D&D 5E Final playtest packet due in mid September.

[Manbearcat]

Heh. Which game? Golems are not much trouble for wizards in 3E. (Web, web, web web web...)

Yeah. I've always found that ingrained cultural meme pretty interesting considering the absolutely ginormous list of spells without SR and for yet more fun for the whole (spellcaster) family, http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=9207.0the save...errrrr just suck list.

 

[billd91]

Yeah. I've always found that ingrained cultural meme pretty interesting considering the absolutely ginormous list of spells without SR and for yet more fun for the whole (spellcaster) family, the save...errrrr just suck list.

That's really only been since the 3.5 revision of the rules. In 3.0 and earlier versions, those golems were just plain immune to spells barring specific ones that often had an unusual effect. Frankly, I think 3.5 made golems far too weak, particularly once the orb spells appeared.

 

[pemerton]

I know Traveller better than Runequest but a knowledgeable player can definitely make more effective choices on their skill roll tables in Traveller than a less knowledgeable one and probably has a better idea what skills are useful for the style of game they want to play. For example, a player wanting to make a lot of money via speculative trade will want to roll on the tables with skills like broker on them, probably wants to play a merchant to get a better shot at mustering out with a free trader (but will probably take the far trader option if the GM allows it because he can then jump-2 even if he has less cargo), and will be willing to suffer a bit of loss of his physical stats to get a better shot at rolling it because of advanced rank (depending on how low his stats are to begin with). The use of dice for these matters reduces the certainty of his control, but he certainly can use his system mastery to channel his character.

In RuneQuest, the player gets to choose his background profession which determines many of his skill bonuses but he still gets to distribute more points on top of that, giving him an opportunity to optimize along certain lines he expects to be valuable as an adventurer. The knowledgeable player who knows the GM likes to include a lot of combat and forest quests can pick a background that puts its 50 points worth of skill bonuses into skills likely to be useful rather than playing a salty dog of a sailor whose 50 points are less likely to be useful.

Whenever you've got player choices of any real significance, you've got some degree of system mastery.

I don't really regard those as system mastery.

The idea that I'd do better playing a speculative trader by undertaking a career as a merchant and learning to be a broker doesn't strike me as system mastery at all - that's all in fiction decision-making.

Likewise in RQ, the idea that adding points to Survival rather than Sailing might be better for a forest game is also a decision that works within the fiction (though I'm not sure it's in fiction decision-making, and so more metagame than Traveller).

In both cases, you don't need to know anything about the system to make those choices, you just need to think about the fiction. What's distinctive to D&D - and particularly 3E and 4e D&D - is that there are system build elements which aren't themselves connected to the ficiton in any way, but will dramatically change the mechanical prowess of your PC within the fiction.

(Gaming the GM - by building a PC better suited to the game the GM is planning to run - isn't system mastery at all, as I understand that notion.)

 

[pemerton]

Is it possible to have no creative restraints with restrained mechanics? I'm not entirely convinced that's the case.

I'm guessing that [MENTION=4892]Vyvyan Basterd[/MENTION] is thinking of games like Marvel Heroic RP.

 

[LostSoul]

That's really only been since the 3.5 revision of the rules. In 3.0 and earlier versions, those golems were just plain immune to spells barring specific ones that often had an unusual effect. Frankly, I think 3.5 made golems far too weak, particularly once the orb spells appeared.

This kind of reminds me that I just recently learned how to play 3E: enforce the system on an ad-hoc basis.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's really only been since the 3.5 revision of the rules. In 3.0 and earlier versions, those golems were just plain immune to spells barring specific ones that often had an unusual effect. Frankly, I think 3.5 made golems far too weak, particularly once the orb spells appeared.

