Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6162522" data-attributes="member: 58416">The system is going to determine how I interact with the world and how much of an abstraction my interaction with the system is compared to what's going on in-game.  For example, a 6-second D&D round assumes that an archer character does a lot of things without the player stating he's doing them; the default 1-second turns in GURPS don't make as many assumptions.  Neither of these approaches are inherently good or bad, but the details of the pudding are going to change some of the flavor.  I am someone who believes flavor and mechanics often have a close relationship, and I also believe that some mechanical decisions are going to change the tone and feel of things during actual play.  The original Dragonlance novels were a product of how D&D worked at the time.  If those books were written today with a basis in how 4th Edition worked, I fully believe the story would turn out different; there would be parts which are portrayed differently.  I'm not implying it would be better or worse; just different; the differences in mechanics and how the characters are able to interact with the world around them would (I believe) change some of the flavor and aspects of the story.I'm a player who often enjoys doing things like building a castle; leading an army, and various other things.  While I've been able to do those things in many games, I've found my experiences in those areas of play while using D&D 3rd Edition to be unsatisfying.  A big reason why is because of how levels work.  According to the story; according to what was going on in game, having those assets available to me should have been useful.  In actual play, that wasn't supported; I could have fought an entire army with my lone character and easily won.  I still enjoyed playing the system, but -when I've wanted to play a style of game in which steeds, followers, and other such things are actually useful and actually contribute to the story without breaking the game or gimping my character- I've found that my enjoyment is far greater when playing other games.   Do I agree that a good GM can trump system?  Certainly.  Do I agree that a motivated group can trump system?  Sure.  Do I believe system doesn't matter?  No; I believe it does matter.  There are story types I would prefer to use D&D 4th Edition for over Pathfinder.  That doesn't mean I feel one is necessarily better than the other, but it does mean that I believe certain things are better suited for one than the other.In the case of D&D 4th Edition, I believe one of the biggest downfalls of the system wasn't that it was bad, but that it was marketed with the "ze game will remain ze same" mantra.  Why I was frustrated with the system early in its life is because I tried to run and play the game ze same as I had run and played the previous edition, but it wasn't the same.  Differences in how things worked required me to change my methods of playing from the player side and many of my methods of encounter and world building from the GM side.  Maybe this isn't true for others, but it certainly was for me.  If I were attempting to run something based on Game of Thrones (and assuming I didn't use the rpg designed for it for some reason,) I don't feel D&D or Pathfinder would handle it very well.  I could possibly see an E6 Pathfinder setup handling it well enough that I could live with it.  With the real-ish nature of combat in the books and the show, I'd vastly prefer a system in which HP wasn't as abstract as it tends to be in D&D, and I'd also vastly prefer a system with active defenses.  To me, that would suit the style better.</blockquote>

Verification