Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Hussar]

Also, @ pemerton, by the time Sam rescues Frodo, the nature of the orcs is so well established (in Mordor and Out) that Tolkein's work makes sense. Nor is what happens without consequences to the storyline.


RC

Oh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease. Someone please quote my last post without the sblock tags so RC can see it. That's just way, way too funny.

Oh, and guys, I love you too.

No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to ignoring that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing. There's still ways to be raised from the dead and, failing that, unlike Monopoly, you can make a new character. If you're really attached to the character, make sure your butt gets revived. And if you die at such a low level that you can't be revived, I admittingly find it rather odd that you'd be so attached in the first place.

How is character death, or at least permanent character death, not losing? Sure, you can make a new character. You can play Monopoly again. You still lost.

What about in the case of the entire party dying? Is that a "loss"?

 

[Hussar]

Ahem. Sorry, just had to point that out.

I was reading my PHB 2 this morning and came across an interesting sidebar that I think really sheds light on why these discussions are so difficult, why we tend to talk past each other so often.

In the section on retraining, on page 194, there is the following sidebar:

In general, retraining is assumed to be a background activity, just like normal level increass are. However, if you DM's campaign requires the PC's to spend time and/or money to improve their skills (etc)... (DMG 197) the DM can apply similar requirements when the characters use the retraining rules presented in this chapter. The table below shows some suggested tie and gp costs... These costs are purely optons; the game works perfectly well without them, just as it works without requiring downtime in order to attain higher levels

Now, personally, I agree with the bolded part. The game works with or without them, so you choose. I think the problem comes is that some people don't think the game works perfectly well without these elements. Fundamentally, this is the break here. How much is actually needed.

Look at some of these quotes:

Either all wounds short of the killing blow are not really injury, they are just loss of mojo that can be brought back with a deep breath, which I find unsatisfactory, or all characters can close all wounds with enough lamaze technique, which is I find unsatisfactory.

compared to this:

My interpretation of this (and the whole reason why I introduced the whole hp thing to the thread way back when) is that flavour has been sacrificed for a game mechanic that keeps the game running more smoothly and keeps all characters involved for longer by reducing the healing workload of the Cleric. A wonderful mechanic, but one that's flavour grates with my sense of verisimilitude. YMOV.

Where you come down on the issue depends a great deal, I think on how much you are willing to sacrifice for the game. My personal tastes are pretty flexible. I don't get too fussed about systems too often so long as they work. Otherwise, I feel it's the DM that makes the game, not the system. I use D&D because I like it and I feel comfortable using these mechanics, not because I think these mechanics are the absolute best for my tastes.

Sorry, had a point, but I think I lost it somewhere back there. :/

 

[Hussar]

A little while later.

In my mind, there needs to be a definite heirarchy in game mechanic design. To me, the priorities should look like this:

1. Does it work at the table? If it doesn't work at the table, or it causes the game to come to a screeching halt, the mechanic is bad. Doesn't matter how good the flavor is, or how interesting it is, it's bad.

For me, a perfect example of this is Living Imagination's Broadsides!! rules. Absolutely the best IMO, naval combat supplement that I've read for 3e. Chock full of flavor, interesting to read, really captures the idea of two (or more) ships going at each other on the high seas. In play? Boring. About as interesting as watching paint dry. Far too detailed for a group game. Might work as a two player game, but, for D&D? Nope. Bad.

2. Flavor. (You didn't think I was totally anti flavour did you?) - Yes, the mechanics need flavor. Flavorless mechanics are boring, regardless of how well they work at the table. You do need to capture the feeling of what you are trying to do. But, again, this takes a far back seat to point one.

3. Ease of implementation - now this one is trickier in a game like D&D which we all like to use for so many different styles. But, there has to be some thought given as to how this can be added to the game without causing huge upheavals in existing games.

4. Genre emulation. - This one I put in the very back seat. D&D is a poor genre simulator and IMO, always has been. It's always been the "kitchen sink" game where you take whatever, from whereever and chuck it in.

What about you? How would you prioritise things?

