Henry
Autoexreginated
That's because they couldn't afjord the page count to devote to such a thing. I guess you could say the coast was too high to include it in the books.
3.5 better for world building?
- Thread starter JoeGKushner
- Start date
- Status
That's because they couldn't afjord the page count to devote to such a thing. I guess you could say the coast was too high to include it in the books.
Ycore Rixle
First Post
Fair enough. I find it inconceivable and self-contradictory that the game mechanics are not part of the world. To me, the characters' actions are part of the world, and they are limited and informed by the game mechanics, so I don't see how a world can be self-consistent if the characters' actions don't abide by the physics of the world.
But I have come to realize - thanks to 4e - that there are many, many gamers who can and do describe a world as self-consistent even if the characters' actions are not consistent with the physics of the world. So your point is well taken.
The combat rules can be consistent with the world's physics without being the complete world's physics. I think that's an important consideration in world-building, as a complete physics and a perfect simulation is never going to happen.
I totally agree with bolded part (emphasis mine). I did not mean to say that was the case. I thought I covered it in my d2 paragraph; sorry for not being clear. But yeah, absolutely, there are many gamers who care about story but don't see the rules as physics.
The second part, we just differ on definitions. As I said above, I can't understand how a world can be self-consistent if the character's actions (informed by the rules) are not consistent with the world's physics. To me, that's the opposite of what self-consistent means. But I accept that you have a different definition, so yeah, if we define it your way, then what I said about rules-as-physics preferences guiding world-building preferences is invalid.
Above all, I don't mean to imply that either way - rules as physics or rules divorced from physics - is badwrongfun. I was just stating that how you answer the rules as physics question will influence how you feel about system affecting world-building.
Last edited:
pawsplay
Hero
I disagree. I say there is no setting design that is not bound to mechanics. My arguments:
There are elements of setting design that may not be tied to numeric traits or explicit switches in the game engine. But there is no such thing as a setting element that does not relate in some way to action resolution. For instance, imagine a PC wants to mount a horse. Obviously, the success of this action is going to hinge strongly on whether horses exist in the game world at all.
Do you want to play an elf? Whether or not the game has explicit race/species/class rules, elves obviously have to exist in order for you to play one. Playing an elf in a non-magical GURPS Espionage game is obviously breaking the rules.
In my way of looking at things, all game mechanics answer questions about what happens. The player bids some kind of action, and the GM resolves it. Sometimes this requires a roll, other times the GM just says, "Ok, you get on your horse," and many times the player will just say, "I get on my horse," to which the GM silently assents... but in all cases, an action has been proposed and an outcome has been mandated. If game mechanics ask, "Is this action possible? If so, how likely is it?" then you are including huge amounts of setting design into the game.
pawsplay
Hero
Let me add that I hold that view that to be a true RPG, the game is supposed to be able to resolve any conceivable action attempted by the PCs. Rules are provided, but the GM is also provided, all aimed at the ultimate purpose: to provide a way of resolving imaginary actions in an imaginary environment. Rules-as-physics and narration/fait-as-rules are two valid techniques for resolving situations that come up; the ideal approach depends on the GM, the game system, and the situation (taking into account player preference to some degree).
4e seems to me like one of those kits that is at first remarkable for how easily one can make several different things, and later remarkable for having so cunningly got as much seeming variety as it did out of repetition of the same few elements. With 3e, it may take more work to do those same few things -- but not much more than that to do any one of very many more things.
Further, 3e provides more components that map to identifiable phenomena in a world, in ways that one can understand and so use. One can alter the model, and say what has changed elsewhere and why. With 4e, too much seems at once arbitrary and mysterious -- sometimes utterly lacking any explicit rationale at all, while confounding common sense -- and yet pretty certainly important to the abstract mathematical game. It is blatantly a Potemkin village, whereas 3e structures are potentially self-sustaining.
Further, 3e provides more components that map to identifiable phenomena in a world, in ways that one can understand and so use. One can alter the model, and say what has changed elsewhere and why. With 4e, too much seems at once arbitrary and mysterious -- sometimes utterly lacking any explicit rationale at all, while confounding common sense -- and yet pretty certainly important to the abstract mathematical game. It is blatantly a Potemkin village, whereas 3e structures are potentially self-sustaining.
As someone putting the finishing touches on a homebrew setting that's meant to work with both Pathfinder (albeit with 3.5 stuff allowed) and 4e, the answer is no.
Just about any worldbuilding you did in 3.x, you can do in 4e, and (almost) vice versa. Divorce yourself from needless graphs and come to terms that the game has never been about being a "simulation" and you'll find things come much easier.
...Now if only the damn CB was more user friendly to tweaking and houseruling...
Just about any worldbuilding you did in 3.x, you can do in 4e, and (almost) vice versa. Divorce yourself from needless graphs and come to terms that the game has never been about being a "simulation" and you'll find things come much easier.
...Now if only the damn CB was more user friendly to tweaking and houseruling...
Huh??AllisterH said:
Where are these rules? Have I been doing it wrong for 30+ years?
(Well, in plenty of ways I'm sure I have from the perspective of people who expect any game that uses AD&D books to be strictly proper AD&D. However, I have always been content to DM "mere" D&D.)
Zelligars Apprentice
Explorer
Unless, of course, you play one of these:Otherkin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More seriously, I agree there is an inseparable link between rules and setting. However, as we all know, the rules cannot cover everything, nor should they try. For example, are there any rules in any edition of D&D which state what kind of bonus drinking lots of strong coffee gives to your resistance to the Sleep spell?* Not that I've seen. That's why we have gamemasters.
This flexibility allows some GMs to deviate wildly from the rules when it suits them. Others like the rules to be more involved. Various games are designed to facilitate one or the other of those extremes. In general, the various versions of D&D have moved from the "free-wheeling" side to the "ruled-informed" side as time has gone on. Whether that's a bad thing or not depends on your style.
*This actually came up in a game I played once. But only once.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
"Setting design is game system design."
That's the quote I'm looking at, and it isn't the same as what you say above. There are plentiful examples of rules sets being designed, and then being used for a wide variety of settings. I happen to think that a game designed for a specific setting will almost certainly do that better than a more generic one; Pendragon does Arthurian Romance better than any other set of rules. But that doesn't mean you can't create the game first and the setting(s) afterwards; were Blackmoor and Greyhawk designed before OD&D came about?
- Status
Similar Threads
