Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 6834769" data-attributes="member: 957">This is a very interesting post.&nbsp; By and large I agree with the end conclusion.&nbsp; But the path getting there is very different than mine and, yet again, shines a light on assumptions which underlie conversations.Agreed.This is my long held point that in 4E the mechanics inform the fiction while in 3E (and now 5E) the fiction informs the mechanics.Again, you highlight the homogeneity of 4E and the mechanic's first perspective.&nbsp; But then you get to the point where I strongly disagree.&nbsp; You state that the details in 5E do have implications on the fiction.&nbsp; I think you miss a key point there.&nbsp; The fiction has implications on those details, not the other way around.&nbsp; Then, in play, because the fiction informed the mechanics, the mechanics resolve in such a way that in a purely logical assessment the details are having implications.&nbsp; But those implications were built because the fictional aspects of the effect were already in mind.I suspect this sounds like splitting hairs to you.&nbsp; Based on prior conversations, I strongly suspect it.But I assure you it is a critically important distinction.I suspect you would agree that with enough creativity you could reskin a handful of spells and play a wizard as a fighter.&nbsp; But you would be using mechanics which were built with a completely different fictional context in mind.&nbsp; It would be a rather unsatisfactory result.&nbsp; Thus, I fully agree with your conclusion. Large scale reskinning is such effort and such minimal return that it seems crazy to pursue when other games are just sitting there waiting to be played.&nbsp; As always, I think the hackability of 5E is huge and is easily its best feature.&nbsp; But there is hacking a game and then there is absurdity.And, I'll also tie back to the thread topic a little closer.&nbsp; The cantrips are far and away the driving issue of this problem.&nbsp; And I don't think it is a coincidence that they fall quite far from the model I have described.&nbsp; Fire Bolt does not model shooting a blast of flame.&nbsp; It is a pure *roll to hit*&nbsp; deal Xd10 damage with no further implications.&nbsp; Yes, you can also instead ignite an unattended object.&nbsp; I'm betting that use of Fire Bolt (when used) has never made anyone think &quot;pew pew&quot;.&nbsp; &nbsp; And having another character use Ray of Frost doesn't end up feeling different enough to resolve the everybody goes Pew Pew.&nbsp; Maybe an alternate set of cantrips would be a cool approach.&nbsp; I personally wouldn't mind if wizards has to be a bit more creative in combat and lost some built in DPR.&nbsp; I want a lot more spells.&nbsp; And new 3rd, 4th, etc level spells can take all kinds of new ideas into the game.&nbsp; A new energy cantrip &quot;pew pew&quot; on the other hand would do nothing.&nbsp; And now I've gone way off on a tangent....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 6834769, member: 957"] This is a very interesting post. By and large I agree with the end conclusion. But the path getting there is very different than mine and, yet again, shines a light on assumptions which underlie conversations. Agreed. This is my long held point that in 4E the mechanics inform the fiction while in 3E (and now 5E) the fiction informs the mechanics. Again, you highlight the homogeneity of 4E and the mechanic's first perspective. But then you get to the point where I strongly disagree. You state that the details in 5E do have implications on the fiction. I think you miss a key point there. The fiction has implications on those details, not the other way around. Then, in play, because the fiction informed the mechanics, the mechanics resolve in such a way that in a purely logical assessment the details are having implications. But those implications were built because the fictional aspects of the effect were already in mind. I suspect this sounds like splitting hairs to you. Based on prior conversations, I strongly suspect it. But I assure you it is a critically important distinction. I suspect you would agree that with enough creativity you could reskin a handful of spells and play a wizard as a fighter. But you would be using mechanics which were built with a completely different fictional context in mind. It would be a rather unsatisfactory result. Thus, I fully agree with your conclusion. Large scale reskinning is such effort and such minimal return that it seems crazy to pursue when other games are just sitting there waiting to be played. As always, I think the hackability of 5E is huge and is easily its best feature. But there is hacking a game and then there is absurdity. And, I'll also tie back to the thread topic a little closer. The cantrips are far and away the driving issue of this problem. And I don't think it is a coincidence that they fall quite far from the model I have described. Fire Bolt does not model shooting a blast of flame. It is a pure *roll to hit* deal Xd10 damage with no further implications. Yes, you can also instead ignite an unattended object. I'm betting that use of Fire Bolt (when used) has never made anyone think "pew pew". And having another character use Ray of Frost doesn't end up feeling different enough to resolve the everybody goes Pew Pew. Maybe an alternate set of cantrips would be a cool approach. I personally wouldn't mind if wizards has to be a bit more creative in combat and lost some built in DPR. I want a lot more spells. And new 3rd, 4th, etc level spells can take all kinds of new ideas into the game. A new energy cantrip "pew pew" on the other hand would do nothing. And now I've gone way off on a tangent.... [/QUOTE]

Verification