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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6330367" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I suspect that is true for most folks who have GMed a lot of different games and enjoy D&D but aren't entirely wedded to it. I can't speak for @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=11821" target="_blank">Obryn</a> , @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=18" target="_blank">Ruin Explorer</a> , and @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=23935" target="_blank">Nagol</a> , but when it comes to evaluating a system, I'm looking for very specific features which will tell me what the system is trying to do and how well it does it. Amongst those things I'm looking for is how robust the mathematical framework is that underwrites the in-play outcomes when PC build components meet the resolution mechanics. That is the real zoomed-out, top-down view of it. Bottom line is that there are a lot of cogs in that machinery that have to play nice with one another if they're going to produce outcomes that I (the GM) can reliably predict (within a reasonable margin of error) when I'm building challenges for my players. Whats more, I want the genre tropes that I expect to manifest from those conflicts to come alive as a result of my players advocating for their PCs as hard as they can, me pushing back with adversity to the same degree, and the system supporting us both in the (genre-coherent) resolution of those conflicts (rather than working against us). If the system says dynamic, swashbuckling awesome (!) on the tin, that better naturally come out in play (without me shoehorning it).Relevant to the above is "what does the math say about genre archetypes/conceits that the game promotes?" Let us say the math is tuned the way the designers have intended and we run 100 various combats (with all manner of variables involved so we get a good cross-section). If the Concentration mechanics + the Fighter's suite of abilities (eg Indomitable) + the saving throw system (eg a crap to average Will save at best) spits out a Fighter that is made chump (scared, foolish, or mental fortitude just plain easily subordinated) by NPC spellcasters/beguilers/fearing guys at a 50/50 clip, that promotes specific genre expectations. If the 50 % of the time that the Fighter survives the attack vs Will yields that the Wizard routinely escapes or turns the tables due to some uber-spellcasting contingency, that pushes genre expectations further down a specific path. Alternatively, if the Fighter can routinely survive that first SoS vs Will salvo (maybe 80 % of the time) and that pretty much always means that a can is going to be opened on the Wizard, that supports an entirely different genre expectation.Beyond that, the homework I do is mostly about "does this system coherently produce the types of thematic conflict we're interested in engaging with, the relevant genre conceits we expect to naturally emerge as a product of play, and is it robust to the pace of play I push the action towards?"</blockquote>

Verification