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: 6093288" data-attributes="member: 6696971">These features support strong scene-based and episodic approaches to play.  They also help focus tiered play by constraining resource proliferation.  It makes it easy to provide predictable, challenging material to the players.If I want to leverage strategic play outside of the micro-conflict, then rituals, martial training and the disease/condition track support that well.  Precise micro-encounter (not adventuring day) budgeting and PC resources built primarily around those conflicts.  This precision and resolution on a micro-scale alleviates the burden of constant GM eyeballing of the "fairness" and the transparency of the information that has been conveyed to the players regarding the threats at hand, such that the GM can feel that the players are working off of enough "good" information to consistently make reasonably informed decisions to engage with (and how) threats or not.  With the expectation of GM force to amp up or tone down micro-challenges, GM mental overhead is spent artificially wrangling the PCs, mid-conflict, away from the peaks and troughs of poorly planned or misrepresented (or poorly elucidated) encounters.  I'd rather spend it working to challenge my PCs and make conflict as theme-rich as possible, comfortable in the knowledge that I'm supported by precision and resolution in challenge budgeting at that micro-conflict level.It unabashedly is working from a top (adventure) down (encounter/micro-conflict) perspective in terms of challenge budgeting.  Having resolution and precision at the bottom when your focus is at the top is a mathematically dubious endeavor.  Its a measurement of a complex system as the goal and then hindcasting backward and trying to eyeball each of the micro-parameters that make up that system; historically, that does not make for precision and resolution at the micro-parameter level.  Its typically expected that you go the other way if you're looking for precision within those parameters (encounters).  Then, with that precise information available, you can plug the parameters into the formula and arrive at the adventuring day (the top or the "complex system") and have faith that both the encounters (parameters) and adventuring day (complex system) are finely tuned and precise.Next is not going this route, unfortunately (one of the first mission statements that made me cringe)."Rulings not rules" rather than "Exception based design".  The list is pretty deep.I'm still looking for intense, tactical depth.  Still looking for depth in monster role/design (this has improved but has a ways to go).  Still looking for subjective, of-level DCs for non-combat challenge resolution (much easier done than in 4e given the relaxed scaling).  Still looking for a coherent rules framework for scaling, of-level damage and control expressions for stunt adjudication.  Still looking for non-combat challenge resolution micro-systems/framework. I still see too much opacity (which D&D has historically, implicitly, advocated for) within the rules that are there, thus triggering further rulings, not rules...such that my mental overhead as GM is again not where I want it to be.  I still see little to no author and director stance control within the few martial PCs that we have (the rogue has had a wee bit sprinkled in and then removed...fighter = 0), although Backgrounds (not class build features) do possess them.Beyond those things, the richness and depth of PC build features focus  thematic play (thematically deep powers, rituals, martial training,  themes, backgrounds, paragon paths, skill powers).  This helps immensely  in knowing both player and GM are on the same page in terms of the  expectations of the challenges that the GM will bring to bear against  that PC specifically and the group generally; challenge/creative agenda  coherency.  You can use purely objective DCs for task resolution, stay away from conflict resolution via Skill Challenges (with subjective DCs), stay away from player powers that provide authorial control to the player via director or author stance and you can play a perfectly acceptable game with a Gamist/Simulationist table agenda. Conversely, remove all of the features I've listed above and you do not have the tools at your disposal to play a Scene-based, Gamist/Narrativist hybrid game.Next looks like it may very well produce an extremely functional few styles of play that have historically been in the sweet spot of D&D.  The features and design vision/framework that make 4e a great game for myself (Gamist/Narrativist hybrid); outside of Backgrounds (which I very much like)...well, I'm still waiting for those as they are not present yet.</blockquote>

Verification