Let's stop acting like strength can't be accurate


log in or register to remove this ad

I don't do clever very well:

It often seems bad for game balance. Or an acid wit?

See what I mean? Not that clever.
Well, internet discussions aren't a good litmus test for cleverness: you never know how someone will react. Remaining neutral should be a pretty basic solution, buy some things just can't be reduced that far.
 


If you want to go the fewer stats route, the only system I've seen that really whittles them down is the Tri-Stat system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tri-Stat_dX

Actually these four work extremely well:
• Athletics (melee combat, stunt) - big guy
• Finetuning (stealth, shoot, craft) - rogue guy
• Perception (senses, knowledge) - smart guy
• Sociability (empathy, persuasion, willpower) - heart guy
 
Last edited:


But, I can do elaborate:

A game that played like an LSD trip would be awesome. Actually, is awesome, it's called Mage: the Ascension.

A point was being made about grounding D&D in reality, but D&D is an Heroic Fantasy RPG, and needs a grounding in the broader fantasy genre, or some sub-genre (S&S, High Fantasy, whatever) thereof, more than it needs a grounding in reality - because it's always rather profoundly lacked both.

Thank you for replying.

I do agree with your point that understanding what genre you are trying to emulate, what are the assumptions, is really important. Can a hero fight off 20 lesser foes? Is magic easy and free flowing, or hard and corrupting (or a variation thereof)? Etc etc. Knowing what you are trying to do matters!

BUT... each of those genres have a foundation in reality. Cause and effect still applies. People still need to eat. When there is a deviation from reality, then it must be explained somehow - elves need no food because the light of the sun can sustain them, the black knight can fight 20 men because he made a deal with the devil, etc etc. This is the point I was trying to get across.
 

BUT... each of those genres have a foundation in reality.
Some concept of a reality, yes. This reality, not necessarily. Keep in mind that in the historical time periods analogous to the societies we see in fantasy, people had little clue of the 'scientific' reality we take for granted. The learned might even have some ideas we'd find laughable - in another thread, I was talking about the theory that people see by emitting rays from their eyes that touch objects to allow us to seem them. In a fantasy world with a pre-Newtonian grasp of reality, that could be a fact. In a world where magic-users conjure monsters from the elemental planes, the 4 classic elements could be /all/ the elements of creation - no atoms or molecules.
Cause and effect still applies. People still need to eat. When there is a deviation from reality, then it must be explained somehow - elves need no food because the light of the sun can sustain them, the black knight can fight 20 men because he made a deal with the devil, etc etc.
Or he can fight 20 men - or 100 men, or an army - because he's that much better than they are.
This is the point I was trying to get across.
It varies with genre. A great deal of fiction, even when not explicitly fantastic, plays fast and loose with reality. Especially with the improbable. Heroes out run explosions, hold their breath for 7 minutes of screen time, dodge bullets, and generally do a bunch of wildly improbable crap that, were a game to try to model PCs with a 'realistic' chance of success for each task would result in nothing but messily dead PCs.

Ultimately, genres have conventions, not realities.
 
Last edited:

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] well a Knight in full plate could fight 20 unarmored / lightly armored People at once without much Problems.
 

Remove ads

Top