




RC

 

[Scribble]

But I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Or the second. Or the third.

I thought I was wrong once... but I was mistaken.

I really, really appreciate that, and thought I should actually thank you for using the voice of reason. Not that you are the only one! Just sometimes that's something I forget to do -- tell someone how much I appreciate their reasonable approach to discussing something.

It's why I originally stuck around these boards in the first place... People could dissagree without falling into insults and fighting. So I thank you for that as well!

Now lets stop bein all mushy fuzzy hug like an go kill some orcs!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Now lets stop bein all mushy fuzzy hug like an go kill some moderators!

For shame!

 

[Fifth Element]

Basically if you play a character such as the rogue and you twiddle your thumbs in the corner, your not playing the Rogue right. You arent using tactical movemnt and flanking you arent sneaking ahead and if your DM allows it your not using Skil tricks. The Rogue when played right can unleash his Sneak Attack every round. If you arent thats you and your parties fault. Players flaws, not the games.

You're talking 3.5 right? What about undead? Constructs? Oozes?

 

[pemerton]

One utter failing of most systems (not limited to specific D&D editions): No rule support for the "words of a dying man". Either you're unconscious and dying, or you're conscious and not dying.

Roger Musson's version of VP/WP (published as "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive" in an early number of White Dwarf) had support for dying words. So does Rolemaster. Both do it in a simulationist fashion, by allowing some words to be immediately incapacitating (without unconsciousness) and fatal after the expiration of a certain time period. I'm sure that there are modern fortune-in-the-middle mechanics out there that support it in a non-simulationist fashion.

EDIT: Apoptosis beat me to it on the Rolemaster point!

 

[pemerton]

Deleted double post.