 

[Lanefan]

In my mind, there needs to be a definite heirarchy in game mechanic design. To me, the priorities should look like this:

1. Does it work at the table?

2. Flavor.

3. Ease of implementation

4. Genre emulation.

What about you? How would you prioritise things?

I'm not sure these really *can* be prioritized as neatly as this. Every design element is going to have elements of all four, plus there's a fifth one to consider:

5. Simplicity.

That said, if something passes the test for 2,3,4 and 5 (particularly for 2,3 and 5) then by default it's going to pass the test for 1, or can be made to.

I really begin to think that the root cause for many of these discussions is we all have different ideas about what '1' represents, as what works just fine at one table might not work at all at another. Let's take simple initiative as an example. Some think group initiatives rolled once per combat work just fine. Others think individual turn-based initiatives are the way to go. Others see re-rolling each round as the answer. Never mind the question of what die size to use...

Yet there's a flavour component even in such a mechanical thing as initiative. Re-rolling each round is more realistic, thus maintaining flavour and believability, but takes more time; rolling once sacrifices said flavour in the name of saving time (in 3e, it saves a lot of time!). And each of us has our own way of doing it that works at our table...because we make it work.

I guess what I'm saying is that if this game-vs.-flavour issue can affect even something as simple as initiative, on the larger scale this might be a no-win discussion. The designers build what works for them; we tweak it until it works for us. Then we argue about it.

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to ignoring that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing.

Exactly so.

You've mentioned this a couple of times and each time, I have felt it an unsatisfying solution.

Also exactly so.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No, it doesn't, because the rest of your post is devoted entirely to ignoring that dying in D&D doesn't equate to losing. There's still ways to be raised from the dead and, failing that, unlike Monopoly, you can make a new character. If you're really attached to the character, make sure your butt gets revived. And if you die at such a low level that you can't be revived, I admittingly find it rather odd that you'd be so attached in the first place.

So, how does one lose in D&D? When the world is destroyed?

Or maybe you're right. You can't really lose D&D, just as you can't win it. But you can certainly win or lose a fight. You can lose a character (which is, of course, a different meaning from the "losing a fight). You can lose "fun" if you have to face with the fact that the next hour or so, you will watch the other players have a thrilling combat while you roll up a new character or wait for them to get the time to raise your character.

To use a sport analogy - you don't lose the World Soccer Championship by losing just one game. But that doesn't mean you did not lose. You just didn't lose everything.

So maybe he isn't ignoring it because you can't lose a game. Death in combat is a loss in the context of the encounter - not in the context of the adventure or the campaign maybe, but still losing.

 

[Fenes]

If you do not have fun - for whatever reason - you lose at D&D since that's the goal of the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But you can certainly win or lose a fight. You can lose a character (which is, of course, a different meaning from the "losing a fight). You can lose "fun" if you have to face with the fact that the next hour or so, you will watch the other players have a thrilling combat while you roll up a new character or wait for them to get the time to raise your character.

All far more analagous to going to jail in Monopoly than a "You Lose" card in the Community Chest. Which is what is being ignored, as ProfessorCirno correctly points out.

If you do not have fun - for whatever reason - you lose at D&D since that's the goal of the game.

If forced to choose between fun and satisfaction, my goal is satisfaction.

YMMV.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If you do not have fun - for whatever reason - you lose at D&D since that's the goal of the game.

I agree.

All far more analagous to going to jail in Monopoly than a "You Lose" card in the Community Chest. Which is what is being ignored, as ProfessorCirno correctly points out.

I disagree. Unless you're usually in jail in Monopoly for an hour of game-time, getting no chance to do anything at all. I haven't played Monopoly more then once or twice at best, so I don't know, but I am almost certain that's not how it works.

Of course, there is also a second problem - who claims that Monopoly is a good game and that going to jail therefore doesn't become a "you-lose" situation? A lot of stuff is successful despite flawed aspects. There might be a reason why I don't play Monopoly, Skat or a phletora of other games that are still considered common or even successful.

If forced to choose between fun and satisfaction, my goal is satisfaction.

What's the difference?

 

[BryonD]

Where you come down on the issue depends a great deal, I think on how much you are willing to sacrifice for the game.

I don't understand how my quote fits in your post.