TheAlicornSage's page

crognus wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

I can't imagine a world where players would pay for a GM to come to their house and run a game for them.

Do you mean that you don't believe it is a profession, or that you know it exists and still have trouble believing it? Having a professional GM come to your house and GM (for hundreds of dollars) is definitely a thing.

It’s a Living: Meet One of New York’s Best Professional D&D Dungeon Masters

The Rise of the Professional Dungeon Master

Well then it looks like you've done more research than I have on the topic, so I'm not sure what more insight I can provide.

I certainly must thank Crognus for those links, but I asked cause I've never been in an industry before where people actually interact significantly with that industry beyond the task before them (for example, as a security guard I never see, meet, or talk with guards from other places nor get training/info updates on what's happening in the world of security) while you not only interact with your customers, you also get at least exposed to what other rpgs are doing. But most importantly, events for gaming and fundraising, and I'd guess might actually know a little bit about establishing a company both business wise and in branding (I might be wrong but I'm under the Impression that Paizo is a small company and you were there when it started). Heck, I don't even do social media (this forum is the closest I've ever gotten).

So from any of those perspectives that might apply to you, I'll listen to any advice I can get.

The itch you'd scratch being a professional Gamemaster would not satisfy what you get doing it for fun as a hobby.

There are a lot of musicians who'd disagree with this, at least in the classical circles. Many of the interviews include the artist saying that there love for it is why they continue.

In any case, I'm not sure how yet, but starting this kind of professional schooling is what I want to do. Just not sure how to do it yet. Any ideas?

What would you think of a Gamemastery professional grade school, akin to how some people study music on a professional level and there are even schools dedicated to musical study?

I see Gamemastery as an art worthy of study on such a deep and professional level. I'm curious if you see it as worth it, and would you support such a thing?

It recently occured to me, in fleshing out the BG, that I'm not familiar with this AP, so are we finished with Gaedren? I chose the Framed: Family Honor for the campaign trait, but I don't know whether I'm still looking to deal with Gaedren or not.

Any other recent events I might be familiar with would be very good to know as well.

:)

Back in 3.x, Battle Sorcerer was my favorite class. Kinda sad pf didn't get that as an archetype.

Sorry it's taking so long to get the block up, but typing on an Iphone sucks, especially with bb-code.

I'm not sure where I stand comparatively but I usually do just fine as a caster in combat even without a con bonus, not from avoiding combat but usually from hit and run tactics and use of environment. My current submission for example is rog2/arc7 so I can better fade after doing something, not to mention a snk atk die.

It isn't third party. The core rules gives you costs for making a single use item, spell completion item, etc. It's no different than how the potions can be any spell of low enough SL and not personal range even if it isn't explicitly in the equipment lists.

That's why I said spell-in-a-box, I'm not finding things printed elsewhere, rather I'm just taking spells as potions/wands and packing them differently.

It's not really a big deal, but I find bog-standard to be boring, not to mention that I'm a highly creative player that always finds interesting ways to do odd things. I even once used obscuring mist and silent image to make it look like a tower was on fire rather than under attack.

Yes, consumables only. The rules do allow creation of single use objects, for example I could make a "potion" that is a bracelet that affects the wearer when broken, or a firepebble a pebble that when thrown explodes on impact (or arrow). I'd call those consumables, but it isn't the bog-standard glass vial potions and pointy stick wands.

I should have been more clear that I didn't intend permanent creations. Even the necklace would be a single use. The abnormality of it though is why I asked.

Is craft wondrous all right? I intend to mostly make spell-in-a-box items, though I do have my eye on creating a necklace with contingency and raise dead/reincarnate since not dying is always a great idea.

Also, I was thinking of knowing Alika from visiting her at the church on occasion while growing up because she was nice, something a half-orc doesn't experience much (don't worry, she is a caster and occasional ranged attacker, just had the idea of playing against stereotype with this one).

