Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Raven Crowking]

"Waterfall: Water cascades from a cliff high above, concealing the entrance to the kobold lair." - Keep on the Shadowfell

My emphasis. You can't see through it.

As to why guards don't leave the cave... well, that's basic tactics. The cave is a better defensive position than out in the open.

I hope you realize that, in the real world, because it is darker behind the waterfall, it is entirely plausible for a waterfall to conceal the area behind it, while someone behind it can see through.

This is like a window in the country when your lights are on. You can't see outside because the light reflects off the glass, but you can certainly be seen from outside. Or, heck, consider some tinted windows on cars.

RC

 

[cwhs01]

I hope you realize that, in the real world, because it is darker behind the waterfall, it is entirely plausible for a waterfall to conceal the area behind it, while someone behind it can see through.

This is like a window in the country when your lights are on. You can't see outside because the light reflects off the glass, but you can certainly be seen from outside. Or, heck, consider some tinted windows on cars.

RC

I don't really think it would be remotely possible to see through a waterfall if the water was even slightly turbulent. If the water was very slow moving and fell as a flat sheet, instead of cascading down in a white froth(? yeah, yeah, my knowledge of the english names for waterfall water is slightly rusty...), it might work. But i don't think you ever find this situation in nature.

I certainly think it okay to assume you can't see through the waterfall. I don't find it reasonable to assume you can see through, unless it was spelled out in the text.

 

[Walknot]

I'm not a fan of tacked on flavour and can smell it a mile away. I think to be done right, there needs to be a neat/elegant symbiosis between mechanic and flavour. Coming up with a cool mechanic and then shopping around for flavour to tie it to just seems backward in my opinion. At the same time, having a chosen "flavour" and then trying to match a mechanic to it is not always easy, elegant or even playable. I think in the end, one has to guide the other and vice versa.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

suppose that is true, the middle ground usually is. but take it from a staid fanatic of "flavor first", you can be assured that given a solid fulcrum of rationalization and long enough lever of credulity, you can reconcile the most divergent of mechanic / flavor.

 

[Hussar]

The whole waterfall sidebar really illuminates people's approaches to the game IMO.

RC is basically standing by the idea that the DM did nothing wrong and the module is poorly designed. In very limited circumstances, you can see through a waterfall, therefore, you should be able to see through it in this circumstance thus the module designers were out to lunch.

I take a totally different approach. I always look at the DM first. Looking at so many rules discussions, "user error" is probably the number one suspect for problems.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic, but, I think it does nicely illustrate why so many conversations here grind to a halt. We're just coming from polar opposite assumptions. I always assume the DM is wrong first. Because, quite honestly IME, it is the DM who misread, misunderstood or was just plain wrong far more than the mechanics or modules.

I think it boils down to whether or not you've had the joy of playing with really, really bad DM's in the past.

To me, the idea that you can see through a waterfall, on either side, is pretty remote. Unless, as cwhs01 points out, the water is falling perfectly straight, there will be lots of white water and you cannot see through it, and likely you won't hear through it either. Since the module advises that those behind the waterfall won't come out unless specifically contacted, which do you think is more likely? The water is falling perfectly and allows people to see through it, or the water is a typical waterfall, loud and opaque?

To me, I'd go with the latter because, given the context of the adventure, it makes the most sense.

 

[cwhs01]

The whole waterfall sidebar really illuminates people's approaches to the game IMO.

RC is basically standing by the idea that the DM did nothing wrong and the module is poorly designed. In very limited circumstances, you can see through a waterfall, therefore, you should be able to see through it in this circumstance thus the module designers were out to lunch.

I take a totally different approach. I always look at the DM first. Looking at so many rules discussions, "user error" is probably the number one suspect for problems.

I guess its a case of glass half-full/half-empty

 

[pemerton]

Sometimes bad things can happen to good characters, simply because it's in the nature of the game.

<snip>

Yes, there can be consequences other than death. Yes, you can enjoy other playstyles. But if you go back to the post, to which I was responding, what you see is some whining about having to sit out due to in-game consequences which, generally speaking (at the very least), are the results of the players' choices. IOW, "I took a risk, it didn't work out, and now I want my fighter to be able to go stop that ritual with you! Why should I have to sit out?" Contingent on that attitude is the idea that, having chosen to take a risk, you shouldn't have to accept the consequences of taking that risk...which you knew or reasonably should have known before taking it.

