Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 6099478" data-attributes="member: 16586">I just don't think it's entirely clear cut where system ends and social contract begins. For some games the social contract is in fact part of the written rules, especially when the application written and unwritten rules can vary so much from table to table. Different games definitely have certain play style dependencies. Burning Wheel for instance does not function well within the constraints of heavy prep, or process oriented application of skills. Of course it adamantly tells you so. If you don't 'Let it Ride' and only roll dice when conflict occurs the mechanical force of its advancement system loses it cache and along with it the tension between going it alone or receiving help. Without a no-myth approach wises and circles become less critical. The absence of no-myth also causes a GM to have more difficulty with failing forward which leads to failure having more mechanical force than intended.While D&D 3e doesn't enshrine elements of the social contract as strongly it has dependencies that do not function well under a no-myth structure. Even with a monster manual or stat blocks handy using 3e's mechanical elements requires a strong understanding of disparate rules elements. Additionally using PC build selection as a flag suffers because when you break from the assumed roles or adventuring model there are direct setting consequences not necessarily seen in more narrative systems. I actually think this is why my 3e experience suffered in comparison to others. We tended to play with more supernaturally inclined PCs for thematic reasons and with 2 or more clerics sharing the healing load play broke down for us. It was still fun - just not what we were looking for.From my experience in play so far L5R 4e seems more flexible. It has strong thematic lists to choose from, but the actual mechanical weight of clan, family, and school in play is relatively minor compared to class and race in any version of D&D. It also has strong diminishing returns in both skill and ability selection which discourages extreme specialization. As a bushi your choice is what else other than fighting will I be good at. This allows players to plant flags that have a strong weight that is also tied into strong simulation. Characters are not that mechanically detailed so improvisation seems like it would be pretty easy. Even its "meta game" resource void points have an in-setting justification. Of course these features which make it strong for both narrative and simulation oriented play also make it fairly weak for Step On Up play unless a GM takes extensive effort. Additionally some more simulation-oriented players may feel that Honor being a thing with mechanical weight feels awkward, even if it's directly tied to the system's cosmology. I've also experienced some tension in play because some of our more simulation-oriented players seem to want to play every day out when I'm more inclined to describe my character's actions in broad blush with intent spelled out. Our GM seems to do a good job of balancing out our play style differences though. I've experienced similar player dissonance in 4e as a player and GM, though on a different bent. I've not experienced it in Burning Wheel though, largely because the gamist component is directly tied to creating narrative in play.</blockquote>

Verification