Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6101356" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is an interesting analysis, but I don't know that I fully agree, for two reasons.First, both the way D&amp;D (at least pre-4e) is designed, and the way it is typically played, make it less clear that players really are buying into a system of complications and stakes. For instance, Plane Shift has not always had the wording it has in 3E - in AD&amp;D it was unclear whether or not it permitted precision travel, and it seems likely to me that the 3E wording is a result of the desire to eliminate scry-and-buff style pinpoint teleportation than to introduce some systematic complication mechanic.Second, in complication-driven systems the complication itself should be engaging, so that what is a burden for the PC is not a burden for the player. Being bored at the game table isn't the sort of complication an RPG should be using, in my view. Obviously I can't speak for Hussar, but if the PCs had tried to Plane Shift to City B and instead ended up 250 miles away immediately outside the walls of their mortal enemy's desert palace, I imagine things would have gone differently.Part of the problem here is that D&amp;D has no simple mechanic for saying &quot;OK, to cross this desert we'll spend resources X,Y,Z - roll the dice and let's see how it turns out.&quot;&nbsp; The closest thing I can think of in 3E is the caster resting and memorising Teleport Without Error, or working for a couple of days to craft a Flying Carpet - but there are features of the system (eg depending how it handles random encounters) that tend to militate against even that sort of solution (which obviously has other well-known issues, like a tendency towards caster dominance of play).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6101356, member: 42582"] This is an interesting analysis, but I don't know that I fully agree, for two reasons. First, both the way D&D (at least pre-4e) is designed, and the way it is typically played, make it less clear that players really are buying into a system of complications and stakes. For instance, Plane Shift has not always had the wording it has in 3E - in AD&D it was unclear whether or not it permitted precision travel, and it seems likely to me that the 3E wording is a result of the desire to eliminate scry-and-buff style pinpoint teleportation than to introduce some systematic complication mechanic. Second, in complication-driven systems the complication itself should be engaging, so that what is a burden for the PC is not a burden for the player. [I]Being bored at the game table[/I] isn't the sort of complication an RPG should be using, in my view. Obviously I can't speak for Hussar, but if the PCs had tried to Plane Shift to City B and instead ended up 250 miles away immediately outside the walls of their mortal enemy's desert palace, I imagine things would have gone differently. Part of the problem here is that D&D has no simple mechanic for saying "OK, to cross this desert we'll spend resources X,Y,Z - roll the dice and let's see how it turns out." The closest thing I can think of in 3E is the caster resting and memorising Teleport Without Error, or working for a couple of days to craft a Flying Carpet - but there are features of the system (eg depending how it handles random encounters) that tend to militate against even that sort of solution (which obviously has other well-known issues, like a tendency towards caster dominance of play). [/QUOTE]

Verification