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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6301286" data-attributes="member: 42582">Why not?There are plenty of RPGs in which the selection of the mechanical framework to use is a function not just of the ingame situation but metagame considerations such as mood and pacing (as [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] has noted). Mike Mearls was recently promoting just such a framework on L&L (namely, his new Battlesystem). In 4e, the rules recognised that a given situation might be resolved using a simple skill check or as a skill challenge, depending on its context within the adventure unfolding at the table.Framing mechanics isn't fiat, at least in the sense that that has been debated in old threads. Deciding outcomes is fiat.Because a rule is a norm or procedure for yielding a resolution. Genre expectations aren't rules. They're closer to models, illustrations or paradigms.Sure, but reality itself is not a rule. And when I use reality as a measure of plausibility in an RPG, I'm not (normally) whipping out any trusty laws of motion. I'm more often projecting from my own knowledge and experience (eg that carts have wheels, that one-legged people are slower than two-legged, that friendly folks will grett you as they pass, that libraries have books with pages with ink on them, etc).I also agree with [MENTION=49017]Bluenose[/MENTION] - at least in my RPGing, principle of sociology and history, philosophy and theology (and occasionally even economics) are more important than physical laws for making sense of what is happening.Rules tend not to demarcate what can occur, but dictate it.I don't see why, at least not for my own case.I don't have an especially strong sense of what you use the rules for. (Worldbuilding? But I'm not sure how. Resolution during play? Your procedures for play aren't very clear to me.) In my own case, they are used to build game elements (eg monsters, PCs, etc) and to resolve players' action declarations for those game elements over which they have control (mostly their PCs). In the context of resolving action declaration, the rules play a rationing role. They regulate how much the players get of what they want.The interplay between the players getting what they want, and not getting what they want, is what drives the ingame situation forward. That interplay depends upon applying the rules.This has no tendency to refute the claim that, as a general rule, 4e is not going to break because a player's PC got to do what the player wanted. (The same thing may not be true of other editions of D&D. For instance, I think AD&D might be more brittle in this respect.)As [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION] noted, the fact that you can use minion rules to do A doesn't mean you can't use them to do B too.Did anyone upthread say that minions are only for when you get to a higher level relative to earlier foes? I didn't. I don't believe that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] did either.I think you are right that it is not expressly recommended. But it is strongly implied by the existence of (for instance) 8th level hobgoblin warriors (cf 3rd level hobgoblin soldiers), 9th level orc warriors (cf 3rd level orc raiders) and 16th level ogre bludgeoneers (cf 8th level ogre savage).In other words, I think the designers recognised pretty well the possibilities inherent in their monster-building system.</blockquote>

Verification