I'm dotting. I don't get to play high level much so I'm hoping to get to. I'll put together a character tonight.

I recently found a solution to the forums being too wide and clipping off the side of the of the screen, but now I see a mostly transparent image in front of everything on the site, though I can click on things (touch really, since I'm on a phone) behind the image.

Width Solution (I'll post this on my thread for the width issue)
Android seems to have a "zoom everything" setting on the settings page where you can change the system font and font size. My phone was set to about 20% zoom by default (I neber found the setting before so it couldn't have been me). Zooming out as far as possible and shrinking font a bit as well as changing the font and now I see the full width of the forum pages except when typing. Note; this solution is not perfect, as when I'm typing a new post the right side cuts off, and typing a new thread, both sides cut off. In neither case is enough lost to inhibit anything, but it still is page sides being cut off. In the case of making a new thread the title bars didn't go all the way to the right, almost like titlebars had shifted to left off screen more than the amount of right edge that is off screen.

The Image
The image is mostly transparent and stuck to the bottom right of the screen, not the page.

The image shows a cliff on the right and a couple characters (the rogue and wizard) climbing a ladder with a sword being held in a hand in the foreground, all in Paizo's visual cartoony style.

Quick question, can I reflavor the goblin as a kobold? Same mechanics, different flavor?

Same with spells, can I be a sorceress but instead of directly casting spells, I use a small charm to cast the effect ala cardcaptors? Again, mechanically the same but flavor-wise different.

I'm gonna try to build a concept based on Cardcaptors a little bit, but not sure I can finish it tonight.

If that takes too long though I'll just use the lvl 5 Seoni pregen.

Sorry, didn't catch that the link went to gameplay.

I was wondering why there wasn't much posted yet.

Wow, that snuck up on me. I'll get a pregen profile up tonight.

Anyway, this is my first pf2 playtest game. Anything I ought to know?

It was good to be reminded of.

Though what is gamer connection?

Given that I'm online mostly out of need, I'm not very good at knowing all the places. I've got here and rpol, plus rpg.net but that one seems mostly freeform.

As for style, agency style is what I started with. It was my introduction to rpgs and my favorite style. I mainly want to see how well pf2 can run such a style.

Discord can indeed run such games easily, and some servers exist already just for such gaming.

In fact, a neat feature of Discord is that it can have bots that are basically custom scripted and therefore can do all kinds of things, including rolling dice.

You could in theory even make an entirely text based video-game played via bot commands.

Several bots are available from places, though without an external server, they'd only be running on my laptop while I'm online.

I figured on Discord both because voice-chat, and because it could keep notes and stuff saved as text for everyone to see even for following sessions, right there within the program.

Roll20 is a possibility, but I don't know anything about it, I'm looking into it this week. I thought it was paid, but someone said it could be used free, just not all features enabled.

---
Agency games,

A sandbox is the ultimate agency game. Agency game is the opposite of railroading.

The APs and PFS I've played so far are all highly railroaded. You are at point A and you will get to point B, then C, then D.

An agency game however, you start at point A, but where you go from there is up to you. Generally for a story the gm wants to tell, there are two options, first is to set up a situation where the PCs have something the villain needs and therefore the villain comes after the PCs no matter what they do, or alternatively, the GM plays destiny, which is like a hybrid or a disguised railroad depending on how the gm goes about it.

But the big thing to remember about agency games is that the gm will not indicate where to go. PCs must choose for themselves and generally the entire concept of how the story will play out changes based on the players.

With standard PFS, the basic idea of what happens is set in stone, and only the details change.

For an example of railroading in one module, the PCs are investigating a ship, and they join the port inspector so they can see the ship, and while at the port's records office, they must take the ship's registration and destroy it.

The players must do it like that. The modules was written around this progression of events, and while the players might choose what to say, or choose how to obtain the ship's registration, they didn't get to choose to follow this plan. This basic plan was laid out for the players and the players must follow it's basic structure.

