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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5636808" data-attributes="member: 82106">But let us consider what makes this "being able to creatively combine" possible. To a large extent it is the common currency of terminology and mechanics which lets different parts of the system 'talk' to each other. In other words if skills and combat use d20s in the same way as a basic resolution mechanic, then you can for instance use a skill check to push a rock down a slope onto an enemy and it works. Now, modularity doesn't at all preclude that, but I think some people in the last few posts have lost sight of its sheer value. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]This is where my concern arises is in the common currency of the game. Not only do different parts of the game need to interact easily, but the terms on which they do so need to be known and consistent. When you have qualitatively different sets of resolution mechanics and a module developer can't know for instance how combat is going to work in the game his module will be used in then how does that work? Systems that are qualitatively different will at the very least create different values for different things. This is doubly true when the parts aren't balanced (quantitative differences). You see this already a bit with 4e and the different scaling of skills vs attacks. Imagine how much more of these difficulties exist when there isn't a fixed way to quantify a skill check or an attack roll. Even if they all use the same d20 mechanic (and suggestions that they might not are frankly anathema to me) they also need to agree that a '15' means the same thing under the same circumstances or you'll have situations like "bull rush becomes worthless at high levels". As for my equating of combat with gamism and exploration with narrative... I think the problem here is the ugly kludge of GNS terminology (which you really don't want me to get started on, ugh). There are different 'activity focuses', which don't really have anything to do with what GNS is trying to convey. Combat can be more centered around using mechanics in creative ways, while exploration could be more focused on the interactions between in-game resources. In combat you might think in terms of using the rules provisions for gaining an advantage over your opponent. In an exploration type activity you might consider using story resources for a more strategic advantage, which isn't likely to be modeled by a specific rule. Remember too the types of player interests, these are orthogonal to anything that GNS is talking about too. I don't have a problem with this. Some people seem determined to have each activity focus be approached in the same way, and I don't think that's needed. In fact 4e seems somewhat uninterested in that kind of rigidity. It seems quite happy to have the focus in combat be very mechanical and somewhat gamist, but leaving other activities to much looser generalized approaches. That forms a type of expectation of design influence on play that can't hold when different modules don't have a knowable sort of approach. Detailed rules for feeding your PC don't make sense in the context of an overall system where travel is modeled by high level SCs. I don't really know how you deal with this kind of thing in a BW game. I think being able to use whichever subsystem you want on a case-by-case basis at least means you get to think ahead of time about what types of factors are likely to play a part in a given combat for instance and pick a system that deals with that on the level of abstraction it deserves. At least if there are going to be factors which are important that will say only come out in a tactical resolution you might pick that system instead of the 'fast and dirty' system that won't really model those factors. If you are then talking about a game where the resolution systems are fixed for different things to start with that's fine WRT that game, but it becomes pretty hard to create material for the whole system. Is a Roper a tough monster? Well, it relies on a specific tactic to do its thing. It may be tough for one party and easy for another depending on what builds they have and what tactics they use. None of that detail is likely to be captured using a combat module that doesn't bother with modeling tactics in a detailed way. Things have different values under different mechanics. I don't know how you have a really coherent system that way.</blockquote>

Verification