Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6194456" data-attributes="member: 42582">Given that I've seen it be true, I know that it's not a contradiction.In the abstract, there is no general correlation between a protagonists power to change the world, and that character's degree of protagonism in a work of fiction. Hence we can have novels or films in which the President of the US, or a wealthy industrialist, is a background character, while a child, or a homeless person, is the main character.In the RPG context, a fighter will do fighter-y things. A wizard will do wizard-y things. But there is no correlation between the doing of these things and the degree of protagonism of the player of those characters, until the effects of the doing of those things are brought into connection with the goals of the players for their PCs.If the goal of the player, as protagonist, is to reforge the Ring of Power, then it would be a mistake to play a fighter rather than a wizard. But if the goal of the player is to serve as a stalwart defender of the common folk, maybe a fighter is a better choice. And it's pretty easy to have action resolution mechanics that will uphold that as a meaningful choice, even in the same game as the wizard figures in. The two characters will be quite different - if the fighter tries to reforge the Ring the action resolution mechanics will yield failure, and likewise for the wizard trying to gain the respect and affection of the populace - but both players can have comparable degrees of protagonism.But that does not entail that there is a single role for the GM. In fact, it arguably entails that there are many such roles - namely, one for each style. For instance, is it part of the GM's role to tailor story elements to fit the PCs the players have built? In my style the answer to that question is "absolutely yes", but for some sandbox GMs the answer is a wholehearted "absolutely not". Real world terms and conceps are the basis for most of the rules because they form most of the fiction. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the game is simulatory. The rules in Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks use natural language terms too - you have Skill, Stamina and Luck and fight with swords and shields - but nothing about the resolution mechanics in those books simulates anything in real life.As far as outcomes are concerned, what is simulated by the to hit roll? - which represents all the blows made in a 6 second period, except for those that might be represented by a second to hit roll, and it demarcates which ones penetrate the armour and which don't, except that some of those that penetrate the armour don't actually do any significant damage. The saving throw? - which represents dodging (but doesn't change a character's position) or mental toughness (except that sometimes that is represented by INT, WIS or CHA). The damage roll? - which sometimes represents fatal damage even if the roll is minimum, and sometimes represents nary a scratch even if the roll is a crit against a 1000-hp dragon. The deduction of hit points from a character's total? - sometimes 1 hp represents the difference between full health and unconsciousness (for a 1 hp kobold) and sometimes it represents virtually nothing at all (for the full health 1000-hp dragon).3E has a margin more simulation in its skill rules, though even that's non-existent in some cases - what does a Diplomacy roll simulate? - it simply dictates a change in outlook - or a Profession roll, which simply dictates a certain amount of money earned per weeks' work. But 3E is not the essence of D&D for me - and particularly not its skill rules.That spells and fighting can be put into the same mechanical framework is actually an idea that could be traced back at least to early 80s points-buy games. That players of fighters should contribute equally to the game with players of casters is an idea that I've taken for granted since the early 80s also, and I'm not the only one. It's been a topic of discussion since the earliest RPG magazines.I have no idea what games you have in mind - I assume not 4e, since it doesn't fit your description, nor HERO or GURPS or Rolemaster or Runequest, for similar reasons.No one is saying that fighters and wizards should play the same. They want the players of fighters and wizards to enjoy comparable degrees of protagonism.Who wants a fighter to be able to do mind control? That's a hypnotists or magician's trick. As for breaking through a wall of force, I thought the 3E Epic Handbook set a DC for that.I didn't talk about an aesthetic. I talked about a set of techniques in play - stables of PCs, sandbox worlds, character level and player skill being in rough correlation - which virtually no one on ENworld uses (the only regular poster who does that I'm aware of is [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]).First, I'm almost certain that you're not playing D&D as Gygax did, and that you are using GMing techniques that he did not.Second, people are talking about changes to the game. You're the one who's objecting to such changes, on the grounds - as far as I can tell - that the people who are calling for them are inept.</blockquote>

Verification