Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6288789" data-attributes="member: 6775031">This is not strictly true. There are general fatigue rules, at least in 3.X, which cover the effects of strenuous labor over time. I know the main book had rules for fatigue as a result of overland travel, at least. I know of at least one module where the PCs were supposed to play farmers for the day, and if you go through with it, you had to make something like a Fortitude check to resist becoming fatigued during the evening.It's not so much the case that there is nothing in the system unless it is modeled by the game engine. It's more that only the rules of physics can reasonably be codified. And even then, the rulebook only bothers to list the common situations that are likely to come up for professional adventurers. Maybe they changed it in 4E, but the older edition DMGs really emphasized how the DM is supposed to control all of that other stuff, in whatever way makes sense for the situation at hand. Even the Next playtest has the guideline to require ability checks for anything reasonable-yet-uncertain.When it comes to things like morale and inspiration, though, less really is more. If you codify something like that, then you get people playing the system rather than the game. You know the big alignment debate, over whether enforced alignment helps or hinders roleplaying? It's kind of like that, but to an even greater extent. If you get points for being selfless, then you wind up with players acting selfless, not because it's true to the character, but so they get the points. Any codified system can be solved, so unless you want players to &quot;optimize their roleplaying&quot;, you must leave the roleplaying mechanics un-codified.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6288789, member: 6775031"] This is not strictly true. There are general fatigue rules, at least in 3.X, which cover the effects of strenuous labor over time. I know the main book had rules for fatigue as a result of overland travel, at least. I know of at least one module where the PCs were supposed to play farmers for the day, and if you go through with it, you had to make something like a Fortitude check to resist becoming fatigued during the evening. It's not so much the case that there is [I]nothing[/I] in the system [I]unless[/I] it is modeled by the game engine. It's more that [I]only[/I] the rules of physics can [I]reasonably[/I] be codified. And even then, the rulebook only bothers to list the common situations that are likely to come up for professional adventurers. Maybe they changed it in 4E, but the older edition DMGs really emphasized how the DM is supposed to control all of that other stuff, in whatever way makes sense for the situation at hand. Even the Next playtest has the guideline to require ability checks for anything reasonable-yet-uncertain. When it comes to things like morale and inspiration, though, less really is more. If you codify something like that, then you get people playing the system rather than the game. You know the big alignment debate, over whether enforced alignment helps or hinders roleplaying? It's kind of like that, but to an even greater extent. If you get points for being selfless, then you wind up with players acting selfless, [I]not because it's true to the character[/I], but [I]so they get the points.[/I] Any codified system can be solved, so unless you [I]want[/I] players to "optimize their roleplaying", you [I]must[/I] leave the roleplaying mechanics [I]un[/I]-codified. [/QUOTE]

Verification