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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Eldritch_Lord" data-source="post: 6049546" data-attributes="member: 52073">To keep post length in check, assume anything I don't respond to is something I agree with or at least agree-to-disagree with.That we agree on.  When I say flavor-based and effects-based, I'm not saying that effect-based systems can't or don't have flavor, I'm talking about the "inputs," in case that wasn't clear.  Flavor-based abilities take fiction as input and produce mechanics ("Here's the flavor I have, how do I represent that mechanically?") while effects-based systems take mechanics as input and produce fiction ("Here's the flavor I want to end up with, what mechanics do I use to get there?").  You can think of flavor-based vs. effects-based abilities as fiction-in vs. fiction-out abilities if that makes more sense.That makes sense, I suppose.  My group figured that since the paladin's mark is already pretty obvious in-game (it's a magical compulsion that smites people), the language about marks being known by their targets was to establish that even marks that aren't an obvious thing in-game are known by their targets, because there's no need to say that a magical compulsion affects behavior.  If marks were explicitly a metagame thing instead of leaving it up to interpretation, that would certainly address a lot of my objections to them.I agree, and in my games it's the same way.  But even if it's not called "level" exactly, there's something that characters have that makes soul bind require better gems in 1000-gp increments, so there's still the implication that people know vaguely about this in-game, just like how in-game spell ranges probably don't come in precise 5-foot increments but it's an observable property that your spells can reach farther with more experience on your part.Right.  I'm not asking for a justification as to why you want a mechanic that does that--I like fighters who are the focal point of battles as well--but for a justification as to why that implementation does that.  I'm not asking for grappling-like levels of detail and fiddly modifiers, just a nod to the flavor so someone looking at the power can say (random example) "Oh, you add the higher of your BAB and your Knowledge (Tactics) ranks to this roll, it probably involves you outsmarting your enemies" or whatever."Harder to kill" perhaps wasn't the right phrase to use.  I'm using that in the sense that, to use a modern example, it is no harder to destroy a dozen wooden boards with an AK-47 than it is to destroy one wooden board--you need more bullets and time, but one AK will get the job done--but it is harder to destroy a tank because you'll need a different kind of ammo or a different weapon to do that.  Similarly, if all the fighter has to make him more resilient than a wizard is more of the same resources (hit points), then if the fighter has double the HP you just send twice as many minions after the fighter than you do for the wizard; however, if he has DR to make individual attacks less effective, miss chances to negate lucky crits, and stuff like that, then it justifies sending all of your troops to pile on the fighter because anything less doesn't really have a chance of succeeding.My assumption of process simulation is merely the (justified, I think) assumption that D&D's approach to mechanics has been one of process simulation going all the way back to 1e's <a href="http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html" target="_blank">"Gygaxian naturalism"</a>.  I'm arguing for revising non-process-simulation mechanics in D&D because that's what most of the system is like and those non-process-simulation are departing from the standard and quite possibly diverging from what the existing audience of the game wants and upsetting a large portion of said audience, as in 4e's case.  I'd be arguing the opposite if someone tried to introduce flavor-based mechanics into the decidedly fortune-in-the-middle FATE or effects-based GURPS, because in those systems process simulation is the outlier rather than the norm.Look at all the people on this and other forums who said around 4e's release that if 4e were released under a different name than D&D they'd like it just fine, or that they'd never liked D&D before 4e and are glad this new edition is more to their tastes.  I can't speak for anyone else, but when I play D&D I like and expect to see more Gygaxian naturalism and process simulation, when I play Shadowrun I like and expect to see more Orwellian corporations and limited narrative intervention, and while I play both games I expect certain experiences with each game and play different games when I'm in the mood for their individual styles.  While both Shadowrun and D&D involve small parties of paranoid risk-takers going for the big haul, my group adapts its playstyle based on the game--we're more cautious in Shadowrun and base our plans around being able to pull out a few awesome stunts if required, thanks to Shadowrun's higher PC fragility and Edge, while we're more unorthodox in D&D and base our plans around being able to start off with something crazy without worrying about it later based on D&D's higher PC resilience and healing, for instance.So no single part of the GNS trio is better than any other, but if a game has been heavy on the S with a side of G and then suddenly changes to be heavy on the G with a side of N, I'm not going to be happy because I was playing it for the S, while someone who didn't like the game before because they preferred a G+N mix might now pick it up.I'm not very active on this forum so you probably only see my posts on making the narrative aspects of 4e more simulationists, but I'm one of those people who views D&D characters as starting out relatively realistic at low levels and becoming superhuman as they level and so advocates that noncasters get Nice Things like running on air, jumping hundreds of feet, parrying spells, cutting holes in reality to reach other planes, and so forth.So it's not a case of me attempting to stealth-nerf noncasters by denying them metagame abilities, it's a case of me wanting noncasters to be awesome in-world rather than out-of-game.  I have no problem with a paragon-tier fighter stabbing an ogre and sending him flying twenty feet (Silverstep, L13) or an epic rogue double-jumping (Cloud Jump, L22), in fact I think sending people flying is something a fighter should be able to "just do" and add to his other attacks and that double-jumping should be something a rogue can do before epic.  I do have a problem when a fighter can make enemies rush him for no reason (CaGI) or a rogue can run past people and make them hit themselves in the face (Bloody Path, L15).I would have much less of a problem with those sorts of powers if CaGI involved smashing the ground with his weapon so hard that it cracked the ground and caused his enemies to come stumbling towards him, or if Bloody Path involved the rogue making an attack against every creature he passed.  Much better those explanations than assuming that orcs charge you because charging the fighter is the "expected" course of action, or that your enemies are so incompetent that they will hit themselves (not even nearby allies!) or that later enemies would keep attacking you even after they saw other enemies get tricked into hitting themselves.  That makes noncasters look amazingly skilled because their enemies are just tactically inept, not because the noncasters are actually amazingly skilled.</blockquote>

Verification