An agency game is the opposite. If that example were an agency game, the players would decide whether they wanted to investigate the ship, look for other clues, or do something else. And even in investigating the ship, the players could choose to skip the port office and sneak aboard the ship via a different tactic, perhaps using the wizard's new water-breathing spell. Or the players might watch the ship from a distance and follow it to it's next port.

Basically, a game is an agency game, when the point of the game is for the players to make the big choices, for the players to express agency over the actual story plot itself.

So, is there anything off-putting about this game that means no one wants to join in? Or is it just the time schedule?

I'll be running a playtest of PF2.

Work has limited my original plans so the only table I'll run will be live over Discord. I'm not planning on using other tabletop simulator programs.

Group gets to vote whether to play my Test of the Starstone or Hell's Rebels (I have only the first three books, but I'd be surprised if it lasted that long). I'm not adverse to running a different AP or module if someone buys it, and importantly, the group wants to.

I do want to note that I am non-standard in gming style. This is not a minitures combat game. This is a player agency game that sometimes just happens to include combat. There is no need to cover all roles, nor focus on combat only stats.

Therefore, I want characters that aren't described as race/class combos.

Additionally, you can expect the world to be more responsive to you (no shagging in the king's throneroom unless you want the royal guard to toss you in jail), and I will not be leading you by the nose.

Any questions can be asked here.

I find 3d6 was a cool alternative to a flat d20.

I really prefer multiple dice for advantage style mechanics. I hate advantage mechanics for a single die, but like them for multiple dice (where you swap one die not all of them).

In fact, in my own d20 variant, I've replaced the d20 entirely with 3 dice based on character stats.

Thank you!
:)

During the second part of Gameday I'll be running:

• The Rose Street Revenge
  
• Arclord's Envy

Both are Playtests for Pathfinder 2.0

Sign-Up Here!

Can someone sign me up please. It's a google doc so my phone can't handle it. It doesn't matter which one.

What is the best paizo forum for posting articles?

There are many who see "rules" and immediately think of rules like they see in a board game or legal laws, rules set forth by authority figures, and in rare cases, laws of physics sort of rules of the universe. In all these cases rules are a strict thing intended to be followed exactly, and if an alteration is needed, the rule itself should be altered to accommodate.

There is a thing called "selective enforcement" however, in which there are rules that are expected to have a blind eye turned towards the activity unless a problem occurs, or in other cases is supposed to be followed unless "common sense" would dictate breaking the rules. I.E. such as speeding when you are trying to get a person to the hospital in time to save their life. The law doesn't explicitly say you are allowed, but rather expects police and judges to utilize good judgement and simply not enforce the speed limits in such a case.

Then we get RPGs. RPGs have rules, and while it can be fun to play a game treating the rules like a board game, or as I call 4e, a miniatures combat game with story, there is also a way of playing in which the rules are expected to have selective enforcement or even no enforcement at all.

Most of the time, players tell me that if I don't want to follow the rules of a game like D20, that I should go play freeform. Problem is, I see value in D20's rules for something other than being "rules."

To describe this other value to be found, I'll lead you there via a thought experiment, so perhaps it makes better sense why I like to have D20-ish rules without the enforcement expected of "rules."

To start, imagine playing freeform. Now, as players make choices in-game, players need more information than an author would give in a story or movie.

I.E. we do not know the full list of spells known by Harry Potter, we only know which ones he uses. His rationale for using those particular spells is hidden from us as it is not needed for us to enjoy the story.

But, as players who make decisions, as we are the ones who are choosing what spells to use or what strategies to utilize, we need far more information than is given in a simple story.

More importantly, that information needs more accuracy. A book can tell us a character is "very strong," and each reader will have different ideas about what that means.

But when a players describes themselves as "very strong," we need to know whether they mean The Hulk kind of strong, Body builder strong, or simply above average soldier kind of strong.

