Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6006992" data-attributes="member: 42582">I wonder if you have heard of Robin Laws. Some people would regard him as the single best contemporary RPG designer.He has designed at least two RPGs in which DCs/target numbers/adversary bonuses are set by reference to the PCs' bonuses: The Dying Earth RPG, and HeroWars (known in its two revised versions as HeroQuest).This has nothing to do with &quot;emphasising the math, not the fluff&quot; - apart from anything else, calling it &quot;fluff&quot; implies its not important. The point of this approach to design is to make sure that the fiction that is created out of gameplay is compelling for the participants. What it does is deemphasis the importance of mechanical bonuses on PCs (because DCs etc are set relative to those) and emphasise the importance, in play, of the fiction. To give a 4e example, the reason a clash with Orcus is important is not because Orcuse has an AC of whatever it is, but because it is a clash with Orcus, and the future of life, death and undeath are at stake.Some people prefer more traditional RPG design - you seem to be such a peson. That is their (and your) prerogative. But can you please stop implying that others who enjoy a different approach, closer to that of some of the modern games designed by Laws and others, are not RPGs?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6006992, member: 42582"] I wonder if you have heard of Robin Laws. Some people would regard him as the single best contemporary RPG designer. He has designed at least two RPGs in which DCs/target numbers/adversary bonuses are set by reference to the PCs' bonuses: The Dying Earth RPG, and HeroWars (known in its two revised versions as HeroQuest). This has nothing to do with "emphasising the math, not the fluff" - apart from anything else, calling it "fluff" implies its not important. The point of this approach to design is to [I]make sure that the fiction that is created out of gameplay is compelling for the participants[/I]. What it does is deemphasis the importance of mechanical bonuses on PCs (because DCs etc are set relative to those) and emphasise the importance, in play, of the [I]fiction[/I]. To give a 4e example, the reason a clash with Orcus is important is not because Orcuse has an AC of whatever it is, but because it is a clash with [I]Orcus[/I], and the future of life, death and undeath are at stake. Some people prefer more traditional RPG design - you seem to be such a peson. That is their (and your) prerogative. But can you please stop implying that others who enjoy a different approach, closer to that of some of the modern games designed by Laws and others, are not RPGs? [/QUOTE]

Verification