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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5746702" data-attributes="member: 42582">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).</blockquote>

Verification