NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8634148" data-attributes="member: 6790260">We weren't talking about my 5e play; we were talking about [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] 's play. So you should probably ask him.In my experience? They hit a wall, and the game disbands shortly thereafter. I've seen it happen on three different occasions with three completely unrelated groups. In at least two cases, it caused people to decide that TTRPGs just really weren't for them.I wasn't implying you were. What I'm saying is, part of why Advantage has been lauded by its fans is very specifically that it cannot, even in principle, become overly complicated. It is impossible to be outside of three states: no impact (whether because no change, or because you have both things so they cancel out), rolling twice and taking the best, or rolling twice and taking the worst. The fact that it eliminated (most) modifiers was in fact highly celebrated. We now see that it has led to frequently dead-end design, because there's only one place to go, and as soon as you go there, there's no more room for growth.Well, I cannot comment on your experience there, but again that doesn't sound to me like what I'm calling Simulation. It sounds like a Conceit (historical fiction) and Emulation (portraying our modern ideas and understandings about such things.) Without further details, it's hard to say much more than that.I don't see how the original Free Kriegsspiel doesn't. The whole point of dispensing with all the rules (except the very, very basic "roll to determine losses" stuff) was to make it so players would feel like military commanders. The referee rules whatever they feel like ruling, whenever they feel like ruling it; consistency is not a virtue, it's merely a pattern, and it not only can be but should be broken the instant it seems better to do so than to not do so. That is fundamentally antagonistic to what "Simulation" is. Simulation is all about being external to the participants--they may feed in data (e.g. populating a previously-unexamined area with NPCs), but once the data is in, it has a life of its own, it is procedural. Emulation, on the other hand, is performative, a living expression of something, and that expression is more important than consistency for its own sake. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." (Meaning, even if you made a very firm conclusion yesterday, but your intuition tells you you should break it today, do it and never regret it.) That ethos is precisely what FKR-style play espouses, and it is pretty thoroughly opposed to Simulation.Well, I can tell you where it was first used consistently in D&D: 4e. Specifically, it was the core "damage" boost mechanic for Avengers. Every Striker in 4e has some kind of mechanic that gives them extra damage. Rangers had Hunter's Mark (which got a...weak...implementation in 5e), Rogues obviously had Sneak Attack, Sorcerers just straight-up added their Charisma modifier to damage dealt by Arcane attack powers, etc. Avengers were somewhat unique in that their "damage" boost mechanic...wasn't actually about damage at all. Instead, it was about accuracy. Every attack they made against their Oath of Enmity target, they would roll 2d20 and take the higher value--aka, rolling with advantage. As a result, Avengers were known not for their high damage but their consistent damage, which played into their "divine executioner"/"terrible swift sword"/"inevitable vengeance" theme. (This is another very 4e-style "the mechanic tells a story, and the story invokes the mechanics" kind of structure, which is part of why people say it fits well with Story Now play.)</blockquote>

Verification