The changeover from 3.0 to 3.5 had no difference for my group as we treated Magic Immunity (Ex) as the same effect as Immunity to Magic (Ex); unlimited Spell Resistance that functions in an Anti-magic Zone. It was always my sense that the text change was just rules clarification due to the nebulously constructed wording of Magic Immunity's effect and not errata. We used Spell Immunity's key text to clarify the issue (which didn't change from 3.0 to 3.5); "Naturally, that immunity doesn't protect a creature from spells for which spell resistance doesn't apply." Further, given that there was no formal mention of the change (which would be a big one for Golems) in the WotC update link/article featuring 3.0 > 3.5 overhaul PDFs for MM1 and MM2, while specifically breaking out large rules changes, it didn't strike us as anything more than text clarification. That is to say, our play (with regards to golems) changed not at all.

Maybe we were doing it wrong. But we certainly didn't sense that by the text of the ruleset and its orthogonal, interacting text as reference.

 

[billd91]

I don't really regard those as system mastery.

The idea that I'd do better playing a speculative trader by undertaking a career as a merchant and learning to be a broker doesn't strike me as system mastery at all - that's all in fiction decision-making.

Likewise in RQ, the idea that adding points to Survival rather than Sailing might be better for a forest game is also a decision that works within the fiction (though I'm not sure it's in fiction decision-making, and so more metagame than Traveller).

In both cases, you don't need to know anything about the system to make those choices, you just need to think about the fiction. What's distinctive to D&D - and particularly 3E and 4e D&D - is that there are system build elements which aren't themselves connected to the ficiton in any way, but will dramatically change the mechanical prowess of your PC within the fiction.

I think you're making distinctions that don't exist. If your ability to make more effective choices comes from knowledge of the system and how it operates, you're exercising system mastery. Plus, I doubt there are many, if any, more system build elements than Traveller in 3e that I can't access via the fiction.

 

[LostSoul]

Maybe we were doing it wrong. But we certainly didn't sense that by the text of the ruleset and its orthogonal, interacting text as reference.

To continue on with my last post, let me recall an encounter with a clay golem. The PCs were not that well equipped to deal with it. One of the PCs thought that, perhaps, having her summoned earth elemental Earth Glide into the golem, then try to possess it, would work.

Now I seem to recall that golems had an elemental nature back in AD&D. So during the game I said, sure, since it's insane (lost control), you can replace its elemental spirit with your summoned creature - if the clay golem fails its save. So I had the PCs tell me what 10 + CON mod + 1/2 HD was, then rolled a Will save against that.

Golem failed, the PCs killed it, nice work. Pretty cool moment. Totally ignored the rules.

(Which is why I am a fan of 4E - page 42 would handle that nicely. Atk vs. Will, high limited damage.)

 

[Manbearcat]

To continue on with my last post, let me recall an encounter with a clay golem. The PCs were not that well equipped to deal with it. One of the PCs thought that, perhaps, having her summoned earth elemental Earth Glide into the golem, then try to possess it, would work.

Now I seem to recall that golems had an elemental nature back in AD&D. So during the game I said, sure, since it's insane (lost control), you can replace its elemental spirit with your summoned creature - if the clay golem fails its save. So I had the PCs tell me what 10 + CON mod + 1/2 HD was, then rolled a Will save against that.

Golem failed, the PCs killed it, nice work. Pretty cool moment. Totally ignored the rules.

(Which is why I am a fan of 4E - page 42 would handle that nicely. Atk vs. Will, high limited damage.)

(A) That is pretty awesome playing and (B) equally awesome GMing. While you "totally ignored the rules" you made a very tight ruling that was in-line with the design framework of 3.x. It just supercharged the ad-hoc ability into an SoD by DM-fiat, again fitting with the design aesthetic of the ruleset. And I agree, that is why I like exception-based design and a p42 tool to handle the finality of such a ruling. Allows the player to do awesome, improv stuff while subverting the GM conflict of interest and/or table negotiation.

 

[Weather Report]

Like Chess, rather than Chutes and Ladders. Both players start with equal resources, but its the play that distinguishes them.

As proevn: that can lead to revolting results in a role-playing-game.