Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6990026" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yep, that fits with my recollection too.From the point of view of design, I see it as working both ways - you need cubes that will give you the clouds you want, and also it should be at least fairly clear how/why the clouds you have matter to the cubes.So when I see people saying &quot;I wish monster M had mechanics that were a bit XYZ-ish&quot;, to me they seem to be saying - &quot;At the moment, these cubes don't give me the clouds I want.&quot; And a reply along the lines of &quot;If only you introduced these other clouds, then either (i) you wouldn't mind, and/or (ii) you might have slightly different cubes or generate slightly different clouds from your cubes&quot; seems mostly to miss the point.There is an idea that seems to me to be implicit in some posts - I find it especially prominent in approaches/discussions inpsired by 2nd ed AD&amp;D&nbsp; - that (at one and the same time) the cubes are sacrosanct (so we must have rolls to hit, and AC and hp and the like - and eg fighter auto-success is &quot;martial magic&quot; or &quot;martial mind control&quot;; but it would be terrible to have new mechanics that might take input from, and give rise to, different sorts of clouds); and yet the clouds can be whatever you want, such that it's a type of power-gaming or boardgaming to think about varying the cubes so as to change their relationship to, and the content of, the clouds.Hopefully it's very obvious that I don't share this particular idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6990026, member: 42582"] Yep, that fits with my recollection too. From the point of view of design, I see it as working both ways - you need cubes that will give you the clouds you want, and also it should be at least fairly clear how/why the clouds you have matter to the cubes. So when I see people saying "I wish monster M had mechanics that were a bit XYZ-ish", to me they seem to be saying - "At the moment, these cubes don't give me the clouds I want." And a reply along the lines of "If only you introduced these other clouds, then either (i) you wouldn't mind, and/or (ii) you might have slightly different cubes or generate slightly different clouds from your cubes" seems mostly to miss the point. There is an idea that seems to me to be implicit in some posts - I find it especially prominent in approaches/discussions inpsired by 2nd ed AD&D - that (at one and the same time) the cubes are sacrosanct (so we [I]must[/I] have rolls to hit, and AC and hp and the like - and eg fighter auto-success is "martial magic" or "martial mind control"; but it would be [I]terrible[/I] to have new mechanics that might take input from, and give rise to, different sorts of clouds); and yet the clouds can be whatever you want, such that it's a type of power-gaming or boardgaming to think about varying the cubes so as to change their relationship to, and the content of, the clouds. Hopefully it's very obvious that I don't share this particular idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification