Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7311195" data-attributes="member: 82106">You won't hear me arguing with this. I have GREATLY increased the utilization of 'afflictions', BUT I am now thinking that in some sense they should be subsumed within the whole challenge paradigm. That is to say, what REALLY is an 'affliction'? Its either a challenge, or an element of a challenge. If there's no conflict involved, if you're just limping along and minding your business and nothing rides on your recovery or at least lack of getting worse, then the affliction is no more than color, right? I can imagine some of this type, I call them 'limitations' in HoML, and they're basically just 'reverse boons'. You might have a limitation that says you move slower '-1 speed' due to a limp, etc. They could just be traits (ugly scar) with no specific mechanical effect but the player could leverage them.When an affliction is a REAL issue, then it becomes a challenge to overcome. You want to not die of the snake bite? Well, that's a goal, and it can be sort of &quot;Man vs the World&quot; type of conflict. This is the closest case to 4e's 'disease track' implementation, which is (if you think about it) pretty close conceptually to a challenge. However, I think this kind of treatment is weak. 'Man vs the World' is the weakest form of conflict, as there is no specific antagonist, and it is pretty much identical to 'Man vs Self', though a little more outward-directed. So, I would suggest that afflictions always have a context in which they are a factor, and thus become an element in a larger conflict. You want to defeat the orc king, but you have to catch him, and that snake bite you got 3 days back ain't helping....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7311195, member: 82106"] You won't hear me arguing with this. I have GREATLY increased the utilization of 'afflictions', BUT I am now thinking that in some sense they should be subsumed within the whole challenge paradigm. That is to say, what REALLY is an 'affliction'? Its either a challenge, or an element of a challenge. If there's no conflict involved, if you're just limping along and minding your business and nothing rides on your recovery or at least lack of getting worse, then the affliction is no more than color, right? I can imagine some of this type, I call them 'limitations' in HoML, and they're basically just 'reverse boons'. You might have a limitation that says you move slower '-1 speed' due to a limp, etc. They could just be traits (ugly scar) with no specific mechanical effect but the player could leverage them. When an affliction is a REAL issue, then it becomes a challenge to overcome. You want to not die of the snake bite? Well, that's a goal, and it can be sort of "Man vs the World" type of conflict. This is the closest case to 4e's 'disease track' implementation, which is (if you think about it) pretty close conceptually to a challenge. However, I think this kind of treatment is weak. 'Man vs the World' is the weakest form of conflict, as there is no specific antagonist, and it is pretty much identical to 'Man vs Self', though a little more outward-directed. So, I would suggest that afflictions always have a context in which they are a factor, and thus become an element in a larger conflict. You want to defeat the orc king, but you have to catch him, and that snake bite you got 3 days back ain't helping.... [/QUOTE]

Verification