Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6239419" data-attributes="member: 42582">In that case, [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] is not defending 3.5 in this thread, as he plays a version which incorporates custom classes, Unearthed Arcana variants, Trailblazer variants, and probably other bits and pieces that I haven't fully understood because 3.5 is not my game.But here's an alternative perspective (on which [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] could probably shed more light): ban wizards and instead allow only Warmages, Duskblades and those other specialist casters from later supplements. Replace fighters with the ToB classes. (And do something about clerics - maybe replace them with faavoured souls? - as I said, 3.5 is not my game.)A group who plays that game is playing 3.5, I would have thought (certainly as much as [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] is). And they have changed the mechanics (mostly by exclusion of certain options) in order to achieve balance, and (from what I hear) probably won't need the same heavy helping of GM force as you and others are advocating in order to make their game work.The rules for damaging objects would be one example: a player can declare (say) that his/her PC smashes the vase with his/her mace, and at that point is entitled to roll a d20 to hit, and then (if s/he hits) a damage die. The outcomes of these rolls will change the gameworld's fictional content.Another example would be the Transmute Rock to Mud spell. If (i) the PC wizard has memorised this spell, and (ii) the GM describes the PC (say) walking through a rocky valley, then the player is entitled to declare "I cast my Transmute Rock to Mud spell on a boulder, turning it into mud". This declaration leads to a change in the gameworld's fictional content: there is now mud where before there was a boulder.A third example is not mechanical in the narrow sense, but part of the free-form resolution aspect of 3E: a player whose equipment list for his/her PC includes (say) a glass bottle is entitled to declare "I take the bottle from my backpack and throw it to the ground, smashing it." This declaration leads to a change in the gameworld's fictional content: the backpack is now lighter and there is now broken glass on the ground.I do not think that the view expressed by [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION], namely, that each of these is simply a request to the GM to permit the relevant change in fictional content, is the mainstream way of playing 3E.A fourth example is more borderline, but I think a lot of tables would play it in a way which allows the player to change the content of the shared fiction: namely, upon satisfying the requirements a player takes the Leadership feat for his/her PC, and narrates the effect of taking that feat in terms of an NPC turning up and seeking to study/adventure under the PC's guidance and tutelage. I imagine that a lot of tables would handle familiars and animal companions in a similar fashion.The mechanics of other games have a lot of relevance for (i) giving clear examples of what is possible in an RPG, and (ii) helping clarify the analysis of D&D mechanics that occupy the same functional and/or fictional space.Here is an example:Unless I've badly misunderstood, this is not an action resolution rule at all: it is a piece of GM advice in the DMG, with the GM expressly expected to mediate between this default picture of the D&D world, and the players' desires for their PCs.Traveller's buying and selling rules include action resolution rules that the players can invoke. Maybe there are similar rules in some 3E supplement (eg Matical Medieval Society might have some) but there aren't any in the PHB.That's fine. You enjoy a game that is significantly GM-driven - the GM gets to decide "where the action is". That is not "indie" style, which is based around the players deciding "where the action is" ie what matters and what doesn't, and the GM then following those hooks rather than the players following the GM's hooks.There is no in-principle reason why D&D can't be played in this latter style. I played 1st ed AD&D in this style. If 3E cannot handle this sort of player driven style without radical revisions, that to me is a major weakness of 3E and certainly belies the claim I often hear that it is not a narrowly-focused game.On the minor point: I never asserted that Streetwise is a 3.5 skill. I suggested Gather Information as the 3.5 equivalent.On the significant point: if you won't separate mechanical causation from ingame causation, then you of course there are a range of mechanical techniques that you will not be able to use. (Including rolling for random encounters, presumably - it's not as if some event occurs every 10 minutes in the gameworld that makes it likely that some orcs or rats will wander past at just that time. Presumably also including various oddities around damage and healng, given the well-known failure of hit point gain and loss to correspond to comparable physical changes in the body of the character who is being damaged or being healed.)The point that I and [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] are making is that it is possible to separate mechanical causation from ingame causation, and that once this is done various resolution techniques become available that reduce the need for GM force.D&D has always done this for combat resolution: the d20 roll "to hit" doesn't reflect only the attacking character's effort (presumably s/he is mostly going all out, given that s/he is fighting for his/her life). It reflects the entire situation, including how deftly the attacked character parries, and how lucky each is, and external factors too like slipping on loose gravel or having an arrow blown of course by a sudden gust. It would be a very non-standard way of playing D&D for a player to make an attack roll, be told by the GM that (once all modifiers have been applied) it hits the target's AC, but then to be told that nevertheless the attack fails to deal damage because the attacking PC slipped in mud and fell short, or to be told that a wind gust blew the arrow off course and so it misses its target.Prior to 4e D&D has never resolved teleportation, or finding a purchaser for loot, in this fashion (and resolving them in this fashion in 4e is an option, but not the default as it is for combat), and has been at best ambiguous in how it handles social interaction, but there is no reason in principle why they cannot be handled in the same way, and with the same lack of need for GM force in adjudicating whether or not the PCs succeed in the actions which their players declare for them.</blockquote>

Verification