Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[AbdulAlhazred]

Physical environment can play a role here too - you could be fighting on ground consecrated to an opposing deity, for example, giving +1 on everything (to-hit, damage, saves, checks, etc.) to the ground's defenders and -1 on everything to you, the invaders; never mind that your divine spells or effects are greatly reduced in effect here. Somehow draw the defenders off of their sacred ground and fight there, and these factors go away.

Simply saying all the defenders have advantage and all the attackers have disadvantage while on that ground doesn't work for two opposing reasons: one, if advantage is easily cancelled out by disadv (and vice-versa) there's so many ways of doing so that the whole thing becomes almost moot; or two, if adv and disadv cannot easily be cancelled out then it's way too big a benefit/penalty.

Well, I agree that just tossing advantage/disadvantage out there as some sort of blanket thing, or something you can just 'turn on' etc. is bad. At least in the design of my game it isn't THAT easy to get! I mean, if you want to arrange your tactics properly, which may involve some difficulty or risk at times, then you CAN probably get advantage OFTEN at the time and place you really want it most.

I still say other things are probably better choices and more interesting. As HoML is written, if you granted, say, a +1 permanent bonus as an environmental effect, it would still stack/not stack with other sources of said type of bonus (though it would probably also be a bonus to X, where X might be attack checks, defense checks, or perhaps some other sort of checks). So, some characters might NOT be measurably better off, but it won't hurt them and if its sufficiently beneficial for the party overall I don't think that sort of thing would be a big issue. However, I could just as easily see an environmental effect being something like "Free Action, once per turn, remove the dazed condition from your character." or something like that (obviously you'd want to make it a condition that the scenario probably inflicts fairly often).

I'm not categorically opposed to the use of bonuses (or penalties perhaps) as a tool. I just think its always worth considering first if something else is going to serve equally well or better.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

He suggest other things not necessarily advantage but like other forms of "advantage" such as all defenders have bonus temp hit points and all attackers take one extra damage from each attack this would be planned in advanced more often but they could become semi standard or dynamically. Not finding it super sized satisfying (but kind of OK if the numbers already work out).

I mean, one thing that can be said positively for bonuses as a design, they are a pretty darn well known quantity. So sometimes maybe they should be the preferred option. I just got a lot of tired of all the fiddling with bonuses and the constant reworking of character sheets that 4e particularly (but 5e is somewhat guilty as well, though a lot less) tends to encourage. Its fine for when a game is like "I'm a game, lets focus on my gizmos." but I was trying to kind of have my cake and eat it too there, lol. Like its a tactically interesting game, but also less fiddly.

 

[Garthanos]

I mean, one thing that can be said positively for bonuses as a design, they are a pretty darn well known quantity. So sometimes maybe they should be the preferred option.

In PF2 straight up bonuses have different effects depending on how high your total reaches and the action performed... but the cause of the advantage does not matter its applied by the actor in a sense automatically. Now RQ almost had something like that too... its not exactly new and countless others have degree of success having effects built in.

 

[Lanefan]

In PF2 straight up bonuses have different effects depending on how high your total reaches and the action performed... but the cause of the advantage does not matter its applied by the actor in a sense automatically. Now RQ almost had something like that too... its not exactly new and countless others have degree of success having effects built in.

While I'm not sold on hard-coding degree-of-success into the rules, I've always used an informal version in that, where it makes sense, a spectacularly high or low roll is likely to give more impressive results (for better or worse!) than will a middling roll that barely succeed or fails.

 

[Garthanos]

While I'm not sold on hard-coding degree-of-success into the rules, I've always used an informal version in that, where it makes sense, a spectacularly high or low roll is likely to give more impressive results (for better or worse!) than will a middling roll that barely succeed or fails.

I am pro having some idea of the results I get as a player I like my player choices to be more nuanced too. But some insane chart heavy games go crazy I am anti-that saw one of them whose computed results for attacks was based on medical stats sigh.

 

[Lanefan]

I am pro having some idea of the results I get as a player I like my player choices to be more nuanced too. But some insane chart heavy games go crazy I am anti-that saw one of them whose computed results for attacks was based on medical stats sigh.

Yeah, anything can be taken too far. And it's ironclad guaranteed that because it can be, someone out there will.