Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7556031" data-attributes="member: 16814">You claim multiple times that you want characters to have the ability to properly assess a situation, but your solution adds even more randomness to that assessment -- now the character cannot predict well how many attacks they'll be facing because that number is now RNGed.  The Coord/Uncoord at least has a clear fictional mechanics in play -- the bad guys have a leader type or don't, or they're just coordinated (hive mind) while most things aren't.Two things:  Harnmaster is a red herring -- you don't care about designing for Harnmaster, so bringing it up as a counter-example is just chaff.  Second, "trad" is doing a lot of work.  Let's be clear, you're designing for 5e.This goes directly to my first point:  your design runs counter to this goal.Also, there's nothing in 5e that says you fire 2 arrows a round -- you make two attacks, and those are something that, if successful, removes hitpoints, which are also not defined until they're gone.  There's a huge amount of narrative slop for, as [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] says, is essentially a spreadsheet.  You've added default narration to all of this and confused it with the mechanics, which really don't say much of anything.  Further, you have this in games like Dungeon World as well -- what a character can do is pretty well established, as are the odds they face.  The mechanics implement this differently (and, in fact, are even more tied to the fictional state of the character and their abilities than 5e), but DW isn't a clueless guessing game on the part of the players.  Sigh.  Mechanics are more tightly coupled to the fiction in Apocalypse Engine games, for example, than they are in 5e.  What you are actually getting in 5e is mechanics that are more granular and atomic -- if you move, you move this far, this way, or have a reason for the difference.  If you climb, you use this set of rules for climbing which don't care about the overall fiction of the climb, just that if you climb this much you use this mechanic to make a succeed/failure check.  That's not fiction and mechanics tightly coupled, it's just a process sim.And that's fine.  Recall, I really like 5e, and my new game I've just had session 0 for is 5e with no houserules except how BITF works with inspiration. And this is fine, and the first clearly stated position you've made on the matter.  You want the process sim.  Cool.  But really fights against the idea of cinematic combats and is the direct reason that there are no good systems for cinematic combats in process sims.Yup, different strokes and all that.  But, you're confused if you think that there's less overall knowledge of odds in other systems, like PbtA games, than in D&D, or if you think your addition of a new RNG check will improve knowledge of odds.What's the difference in 5e?  Rhetorical question answer: none.  The odds for a given action are fully understood in PbtA games (and in every major RPG).  Those odds are even more clear than they are in "trad" games, that might have hidden reaction abilities or hidden fiction that affect the apparent odds calculations.  Plus, people are really bad at figuring odds on a d20+modifiers against an unknown DC.  Like, bad.  But, in games that you're complaining lack knowledge, often the odds are even better understood because they're largely fixed -- in DW you roll 2d6+modifiers, 6 or less fails, 7-9 succeeds at cost, and 10+ succeeds.  If you have a +2 modifier for a given action type, based on your character traits, then you already know what the odds of success are for that kind of action, and, because of the fictional state and how the GM is restricted, you have a good idea of possible consequences.So far, you've shown very little understanding of other systems and how they work.  You've repeated made incorrect statements, even when relying on the sourcebooks.  And, yet, you continue to imply that these games do things in a way they don't.  I would strongly recommend that you stick to describing games you know and ask about how games you don't know work rather than make these assumptions.  I came from D&D -- 1e, 2e... all the way to 5e.  I've recently (last few years) made a foray into PbtA games through Blades in the Dark.  The huge amount of unlearning I had to do to get that game was entirely because I failed to read the material with an open mind and instead brought my D&D thinking and playstyle with me.  Once I overcame that, it's really easy to see how these systems are some of the most mechanically integrated systems that use their mechanics to drive their themes and play goals.  And, as a corollary, just how messy D&D is in that regard.  Again, I still very much like my messy D&D -- I too enjoy a good process sim sometimes.  But, there's another way to go at similar goals, you just have to let go of the process first.</blockquote>

Verification