Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7168214" data-attributes="member: 82106">See, this is all why I took care of the whole issue in HoML. You level by acquiring 'boons', which in part replace feats (as well as items, themes, PPs, EDs, etc.). Thus it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE mechanically in this system to gain something that doesn't have a narrative basis in the game at hand. Your character takes actions, those actions lead to acquisition of boons, and for each major boon your character levels. It doesn't even make design sense to attempt to create some meaningless non-entity boon. I mean, sure, you COULD, and there are a few "I hit harder" type boons that have been devised, but you STILL have to come up with the narrative logic for acquiring them! I guess a GM could undermine the whole concept by just handing out arbitrary boons at random intervals, but it makes little sense in the overall context of the game.IMHO this went a HUGE long way to obviating the problems with feat-like elements. Beyond that there are a few design concepts that you can stick by that will help a lot. One of the main ones is applicability. There are no elements in my game that can only come into play at specific GM-determined points (like say a strange language). These exist, but they are totally non-mechanical (termed 'minor boons' which you can simply acquire without consequence, though they still come out of narrative logic). Each boon provides the character with options, and options that are pretty much always relevant. Many of them can be leveraged using my version of 'Inspiration', which means even if the granted mechanics aren't particularly useful at a given time you can still shape the story with it (IE you have the 'Thief' boon, you could expend your inspiration to gain an advantage in a social situation by calling it out). Again, I must say that in this one sense 5e outdoes 4e, its version of backgrounds and feats simply work better. They missed the boat in their implementation of inspiration and character traits though. Truthfully I'd have much rather seen a game evolved in the direction I'm going with mine vs what Essentials ended up being. It was both too constrained and too much change, just missed the mark.In this respect I agree totally that Mearls was the WRONG guy to head up 4e development. Its still absurd to claim that he sabotaged the game. Nobody has that much leeway in a company as big as Hasbro, sorry.</blockquote>

Verification