Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 4480229" data-attributes="member: 3820">I understand your point. It's something I've run across before in other games: a certain level of pre-existing structure and specific subsystems help channel play a little better, and they also make it easier for the people running the game to get immediate ideas if they don't have any of their own. The trouble with this approach with D&D as a rule is that D&D is a pretty flexible thing. You can get away with subsystems more when you have a more limited setting and can focus on the stuff most likely to pop up in genre. The Fear/Horror system is a good example of that: it's usable for Ravenloft, because it can justify its presence thanks to the likelihood of it coming up. On the other hand, it would be one more thing to keep track of in regular "define-your-own" D&D. That can contribute to the "bloat" problem. I tend to take the side that some examples of mechanics that inform potential narrative are good, but I don't want to be drowning in them. A good example from the Storytelling system is that you have specific subsystems meant to reinforce the experience of being a given supernatural creature, like the general actions that cause degeneration or the methods by which you regain your power, but you also have a core system that's about mixing and matching Attributes and Skills as you see fit to cover a wide variety of actions. Similarly, 4e puts a lot of emphasis on skill challenges and the DMG's page 42, both of which are meant to make it easier to create a wide variety of effects and run stuff on the fly without as much page-flipping. I really like this, particularly in a setting I'm homebrewing. Because generally speaking, the more subsystems I'm presented with, there tends to be a point of diminishing returns, where a greater percentage of them are either (a) rulings I don't agree with, or (b) too much bother to use. I find it difficult to say "yes, I like them" or "no, I don't" to the overall premise of there being more mechanics that have notable ramifications on the setting. For example, I like the rules for Delirium from Werewolf: The Apocalypse, where they help to explain several horror movie conventions like humanity not being aware of the supernatural or the primal fear a werewolf causes. On the other hand, I'm not thrilled about the ramifications for magic item creation in 3e D&D, because they're hard to ignore or work around if you want a game with a generally lower magic level. And because they're inbuilt into the game's expectations, you have to change a lot of other things if you want to alter the item creation rules: rejigger monsters, give out higher stats to PCs, things like that. So mechanics that inform the story — it really depends on the execution. I like the execution of 4e, mostly, but I'm also the kind of person who tends to bring in outside inspiration more, therefore I don't need as much coming from those books. So I can certainly see your point of view, even if it isn't mine.</blockquote>

Verification