Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
Again, this is silly. You don't need to talk about hypothetical situations when you can cite actual examples from various games.
Or, if you're going to use hypothetical, take an existing system and do what you're talking about. Take a magic system from the game of your choice, rename everything accordingly, but keep the mechanics intact.
I can tell you, without you wasting the time (or you refusing to waste the time), that it will not work because they are not independent. The situations in which the game compels you to roll dice are based on what is happening in the imagined part of the game. You don't roll damage for spells until you have successfully cast them. You don't roll on the critical failure table until you critically fail. You don't roll to cast a spell until the appropriate situation arises. Sometimes, you don't even roll to cast a spell.
Your example of farming is poor because there are outside factors to consider. Droughts happen, as do floods. Just replacing the entries on the tables from "You summon a demon" to "You have a drought this year" doesn't work because one is based on your ability to cast a spell, and the other the weather, which we have no control over.
Creating any resolution system for a specific function is going to lead to particulars unique to that component. Going with system like 4E, where there is a unified internal mechanic, will remove some of those particulars, but not all of them.
And we're back where we started. I said 4E seemed to lack flavor* as there is no distinction between a daily and a spell. You argued that mechanics don't add flavor. I provided examples that clearly support my position. Until you flesh out your hypothetical and support your hypothesis, I will remain unconvinced.
*I have not played 4E, and am not trying to imply anything about the merit of the game in this statement. This is an observation based on a few readings of the 4E PHB. I would gladly test this hypothesis if I had a group interested in the system.
This statement, and the bold word in particular, are causing issues. What "flavor" specifically do you think is lacking? What do you even mean by "flavor"? Is it because a "spell" can do 3d10 damage to one enemy, and a "daily" can do the same thing? Is it because a spell is a kind of daily power?
All "daily" indicates is how often you can use that power. An analogy to your statement ("there is no distinction between a daily and a spell") would be like saying there's no distinction between a d20 and a skill check. One is a thing you do, the other is what you use to do it.
In the plainest terms, I just don't understand what you're trying to say.
A 4e wizard's daily is a spell. Earlier versions' spell slots could just as easily be represented as a whole lot of dailies. I don't see much of any difference in game play, one way or the other.
Heck, in Dark Sun vegetation and magic go hand-in-hand.
That is not what I'm saying. I don't want to start an edition war, as I'm not really all that fond of Pathfinder/3.5 and I'm indifferent to the concept of Vancian magic as implemented by older editions.
As my footnote indicated, I have not played 4E. That claim is the impression I get. Maybe, as you said, it doesn't make any difference in play.
But that's not what this tangent is about. SJ claimed that mechanics do not not add flavor. I think they do.
As to the rest, Vanguard, you're using a definition of Flavor that most of us aren't. Fluff is Flavor to most of us. In Fourth Edition it is completely possible to replace the fluff of any ability/power without any mechanical changes. Therefore, mechanics have no effect on the fluff and fluff has no effect on the mechanics. As to your definition of flavor, all I have to say it that in D&D the setting informs flavor, not the mechanics. That's because other than a few minor differences in presentation, you're still just trying to roll high on a d20. Finally, my confusion about your implication that a Healing Surge could be used as a second wind. I was confused because Second Wind is a power everyone has that allows them to spend a Healing Surge...I didn't realize you meant it as as example of how someone might fluff a healing surge in their mind.
Tennessee Booth- Huckster (Deadlands Reloaded)
Ulvein- Drow Executioner (4E WLD)
I clearly understand that mechanics are arbitrary. My argument has been that the mechanics for resolving said arbitrary system will flavor the game.
You've still not provided any counter examples.
We should probably just agree to disagree.
Who's going to run the open playtest?
The ability to have my limbs hacked off and my eyes poked out in warhammer fantasy seems to make it more flavorful than basic dnd, at least in a certain respect, and that's one reason I like it.
steam profile
See my post above, and I'll reiterate here.
I literally can't understand what statement you're trying to make with regard to spells, daily powers, 4E, and flavor. What do you even mean by flavor, and how does it relate to daily powers and spells?
Are you saying that spells should use a different mechanical system from anything else in the game? If so, why? We really can't speak intelligently on whether or not game mechanics add "flavor" to a game when we don't know what you mean by "flavor".