Exploring old ruins is dangerous. Hunting orcs is dangerous.

<snip>

If you don't want death as a consequence, set up a game where you can't die. House rule it. But don't tell your players that they face death, while fudging all the dice behind your screen. Players have a right, IMHO, to expect that their decisions are meaningful.

All of this presupposes a type of player-PC identification (ie that the risks the player is taking correspond more-or-less exactly to the risks her PC is taking) which is precisely what is up for grabs in non-simulationist play.

If Bob doesn't like the type of game he's playing, he should find (or make) a new one. If no at the table (DM included) likes the idea that a PC dies under these circumstances, they should find a new game or houserule to prevent that consequence.

That seems pretty bloody obvious to me.

Is the thought here that it's pointless to discuss the merits and demerits, for various playstyles, of various published RPGs, because we should all be designing our own games? That seems a bit unreal to me, for any number of reasons.

 

[pemerton]

If you examine my posts concerning the 4e combat system, even going back before the release, based upon what was revealed as it was revealed, you will see that I have said that I expect (once the initial shine of 4e wears off) that it will be deadlier than 3e. This is because the shift in paradigm narrows the window of what a "challenging" fight is. Once players get used to the system, they are bound to see that anything outside that window is meaningless in terms of the game, pushing the DM to create ever more deadly encounters to engage them.

<snip>

The result is that it is quite easy (in either system) to create games that offer no real challenge to the players.

Provided that there is no strict equivalence between "easy for the PCs" and "easy for the players" then what you predict need not come to pass.

Non-simulationist mechanics make this lack of equivalence more probable - the challenge to the players is deploying the various mechanical devices in the right sorts of combination that bring it about that the encounter is non-challenging for the PCs.

This is a fairly frequent feature of combat in Rolemaster, because of the capacity of various of its mechanics (parrying, sustaining adrenal moves, spell overcasting, etc) to be metagamed by the players. It keeps RM combat interesting. At this stage I don't see that 4e need be different.

EDIT: To elaborate and try to make the above more concrete - RM differs a lot from RQ in this respect. In RQ there are really no metagamable mechanics, and the difficulty of an encounter is more or less dependent on the numbers of the PCs and their foes, with nothing but dice rolling and non-mechanically-driven tactics to decide the combat. (AD&D is also a bit like this. 4e obviously is not.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Is the thought here that it's pointless to discuss the merits and demerits, for various playstyles, of various published RPGs, because we should all be designing our own games? That seems a bit unreal to me, for any number of reasons.

I imagine that you haven't read through the thread, because I thought I answered this already. There's a difference between discussing the merits of a game system -- which may well be a necessary component of choosing/modifying to your taste -- and agreeing to play a game, then whining about the obvious potential consequences thereof.

Also, Hussar, I wish you would stop ascribing opinions to me.

I most emphatically do not stand by "the idea that the DM did nothing wrong and the module is poorly designed". I stand by the idea that the module is poorly designed, as a consequence of the design parameters of the game it is designed for. When using a poorly designed module, IMHO, the DM has both right and obligation to change them until they are no longer poorly designed.

Which you should know is my position on poorly designed modules, considering our prior discussion of the WLD, where I told you how much work I'd have to do to put the module into running order.

I am not a lazy DM, nor do I advocate lazy DMing.


RC

 

[BryonD]

Also, Hussar, I wish you would stop ascribing opinions to me.

That sounds familiar.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I most emphatically do not stand by "the idea that the DM did nothing wrong and the module is poorly designed". I stand by the idea that the module is poorly designed, as a consequence of the design parameters of the game it is designed for. When using a poorly designed module, IMHO, the DM has both right and obligation to change them until they are no longer poorly designed.

But the DM changing stuff made it seem poorlyt desihgned when the module made perfect sense.
You cannot see through or hear through a waterfall. Thus they had to warn the people inside.
The Slinger was a guard for outside.

It would be like complaining that a Holy Avenger is too low level when your DM changed it to level 1 item.