Opinion: But It's So Gamist!!

[marune]

Like I said above, assume that I'm using the right term and go from there. I was thinking Narativist=making the game follow certain genre and story conventions.

That would be high-concept simulationism

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

That distinction you're reporting is so subtle I'm unaware of it.

Like probably the majority, I assumed all the Rings of Power were usable by anyone, simply because the One Ring was. I think you'll find the man on the street makes the same assumption - nowhere in the movies or books do I remember them out and out saying that e.g. the rings of the nine, or galadriel's ring etc. cannot be used by Joe Schmoe.

I'm prepared to accept that you're correct, but I pay more attention to such things than your average person, and didn't know this. The One Ring makes you assume otherwise.

It is indeed there. And you really can't start complaining that the concept of tier-limited rings goes against the concept of fantasy literature when it's BASED on the most famous rings in fantasy literature.

The ring thing is a terrible example of "gamist" mechanics anyway. It's just as easy to balance equipment from a "gamist" perspective with both ring slots active from level one. All they'd need to do is make low-level rings crappy and rings in the paragon tier mediocre. The reason they added the tier-limit was presumably narrativist - they thought it'd give Rings of Power a greater narrative impact if you had to wait 10 levels to equip one (and 20 to wear two).

 

[rounser]

The reason they added the tier-limit was presumably narrativist - they thought it'd give Rings of Power a greater narrative impact if you had to wait 10 levels to equip one (and 20 to wear two).

That's drawing a very long bow. Going back to Tolkien, if I recall correctly, Gandalf comments that "there are many magical rings which turn their wearers invisible", which is why it is slow to dawn on him exactly what he's dealing with.

Does D&D no longer support those? (Hey, you guys went to Tolkien first. And I don't even care about the ring thing.)

 

[Hussar]

That would be high-concept simulationism

Gack, I can't find that in your glossary.

Thanks a bunch for that though. I'm racing to catch up on my jargon.

 

[Hussar]

Aha, did a bit of digging and found Irda Ranger's post regarding rings:

From Post 102

Rings are special. They are endless, without beginning or end. And their shape, a bound circle, allows them to contain magic far beyond any simple spell embedded in your common "magic" sword or item made of cloth. Where any other item or weapon would warped and destroyed by the restless force that is magic, the magics within a ring swirl silently, falling back upon themselves ... contained. Although less than an artifact, they are more than anything else you will encounter (other than perhaps the legendary Stones of Ioun).

Sauron knew this. It is no coincidence that he chose the form of the Ring when making his weapon. Nothing else would have contained his terrible power, or serve his terrible purpose.

But Rings cannot be worn lightly. Not just any soul has the wherewithal to withstand them; to command them. Only souls that have been tested, and proved themselves victorious again and again, have a hope of commanding the magic of a Ring. It is not a question of magical power, or command over vast sums of magical lore, but of personal strength. That resilient strength that can only be learned in overcoming adversity; in surviving the crucible. That strength that so few possess.

A few foolish men wear magical Rings that they inherited from their greater forefathers. They can not summon forth its power, and if they live even a year it is at the Ring's forebearance. They would do well to put the Ring in a safe place, where no can harm themselves attempting what should not be attempted.

Rings are true power given form. Only those with an even greater power inside them have a chance of commanding them.

And if you ever meet a man who commands the might of two Rings simultaneously, tread carefully, for you stand in the presence of greatness; such greatness as legends are made of.

 

[LostSoul]

edit: nevermind, stupid semantics.

 

[marune]

Gack, I can't find that in your glossary.

It's in the simulationist essay of R. Edwards.

 

[rkanodia]

It has the effect of assuming that every D&D party with one in them operates akin to the Black Company. Warlord is a first in that here is a class that affects the archetypes of the other PCs, even the nature of what an adventuring party is, turning it into a military unit rather than a band of heroes.

It even implies a hierarchy - that other PCs respect this character enough that they follow his or her orders. This strikes at the heart of what D&D is about, the conceit of the "adventuring party" and what it is.

There are far more heroes that operate on their own terms and wouldn't accept orders than there are military units in dungeons. Conan and Merlin wouldn't take it, why should your PC?

The fluff is what you make of it. I'm planning to make a warlord who is, in character, a loudmouthed buffoon, finding himself perpetually shown-up by the other PCs. You know, activate Feather Me Yon Oaf, and proclaim, "You idiots! That ogre would have been mine, if you hadn't had to go and waste all your arrows on it"!

 

[rounser]

The fluff is what you make of it. I'm planning to make a warlord who is, in character, a loudmouthed buffoon, finding himself perpetually shown-up by the other PCs. You know, activate Feather Me Yon Oaf, and proclaim, "You idiots! That ogre would have been mine, if you hadn't had to go and waste all your arrows on it"!

I disagree, it's just as important as the crunch. The example you've shown doesn't even make sense - he orders them, then insults them? The core flavour should be better than that, not just an afterthought that'll somehow sort itself out. People will play this like Full Metal Jacket by default, and that's just not good enough.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

See, I think that comment is objectively absurd. The fact that something hasn't previously been done in the genre doesn't mean that it can't be done in the genre, or that it somehow isn't part of the genre. So what if rings previously didn't have a rule that only powerful individuals could master them. All that's needed to make that idea part of the fantasy genre is a coherent, genre-worthy explanation for why that is true.

Actually one of the reasons Galadriel and Gandalf refused the ring is because they could master it, Saruman desired it for the same reason. Gollum, Frodo and Bilbo were to "low level" to do more than carry it around and use it to turn invisible (leaving their shadow on the ground still btw), and get an extended life-span by association.

Seems the idea of level based access to item power is already part of the Genre.

But more to the point DnD has always been "gamist", that's an inherent part of a strongly level and class based system. Becoming a better system within the original conceits of DnD will make it a better system for a range of play styles. But if you want a really Narative game system DnD isn't it, you need to go to a far more flexible system than DnD.