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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which is all fair, but then you shouldn't be surprised if that's not the effect everyone else is trying for.

Sure, never criticized anyone else's goals. I just provided a logical explanation and description of what I did and why. Heck, its just a game I invented, I don't even expect anyone to read it, let alone play it, or care about what I did, to be perfectly honest.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, never criticized anyone else's goals. I just provided a logical explanation and description of what I did and why. Heck, its just a game I invented, I don't even expect anyone to read it, let alone play it, or care about what I did, to be perfectly honest.

However, remember this was my reaction to "Meh, usually there's one nice big fat cinematic element there which you take. The rest? What is really gained?" The answer is "plenty, but just not things you prioritize."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

However, remember this was my reaction to "Meh, usually there's one nice big fat cinematic element there which you take. The rest? What is really gained?" The answer is "plenty, but just not things you prioritize."

Yes, you may gain something, I would not. Instead I gained something by going on to the rest of the scene without being bogged down in figuring out so many modifiers. Obviously I value that more than you do and it is my priority. You wouldn't find it so it seems. I mean, when someone asks such a question, it is just a question.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes, you may gain something, I would not.

Yes, but then why are you asking the question to me in response? It only makes sense when you assume a common set of aims.

Instead I gained something by going on to the rest of the scene without being bogged down in figuring out so many modifiers. Obviously I value that more than you do and it is my priority. You wouldn't find it so it seems. I mean, when someone asks such a question, it is just a question.

See above. Frankly, it comes across as either a rhetorical ploy or an assumption of universalism here.

 

[Garthanos]

Well, in HoML different weapons base on different abilities, and may also attack different defenses. Or you may just use a different power, they are not generally too hard to get. Speaking for myself when I describe a creature I think the description should be indicative of what its strong and weak defenses are, etc.

Its not as flexible as you would like yet I suspect

 

[Garthanos]

Yes, you may gain something, I would not. Instead I gained something by going on to the rest of the scene without being bogged down in figuring out so many modifiers.

TALK about absolutist either its figuring out so many modifiers it bogs you down or its just restricted to one which may or may not actual have an effect (advantage can be no effect),

Its called an argument that excludes the middle.

When you only have a small party and only a really limited number of ways of gaining situational benefit it probably matters less.

In a larger party, the density of viable sources goes up. What if you could get double flank (call it surrounded) for advantage and normal flank for lesser.

In support of Lan wanting even more like +1 to +5
What if your Warlord gives you a tactical speech describing a battle plan for a known location maybe? before the battle and your bard sings a song to inspire (and it gives advantage but at higher levels its full advantage) you never ever have cause to try and find flanking? doesn't that seem wrong?

Perhaps the solution to the above instead of allowing more than 2 stackables like the 5 mentioned might be to have one of them defined in terms of the other (like the bard or warlords ability making flanking easy in some fashion and trivial at high level)

It just seems very very easy to have one sort of situational advantage that makes things less interesting in terms of battlefield choices.

They made the Bards inspire pure stacking in 5e and ignored their keep it just advantage... I wonder why? Because all or nothing with no stacking is boring

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

TALK about absolutist either its figuring out so many modifiers it bogs you down or its just restricted to one which may or may not actual have an effect (advantage can be no effect),

Its called an argument that excludes the middle.

When you only have a small party and only a really limited number of ways of gaining situational benefit it probably matters less.

In a larger party, the density of viable sources goes up. What if you could get double flank (call it surrounded) for advantage and normal flank for lesser.

In support of Lan wanting even more like +1 to +5
What if your Warlord gives you a tactical speech describing a battle plan for a known location maybe? before the battle and your bard sings a song to inspire (and it gives advantage but at higher levels its full advantage) you never ever have cause to try and find flanking? doesn't that seem wrong?

Perhaps the solution to the above instead of allowing more than 2 stackables like the 5 mentioned might be to have one of them defined in terms of the other (like the bard or warlords ability making flanking easy in some fashion and trivial at high level)

It just seems very very easy to have one sort of situational advantage that makes things less interesting in terms of battlefield choices.

They made the Bards inspire pure stacking in 5e and ignored their keep it just advantage... I wonder why? Because all or nothing with no stacking is boring

Well, there are a lot of possible responses to this: I mean, the basic and most fundamental one is the 'clue hammer' response. If I'm fundamentally interested in what the narrative does, and in a clear explication of the story, then I don't GENERALLY want a lot of small factors contributing to each activity, as it is not really a very clear and concise 'story'. So, I tend to shy away from the more traditional 'stacks of situational modifiers' approach.

That being said, when you have something that is, let us say, 'environmental', it could be manifested as a single permanent modifier that is included in the situation. This might be a way to implement something like "I inspired everyone with a song" for example. However, there are a TON of other ways for that to be implemented as well, so its not like anyone needs to die on the hill of 'there must be stacks of modifiers'.

For instance, in HoML we have power, measured in power points. Power also has a source, which can matter when you get into doing stuff outside your normal 'shtick'. A 'bardic inspiration' could thus give you a power point, or allow you to use power as if it had a different source, both of which could be significant. It could give you a permanent bonus to your DR, produce some sort of action economy advantage, or lots of other things. Honestly, once you stop focusing on stacking bonuses, a lot of other options could open up. Heck, maybe there should be an 'inspired' condition, that would be cool!

 

[Garthanos]

Its not as flexible as you would like yet I suspect

Well, there are a lot of possible responses to this: I mean, the basic and most fundamental one is the 'clue hammer' response. If I'm fundamentally interested in what the narrative does, and in a clear explication of the story, then I don't GENERALLY want a lot of small factors contributing to each activity, as it is not really a very clear and concise 'story'. So, I tend to shy away from the more traditional 'stacks of situational modifiers' approach.

Game level play loses its real support

That being said, when you have something that is, let us say, 'environmental', it could be manifested as a single permanent modifier that is included in the situation.

Yes one can foist things off on the DM

This might be a way to implement something like "I inspired everyone with a song" for example. However, there are a TON of other ways for that to be implemented as well, so its not like anyone needs to die on the hill of 'there must be stacks of modifiers'.

5e made the Warlords temp hit points to do something "different" and of course gave it to everyone willing to spend the feat (and mucked up other warlord stuff too) and yes other effects are possible but in general cases if you fail to hit or succeed on that skill check tadah you are back to D&Ds gee that was a boring waste of choice and often also a bleh use of resource. Black and White results do not impress me just like On or Off benefits.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, there are a lot of possible responses to this: I mean, the basic and most fundamental one is the 'clue hammer' response. If I'm fundamentally interested in what the narrative does, and in a clear explication of the story, then I don't GENERALLY want a lot of small factors contributing to each activity, as it is not really a very clear and concise 'story'. So, I tend to shy away from the more traditional 'stacks of situational modifiers' approach.

That being said, when you have something that is, let us say, 'environmental', it could be manifested as a single permanent modifier that is included in the situation. This might be a way to implement something like "I inspired everyone with a song" for example. However, there are a TON of other ways for that to be implemented as well, so its not like anyone needs to die on the hill of 'there must be stacks of modifiers'.

For instance, in HoML we have power, measured in power points. Power also has a source, which can matter when you get into doing stuff outside your normal 'shtick'. A 'bardic inspiration' could thus give you a power point, or allow you to use power as if it had a different source, both of which could be significant. It could give you a permanent bonus to your DR, produce some sort of action economy advantage, or lots of other things. Honestly, once you stop focusing on stacking bonuses, a lot of other options could open up. Heck, maybe there should be an 'inspired' condition, that would be cool!

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.

 

[Garthanos]

ttackers 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.

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).