Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 9553231" data-attributes="member: 15538">It's the process of reification. That is, treating some representation of a thing as the thing itself. A simple stat block simply describes the creature in its basic terms and gives it measurements. But once you start assigning special moves, it becomes increasingly less a creature you are describing, and more a mechanism. It's not necessarily a negative process. RPGs are fundamentally about the reification of narrative elements with a focus on gaming. However, there is a continuum. If you aren't sure what I mean about reification, think about things like &quot;game physics&quot; where a hundred NPC peasants can pass an object down a 500 ft. line in one round.There is definitely a point where I start disliking formal behavior and its limitations more than I'm liking the sparks that fly from unexpected and varying powers. I once watched this video about how 5e could improve dragons, and, ta-da!, all the presented ideas were adapted from 4e. But you know what? I didn't like it. There is this idea that gets floated around that 4e was really unappreciated for how it handled monsters and monster roles and actions. But I didn't like it then, and I don't miss it now. To me, the &quot;index card monster&quot; is just about the pinnacle of D&amp;d design, when it can be achieved. I don't like minions in a D&amp;D context, I don't think red dragons need more fire-based powers, and I think granting extra actions to &quot;boss&quot; monsters can be useful but threatens the suspension of disbelief. Weapon mastery is a very 4e-like extension to the combat environment, and I don't like that, either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 9553231, member: 15538"] It's the process of reification. That is, treating some representation of a thing as the thing itself. A simple stat block simply describes the creature in its basic terms and gives it measurements. But once you start assigning special moves, it becomes increasingly less a creature you are describing, and more a mechanism. It's not necessarily a negative process. RPGs are fundamentally about the reification of narrative elements with a focus on gaming. However, there is a continuum. If you aren't sure what I mean about reification, think about things like "game physics" where a hundred NPC peasants can pass an object down a 500 ft. line in one round. There is definitely a point where I start disliking formal behavior and its limitations more than I'm liking the sparks that fly from unexpected and varying powers. I once watched this video about how 5e could improve dragons, and, ta-da!, all the presented ideas were adapted from 4e. But you know what? I didn't like it. There is this idea that gets floated around that 4e was really unappreciated for how it handled monsters and monster roles and actions. But I didn't like it then, and I don't miss it now. To me, the "index card monster" is just about the pinnacle of D&d design, when it can be achieved. I don't like minions in a D&D context, I don't think red dragons need more fire-based powers, and I think granting extra actions to "boss" monsters can be useful but threatens the suspension of disbelief. Weapon mastery is a very 4e-like extension to the combat environment, and I don't like that, either. [/QUOTE]

Verification