Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Quintuple Post, Johny5D5D5D5D?
D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
- Thread starter innerdude
- Start date
Argyle King
Legend
Yeah...
As I was posting yesterday, I kept having the website tell me that my message had not posted because of some sort of error. Apparently, it was posting -even though I couldn't see it at the time.
Balesir
Adventurer
Modular though GURPS is, though, it only really does one "style". The modules add worlds, physical environs, genre concepts and so on - but you still end up playing the "GURPS style". Not that this is a bad thing - it's a fun style; sort of real-ish world simulation with genre elements. But it's why it is limited when it comes to genres like superheroes - the style really doesn't fit the genre well.You could do the TV series "Heroes" in GURPS OK, but "Superman" or "X Men" don't really work so well*.
Frankly, I'm sceptical that multiple actual "styles" can be done in one system - however modular. But for genre elements and colour added to a core system with it's own distinct style? Sure - take lessons from GURPS.
*: Just as an aside, I think the 4e systems could do a cracking job of a superheroes setting - even the 'levels' stuff works just fine for stuff like the "school for gifted youngsters"!
Last edited:
Argyle King
Legend
I may not necessarily agree with the specifics of your post, but I do agree with the general premise that different mechanical structures have different styles. That is exactly what I was getting at with some of my previous posts. Mechanics and fluff do have a relationship. As such, I believe those two parts of a game should be created hand-in-hand; not independent of each other.
As for styles... while there are certain underpinnings of GURPS and the ideals it is built upon which tend to shine through, there are multiple styles which can be played with the game. That is why there is a Gun Fu book as well as Tactical Shooting; both cover similar topics, but do so with very different styles. Again, I'll say that I pointed toward Dungeon Fantasy because it takes the overall system and boils it down to a specific style/genre.
That is what I look for 5E to do. I don't look for it to do everything, but I do believe it should be able to cover the D&D styles. To me, that is what I understood modularity to mean -the ability to play 3E style, 4E style, AD&D style; etc- by turning some of the dials of the core components to different settings. If that is not what was meant by the original comments from the designers, I will be completely honest and say I have no idea what they were talking about when they discussed the design goals of the game.
I do not feel the 4E mechanical style complimented the 4E fluff very well. Now, if you're a good enough DM or experienced enough with the system, you can be like Pem and do whatever you want. However, being that the system was advertised with ease of play being one of the selling points, that appears to me to be an area where the game may not have performed as well as it was expected to. In short, I do not feel 4E did the 4E style very well. That's a weird thing to say, but it's how I personally feel. I can certainly see the influence of SWSE in 4E.
I do feel 4E was a good game. However, I'm not so sure it was necessarily good at being the game it was advertised to be.
Balesir
Adventurer
Well, there you may well have a point. I didn't pay much, if any, attention to the advertising for 4e; I just got the initial boxed start set (original KoTS) and found it was a game just like we had been playing in place of D&D for years - only done professionally!
Now, 4e is out GoTo game for high fantasy dramatic gamism. For gritty, simulationist fantasy I have Hârn and for multi-genre, experimental sim I choose GURPS. Those and one or two "fringe" specialties (Ars Magica, Pendragon, Fiasco, Call of Cthulhu, Universalis, Primetime Adventures, RuneQuest, Traveller, Bushido and DragonQuest) just about covers it all for me.
Edit: to add - 13th Age also looks interesting, though...
I think you're putting a bit too much weight on "story" here - I think [MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION] is talking more about story elements - fictional content - than story in the sense of plot.
So, for example, if in the fiction a door is tough, then in the mechanics it should be hard for anyone but Hercules to knock it down. In other words, the mechanics should reinforce rather than undermine the basic claims being made in the fiction.
This is certainly what I've had in mind in agreeing with him.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I agree with that. However, I think once they start down that road, they never stop in time. For example, that is where all the "compound names" come from.
In fairness, I have a more poetic sensibility about such things, which is difficult to pull off in a game. I enjoy evocative story elements that can imply more than one piece of fictional content. I don't want them completely divorced, but I do want some ambiguity. (And not that post-modern, 3rd-rate, "Northern Exposure" "profound" psycho-babble ambiguity that comes from never making any decisions or stands, either. But I digress.
) For example, from Alison Krauss and Union Station's "Daylight":
Code:
I miss the forest shade,
You took me there, the promise I made,
To never leave the dark so deep.
Safe and soothing, yet I fear,
As I recall and now reflect,
I see it's safer to connect,
To the daylight.
Oh, the daylight. (Light.)I once built an entire adventure around that. In the larger context, it's mostly only a love song. That bit hints at something else, especially when you transpose it to a fantasy context.
I once built (or, rather, tried to build) a scenario around Bob Dylan's "Isis" - I was particularly taken by the image of the pyramids embedded in an ice, and of a body that they're trying to find.
