Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
This makes me want to rename them "Hey, Not Too Rough", "Hurt Me Plenty", and "Ultra-Violence"
Was that the gameplay settings for Castle Wolfenstein (or the original Doom)?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
Was that the gameplay settings for Castle Wolfenstein (or the original Doom)?
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Yeah. Nothing says "I love you" like being attacked by a bunch of demon-possessed marines.
What was the original topic of the thread, anyway?
Cheers!
rre: Healing as a narrative construct.
Strange...I personally love 4e's healing surges since it at least models some type of fiction, namely John McClane/Indy etc. (I know some people hate that...)
However, the pre 4E model where people after battle lined up and took shots from the crack pipe that was the Cure Light Wounds?
Um, which fiction does this even model? Even D&D fiction doesn't use it, yet the game makes it so that the "best" method of HP recovery is the ubiquitous wand of either Lesser Vigor or CLW. Honestly, f we're going to discuss about narrative-simulation effects of healing, shouldn't we also discuss how it is actually used by the players?
I think one should separate a mechanic from how it READS and AFFECTS the game world from how it PLAYS and AFFECTS the characters.
Strange...I personally love 4e's healing surges since it at least models some type of fiction, namely John McClane/Indy etc. (I know some people hate that...)
However, the pre 4E model where people after battle lined up and took shots from the crack pipe that was the Cure Light Wounds?
Um, which fiction does this even model? Even D&D fiction doesn't use it, yet the game makes it so that the "best" method of HP recovery is the ubiquitous wand of either Lesser Vigor or CLW. Honestly, f we're going to discuss about narrative-simulation effects of healing, shouldn't we also discuss how it is actually used by the players?
I think one should separate a mechanic from how it READS and AFFECTS the game world from how it PLAYS and AFFECTS the characters.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
The flaws of previous editions does not excuse the flaws of the new one.
From a "simulation" perspective, 3E rules can still relatively easily mapped to an in-game world. People are really using these CLW. It is a failure to model a world like we find in most fiction, but not a failure to model a specific world. I think that is the difference i this case.
The simulation approach might be to remove stuff like Wands of CLW and similar cheap healing effects. But I think the fundamental flaw is that you can't support the typical D&D paradigmns this way. D&D assumes lots of combat. And even if there are not a few groups that focus less on combat, the standard model still assumes a lot of combat. And every group that wants to play D&D to enjoy the tactical combats would hate a system where the consequences of combat would always result in several day long rests.
The only alternative is probably to go a route where "dodging" attacks gets significantly easier, leaving behind the concept of ablative hit points or adding a layer of "fatigue hit poitns" that heal very fast and take the majority of damage.
So, in the end you will still have a 4E like game play effect, but the mechanics map closer to the fictional game world. But here I say: WHY? Why go a more complicated route to achieve exactly the same igameplay effect? Where is the real benefit at the game table? Players have to juggle more numbers and effects and still play the game mostly the same way?
Is it really harder to play-pretend and guesstimate or schrödinger your wounds (together with pretending to be an elf or pretending to fight a dragon, only armed with a sword and a shield), then to do each step of the more "advanced" system to get a closer model of the game-world? And be honest - you go through the numbers every attack, every hit, every round of a combat. But the "play-pretend" - you do that only occassionally, when it feels meaningful, like when you drop a foe, bloody him (4E D&D only), or when you make a critical hit, whenever something special happens.
Calico_Jack73
First Post
WOW!!!! This is an extremely long thread... no way that I can sit and read 29 pages of discussion goodness.
Re: The original post.
Very good points... I also prefer a flavor driven game. From your post we are very much in a Catch 22. If a game is too open with the rules then the classes may lack definition to make them stand out. However, to make something unique you have to give it "Things" that make it different from other classes. Those defining traits may make it best suited to only specific situations. Improved focus means a sacrifice of versatility.
You mention the Paladin and the Ranger. There is no reason you couldn't have a Fighter who as a part of flavor has a background as a knight of a holy order or learned his fighting skills in the wilderness combating the creatures he encountered. With a Fighter you don't have the focus of a Paladin or Ranger but you make up for it in the versatility to handle more diverse situations.
I think it boils down to working with the DM to create your character. A good DM should work with their players to ensure that each has a chance to shine at least once per session. There should be a trap to disable for the rogue, undead to turn for the Cleric, etc.
If a player states that they want to create a character that will become a Knight of the Chalice the DM should inform them if it is a wise choice in their setting. I don't think a DM should be forced to change their game because a player is dead set on making a character with irrelavant abilities. If I have a game that doesn't involve demons at all I shouldn't be forced to incorporate them because a player wants his Knight of the Chalice. If you want to be a Ranger and your DM suggest that you take Goblinoids as your favored enemy there is probably a good reason for it. If you take Fae as your favored enemy despite the DM's advice don't go badmouthing the DM because you never got to use your favored enemy bonus.
The DM is an ally, not an enemy of the player. If the DM advises for or against something don't take it as taking away your creativity. Work with the DM to compromise on something that will work for both of you.
Re: The original post.
Very good points... I also prefer a flavor driven game. From your post we are very much in a Catch 22. If a game is too open with the rules then the classes may lack definition to make them stand out. However, to make something unique you have to give it "Things" that make it different from other classes. Those defining traits may make it best suited to only specific situations. Improved focus means a sacrifice of versatility.
You mention the Paladin and the Ranger. There is no reason you couldn't have a Fighter who as a part of flavor has a background as a knight of a holy order or learned his fighting skills in the wilderness combating the creatures he encountered. With a Fighter you don't have the focus of a Paladin or Ranger but you make up for it in the versatility to handle more diverse situations.
I think it boils down to working with the DM to create your character. A good DM should work with their players to ensure that each has a chance to shine at least once per session. There should be a trap to disable for the rogue, undead to turn for the Cleric, etc.
If a player states that they want to create a character that will become a Knight of the Chalice the DM should inform them if it is a wise choice in their setting. I don't think a DM should be forced to change their game because a player is dead set on making a character with irrelavant abilities. If I have a game that doesn't involve demons at all I shouldn't be forced to incorporate them because a player wants his Knight of the Chalice. If you want to be a Ranger and your DM suggest that you take Goblinoids as your favored enemy there is probably a good reason for it. If you take Fae as your favored enemy despite the DM's advice don't go badmouthing the DM because you never got to use your favored enemy bonus.
The DM is an ally, not an enemy of the player. If the DM advises for or against something don't take it as taking away your creativity. Work with the DM to compromise on something that will work for both of you.
