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: 6096259" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's not an especially big feature of 4e.Would you agree that 4e comes closest? (Although at high levels the "cliff" will only be relevant if it is the Pillars of Creation in the Elemental Chaos.) I don't ask this to try and prove a point, but more to check that I'm properly getting what you're saying.It is a mistake to categorise "tailored DCs" as a "standard railroad game"."Tailored DCs" are a staple of games like The Dying Earth, HeroQuest revised, Maelstrom Storytelling and other systems which so far from being railroad games are pioneering player-driven narrativist games.From the point of view of game design, the point of "tailored DCs" is not to engineer a railroad, but rather to ensure robust mathematics in encounter design, and hence reliable pacing and a context in which players will take narrative risks because they know the maths won't hose them.Well that's what a 4e wizard's level bonus consists in! Magical prowess - the wizard waves his/her fingers and the lock pops open!I think of it as akin to the 1st ed AD&D saving throw rules - as the DMG explains, a rogue's save vs fireball corresponds to reflexes and slipperiness, whereas a MU's save vs fireball correponds to the ability to manipulate magic and generate momentary counterspells. 4e's skill system is this sort of logic extended over a further part of the game.What I don't get in relation to 2nd ed AD&D (with its NWP) and 3E (with its skills) is why killing ordinary people with swords becomes trivial for every high level PC (even the ones with low STR and DEX and who aren't proficient in swords), but climbing cliffs and opening locks remains hugely challenging for everyone but the rogue (and, in 3E, perhaps the fighter as far as climbing is concerned).Either go all the way with a simulationist skill system for PC buidling (Rolemaster, Runequest, Burning Wheel etc) or take level seriously as a measure of general prowess. But why go gonzo on combat and gritty on non-combat? I just don't get it.This is the gonzo/gritty thing again.A 20th level PC can withstand being breathed on by a dragon - how is that character in danger of drowning in a whirlpool other than perhaps on the Plane of Water? The same PC can withstand being chewed on by that dragon, and in many cases is capable of cutting that dragon apart with a sword - in other words, is a paragon of physical prowess and resilience. How can such a chracter not be able to jump a ten-foot chasm - something I think I might be able to do with a running start - or run for hours?And in some versions of D&D, at least, a 20th level PC is an archmage, a mightly lord, or a demigod, on a first name basis with the gods! Wouldn't a mere mortal king tremble in the presence of such a person?I like this post and have enjoyed your posts that follow on from it.For me, it relates back to gonzo vs gritty - my take on what you're saying is that in a system with gonzo combat and casting, trying to treat skills as gritty is inevitably doomed to failure - the gonzo will just completely overtake them. That seems plausible to me, and fits with my own play experience.At least for my part, I'm not saying that gonzo spells & combat combined with gritty skills must be a problem. But I agree with sheadunne that it means that skills will tend to get crowded out or overshadowed over time. Whether or not that's a problem is a matter of taste, but as I've said I don't personally understand the aesthetic of gonzo combat and spells + gritty skills. I don't see what it adds in terms of verisimilitude, fantasy tropes, ease of play, immersion, or any of the other standard aesthetic criteria for fantasy RPG.</blockquote>

Verification