I found the translation from poetry to RPG not easy.
Not having learned my lesson, I'm toying with another go at such a thing, this time inspired by Van Morrison's "You Don't Pull No Punches, But You Don't Push the River". I am strangly intrigued by the image of the Veedon Fleeces. Whatever exactly these are, I think they are (or once were) found on the Feywild, and were woven by Lolth when she was still a god of fate, and before she succumbed to the corruption of the Abyss.
Argyle King
Legend
Pem, you are on the right track when it comes to what I mean. I tried to XP you, but I need to spread some around first.
Indeed, what I meant was that neither part of the equation (crunch or fluff) should undermine the other. I'm not totally against making sacrifices in the name of playability. I'm also ok with some of the ambiguity Jerome mentioned. I'm not even necessarily talking about 'realism.' I simply feel that there should be a coherent relationship between fluff and crunch when it comes to a rpg.
Look at Worlds & Monsters, the D&D 4E preview book, I didn't get the impression that the game would be anything like how it actually turned out. For me, I would say I had a misconception about what the game was supposed to be clear up until a little after Manual of The Planes was released.
I kept thinking "well, it's a totally new way of doing D&D, so maybe they're still working on some aspects of the game that will come out later." IIRC, that is in line with the language which was being used by WoTC at the time as well. As I had what I feel was a lot of D&D brand loyalty, I trusted in what was to come, but it never came.
On that note, I am brought back to a piece of negativity that I have toward 5E. I understand the idea of a modular game. (At least I think so; I've admitted elsewhere that maybe my understanding of the word is different than how they mean it.) The core actually does seem like a fun game, but certain elements give me an idea that the core will turn out to lean toward a certain style. I've also read interviews and listened to podcasts in which some of the things I'd like to do with the game -modules I would like to have- probably won't even be looked at until a year or two into 5E's life cycle. I don't want to start buying into a game only to realize that there is no intention of giving me the pieces to play the game the way I would like to.
Overall, I think the biggest hurdle for WoTC right now is communication with their fanbase. I think that hurdle goes both ways. Not only do I feel they need to do a better job of speaking to their fanbase, but they also need to do a better job of taking the time to listen. When I say listen, I do not mean they have to do what we say. By all means, they should certainly feel they have the freedom to ignore it. I do not doubt that some of what we say as a community is rubbish. However, I said elsewhere that I personally do not believe they understand what I want and/or why I did or didn't like certain aspects of the last two editions. I think that misunderstanding comes from poor listening skills, and there's a difference between hearing and listening.
So, in short:
I think the core of the game should give a coherent relationship to fluff and crunch.
I think WoTC needs to learn how to communicate with their fanbase better.
Indeed, what I meant was that neither part of the equation (crunch or fluff) should undermine the other. I'm not totally against making sacrifices in the name of playability. I'm also ok with some of the ambiguity Jerome mentioned. I'm not even necessarily talking about 'realism.' I simply feel that there should be a coherent relationship between fluff and crunch when it comes to a rpg.
Look at Worlds & Monsters, the D&D 4E preview book, I didn't get the impression that the game would be anything like how it actually turned out. For me, I would say I had a misconception about what the game was supposed to be clear up until a little after Manual of The Planes was released.
I kept thinking "well, it's a totally new way of doing D&D, so maybe they're still working on some aspects of the game that will come out later." IIRC, that is in line with the language which was being used by WoTC at the time as well. As I had what I feel was a lot of D&D brand loyalty, I trusted in what was to come, but it never came.
On that note, I am brought back to a piece of negativity that I have toward 5E. I understand the idea of a modular game. (At least I think so; I've admitted elsewhere that maybe my understanding of the word is different than how they mean it.) The core actually does seem like a fun game, but certain elements give me an idea that the core will turn out to lean toward a certain style. I've also read interviews and listened to podcasts in which some of the things I'd like to do with the game -modules I would like to have- probably won't even be looked at until a year or two into 5E's life cycle. I don't want to start buying into a game only to realize that there is no intention of giving me the pieces to play the game the way I would like to.
Overall, I think the biggest hurdle for WoTC right now is communication with their fanbase. I think that hurdle goes both ways. Not only do I feel they need to do a better job of speaking to their fanbase, but they also need to do a better job of taking the time to listen. When I say listen, I do not mean they have to do what we say. By all means, they should certainly feel they have the freedom to ignore it. I do not doubt that some of what we say as a community is rubbish. However, I said elsewhere that I personally do not believe they understand what I want and/or why I did or didn't like certain aspects of the last two editions. I think that misunderstanding comes from poor listening skills, and there's a difference between hearing and listening.
So, in short:
I think the core of the game should give a coherent relationship to fluff and crunch.
I think WoTC needs to learn how to communicate with their fanbase better.
