Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules

[LurkAway]

More talk of 4e rules mechanics. If you don't like people discussing 4e with you, don't discuss it!

But I answered pemerton's question and used that as a reference point. Easy there.

I don't like people assuming that because I'm referrencing 4E, it means I'm criticizing 4E and not just using it as a reference towards 5E.

 

[S'mon]

Ah, nitpicking, I missed you so much. That was used a reference for extrapolation. And pemerton addressed that designers knew about it.

Re your 'no talking about 4e' statements - I just checked the OP, to see if I was missing something. Nope.

If anyone gets to set the terms of debate for this thread, it's Mark CMG, the thread starter. Mark CMG is a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Mark CMG.

 

[LurkAway]

Re your 'no talking about 4e' statements - I just checked the OP, to see if I was missing something. Nope.

If anyone gets to set the terms of debate for this thread, it's Mark CMG, the thread starter. Mark CMG is a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Mark CMG.

Kamakazi Midget already addressed that. I addressed numerous times that I was talking about 5E.

 

[pemerton]

If you fluff it to explain why EVERY PC gets better at EVERY skill check for whatever diverse reasons, then you've made it simultationist (which is what I understand is what some were attempting to do, at least on a case-by-case basis).

But once it's on a case-by-case basis it's not simulationist - because the mechanic doesn't correlate to any particular ingame causal process. Sometimes it's learning (a wizard's Arcana), sometimes it's luck (a wizard's Stealth, perhaps), sometimes it's physique (a fighter's Endurance), sometimes it's subtle magic (a wizard or warlock's STR check to open a door).

That sort of narration of the +15 bonus isn't an attempt to run the mechanic in a simulationist fashion. It's just an attempt to roleplay, ie to be clear about what is happening in the fiction on any given occasion of PC action.

So when I don't buy in on that explanation

I'm not sure what it means to buy into, or not buy into, the story someone else is telling in his/he game. If, in [MENTION=4892]Vyvyan Basterd[/MENTION]'s game, every high level wizard PC uses subtle magic to help open doors, or has used subtle magic to make him-/herself stronger and therefore better able to open doors, what does your "not buying into it" amount to? Are you saying that VB is confused about what is happening in the fiction of that gameworld? Or just that you don't like the fiction?

it remains un-simulationist for me, like that d6 roll.

I'm having trouble working out what you're trying to convey. Are you opposed to non-simulatoinist mechanics in general? Or are you opposed to the particular one's in 4e, because you don't like the fiction that they support? Would you be happy with simulationist mechanics that produced the sort of fiction that 4e's mechanics support? I'm thinking not. As [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] said, it seems that what you want a game that is (at least potentially) grittier. But in that case the issue of whether or not the mechanics are simulationist seems beside the point. There is no general correlation that I'm aware of between simulationism in mechanics and grittiness in fiction.

 

[LurkAway]

That sort of narration of the +15 bonus isn't an attempt to run the mechanic in a simulationist fashion. It's just an attempt to roleplay, ie to be clear about what is happening in the fiction on any given occasion of PC action.

Well, you'll have to talk to them about it then. I remember S'mon stating that he tended to play 4E in a simulationist way, but I don't know the post # or exact wording.

what does your "not buying into it" amount to? Are you saying that VB is confused about what is happening in the fiction of that gameworld? Or just that you don't like the fiction?

I don't think that VB is confused.

I'm having trouble working out what you're trying to convey. Are you opposed to non-simulatoinist mechanics in general? Or are you opposed to the particular one's in 4e, because you don't like the fiction that they support? Would you be happy with simulationist mechanics that produced the sort of fiction that 4e's mechanics support? I'm thinking not. As @S'mon said, it seems that what you want a game that is (at least potentially) grittier. But in that case the issue of whether or not the mechanics are simulationist seems beside the point. There is no general correlation that I'm aware of between simulationism in mechanics and grittiness in fiction.

At the end of the day, if you haven't understood anything I wrote since the "Legends" and "Lore" editions post, then does it really matter if you understand at this point what I'm trying to convey? Honestly, what difference does it make at this point if I spent x posts trying to convey to you what we'll probably have to agree to disagree on.

 

[pemerton]

At the end of the day, if you haven't understood anything I wrote since the "Legends" and "Lore" editions post, then does it really matter if you understand at this point what I'm trying to convey?

It probably doesn't matter to the universe as a whole. I would give me a small amount of pleasure. But equally, I'll cope with my confusion.

Your "Legends" and "Lore" post seemed to be about building two editions on a core mechanic - starting with a simple action resolution system, and then developing it in either a simulationist or a non-simulationist direction.

Since then, though, you seem to have gone off on a tangent about whether or not the fiction that is generated by a level scaling skill bonus rule in PC building is coherent or not, and enjoyable or not. I asserted that it is coherent, and I took you to disagree. I implied (at least - maybe I asserted it too) that I find it enjoyable, and I took to you to say that your experience is different.

I think you're wrong about incoherence. I assume you're right about your own preferences. But I don't see how this relates to "Legends" and "Lore". There is no reason in principle why a "Lore" edition couldn't have a level scaling skill bonus - simulationist/immersive doesn't have to be gritty, nor support any conceivable range of PC builds (indeed, this second is probably impossible).

If the defining character of "Lore" is that is has 3E style skill points, and therefore permits epic level wizards to be defeated by wooden doors if they haven't memorised a knock spell or brought one along on a scroll, I don't see it's defining feature as "simulatonist/immersive". I see it's defining feature as oddly gritty in some places (epic wizards' door opening ability) but not others (epic wizards' resisting getting stabbed ability). Or, in other words, of being a 3E variant (like PF).

I don't find this particularly simulationist (at least in the purist-for-system sense) because the mechanics (and particular the disjuncture between the gonzo attack-and-damage rules, and the gritiness of the rest of the action resolution rules) don't give me a clear sense of the way the fictional world works. What does it offer to the simulationist-inclined gamer that isn't already offered by a game like HARP? (Which uses Fate Points instead of hit points for plot protection - a metagame mechanic that is probably more palatable to simulationist sensibilities).

I think [MENTION=29358]CrazyJerome[/MENTION] was probably onto something upthread when he suggested an alternative basis for setting up alternative editions - sandbox vs situation as the basis for encounter and scenario design. On this model, the key feature of the "Lore" edition is not purist-for-system action resolution (which D&D has never had outside of some aspects of the 3E skill system, and the 3E combat manoeuvres). It becomes a focus on exploration of the gameworld as the main priority for play (and presumably "Gygaxian naturalism" as an element of that). Static rather than scaling DCs would be an important feature of this "Lore" edition, but I think the question of scaling vs non-scaling skill bonuses would be a secondary concern. Classic D&D coped with scaling saving throw bonuses, after all, and Gygax in the DMG gave exactly the same advice on how to handle them in the fiction as Vyvyan Basterd has given in this thread (ie wizards' saves get better because they draw on subtle magic, fighters' because they get tougher, clerics' because they get luckier, etc).

 

[S'mon]

There is no general correlation that I'm aware of between simulationism in mechanics and grittiness in fiction.

I think the early generations of more simulationist games (Traveller, Runequest et al) were also towards the grittier end, compared to D&D. Sim-but-not-gritty tended to be the province of the licensed-genre games emerging in the '80s, like WEG's d6 Star Wars or the James Bond RPG. Later White Wolf published highly non-gritty genre-sim games like Exalted, but the popular conception of simulationism remains rooted in gritty world-sim of Runequest and its spiritual descendants: Warhammer FRP, Twilight: 2000 etc.

 

[S'mon]

Well, you'll have to talk to them about it then. I remember S'mon stating that he tended to play 4E in a simulationist way, but I don't know the post # or exact wording.

Yeah, I prefer to run it in a simulationist way whenever possible. Pemerton does not, AFAIK.

4e as written is only weakly simulationist, so I'm batting on a stickier wicket than with prior editions; I accept that. Despite that, the 4e ruleset actually gives results much closer to the imaginary physics of my worlds than a more sim system like 3e did. 3e is a more simulationist engine but it simulated worlds not very much like the sort of worlds I want to play in; 4e is less simulationist in orientation but gives default results much closer to what I want.

Basically I take 4e and fill in the gaps; eg I create NPC power demographics since there aren't any in 4e; 4e is written with a story-first approach where NPCs only have stats when they interact with the PCs. So I give them 'objective' stats. It's a bit of work, but I think less work than tweaking 3e to fit my worlds.

 

[LurkAway]

If the defining character of "Lore" is that is has 3E style skill points, and therefore permits epic level wizards to be defeated by wooden doors if they haven't memorised a knock spell or brought one along on a scroll, I don't see it's defining feature as "simulatonist/immersive".

I'll skip down to this point. The 3E skill points vs 4E skill points is not my defining character of "Lore", it is one reference point. (I believe I stated as much upthread).

You or I or VB or S'mon or anyone (but especially you, no offense does not get to decide or justify that high level wizards feeling human again when faced against mundane doors is simulationist or not, either in some absolute sense or as the default fiction for any D&D campaign for any one group.

Just like I agree that 1E clerics only being able to use blunt weapons probably never needed to be the absolute default fiction for every early D&D game (there were other ways to balance out clerics as 2E+ discovered).

You wrote that you think the designers conceived that not every PC might have a +15 bonus to every skill check, but that they "decided not to make a game in which such PCs can be built. (There reasons, I think, were that they thought the existence of such PCs got in the way of smooth encounter design.)" In my ideal version of Lore, the designers do NOT make that call.

In my ideal version of "Lore", the system empowers the group to decide for themselves how they envision their character, etc.

At this point, you may interject to say that this is exactly what 4E does. I would refute that 4E does so in a way that is not compatible with my playstyle (or more specifically, introduces new kinds of limitations amd problems to substitute the old limitations and flaws). So faced with an intimidating quantity of rules, I chose the skill system as an example.

And so my in ideal "Lore", you do not get to state -- on behalf of the entire game in general -- that high level wizards do not need to feel human again when faced against mundane doors. You do not get to argue if it's simulationist or not, immersive or not, heroic fantasy or not. Rather, we are both using the same ruleset, but it is flexible to accomodate both playstyles and (gasp!) trusts players to make lopsided characters for unsmooth encounters. Say in one variation, skill points, in another variation, 1/2 character level. When we're comparing campaigns, we're not comparing rules per se (because we both have the same rules), but we're comparing different narratives and simulations produced by the same ruleset.

I don't find this particularly simulationist (at least in the purist-for-system sense)

It's simulationist if the group believes in what the mechanics are doing. So D&D may be simultationist for some gamers based on what they've seen in movies, but other gamers who study medieval warfare and compare longsword vs katana damage find it very unsimulationist.

What does it offer to the simulationist-inclined gamer that isn't already offered by a game like HARP?

I thought people have covered why they felt WoTC might consider trying to capture some of that market.

I think @CrazyJerome was probably onto something upthread when he suggested an alternative basis for setting up alternative editions - sandbox vs situation as the basis for encounter and scenario design.

I'm OK with all that ivory tower theory. I only interjected a few pages back when I felt that 4E gamist/assumptions keep creeping into the theory. If you were on the "Lore" design committee, I would make sure that there is at least one simulationist designer to balance you out.

 

[pemerton]

In my ideal version of "Lore", the system empowers the group to decide for themselves how they envision their character, etc.

<snip>

And so my in ideal "Lore", you do not get to state -- on behalf of the entire game in general -- that high level wizards do not need to feel human again when faced against mundane doors. You do not get to argue if it's simulationist or not, immersive or not, heroic fantasy or not. Rather, we are both using the same ruleset, but it is flexible to accomodate both playstyles and (gasp!) trusts players to make lopsided characters for unsmooth encounters.

Except if it resembles any earlier edition of D&D, it won't permit lopsided combat ability.

I thought people have covered why they felt WoTC might consider trying to capture some of that market.

I'm very confient that they won't capture that market while the rules permit lopsided non-combat ability but don't permit lopsided combat ability. And it is that difference between the two that I think makes it hard to treat the rules in 3E/PF in a consistently simulationist fashion. Simulationist hit points leads to hit points as meat - which is fine, I guess, for some games, but it's odd (to me, at least) that a wizard with so much meat still has trouble knocking down wooden doors.

If you were on the "Lore" design committee, I would make sure that there is at least one simulationist designer to balance you out.

If I was on the "Lore" design committee, the game would look like a classic purist-for-system simulationist game - RQ, Traveller or (the one I have the most experience with) RM. It therefore wouldn't look very much like 3E or PF, neither of which (in my view) does purist-for-system very well.

TL;DR - if "Lore" will force my epic wizard to get better at fisticuffs, in what way is it meeting the design goals you've specified?