The easiest way to achieve this is to put together a table of terms, each defining how strong a character is when described with that term, whether it be a word or a number. In this way, every player can look at the table and use those terms so everyone is on the same page of understanding how strong everyone is.

Such a table can also include information telling how common or rare it is to find individuals of a particular level of strength, which tells us a fair bit of the world milieu.

Do this with a number of traits and you get what looks like a book of rules, but really is just a language to make communication about the world and characters easier, more accurate, and most importantly, concise. As this is a game, we want to talk and understand in a way that the talking is unnoticed (much like talking in our natively language goes unnoticed. We don't think about the language we are using, we think only about what we are trying to communicate and the language handles itself without much thought).

Thus we have stats, and character sheets, and a reference book.

Then we also find that players are getting irritated as the GM seems rather biased, the GM had player C fail the last three times C tried anything. The GM will almost always seem biased, no matter how unbiased they actually are.

The solution here is to outsource the success and failure decision to something other than a person, at least for cases when there is disagreement over what the result should be or when the game would benefit from it.

But simply flipping a coin feels arbitrary and disconnected from the world. Why should the barbarian have the same chance of pummeling the orc as the fumbling healer?

It really is beneficial, making the choice feel connected to the world when your not-human decision maker accounts for character capability and task difficulty. And guess what, we already have stats, so just use those as your measure of character ability by making the terms apply to the decision making system.

Then simply include someway for task difficulty to also apply and viola, you have a full fledged RPG, with zero expectation of rules being something that must be absolutely followed like they would be in Chess or some other board game.

In fact, from this point of view, things should only apply or be used when it enhances the game. For example, taking penalties for fighting on a boat should only apply when such a fight is uncommon, when those penalties are a part of what makes that fight stand out from the others. In a campaign where nearly every fight is on a boat, those penalties should simply be ignored as they are not adding anything at that point.

It also makes sense at this to simply use whatever rules represent the narrative milieu best, regardless of what those rules were created for, or even to make new rules on the spot for handling something even if those rules never get used again (otherwise known as a GM ruling).

Hopefully this helps some folks understand a radically different way of using the same mechanics. Perhaps when playing this way, we should call the rules something else, perhaps descriptive guidelines?

Using mechanics in this way is not playing rules, but using them as a language to communicate about the world and the characters.

Playstyles is a far more complex subject than "Intrigue vs Combat," which is basically just the tip of the visible portion of the iceberg that is playstyles.

So why is this important? Because of communication among players, and so GMs can more readily tailor their games to the players they have.

To paraphrase something Shamus Young said "There is a reason we don't use the word 'mechanic' to mean anybody who works on automobiles, HVAC, aerospace, civil engineering, and the myriad of other 'similar' jobs. If you ask for a mechanic, do you need your car fixed, or your air conditioner?"

If everyone understood the differences of playstyles and had good terminology for it, we could more easily find groups of a particular style we enjoy, and even when we couldn't we could still agree on a particular style for a game and thus enjoy it more with less friction among players.

Part of the problem though, is that players in general do not simply use one phrase "Role-Playing Game" to mean a wide swath of game types, but that most players think of that wide swath of game types as being a small and narrow selection of games.

Many of the differences between types are subtle and not superficial, making them hard to understand without the right experience, much like how people think of combat sports as being anything related to actual combat, when the truth is, a warrior that has fought real battles will see a grand canyon of difference in something an inexperienced person would say looks the same.

GMs, the serious ones anyway, should understand these differences so they can see what the different players in their group are and can adjust the game to best suit the mix of styles their players are, or even select players to get a group of similar styles, both of which would vastly improve the play experience of all involved.

___

Now I see there being three axi of aspects that affect playstyle, basically giving us a cube of a playstyle spectrum that everyone is in somewhere.

The three axi are meta vs world, narrative vs events, serious vs social.

The meta vs world axis about what viewpoint you have in thinking about the game. Meta is thinking about the game from "outside" the game. For example, someone who considers a course of action because it might build up character growth (in a literary sense) is thinking from a viewpoint outside their character. They are basically thinking as an entity outside the narrative looking in. The opposite end of this is someone who thinks from the viewpoint of being in the world, what is the character seeing and thinking, and acting on that regardless of any external factors.

Narrative vs events is about focusing on narrative aspects, like character growth and the narrative milieu, or on events like swinging on a chandelier and saying cheesy one-liners.

Serious vs Social is a simple one. Some people get into their games, and while fun, they want to take it seriously. Pro gamers, who go to world tournaments and such, enjoy what they are doing but are still being serious about it in a way that more casual players never will be. Going even further away from serious are the players who are not even invested in the game at all, but are there just for the social experience of doing something with their friends regardless of what that something is. For these players, the game could be tiddlywinks and that would be fine.

This gives us roughly six extremes, the "pure roleplayer," the Gamer, the Author, the Seeker, and the Socialite.

The Author (meta * narrative) is a player who wants to take part in crafting the story. They want to do things in such a way they would be enjoyable to read after the fact. They want to not only control a character but to fill in details about the world, craft wondrously written conversation with NPCs and other players, and take part in crafting the outcomes and events so their character can be seen going through character growth and things that make a good story.

The Seeker (world * events) is a player all about getting the emotional highs from doing cool, cheesy, or cliched jokes. They would rather swing on a chandelier because it is cool, than to do the tactically smart but less cool option. They are about the Thrills and Spills (an awesome video of this title exists btw, though equestrian in nature) of the game.

The Gamer (Meta * Events) is a player that plays the game like a board game. That is not to say they discount the story, but when there is an obstacle to be overcome, they like handling it in a mechanical way. They like having and using system mastery. Such players are the ones who always want game balance, because a lack of game balance makes system mastery less interesting and feel more like cheating rather than feeling like a master tactician. These players enjoy the part of play where they can show how mechanically awesome their characters are. It is how they get to feel good about playing. These players are also the ones most likely to become angry, depressed, or sad about "failing" on rolls, and GMs of this style are the least likely to utilize "Always fail forward" techniques to keep the story momentum regardless of rolls, because to them, failing a roll is supposed to be a failure, not a success with complication.

The "Pure Roleplayer" (world * narrative) is the player who wants to feel like they actually are their characters. Such players don't want any more control over the story or world than their characters possess. They don't want to know things their characters don't. These players want to explore the world and story as if they themselves were the protagonists rather than simply players playing a game. This style is both the hardest and yet easiest style because it is the most basic form of play every kid knows first, but is also so completely at odds with every other structured game in existence.

I have noticed that many folks who start out "roleplaying" with either a group of Gamers or of "Pure Roleplayers" tend to become stuck the most in their way of playing and have the most difficulties with each other. Gamer style and "pure roleplayer" style are complete opposites even when using the exact same rules, mostly because they are looking at very different things in their games.

The Gamers tend to develop their strategies by looking at the rules and mechanics, while "pure roleplayers" look at the narrative world instead, and each of those will result in different possibilities and limitations. A Gamer tends to see the rules as absolute and that the world should reflect the rules, while the "pure roleplayer" sees the narrative as absolute and that the rules should bend or even break to reflect the narrative milieu.

___

The troubles here come from everybody having a "box." You know the one, the box everybody is told to think outside of. This box is made of a person's experiences and what they focus on. So a player who is used to, and experienced in, board games (or video games which are the same thing in terms of this discussion) will encounter an RPG for the first time and build their understanding of it in terms they are familiar with, which means seeing the game like a board game.

However, kids who are still playing pretend when introduced to RPGs will think in terms of playing pretend and that means they will develop strategies built in a completely different way than a board gamer precisely because they lack any experience with board games.

For each side, this builds their box. It sets the establishment of how they think, understand, and strategize in the game.

