Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4010546" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, my contention is that D&D doesn't accomodate a wide range of playstyles. In AD&D, it's lack of action resolution mechanics fostered a system of direct player-GM mediation of actions, which in turn fosters abusive GMing (for which D&D has a reputation that in my opinion is deserved).In 3E, the character build and action resolution system are clearly intended to foster a sort of gamist play. But the "per day" system of powers gives control to the GM, because it is the GM who determines the passage of time in typical D&D play. Hence the game system causes needless headaches for gamist play, and we get the complaint about the 15-minute adventuring day, and the domination of the game by spellcasters (whose players keep insisting they need to rest to get their spells back - this is fair enough for them, but sucks a bit for the other players who get constantly outdone in the gentle competition for spotlight that is the main manifestation of D&D gamism).I'm not sure if I'm using "coherent" in the Forge sense or not, because I'm a bit hazy on some of their terminology. What I intend is that the game system (both mechanics and world) support the sort of play that most players of the system want. My opinion is that D&D has a lot of elements which give either the GM, or the game designers, more control than the typical D&D player wants. In my opinion, this is a legacy of AD&D's failure (or perhaps, refusal) to substitute mechanics for GM judgement.4e is getting rid of a lot of this stuff: no more alignment, a reduction in needless backstory that empowers the GM at the expense of the players when it comes to encounter design and resolution. This is not making the game less generic, in my view. Nor is it making it more generic. It is simply following through on the very successful strategy that 3E adopted (in a clear about-face from 2nd ed's approach) of empowering players at the expense of GMs, and both GMs and players at the expense of designers.All sorts of games will still be playable. PoL is a highly adaptable framework - for example, the point of life could be a guild headquarters and the darkness the surrounding neighbourhood. From the point of view of game design, PoL as articulated in W&M has (as far as I can see) only 2 key features: (i) the world is unknown - and thus apt to be designed by GM on the fly as needed (this empowers GMs at the expense of world building designers, and also levels the playing field for players, who can't benefit from reading up on the copious backstory); (ii) the PoL are safe until the players choose for their PCs to cause trouble (this empowers players at the expense of GMs, by creating one environment in which adversity comes about only at the choice of the players, rather than the GM; in so doing, it also has the potential to solve a problem with verisimilitude about the passage of time, by allowing arbitrary amounts of time to be spent between levelling without either the GM or the players having the unilateral power to turn that downtime into playing time).One example from an earlier edition comes to mind: Enchant an Item. In 3E, this spell in fact was broken out into several feats, presumably because it was felt that balance required their being an opportunity cost to its acquisition.Another example is the difference in spell lists between Clerics and Wizards, which some people at least maintain is a form of balance in order to prevent anyone getting access to an overpowered suite of spells.A recent FRPG which uses opportunity cost as an interesting balance mechanism for spell acquisition is HARP. (Although sometimes seen as RM lite, HARP is more sophisticated than RM in this respect.) A consequence of the mechanic is that an interesting range of magical abilities is available, which can be balanced against other character development options in the game (such as skills and feats) because all are acquired using the same currency.D&D's traditional method of spell acquistion puts pressure on this sort of approach because either (i) Wizards end up with abilities that overshadow every other class, or (ii) for reasons that are hard to explain in a non-metagame way, magical abilities are not available that tread on other classes's toes, or (iii) those magical abilities exist, but the GM manipulates the story and the gameworld so as to prevent the PC wizard getting access to them.All of these are featrues of the mechanics which help produce a non-generic fantasy RPGing experience when playing D&D.Which is not to say that HARP, or RM, or any other system is generic. I'm writing from a general perspective of generic-skepticism.Imprisonment is Abjuration, but barely indistinguishable as a game effect from Forcecage or Polymorph or some combination of the two.So in one version the spell group concepts look arbitrary, in another the lists underneath them look arbitrary. I happen to prefer the first, because at least the arbitrariness can be given some sort of sensible ingame explanation (ie it so happens that the magic schools evolved like this). I can see how some would prefer the second. I don't see an important difference of degree.In the PHB, we are told that "Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you" while "Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, they create something out of nothing." The Conjuration issue was there from the start (and in 3E Fire Arrow was a Conjuration spell).So why would the choice to play a Dragonborn be contingent on its flavour feat against Tieflings? Anyway, once we are debating whether something can be generic while having a default flavour setting, while something else is not generic because it mixes flavour with its mechanics, I've lost track of what's at stake.I don't really see the difference from the Dwarves vs Giants thing. Is the thought that in the Dragonborn case it links in to the reason for playing a Dragonborn Warlord? But in that case someone might play a Dwarven Fighter to get access to Dwarven Waraxe proficiency for free - which only makes sense within the context of a setting in which Dwarves prefer axes to spears or swords.RuneQuest is also based, to an extent, on D&D - it uses 3d6 for stat generation (except SIZ and INT, I think). Conan moreso, obviously. But Conan is an extremely different game from D&D - for a start it has a tightly integrated Fate Point mechanic, no alignment, and an extremely different XP and monetary reward system. When I talk about D&D I mean D&D, not other systems which happen to use somewhat similar character build and action resolution mechanics.I haven't read this yet, but it sounds like it might confirm a prediction I made in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4004014&postcount=50" target="_blank">this thread</a>.</blockquote>

Verification