Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mustrum_Ridcully" data-source="post: 6007831" data-attributes="member: 710">Midichlorians seem more like the opposite - trying to make the world more "sciency" then it was before. Unfortunately ruining the entire feeling.Which may in turn be exactly what is the problem with trying to bring more process simulation - every time you are busy resolving your process simulation your busy working with the game rules, not with the game world. The process simulation of 3E grapple rules didn't lead to fluent gameplay where you'd focus on the narrative - it lead to people looking through their spell lists to see if they had anything without Material or Somatic components or the combat chapter to see what their exact grapple modifier would be, and whether the Snake would now do Constrict damage plus Claw damage or not with its succesful check. While having a rule that says "...damage and you grab the target" you only need to know "grabbed = immobilized until you somehow get removed from the grabber" and can continue talking about what happens in the game world. But in the end, the question is not whether a mechanic is "dissociative" or "abstract" but whether it worked for you or not, and that is not an objective measurement. We can describe why the mechanic is "dissociative" or "abstract" but that doesn't make it a bad or good mechanic per se. And my contention with the other side is that they refuse to see all the abstract/dissociative mechanics in all editions of D&D or any RPG, and single only those out that they don't like as something that is per se bad.Hit Points are a terrible abstract and dissociative mechanic. It works perfectly fine for you, at least sufficiently so that you accept it, but it doesn't become less abstract or dissociative by that. It's just a rule that worked for you. It's not an objective better design then, say, encounter powers or Vancian magic, because of that. It's just a subjectively better design. Figuring out why it works better for you may need you to accept it works better because it was in D&D from the start and you grew up accepting it and seeing the elegance in the abstraction it provided rather than all the "dissociative" flaws it introduced. Because that's exactly the reason why I like AEDU, for example - because I see the elegance in it, I see what kind of interesting play options it allows and how it enriches my game experience. I don't worry about the "dissociative" flaws it has.That doesn't mean that you have to accept just any mechanic or abstraction in your game. Just because you like hit points doesn't mean you have to like AEDU. YOu can fairly evaluate, but you can't not really be objective - you play it, you use it, and if it doesn't work fo ryou, it doesn't work for you. But that doesn't mean it's a bad mechanic or terrible design. You have to value advantages and drawbacks based on your preferences.This isn't like, say, a car engine design where you have to decide between two engines with identical qualities except one needs 20 % less fuel. It's about deciding between an SUV or a sports car or a limousine or a compact car. None of these are bad designs, but some are suited to your needs and some are not.</blockquote>

Verification