Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Raven Crowking]

Admitedly, the vast majority of the population cannot do what you just did.

Not my experience.

But I may just be lucky (statistically speaking) that way.


RC

 

[BryonD]

I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I'm writing. Tone is difficult I guess. I'm most certainly not stating that one form is superior to the other. I'm saying that where each person draws the line will be different.

Any value judgement you derive from that statement is purely your own.

I'm not going to play word games with you.
If you can't find the tone in your clear statements that there is a requirement for "willing to sacrifice to make the game work", then I don't have anything to say.
I reject that that line of thinking plays into the issue. ~ don't get personal please - PS~

 

[Scribble]

I'm not going to play word games with you.
If you can't find the tone in your clear statements that there is a requirement for "willing to sacrifice to make the game work", then I don't have anything to say.
I reject that that line of thinking plays into the issue.

I'm not Hussar, but I think the issue is that he probably shouldn't have used the word "sacrifice." It's a fitting word, but it has implications beyond what I think he meant.

I think he meant: Some stuff in games requires a level of abstraction. Everyone has their own level of how much abstraction they find acceptable in a game.

Sometimes, even though the rules might function perfectly fine mathwise, to do so, they've created a level of abstraction beyond which some find acceptable.

I think that's a perfectly fair/valid thing to say...

 

[Plane Sailing]

In 3E, If my character got knocked down to -7 to -9, I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the DMs description was something along the lines of..."the bolt sticking out of your eye REALLY hurts, you see everyone looking at you (with your good eye) in complete horror as you fall to the ground unconscious". I know that pretty much the only thing that's going to save his bacon is some instamatic healbot attention. In fact, such attention is going to be the only way that he's back up and in the frey once more in a handful of minutes.

If the same thing happened in 4E (bolt through the eye is described by the DM, dropping him to -7 to -9 unconscious), then it would feel kind of weird to make my save, surge up after the combat and be back to full operation (as in my guy has a similar chance of surviving another encounter as the uninjured fighter over there). No divine assistance, just a little bit of heroic grit. I'd ask my DM about the whole bolt through the eye thing to which he'd most likely have to say - "nah, it was just a flesh wound". I'd roll my eyes, think of the Black Knight, chuckle at the game rules and then continue on.

One of the things that I really loved about RQ2 was that hit points were not abstract - they were used to "model reality".

If the heavy crossbow impaled you in the abdomen, you were probably either dying or dead unless you had some really tough armour on. If the mad axeman hacked you in the arm and took your arm to -6hp then you'd lost your arm...

The trick in RQ was that although your hp rarely increased, your protective armour (whether real or magic) and your ability to not be hit (parrying) did increase - thus making more experienced characters more durable.

I still really like less abstracted mechanics, because I find that there are less 'jarring' situations which have to be explained away IMO.

Cheers

 

[Delta]

Not my experience.

But I may just be lucky (statistically speaking) that way.

Are you testing the "general population" or are you testing "people interested in gaming"? Because my point is that they're not the same.

(I feel like I'm going down a path that's previously gotten me censured on ENWorld, but nontheless...)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you testing the "general population" or are you testing "people interested in gaming"? Because my point is that they're not the same.

(I feel like I'm going down a path that's previously gotten me censured on ENWorld, but nontheless...)

I think I'll leave it at "not my experience" and admit that I may simply have had statistically anamolous experiences. I certainly don't want to argue the point too strenuously with people who have studied the subject more thoroughly than I!

RC

 

[apoptosis]

I think I'll leave it at "not my experience" and admit that I may simply have had statistically anamolous experiences. I certainly don't want to argue the point too strenuously with people who have studied the subject more thoroughly than I!

RC

I used to develop molecular diagnostics in oncology and had to explain to doctors what probabilities were given certain results of a test in relation to general disease prevalence. I realized pretty quickly that most people dont have a nice intuitive grasp of statistics and probability even those who are very well educated.

Apoptosis

 

[Hussar]

Ahh, now I see the problem. "Sacrifice" is the issue? Umm, not sure what other word works to be honest. We all do it. Sacrifice to me means giving up something we want in order to gain something else. We sacrifice realism for game all the time - the entire combat system in any edition speaks to that.

"Give up", "Accept as a loss"? Help me out here. I thought I'd made my point very clear and the fact that everyone else seems to get it makes me think that I have.

I'm sorry, I don't see the problem with the terminology. When we use D&D hit points, we accept that combat is going to be abstract. When we use leveling instead of point buy, we accept a certain level of abstraction. When we use a grid instead of protractor and string, we accept a certain level of abstraction.

The difference being, where does that level of abstraction become unacceptable? For some, it's healing overnight. For others, not so much. It's not meant as an "I'm right, you're wrong" sort of thing. It's simply calling attention to the fact that we do like different things.

Going from 3e to Basic D&D, I'd have to accept the abstraction that race=class. That each and every elf is mechanically identical. From a realism standpoint, that's ridiculous. Makes about as much sense as a cardboard hammer. However, if I want to play Basic D&D, I have to accept that as true. All elves are mechanically identical is a sacrifice I'd be willing to make in order to play Basic D&D.

Again, I'm not really sure how sacrifice is a problem. It's simply giving up something in order to gain something else. To go to Basic D&D, I sacrifice character options in order to play a much simpler, and quite honestly faster, game of D&D.

So, one more time, any value judgements you see are entirely your own. Sacrifice, giving up, not letting it bother you, take your pick. They all mean the same thing.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not Hussar, but I think the issue is that he probably shouldn't have used the word "sacrifice." It's a fitting word, but it has implications beyond what I think he meant.

I think he meant: Some stuff in games requires a level of abstraction. Everyone has their own level of how much abstraction they find acceptable in a game.

Sometimes, even though the rules might function perfectly fine mathwise, to do so, they've created a level of abstraction beyond which some find acceptable.

I think that's a perfectly fair/valid thing to say...

Exactly right. Thank you. What connotations am I missing that would make sense in this context?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

So yeah, I think 3E (at least how my group plays and interprets it) gives the DM a little more freedom in this regard to go to town with the guts on the floor - if such is your cup of tea.

Are you saying...

Always the worst way how to start a question

that 3.x is a good ruleset because you don't follow the rules?

No I'm not. That seems a silly question - a little insulting actually.

How much of this thread have you read or been involved in? Do you understand the context of my statement above? Do you understand that I have not compared rulesets as a whole nor judged rulesets as a whole? Did you realise that I have been discussing the problems with hit points in 3.x and 4E as it relates to mechanics versus flavour, and the various compromises that have been made to one or the other (but mostly flavour sacrificed for the mechanic)? Nobody seems to have an issue with the problems I've discussed with the 3.x mechanics for hps/damage/healing but as for the 4E problems, a lot of people have felt the need to arm the shield and start defending. Neither version is perfect. Personally, I think a lot of the issues would go away if they separated physical damage from all the other things hps are meant to represent. [This of course changes the nature of play and thus why the compromise has been made].

Specifically, with the above is the comparison of having the DM describe a grievous wound and whether such description is going to be compromised later on (based upon the rules for healing/dying/regaining hit points in 3E and 4E). I really don't want to have to go through it all again in this post. If you want to discuss in a positive way, why don't you go back to page 5 where I started the comparison and read from there.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise