Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5745006" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think you are right about the incompatibility; in fact, my own objection to the &quot;advanced/mature&quot; label revolves around this. I think the reason the idea has grown up that simulationist/immersionist play needs &quot;advanced&quot; DMs and &quot;mature&quot; players is that the D&amp;D system is basically and fundamentally unsuited to such play. Assigning one person to essentially make up the &quot;rules&quot; as the play actually happens is really a poor way to regulate any sort of play, but if you start with rules fundamentally unsuited, it's what you have to do.So, yes, I think having a &quot;Legends&quot; (suitable for &quot;light&quot; Gamist and pemerton-style Narrativist play) and a &quot;Lore&quot; (suitable for simulationist/immersionist play) version is a good idea; I've said as much before.The &quot;Lore&quot; version, however, I can see being quite &quot;un-D&amp;D-like&quot; in its own way. Most pressigly, I would suggest:- Developing some group system for &quot;judgement&quot; calls, rather than relying on a single individual's taste and world-model for feasibility judgements. PrimeTime Adventures already uses such a system for more Narrativist play - players and &quot;Director&quot; placing &quot;votes&quot; based on story preferences with one card/die being drawn/rolled for each vote. Modify this for 'votes on views of &quot;realism&quot;/&quot;world appropriateness&quot; and you have a fairer and more appropriate &quot;group world exploration&quot; system model.- Ditch some of the &quot;resource pool&quot; mechanics: hit points and &quot;uses per day&quot; type stuff. &quot;Life&quot; as a resource pool is not only &quot;unrealistic&quot; - it tends to make for unsatisfying and low-drama stories and situations. From the very early days, D&amp;D contained experiments with &quot;location hit points&quot; (taken up in RuneQuest) that have been, in the end, complex and unsatisfying. Other systems got progressively more convoluted and fiddly; see Aftermath and HârnMaster for examples, but the return was seldom worth the cost. Only HârnMaster, in my view, hit upon the real solution. Strip away the complexities of hit location and HM has a real innovation: treat wounds as dangerous, inconvenient &quot;embuggerances&quot; (to borrow a term from the excellent Mr. Pratchett) that are troublesome to carry and troublesome to get rid of. This simple change in approach brings a much more immersive, elegant and dramatic outlook on injury and death, IME. Not really that useful for a gamist or heroic narrative game - but far superior for gritty, immersive games.- Reduce, greatly, the link between &quot;power&quot; and &quot;level&quot;. Bushido gives a good example of this; the pining for the 3.X D&amp;D skill mechanisms seem to me to be wishes for just such a thing. In Bushido, the maximum level attainable is level 6. Skills work with a d20 mechanism (roll under or equal to to succeed), and a character's training and focus gives a value of 1 to 19 ; for &quot;class skills&quot;, you add your level (giving a final value of 1 to 25). This &quot;flattening&quot; of the &quot;power curve&quot; means that over- or under-level encounters are slightly less of a problem in a &quot;simulationist&quot; sense. Over level encounters will still be largely unbeatable, but escape will generally be a realistic option.Taken together, these are, I think, the sort of changes that can give satisfying &quot;situation exploration&quot; and &quot;world exploration&quot; system that does not require extensive &quot;on the fly&quot; judgements by a single individual to make work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5745006, member: 27160"] I think you are right about the incompatibility; in fact, my own objection to the "advanced/mature" label revolves around this. I think the reason the idea has grown up that simulationist/immersionist play needs "advanced" DMs and "mature" players is that the D&D system is basically and fundamentally unsuited to such play. Assigning one person to essentially make up the "rules" as the play actually happens is really a poor way to regulate any sort of play, but if you start with rules fundamentally unsuited, it's what you have to do. So, yes, I think having a "Legends" (suitable for "light" Gamist and pemerton-style Narrativist play) and a "Lore" (suitable for simulationist/immersionist play) version is a good idea; I've said as much before. The "Lore" version, however, I can see being quite "un-D&D-like" in its own way. Most pressigly, I would suggest: - Developing some group system for "judgement" calls, rather than relying on a single individual's taste and world-model for feasibility judgements. PrimeTime Adventures already uses such a system for more Narrativist play - players and "Director" placing "votes" based on story preferences with one card/die being drawn/rolled for each vote. Modify this for 'votes on views of "realism"/"world appropriateness" and you have a fairer and more appropriate "group world exploration" system model. - Ditch some of the "resource pool" mechanics: hit points and "uses per day" type stuff. "Life" as a resource pool is not only "unrealistic" - it tends to make for unsatisfying and low-drama stories and situations. From the very early days, D&D contained experiments with "location hit points" (taken up in RuneQuest) that have been, in the end, complex and unsatisfying. Other systems got progressively more convoluted and fiddly; see Aftermath and HârnMaster for examples, but the return was seldom worth the cost. Only HârnMaster, in my view, hit upon the real solution. Strip away the complexities of hit location and HM has a real innovation: treat wounds as dangerous, inconvenient "embuggerances" (to borrow a term from the excellent Mr. Pratchett) that are troublesome to carry and troublesome to get rid of. This simple change in approach brings a much more immersive, elegant and dramatic outlook on injury and death, IME. Not really that useful for a gamist or heroic narrative game - but far superior for gritty, immersive games. - Reduce, greatly, the link between "power" and "level". Bushido gives a good example of this; the pining for the 3.X D&D skill mechanisms seem to me to be wishes for just such a thing. In Bushido, the maximum level attainable is level 6. Skills work with a d20 mechanism (roll under or equal to to succeed), and a character's training and focus gives a value of 1 to 19 ; for "class skills", you add your level (giving a final value of 1 to 25). This "flattening" of the "power curve" means that over- or under-level encounters are slightly less of a problem in a "simulationist" sense. Over level encounters will still be largely unbeatable, but escape will generally be a realistic option. Taken together, these are, I think, the sort of changes that can give satisfying "situation exploration" and "world exploration" system that does not require extensive "on the fly" judgements by a single individual to make work. [/QUOTE]

Verification