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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5892882" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Whereas I'm not at all puzzled at your rationale for things. Or Hussar's. Or Crazy Jerome's. Or Minigiant's. or Balesir's. I can read their posts, and I understand what they're communicating, why they think what they do (since I trust them to be telling the truth), why they prefer things the way they do, etc. I may not agree, but I am not at all puzzled about the rationale behind their thinking.If you are puzzled, I can only offer, once again, to attempt to clear it up for you (from my side, at least).As far as process simulation, I think you're addressing an issue that only pemerton is addressing. You can keep addressing it, but you're missing what we're saying. I've talked about it before, but it doesn't seem clear still. But, once again, if you need me to attempt to clarify so you can understand the rationale of people on the other side, I can at least attempt to bring my point of view to light.But, I'm not talking about "PC-generation as process simulation." Sorry if that wasted some of your time, but I really do think you're misunderstanding the premise of what people like myself prefer, and thus are baffled by rationale. It's probably because we're not answering your question. Then again, I'm trying to talk about something else entirely.But you don't need to address all of that stuff. That isn't the issue.See, here's the issue. Whirlwind Attack, in 3.5, requires: Dex 13, Int 13, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, base attack bonus +4. When people say that want NPCs to meet the same prerequisites as PCs, it's not PC-generation as process simulation, it's coherency within the world as informed by the fiction created by limitations from the mechanics.That is, much like a Kobold's "Shifty" ability in 4e, the flavor contained within the mechanics tells us something. If someone can perform a Whirlwind Attack in 3.5, they need a certain amount of intellect and natural grace. You can also expect a decent defense from them (Combat Expertise, Dodge), as well as good ability to move about while attacking on the battlefield (Mobility, Spring Attack). Also, since they need a base attack of +4, they're obviously pretty skilled at martial combat (at least when it comes to attacking).When creatures deviate from this baseline, some people consider it incoherent. If creatures don't need to be graceful and smart, and have a decent defense, and good ability to move about while attacking, why are those prerequisites for characters? The fiction drawn from these prerequisites tells us that you that these things are mandatory for a character to learn how to perform this maneuver.The rationale, simply, is that if the world works a certain way for PCs, it only makes sense for it to work similarly for NPCs. There are obviously exceptions to every rule, but that's what literally all abilities are. That is, you can only basic attack. However, you can also Tide of Iron, which is like an attack, but better. This is an exception to the rule.Exceptions abound in a system like 3e or 4e. That's what makes the game interesting and flavorful. When players draw fiction from an exception (the Kobold's Shifty power, or the prerequisites on Whirlwind Attack in 3.5), sometimes they dislike it when things interrupt that fiction. If that orc can learn how to attack everyone around him without going through all the same hoops (being graceful, smart, good at defense, mobile on the battlefield, decent offensively), why can't my character avoid those as well?That's the objection, and the basic rationale behind it. It has nothing to do with needing to write up every last bit of the orc's background, his awesome fishing rod, his contacts and enemies, and the like. You're disagreeing with something I've never put forward. I'm a proponent of quick, strong guidelines that you can use for quick NPC generation, especially for people you don't need to reference ever again (encounters on the fly, or the like).I'm all for those guidelines. I have such guidelines in my point-buy RPG. My players often reference them, too, to see how their characters "stack up" to the guidelines (one of my players earlier today discovered that he's one bonus shy of "professionally skilled" at defense, which he was pretty happy with). I think that such guidelines aren't mandatory, but are extremely useful. Does this guy only attack at "hit die 3's professionally skilled" level of attack, AC, and HP? Well, easy to note Combat Rating 3 [strong]. I can see at a quick glance what that means: he's a strong challenge, by himself, for a hit die 3 creature who is strong at combat.Guidelines are good. They work in concert with a unified structuring of PCs and NPCs, not against it. They can, yes, but they don't need to. ... I never said that. I was saying how my preferred combat pacing affects my view on how to go about making action resolution mechanics.First, "process simulation" and "PC-generation system as some form of process simulation" are two different things. If you need me to clarify the rationale of my thoughts, let me know. I feel that it's fairly straightforward, but I dunno. Maybe it's not.Secondly, you can take whatever you want seriously. I'm not about to try to convince you of anything in that field. I basically reject the game theories of a few people that you respect, and as such I'm not about to try to get you to take something "seriously" when I very much doubt I'd be able to convince you. I have much the same reaction to Ron Edwards thoughts on the supremacy of narrativism, for example (why would I take that seriously?). I don't say this to attack you, but I say this to show that I don't intend to give an answer to how you can taken anything seriously. We're not on the same wavelength there. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification