Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6053358" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>I'm going to use this as a jumping-off point. </p><p></p><p>Presumably you're substituting 3.x "helpless" for "immobilized" here. I wasn't using "immobilized as a status condition. I was using it descriptively. As in "anchored to the ground by a length of chain" or "grappled/pinned by an enemy such that they cannot really move (in entangled's case, move much) from their current location". The closest 3.x analogue for this status is either "entangled", "grappled" or "pinned", none of which afflict the helpless condition. In this case, the party has no cover and cannot move outside of the cone/blast/burst/AoE volume. Nonetheless, they still are able to completely avoid the damage by way of Evasion or Improved Evasion. Evasion presupposes physical movement (it is not phasing as it is Ex rather than Su) to avoid damage. We not only have this problem, but couple that with the fact that the "evader" doesn't move to a square outside of the AoE volume (and, of course, cannot do it while chained to the ground or pinned) as an immediate/free action or some such. </p><p></p><p>So we have Rogues inexplicably able to pull this trick off. However, we feel that, for the sake of fidelity to process simulation, they should be unable to use their bread and butter damage move (Sneak Attack) against a considerable number of enemy types (undead, constructs, elementals, abberations, etc). Its this level of arbitrary and incoherent efforts at process simulation that are baffling. What's more, its this level of arbitrary and incoherent tolerance for things such as this while at the same time being "jarred" by things like Come and Get It, Forced Movement or Encounter Powers that I find even more baffling. </p><p></p><p>I understand that for a Simulation agenda, internal consistency of causal mechanisms should be the starting point for Resolution Mechanics as this is paramount. Further, I understand that a Simulation agenda is adversarial toward meta-game agenda and its considerations and interests. </p><p></p><p>However, in multiple locations you can find clear and present, embedded resolution mechanics that lack internal consistency of causal mechanisms. This would seem to be a non-starter but, for whatever reason, they are not. I find both CaGI, most (if not all) Forced Movement, and Bloody Path to have more internal consistency of causal mechanisms than I can envision for the above Evasion scenario. They may not be perfect, but I can post-hoc justify them with proper narrative iteration and I can look to our real world (and to genre's that are to be emulated) for the answers as how these things might come to pass. However, I find it difficult to imagine how a Rogue can <strong><u><em>reliably</em></u></strong>, completely avoid damage from a volume of <fire, cold, electricity, etc> that absolutely fills an area of effect in which he habitates...and he cannot move from...nor has any protective cover. My interests are not strict process simulation so it doesn't bother me as my Sim interests are of the High Concept (genre emulation) variety rather than the Process variety (This is the same reason why 6 below is where it is on my list). However, if I can do that with Evasion, I certainly should be able to do the same with CaGI, Forced Movement, Bloody Path, etc (this is your black box conversation with @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a>). Is this not the case for you? Is this scenario with evasion less "jarring" than CaGI, Bloody Path, Forced Movement? </p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>You say here that if FitM mechanics make it into 5e you'll houserule them out. However, what do you do in 3.x but use FitM to post-hoc justify the above Rogue's ability to inexplicably, reliably, completely avoid the damage. The answer is certainly not available to you within the mechanics. It is not available to you by way of an implacable internal consistency of causal mechanisms. Same goes for the "jarring" mechanics of cutting yourself out of a creature from inside (and the insane fiction that comes with it). You have to use FitM. There are plenty of 4e thematic exploits that do not require FitM. They have a clear answer beforehand. If you want to re-skin and use FitM you are encouraged. This, of course, is due to 4e's inherent friendliness towards a meta-game agenda (Narrative or Gamist play). I understand that strict Simulation (and heavy immersion solely from Actor stance) agenda is adversarial to this "friendliness". However, because the friendliness exists it doesn't then follow that you <em>must</em> use meta-game logic to handle many of the exploits in 4e that have internal consistency of causal mechanisms. You can just stick to those if you wish. </p><p></p><p>Martial Forced Movement is about as central to the game as the Evasion mechanic and the Swallow Whole mechanic. I find Forced Movement to absolutely logically follow as a Simulation of martial competition (be it sports or combat). In fact, my position is that if Forced Movement is not inherent to the system, I would say that the system is less of a Simulation of martial competition than one without it. At the very least, it is infinitely more sensical and explainable than the Evasion scenario above or Swallow Whole. I don't need to leverage a meta-game agenda to "buy-in."</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have a lot more to say about Process Simulation versus High Concept Simulation (genre emulation). However, I think that is enough so far. I don't want the conversation to too broad and unwieldy. Could you respond on:</p><p></p><p>- Your take on the Evasion scenario.</p><p>- The FitM (ness) of it and how that comports with your adversarial relationship with FitM.</p><p>- Your sense of Martial Forced Movement from an internal consistency of causal mechanisms (Sim agenda) mental framework.</p><p></p><p></p><p>After that, could you take the below (copied from one of my earlier posts) and put it in your own order from 1-6. After that, I'd like to construct some resolution mechanics (render a few maneuvers/martial exploits) from a High Concept Sim agenda versus a Process Sim agenda.</p><p></p><p>1 - Is it fun?</p><p>2 - Does it promote dynamism and depth within the tactical interface and the accompanying running combat narrative in a genre/archetype-relevant fashion?</p><p>3 - Is it balanced with other options such that it is good enough to be chosen against other options while not being too good such that there is no choice (you must take it)?</p><p>4 - Is it abstract/versatile enough that it can allow for multiple renderings/applications within the running combat narrative?</p><p>5 - Is it mechanically functional/streamlined with respect to ease-of-use?</p><p>6 - Finally, is it so abstract as to have no meaning at all (process simulation agenda)?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6053358, member: 6696971"] I'm going to use this as a jumping-off point. Presumably you're substituting 3.x "helpless" for "immobilized" here. I wasn't using "immobilized as a status condition. I was using it descriptively. As in "anchored to the ground by a length of chain" or "grappled/pinned by an enemy such that they cannot really move (in entangled's case, move much) from their current location". The closest 3.x analogue for this status is either "entangled", "grappled" or "pinned", none of which afflict the helpless condition. In this case, the party has no cover and cannot move outside of the cone/blast/burst/AoE volume. Nonetheless, they still are able to completely avoid the damage by way of Evasion or Improved Evasion. Evasion presupposes physical movement (it is not phasing as it is Ex rather than Su) to avoid damage. We not only have this problem, but couple that with the fact that the "evader" doesn't move to a square outside of the AoE volume (and, of course, cannot do it while chained to the ground or pinned) as an immediate/free action or some such. So we have Rogues inexplicably able to pull this trick off. However, we feel that, for the sake of fidelity to process simulation, they should be unable to use their bread and butter damage move (Sneak Attack) against a considerable number of enemy types (undead, constructs, elementals, abberations, etc). Its this level of arbitrary and incoherent efforts at process simulation that are baffling. What's more, its this level of arbitrary and incoherent tolerance for things such as this while at the same time being "jarred" by things like Come and Get It, Forced Movement or Encounter Powers that I find even more baffling. I understand that for a Simulation agenda, internal consistency of causal mechanisms should be the starting point for Resolution Mechanics as this is paramount. Further, I understand that a Simulation agenda is adversarial toward meta-game agenda and its considerations and interests. However, in multiple locations you can find clear and present, embedded resolution mechanics that lack internal consistency of causal mechanisms. This would seem to be a non-starter but, for whatever reason, they are not. I find both CaGI, most (if not all) Forced Movement, and Bloody Path to have more internal consistency of causal mechanisms than I can envision for the above Evasion scenario. They may not be perfect, but I can post-hoc justify them with proper narrative iteration and I can look to our real world (and to genre's that are to be emulated) for the answers as how these things might come to pass. However, I find it difficult to imagine how a Rogue can [B][U][I]reliably[/I][/U][/B], completely avoid damage from a volume of <fire, cold, electricity, etc> that absolutely fills an area of effect in which he habitates...and he cannot move from...nor has any protective cover. My interests are not strict process simulation so it doesn't bother me as my Sim interests are of the High Concept (genre emulation) variety rather than the Process variety (This is the same reason why 6 below is where it is on my list). However, if I can do that with Evasion, I certainly should be able to do the same with CaGI, Forced Movement, Bloody Path, etc (this is your black box conversation with @[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL]). Is this not the case for you? Is this scenario with evasion less "jarring" than CaGI, Bloody Path, Forced Movement? You say here that if FitM mechanics make it into 5e you'll houserule them out. However, what do you do in 3.x but use FitM to post-hoc justify the above Rogue's ability to inexplicably, reliably, completely avoid the damage. The answer is certainly not available to you within the mechanics. It is not available to you by way of an implacable internal consistency of causal mechanisms. Same goes for the "jarring" mechanics of cutting yourself out of a creature from inside (and the insane fiction that comes with it). You have to use FitM. There are plenty of 4e thematic exploits that do not require FitM. They have a clear answer beforehand. If you want to re-skin and use FitM you are encouraged. This, of course, is due to 4e's inherent friendliness towards a meta-game agenda (Narrative or Gamist play). I understand that strict Simulation (and heavy immersion solely from Actor stance) agenda is adversarial to this "friendliness". However, because the friendliness exists it doesn't then follow that you [I]must[/I] use meta-game logic to handle many of the exploits in 4e that have internal consistency of causal mechanisms. You can just stick to those if you wish. Martial Forced Movement is about as central to the game as the Evasion mechanic and the Swallow Whole mechanic. I find Forced Movement to absolutely logically follow as a Simulation of martial competition (be it sports or combat). In fact, my position is that if Forced Movement is not inherent to the system, I would say that the system is less of a Simulation of martial competition than one without it. At the very least, it is infinitely more sensical and explainable than the Evasion scenario above or Swallow Whole. I don't need to leverage a meta-game agenda to "buy-in." I have a lot more to say about Process Simulation versus High Concept Simulation (genre emulation). However, I think that is enough so far. I don't want the conversation to too broad and unwieldy. Could you respond on: - Your take on the Evasion scenario. - The FitM (ness) of it and how that comports with your adversarial relationship with FitM. - Your sense of Martial Forced Movement from an internal consistency of causal mechanisms (Sim agenda) mental framework. After that, could you take the below (copied from one of my earlier posts) and put it in your own order from 1-6. After that, I'd like to construct some resolution mechanics (render a few maneuvers/martial exploits) from a High Concept Sim agenda versus a Process Sim agenda. 1 - Is it fun? 2 - Does it promote dynamism and depth within the tactical interface and the accompanying running combat narrative in a genre/archetype-relevant fashion? 3 - Is it balanced with other options such that it is good enough to be chosen against other options while not being too good such that there is no choice (you must take it)? 4 - Is it abstract/versatile enough that it can allow for multiple renderings/applications within the running combat narrative? 5 - Is it mechanically functional/streamlined with respect to ease-of-use? 6 - Finally, is it so abstract as to have no meaning at all (process simulation agenda)? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlord as a Fighter option; Assassin as a Rogue option
Top