Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
READ AND REPLY TO THIS 5E WARLORD THREAD, SOLDIER
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6102275" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>That looks like a vote for rubbish!</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Its taking advantage of the Warlord's aggressive weapon and shield work, coupled with his own (hence phalanx), to provide cover or create difficulty for the opponent to strike true; like Spartan Hoplites in skirmishes. You wouldn't be able to impose disadvantage if your brother wasn't next to you or engaging the same target in melee. Its coordinated fighting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yup. That is the feedback I was looking for. I was sure it would cross the threshold for some (many?) folks.</p><p></p><p>The perspectives are quite irreconcilable. There is an entire creative agenda that is pretty close to diametric opposition to what you describe. Having air-tight coupling of in-world causal logic and mechanics (ardent process simulation) is a barrier to that creative agenda. It constrains narrative interpretation and renderings when they want those renderings loosened.</p><p></p><p>For instance:</p><p></p><p>A guy wants to play a character like MacGyver or Batman in a fantasy setting. A system gives that guy an ability called "<em>A tool for everything</em>" and the game assumes that he either has every tool or can find a way to use anything as a tool, and the mechanics promote him entering director stance and "conjuring" tools to interact with the world or "conjuring" something that lets him use his cool "A tool for everything" ability. The guy rolls his dice pool and resolves the conflict and he or the GM narrates what the results means. That system, the GM/player interaction and the style of game created is very much different than a granular system that makes him put points in "open locks", "disable device", "search", "science-engineering", etc and assume that he is an actor stance (1st person limited perspective) all the time and always reacting to what the GM puts before him, serially exploring the world, and accounting for every lockpick and crobar used up.</p><p></p><p>And then there are games in between. The two creative agendas are very different from one another as is the threshold for metagame mechanics (one loves them and they're necessary to produce the style of play while the other abhors them).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You did a great job. Its not on a Fighter chassis, it hits all the right notes, it has Daily resources to "amp up the awesome", and the maneuver/MDD framework that you composed is pretty elegant and functional. High marks.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>1) Any daily resources for martial classes is a metagame resource. It assumes stance fluctuation (to author) by allowing a PC to impose their narrative will on a situation as it decouples hard causal logic/process-sim and uses metagame interests as its reasoning for existence (to "amp up the awesome" and bring more tactical girth to the party); which is awesome. But again, it freaks people out who don't like such things.</p><p></p><p>2) Warlord healing (or even temporary HPs...which absorb damage as basically a "morale HP buffer" so are basically healing by proxy) makes folks get "up close and personal" with the more metagamey aspect of hit points. As much as anything, this freaks people out who want to consider HPs as primarily meat because the idea of warlords "shouting wounds closed" or, in this case, "shouting wounds closed before they happen" does not meet their causal logic expectations. I love it, however as its genre-enabling and I have no such illusions about HPs.</p><p></p><p>3) The X-Men, comic book-ey idea of characters shouting commands to each other and reacting in real time (be it a free attack or immediate action or free, tactical movement) sends some folks out of process-simulation expectations of what "should" be possible and into metagame examination mode; eg, this is "gamist nonsense for the sake of tactical depth" or "this is way too much gonzo, high fantasy, action-movie physics narrative nonsense"..."this makes no sense for my grim, real-world physics expectations."</p><p></p><p>I do note that you worked hard to make sure that "PC agency" was a sovereign thing; eg, a player <em>can move </em>5 feet.</p><p>Again, I love metagame mechanics. All 3 of those things enable the kind of genre conceits, tactical interplay and narrative space that I'm looking for. But some clearly can't stand those things. This is why the Warlord, in specific, is such a metagame powderkeg and drew so much rancor from metagame averse folks.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6102275, member: 6696971"] That looks like a vote for rubbish! Its taking advantage of the Warlord's aggressive weapon and shield work, coupled with his own (hence phalanx), to provide cover or create difficulty for the opponent to strike true; like Spartan Hoplites in skirmishes. You wouldn't be able to impose disadvantage if your brother wasn't next to you or engaging the same target in melee. Its coordinated fighting. Yup. That is the feedback I was looking for. I was sure it would cross the threshold for some (many?) folks. The perspectives are quite irreconcilable. There is an entire creative agenda that is pretty close to diametric opposition to what you describe. Having air-tight coupling of in-world causal logic and mechanics (ardent process simulation) is a barrier to that creative agenda. It constrains narrative interpretation and renderings when they want those renderings loosened. For instance: A guy wants to play a character like MacGyver or Batman in a fantasy setting. A system gives that guy an ability called "[I]A tool for everything[/I]" and the game assumes that he either has every tool or can find a way to use anything as a tool, and the mechanics promote him entering director stance and "conjuring" tools to interact with the world or "conjuring" something that lets him use his cool "A tool for everything" ability. The guy rolls his dice pool and resolves the conflict and he or the GM narrates what the results means. That system, the GM/player interaction and the style of game created is very much different than a granular system that makes him put points in "open locks", "disable device", "search", "science-engineering", etc and assume that he is an actor stance (1st person limited perspective) all the time and always reacting to what the GM puts before him, serially exploring the world, and accounting for every lockpick and crobar used up. And then there are games in between. The two creative agendas are very different from one another as is the threshold for metagame mechanics (one loves them and they're necessary to produce the style of play while the other abhors them). You did a great job. Its not on a Fighter chassis, it hits all the right notes, it has Daily resources to "amp up the awesome", and the maneuver/MDD framework that you composed is pretty elegant and functional. High marks. 1) Any daily resources for martial classes is a metagame resource. It assumes stance fluctuation (to author) by allowing a PC to impose their narrative will on a situation as it decouples hard causal logic/process-sim and uses metagame interests as its reasoning for existence (to "amp up the awesome" and bring more tactical girth to the party); which is awesome. But again, it freaks people out who don't like such things. 2) Warlord healing (or even temporary HPs...which absorb damage as basically a "morale HP buffer" so are basically healing by proxy) makes folks get "up close and personal" with the more metagamey aspect of hit points. As much as anything, this freaks people out who want to consider HPs as primarily meat because the idea of warlords "shouting wounds closed" or, in this case, "shouting wounds closed before they happen" does not meet their causal logic expectations. I love it, however as its genre-enabling and I have no such illusions about HPs. 3) The X-Men, comic book-ey idea of characters shouting commands to each other and reacting in real time (be it a free attack or immediate action or free, tactical movement) sends some folks out of process-simulation expectations of what "should" be possible and into metagame examination mode; eg, this is "gamist nonsense for the sake of tactical depth" or "this is way too much gonzo, high fantasy, action-movie physics narrative nonsense"..."this makes no sense for my grim, real-world physics expectations." I do note that you worked hard to make sure that "PC agency" was a sovereign thing; eg, a player [I]can move [/I]5 feet. Again, I love metagame mechanics. All 3 of those things enable the kind of genre conceits, tactical interplay and narrative space that I'm looking for. But some clearly can't stand those things. This is why the Warlord, in specific, is such a metagame powderkeg and drew so much rancor from metagame averse folks. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
READ AND REPLY TO THIS 5E WARLORD THREAD, SOLDIER
Top