Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5478045" data-attributes="member: 42582">Eyebeams, thanks for the reply.I agree that the resolution mechanics point you towards the narrative or thematic logics of the worlds that these games create. But I still want to assert that they don't do this by modelling the ingame physics of those worlds. Without some sort of contrast like this, I don't know how to capture the difference between (for example) RuneQuest and HeroQuest.Clearly. Though I think it is interesting to see a RPG try to make class a focus of the game.I didn't know Mearls had said this. I've posted frequently that 4e seems designed to produce a game that &quot;tells the story of D&amp;D&quot; - the effect of scaling across character build and encounter design, combined with the Monster Manuals as written, is to give a game that starts with goblins and kobolds and proceeds via drow and mind flayers to conclude with Lolth and Orcus. And the epic level demigods who confront Lolth and Orcus won't be worrying about mundane locks or 10' deep pits.I think that the more you try to depart from this, the more you'll bump into the limits of the system. (I don't know if this counts as advocating obedience. I do think it's a realistic observation.)This is all true. I think it's especially true of a (relatively) mass-market game like D&amp;D that people will try and to very different things with it. But I'm not sure what you think designers should be doing to take account of that reality (eg produce variant subsystems?; produce modules and worlds that can support varying playstyles?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5478045, member: 42582"] Eyebeams, thanks for the reply. I agree that the resolution mechanics point you towards the narrative or thematic logics of the worlds that these games create. But I still want to assert that they don't do this by modelling the ingame physics of those worlds. Without some sort of contrast like this, I don't know how to capture the difference between (for example) RuneQuest and HeroQuest. Clearly. Though I think it is interesting to see a RPG try to make class a focus of the game. I didn't know Mearls had said this. I've posted frequently that 4e seems designed to produce a game that "tells the story of D&D" - the effect of scaling across character build and encounter design, combined with the Monster Manuals as written, is to give a game that starts with goblins and kobolds and proceeds via drow and mind flayers to conclude with Lolth and Orcus. And the epic level demigods who confront Lolth and Orcus won't be worrying about mundane locks or 10' deep pits. I think that the more you try to depart from this, the more you'll bump into the limits of the system. (I don't know if this counts as advocating obedience. I do think it's a realistic observation.) This is all true. I think it's especially true of a (relatively) mass-market game like D&D that people will try and to very different things with it. But I'm not sure what you think designers should be doing to take account of that reality (eg produce variant subsystems?; produce modules and worlds that can support varying playstyles?) [/QUOTE]

Verification