It certainly is a thing that exists. Let's do a comparison, but, before that, let's start with a few base assumptions:
Ignoring the mechanical side of things, actions are identical across game systems (unless it's something idiosyncratic, like casting a spell). Swinging a sword in a Burning Wheel Game is no different than in a D&D session.
Though game mechanics may differ across game systems, they exist for the same reason: to resolve conflict.
Moving on. Let's look at an identical situation through the lenses of these two systems: your character is struck by a sword.
In D&D, you will lose some hit points. Unless you drop below to 0 or below, this wound does not affect your character's abilities in any meaningful way. As you get closer to 0, you may play your turn out more cautiously, but you incur no penalty should you want to keep on trucking and swing your sword back.
In Burning Wheel, depending on how powerful a blow your opponent landed, you are going to have a number of dice subtracted from every roll you make until you receive treatment. Furthermore, anytime you suffer a wound, you must make a Steel test. Success means you continue as normal. Failure means you hesitate by the margin of failure. If you have received enough wounds and dice penalties to reduce any stat to 0, you fall unconscious.
If these are identical situations, why do they play out differently? Because they have different mechanics? Sure, but these mechanics imply certain things about the flavor of the game. In D&D, nothing short of unconsciousness or death will put your character down. In Burning wheel, every wound reduces your character's abilities across the board and has the potential to stop you in your tracks.
One might describe this as the difference between a pulp, high fantasy setting and a more realistic, historical setting. But it's not enough to say "in this game, you are heroes facing impossible odds" or "in this game, pain hurts--a single blow can be lethal." These differences can't be isolated to the fluff; there needs to be mechanical reinforcement of this, and there clearly is.
Let's be clear: I understand that mechanics are arbitrary. No dice roll actually feels like what it's simulating. That doesn't mean they don't influence the flavor of the game.
I got that impression based off the fact that everything is an at-will/encounter/daily power and that everyone gets new powers at the same time. I'm not sure if that makes any real difference, but it is a departure from the early editions where each class has it's own progression and often rules that apply specifically to its class features (Rage powers, Rogue Talents, Ki pools, etc).
Again, I've never played the system, so this is solely based on reading the book. Maybe the powers feel just as unique as the class features in the older editions.
I'm not trying to start an edition war or shit on anyone's game of preference. Play what works for you. Just don't tell me the mechanics don't affect the flavor of the game, because they clearly do.
Did you not say:
?
My argument from the beginning has been that flavor is not solely the product of fluff, that is derived from the mechanical side as well. What goalposts have I shifted exactly?
Mechanics can influence flavor, but only insofar as you go out of your way to explain a connect between the mechanics and the flavor.
This entire time I've been arguing that mechanics and flavor exist independently of one another regardless of whether or not they can be connected. Which is absolutely 100% true, and a thing that you have been arguing with me about. You shifted goalposts oh, probably about a page and a half ago or so? I don't remember and I'm not gonna go look for it.
Did you not say this:
If the claim that I moved goalposts hinges upon confusing system with mechanic then we're equally guilty.
Fewer mechanics = less flavor, basically? As in, you were making a quantitative assessment rather than a qualitative one?
No. I was going to put a footnote on the last statement explaining that the use of affect is not a judgement about the system itself. Rather, different mechanics will create different flavor, not better flavor, or more flavor. Just different flavor.
For the record, I don't play any system exclusively, and not all systems are suited for every type of play. I enjoy the differences. For example, I would never run a dungeon crawl campaign using BW rules. The system excels at narrative games where you only roll dice if it's meaningful to the character's beliefs. If the adventure consists solely of mazes full of random monsters for your party to kill, any edition of D&D of your preference will be better suited for that game.
You didn't understand what I said there, I guess. Flavor doesn't come from (ie, originate from) the mechanics, though you can use the mechanics to influence the flavor of your game if you decide to connect them that way. That still requires that you develop the flavor separately from the mechanics, though. The flavor has still originated from the fluff of the world or [whatever non-mechanical thing]. There is no mechanic that cannot have its flavor separated from it. They are inherently separate.
And holy crap, system is mechanics. really, i mean, what
So when you specifically said that you get the impression that 4E "lacks flavor", you just meant that it has a different mechanical system than other games, and the way that system is employed and described gives 4E a different tone from other games.
