Faeries teleport?

[jdrakeh]

Fairy-ish creatures who BAMF. . .

 

[lutecius]

Here's an explanation re: hurl through Hell. A mortal magician doesn't have the authority to condemn a being to Hell permanently. That right rests with the Powers That Be. The best they can do is with their petty tricks is a quick, painful jaunt.

Eladrin in the mortal world have made their choice. They've forsaken their citizenship in the Fae realm. If they choose to stay in the Feywild then they can't go back to the normal world.

I find that awfully restrictive, story-wise, especially the feywild part.
As for the hells, the “powers that be” assumption may work for some campaigns, but I would have thought getting in would be easier than getting out. Being cast out of Heaven, I can see but I would have thought Hell would be less selective and more than happy to accommodate every visitor. It’s just that to me sending someone to hell or being trapped there is a more common trope than “sending through hell”. I suppose it’s a matter of preference.

(hint: don't think about this in terms of implying anything. We're not deriving principles from a series of axioms. Look at what the game rules state and then attach explanatory narrative as needed.)

Yeah, I guess that was the designers’ approach too

Explaining how it works or why it works isn't the problem for me, its just the fact that it didn't exist before.

I know, its new, but that doesn't mean that ret-conning it into game worlds (including homebrews) that are 20+ years old works for some of us.

It would be wonderful to get some insight from one of the actual designers.

I think they made it clear that continuity and conversion of existing campaigns wasn’t a priority. Which is fine by me, as long as the new stuff is consistent and better. Teleporting fairies I can give or take, but I really like more distinct wood elves and high elves.

 

[Mallus]

I find that awfully restrictive, story-wise, especially the feywild part.

That was just a quick example. It's up to you to invent something that better suits your fancy.

As for the hells, the “powers that be” assumption may work for some campaigns, but I would have thought getting in would be easier than getting out.

That's an odd assumption, but if works for you... traditionally Hell as place one is condemned to by god's judgment. You can't just break in, any more than you could trespass into Heaven.

Yeah, I guess that was the designers’ approach too

It's the only approach that makes sense, when you think about it. Game rules make terrible physics. Or metaphysics, for that matter.

 

[Rechan]

Eladrin in the mortal world have made their choice. They've forsaken their citizenship in the Fae realm. If they choose to stay in the Feywild then they can't go back to the normal world.

This actually does give me an idea. It would just require reflavoring the fluff of Eladrin/Elves/Changelings/Halflings.

Take a page from the Dresden Files. In the DF universe, when a fae and a human have a child, it results in a changeling. These have traits of both parents. The Changeling's life, from then on, has a Choice that hangs over their head. Either they choose to discard their fey heritage, and become true mortals, or they abandon their mortal blood and become true fey entities.

Eladrin could be Changelings. One foot in either world. Half-elves are humans that have stepped from their fey heritage. (It could also be the other way around, I haven't fully thought this through.)

The problem though is with elves. I agree with a previous poster that said Elves should be the fey-guys (livin' in forests like satyrs and pixies and suchlike). Elves seem to just be the guys kicked out of the feywild and so they decided to camp in the local forest.

You could simply not use Eldadrin, or replace their Fey Step with 1-round invisibility as a minor action encounter power.

Actually, I'd rather go with a standard action 'damage and pull target 3' effect, as a fey compulsion. Or perhaps a 'attack someone else or not me' immediate reaction encounter power (a nice contrast to the Halfling). Or perhaps an illusionary terrain (area over here is now difficult terrain until end of turn).

Something that says 'This is wizardly or otherworldly'.

Honestly, I'd like to give the Eladrin player a suite of abilities, of which they coudl choose at first level. Or perhaps work up a Fey Bloodline thing.

 

[lutecius]

That's an odd assumption, but if works for you... traditionally Hell as place one is condemned to by god's judgment. You can't just break in, any more than you could trespass into Heaven.

By getting in more easily I don't mean voluntarily (were're talking about the warlock attack here.) The point is that you generally end there against your will and escaping it, if possible at all, takes more effort. Dante's Inferno and dnd's Hells are depicted as a pit for a reason. Symbolically, going down is easier than going up, slippery slope and all.

It's the only approach that makes sense, when you think about it. Game rules make terrible physics. Or metaphysics, for that matter.

And I think rpg rules should be inspired by physics (or at least consistency) and metaphysics (myth and fantasy tropes), not the other way around. The "explanatory narrative" shouldn't be an afterthought.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

And I think rpg rules should be inspired by physics (or at least consistency) and metaphysics (myth and fantasy tropes), not the other way around. The "explanatory narrative" shouldn't be an afterthought.

It's a bad idea. Rules modeled on physics cause a really bad game(In real life, people die when stabbed by a sword. He stabs you, you die). Physics modeled on rules create an equally bad game(I can't teleport right now, it only works once every 5 minutes and it's only been 4 minutes, 45 seconds). The idea is to separate them.

 

[Mallus]

And I think rpg rules should be inspired by physics (or at least consistency) and metaphysics (myth and fantasy tropes), not the other way around. The "explanatory narrative" shouldn't be an afterthought.

If you make the explanatory narrative an afterthought, a single set of game mechanics can be used for a wider variety of different campaigns and settings, each with their own particular flavor/style/metaphysics/literary and mythological antecedents.

 

[lutecius]

It's a bad idea. Rules modeled on physics cause a really bad game(In real life, people die when stabbed by a sword. He stabs you, you die). Physics modeled on rules create an equally bad game(I can't teleport right now, it only works once every 5 minutes and it's only been 4 minutes, 45 seconds). The idea is to separate them.

I know what 4e designers idea was. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

Also, I said "inspired by", not "model". As in "this is a cool fantasy trope/ how it works in life/fiction. How could we implement that in a simple, balanced manner?" instead of "this is a cool, balanced mechanic, how could we justify it in game?"

Of course some level of abstraction is required in a game. Glossing over some details is fine too. But in the end it's simulation or at least internal consistency that make it roleplaying and not a board game.

But it's all a matter of tastes and priorities and only marginally on topic so as the saying goes, let's agree to disagree.

 

[lutecius]

If you make the explanatory narrative an afterthought, a single set of game mechanics can be used for a wider variety of different campaigns and settings, each with their own particular flavor/style/metaphysics/literary and mythological antecedents.

Replacing logical default explanations with something that better fits my campaing/tastes, I like.
Having to come up with far fetched explanations for mechanics that weren't meant to have one in the first place, I don't.

 

[Scribble]

Replacing logical default explanations with something that better fits my campaing/tastes, I like.
Having to come up with far fetched explanations for mechanics that weren't meant to have one in the first place, I don't.

I guess it's just a difference in perspective. Generaly I see the two ideas ending with the same result really, it's just the "modeled after physics" side seems more wordy and cagey then it needs to be to me.

I just feel the same as I did when I was in math class and I lost points because I didn't "show my work" even though the problem was correct.

I feel like the "simulationist" style is asking the designer to show his work otherwise we won't believe him/her for soem reason.

Who cares how it was accomplished as long as the answer is correct.