D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Pedantic]

"Not become a slog" doesn't really fit into the creative agenda buckets, as @Pedantic mentioned before.

It's more akin to bounded accuracy in 5e, or the decision to not allow advantage/disadvantage to stack and cancel. It's for the goal of "ease in play".

Right, we're leaving out steps. The proposed structure is creative agenda->design goal->mechanic. Pointing out a mechanic doesn't serve an agenda is pointless (in no small part because RPGs still struggle with successful implementation all the time); what was the design goal the mechanic tried to implement?

4e's minion rules points to a missing design goal for simulation (something like "entities in the game should have consistent mechanical representations") not a failure of implementation.

 

[TwoSix]

That isn't the agenda, though. The agenda is a cool fight where the PCs can just mow through a bunch of monsters that still challenge them.

Avoiding the slog is to make that fight against a ton of PCs 1) enjoyable, and 2) possible. Even a high level group isn't going to mow through a ton of 111 hit point ogres.

That isn't the agenda, though. The agenda is a cool fight where the PCs can just mow through a bunch of monsters that still challenge them.

Avoiding the slog is to make that fight against a ton of PCs 1) enjoyable, and 2) possible. Even a high level group isn't going to mow through a ton of 111 hit point ogres.

You know what?

OK.

 

[AlViking]

That isn't the agenda, though. The agenda is a cool fight where the PCs can just mow through a bunch of monsters that still challenge them.

Avoiding the slog is to make that fight against a ton of PCs 1) enjoyable, and 2) possible. Even a high level group isn't going to mow through a ton of 111 hit point ogres.

If I want a horde of lower level monsters I jut use mobs. I think its a better solution. At least it is for me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Doing the "well" is a matter of preference and opinion. We can be objective about certain things like how detailed or abstract rules are, what percentage of the rules are dedicated to what aspect of play the game focuses on.

Every game will have tradeoffs but it seems to me that the people who say things like D&D doesn't do anything well are really just expressing an opinion that they like some other game better.

It might not be objective--because its, at best, hard to demonstrate objective truth regarding this sort of thing--but when I'm saying something like that its because I believe it true. After all, if someone likes another game better, most of the time there are reasons for doing so, and feeling that it does certain things better can absolutely be among them.

That doesn't mean other people have to agree, of course, but their disagreement doesn't require me not to express my feeling on the matter, either.

 

[Hussar]

lol at the idea of making progression in these arguments. As if people here have any intention of desiring progress or understanding. But let's forget the past 10-15 years of trying to make progress on these fronts, your effort this time will undoubtedly work!

Hope springs eternal?

And, again, it's not like any genre discussion is any different. That's the point of genre discussions - which this discussion basically is. Doesn't stop the endless train of PHD dissertations on Tolkien.

 

[AlViking]

It might not be objective--because its, at best, hard to demonstrate objective truth regarding this sort of thing--but when I'm saying something like that its because I believe it true. After all, if someone likes another game better, most of the time there are reasons for doing so, and feeling that it does certain things better can absolutely be among them.

That doesn't mean other people have to agree, of course, but their disagreement doesn't require me not to express my feeling on the matter, either.

I have no issues with someone saying that they prefer BitD for Ocean's 11 style heists. That's stating a preference.

But what you're saying is "That game you and millions of people enjoy? It's a piss poor game."

 

[Hussar]

That works both ways.

Not really.

The worst I've said about traditional playstyles is that it's inconsistently applied. What is "quantum ogres" in one case is apparently perfectly acceptable GM fiat in another. That's not saying anything about if the playstyle is good or not. It's saying those that claim to a particular playstyle are rather inconsistent in how they apply that particular playstyle.

 

[Maxperson]

You know what?

OK.

I didn't think you'd have an issue with it.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really.

The worst I've said about traditional playstyles is that it's inconsistently applied. What is "quantum ogres" in one case is apparently perfectly acceptable GM fiat in another. That's not saying anything about if the playstyle is good or not. It's saying those that claim to a particular playstyle are rather inconsistent in how they apply that particular playstyle.

I meant in general, not specifically you. A lot of people here use derogatory terms for our style of play. "Play to find out what's in the DM's notes." "Traditional play is a railroad." " And more. Seems like most of the terms folks that prefer narrative play use to describe traditional play are derogatory.

Besides, "quantum" wasn't used in any sort of negative manner by us. We even acknowledged that some of what we do is also "quantum."

 

[Hussar]

That may be your preferred abstraction, it's not mine.

Well, except that it is since he's quoting from your preferred definition of simulation.