Yes. It was a poor choice of words on my part, especially because I've not experienced said system.
Of course, the trade-off for having different mechanics handling different actions so they feel different in a tactile sense is that you can end-up wit something like this:
Which causes me to stab you in the face.
*shrug*
I mean, obviously they're not allowed to just write back, "Nope, D&DNext will not interest you. Do not buy our game," but that's interesting to me.
...Weren't Fortune Cards universally panned and then jettisoned? I didn't really follow that whole enterprise, but for some reason I thought it flopped pretty hard.
My FLGS couldn't give them away. Literally. The actual definition of literal.
I even let people use them at the cost of a feat and the one person who tried it got rid of it after a few levels.
WiiU: JamWarrior
Completely against my better judgement, I am actually in love with the idea at the end of the post. Basically, that Feats could be for Combat things, Skills could be for Exploration things, and some new mechanic could handle Social stuff.
Tennessee Booth- Huckster (Deadlands Reloaded)
Ulvein- Drow Executioner (4E WLD)
WiiU: JamWarrior
there's the game (that's everything we do at the table; we can call this system, mechanics, crunch, beebleblorps, whatever)
and there's the story (those are the things happening within the narrative which includes all sorts of hippie words like theme and tone; we can also call this fluff or flavor)
to say that the game and the story are linked and will always influence the other is completely ridiculous, because at its heart we are indeed talking about two separate entities here; we can, if we wanted to, play any roleplaying game without any roleplaying at all, and we'd end up with basically a board game. we could also say 'fuck the game' and just sit around and play pretend like we did when we were kids.
when we merge the two together we get a roleplaying game, and yes the game and the story can (and should) influence each other, but you can use any mechanic to resolve any situation. for example:
Elfbad McRangerbutt wants to kill a goblin. Elfbad can...
...roll a d20 and compare it to goblin's armor class. (DnD)
...roll 4df plus relevant skill against goblin's 4df plus relevant skill. (FATE)
...draw a card from a deck that describes my result. (Munchkin)
...roll d% and see if he rolls under his Kill Goblin rating. (BRP)
...describe how he dashes around behind goblin and totally eviscerates him, earning him a 2 die stunt bonus which will apply to his attack roll. (Exalted)
i could go on and on but i think it's plain that it doesn't matter which method we use - they're just different ways to get the same thing. story side, all Elfbad cares about is whether or not he has killed his goblin.
Player of Li Mei Feng, Monkey Princess, The Dresden Files Low Profile
GM of Monsterhearts: Blackwood
http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/blog/2012/04/27/tone_and_edition
'I don't like certain races so I want to make an in rules way of excluding them.'
What a waste of time. Give us all the options and let the DM decide what exists in his game. What benefit there would be to codifying this in a non campaign setting context is beyond me.
WiiU: JamWarrior
@JamWarrior that is stupid. We don't need any rules to decide what's available. That is up to the DM and the player.
I completely agree, separating the carrots and ice cream would be a big improvement.
That seems like a really roundabout way of telling your players what classes/races they're allowed to take. The DM doesn't need to hide behind rules to tell a player 'No you can't use that.'
So Schwalb is erratic, as opposed to Monte being plain bad.
Dragon Slayers
it doesn't need to take into account any nuances - you're introducing these little caveats in an effort to say 'nuh-uh' (which is what one of the earlier posters meant by his moving the goalposts commment)
put it to you another way...
Smarmyface O'Social wants to impress the bigwigs at the party tonight. he can...
...roll a d20 and compare it to the bigwigs' will defense.
...roll 4df + relevant skill vs. the bigwigs 4df + relevant skill.
etc etc etc
it's a completely different scenario within the narrative, but if i wanted to i could take every single resolution mechanic in existence that has been or ever will be created and use any of them to resolve both examples. and i could even just pretend to throw a random die and dictate on my whim whether or not Smarmyface achieves his desired result, bypassing the mechanic altogether.
i'm not arguing with you about the idea that mechanics CAN influence story and vice-versa, i thought i made that clear. i'm pointing out that mechanics and story are still two separate entities that can be examined on their own apart from each other
Player of Li Mei Feng, Monkey Princess, The Dresden Files Low Profile
GM of Monsterhearts: Blackwood