Coherence as a Critical Goal for 5e

[Crazy Jerome]

[MENTION=1879]Andor[/MENTION], I agree with you on the principle, though I think the early psionic example is not the best one for your case. It's a very clear example, but man were those rules clunky, with a touch of presaging the Shadowrun "net runner" problem.

But yeah, there has to be some judicious selection of deliberately disjointed mechanics, and places where these are smoothed somewhat and places where they are most definitely not. That's the art part of design being applied to the whole to make it seem more like a story-telling tool and less like a mechanical construct. And of course a certain amount of that is illusion.

I also see this as an "investment of limited capital" type of issue. A design can only get away with so much disjointed behavior before it loses coherence. But it can also only get away with so much mushing things together (square pegs in round holes) before it loses coherence. So better pick the spots carefully. "Magic" having some unique mechanics is not bad, per se, because "magic" is a major chunk of the game that applies widely and deeply to characters, equipment, etc. "Grappling" is probably an extremely lousy choice because it is so niche, and as you say, unlikely to get a payoff worth the increased handling time.

That's not to say that I'd automatically make "magic" different just to make it different. There can and should be some overlap, if only to avoid the clunkiness of something like AD&D psionics, and forcing things one way is as bad as forcing them the other. But if a neat part of the design naturally leads to parts of "magic" needing something different, I wouldn't worry about it one iota.

 

[Andor]

[MENTION=1879]Andor[/MENTION], I agree with you on the principle, though I think the early psionic example is not the best one for your case. It's a very clear example, but man were those rules clunky, with a touch of presaging the Shadowrun "net runner" problem.

True. That's why I keep using RuneQuest/HeroQuest as my go-to example, but not everyone is familiar with both systems and frankly I was tired of typing about it.

I think we are in agreement here.

One of the things I liked in 3e, especially towards the end was the freedom the designers seemed to feel to tinker around with different systems.

Between Incarnum, the Book of Magic, Bo9S, PHB2 and Eberron it would be hard to think of a way of to allocate resources that 3e didn't dabble in from Vancian Spell slots to fixed pools of at-will powers to resource pools that refresh per level to random card draws!

And for the most part it all works, in large part because (and this is the bit that is very important for 5e) the complexity was mostly internal to the various sub-systems and the different powers mostly interacted through a few simple and unified points of contact. AC, Saving throws, SR, Hit Points, Statuses. Whether that 2d6+5 came from a fire arrow, an eldritch blast or an acid spittle only matters in corner cases where a specific defense might apply and that information is still bundled neatly into a short descriptor. "I rolled a 17, does that hit his touch AC? Yes? Then he takes 17 acid damage."

 

[innerdude]

I'm really enjoying this discussion so far. It will be very interesting to see how the 5e playtest works in terms of "style."

If I were to define 3.x's style, I'd say its "coherence" is character-centered, in the sense that it places "character" as an interactive entity within the game world. It attempts to balance game "rules" and "world" as being functionally equivalent (with some obvious exceptions)--moderate "simulationism" backed by crunch. In other words, it was about the character being represented as a "unique" entity in the game world.

Some of the "gamist" challenge of 3.x is very much tied to this as well, since it's assumed that NPCs are built exactly like the PCs. I actually think that party imbalances due to the character-building "arms race" is actually more of a side effect of this reality. If characters are overly optimized, it's partially caused by players who enjoy doing it, but in some ways it's also a reflection of the game world--If a player can build a character that powerful, you can bet your hiney that the GM is probably building adversaries that powerful too. The assumed game world implies that threats within the world are at least as dangerous as you, and the player / character has to be prepared for it.

Recent statements about speeding up gameplay in 5e, and the recognition that not every character has to shine in every encounter, seems to imply that 5e is going to try and be more "coherent" not in terms of "character within the implied game world," but "character within the adventure setting." This seems to be somewhat of a middle ground, in the sense that character actions are represented in "game world" terms, but the economy of action doesn't have to be nearly as "simulative."

In other words, "Let's give everyone something to do over the course of an adventure (play session), but balance the economy of those actions in ways that make sense as a game, with as much nod to realism as we can manage."

 

[innerdude]

A quote from Balesir in the "Balancing Wizards" thread: "One [4e] does better with rules that resolve character actions, another prefers rules that resolve conflicts between entities in the game world [3e]."

Fantasy Craft's coherence stems from its total acceptance of Balesir's second premise--that d20 / OGL system, as largely codified in 3e, is at its best when it is focused on producing resolution between entities in the game world.

I don't particularly like 4e, though from hearing several posters discuss Essentials, I almost feel like it might be something I could enjoy as a more gamist/narrativist system. However, 4e is an incredibly coherent application of Balesir's first principle, that the purpose of the rules is to resolve individual character actions. This isn't to imply that 4e's resolution mechanics can't also be used in more "game entity" resolution ways, only that its primary focus isn't on creating those kinds of resolution scenarios.

 

[B.T.]

Couldn't disagree with the OP more, especially considering my burning hatred for FantasyCraft. I don't want an ultra-focused product exalted by Ron Edwards. I want the sloppy, messy, incoherent D&D that has arisen organically from dudes pretending to be elves in the wee hours of the night. I want clerics who turn undead because a vampire character got out of hand. I want a world of illithids and dragons and elementals and orcs. I want druids who can't wear metal armor and bards who sing magic songs.

4e is the result of an ultra-focused design campaign. It didn't go as planned.

 

[innerdude]

Couldn't disagree with the OP more, especially considering my burning hatred for FantasyCraft. I don't want an ultra-focused product exalted by Ron Edwards. I want the sloppy, messy, incoherent D&D that has arisen organically from dudes pretending to be elves in the wee hours of the night. I want clerics who turn undead because a vampire character got out of hand. I want a world of illithids and dragons and elementals and orcs. I want druids who can't wear metal armor and bards who sing magic songs.

4e is the result of an ultra-focused design campaign. It didn't go as planned.

Well, I don't think Fantasy Craft's "coherence" is the result of trying to implement a particular game "style." It's a result of creating a rules system that has a very clear expectation that the game mechanics should ultimately be tied to in-world verisimilitude.

Does that assumption naturally create a specific kind of play style? Maybe, but I think it's still possible to have fast-paced narrativist games using Fantasy Craft, as well as simulationist games. The assumption is in "how the rules reflect the reality of the world." Fantasy Craft is utterly, completely dedicated to that idea, whereas 4e is most definitely not.

I'm curious to see which tactic 5e takes in this regard.