When one player flips the table to make cover, the others boggle at having not thought of it themselves, but the entire reason they didn't think of it was because they have their box built around seeing the game as a board game. They can do the things one can do in a board game, which is move around and activate abilities listed on their sheet. The player who flipped the table, thinks of flipping the table precisely because their character sheet and rules are purely ancillary to how they develop strategies. They think like they are playing pretend, which means they thinks in terms of real world objects and rooms and physics, and the rules are just a language to help discuss such things.

I've found that in teaching new players, showing them both sides of this, Gamer and "pure roleplayer" opens them up to enjoying many different ways to play and keeps them from getting locked into a small box built on one style of thinking about the game.
___

So I advocate teaching different styles as early as possible, just like you don't show people only anime movies you show them anime, animated, and live action, the same should apply to RPGs, we should show the different styles and build terminology allowing us to discuss and communicate about the different styles. It would allow us to broaden our experiences in playing and allow us to avoid a lot of negativity stemming from being mind-boggled at the inexplicable seemingly stupid weirdness of others.

I haven't got past level 2 in an AP and I can't afford to buy any, hence my asking this question out of curiousity; Do you make encounters primarily equal to the expected party level, or do you use the old days style of lots of low cr encounters, some equal cr encounters, and a few high cr encounters?

While I'm glad you enjoyed it, that wasn't really my point in directing folks to it.

In the first article he says,

Traditional board and card games don’t run into this problem because their game structure is rigidly defined and limited by the rules

Here he points out that board games are "rigidly defined" and "limited by the rules." He points these out as differences from rpgs.

But most players I come across play rpgs like they are "rigidly defined" and "limited by the rules" or totally freeform, never in between, though some will swap back and forth. My point was that such a mindset is thinking like a board game and not an rpg.

An rpg need not be "rigidly defined" and are not "limited by the rules." And that does not equal freeform.

I think Paizo are aiming for “the same but better”.

This. I just hope their idea of better avoids leaning towards 4e or 5e.

I'd love to see more of Starfinder as they seem to consider that a step towards better and so might give an inkling (I like inklings, they are fun monsters) as to where they are headed.

Of course, I can't afford Starfinder, but I've heard some things already that don't sound promising, and the pregens don't fill me with confidence either, though there are good points in there too.

I am doubtful but hopeful that you are right.

In the meantime, I found an Alexandrian article that probably explains much better than I the difference in style I try to describe.
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/15126/roleplaying-games/game-structures

Let me know what you think, I'd suggest via pm, but then again, paizo's pm system sucks horribly (sorry, it just really isn't nice at all).

Edit: ninja'd

It's really hard work to understand what you're talking about

A defining trait of autism unfortunately.

perhaps it seems like I'm just having a go(?)

I don't mind. Always good to have a great person on the other side of the discussion.

Actually, there were an unusual number of great folks this time around.

There has been a misunderstanding.

I claimed d20 was not a pass/fail system.

KingOfAnything is the one who claimed d20, and pathfinder specifically, was a pass/fail system. I attempted to refute his claim.

They all need to level together btw, having characters at different levels is a terrible gaming experience for the stragglers.

That us not always true. My favorite gaming style for example most certainly does not require this. I've played on both sides of having a lower level PC and gm'd for it as well. As a player, it was just as fun.

In fact, my first game ever started in 3.0 and put me 4 levels behind the rest. No problem what-so-ever.

Also, that sort of thinking seems related to this article,
http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encou nter-design

As he points out, the idea of all encounters being roughly level appropriate is a thing started with 3.0, and incorrectly at that as 3.0 expected a wide variety of encounter levels to be faced.

And once you accept that variety in encounters, it is hardly fair to forbid that variety in PCs.

Including xp allows both options. Removing xp supports only one option.

Thus, I vote for keeping xp and avoiding "same level" requirements.

The core mechanic in D&D is:

“Here’s a target number - roll that or higher you pass. Roll less than that, you fail.”

Exceptions to that are...exceptions.

That’s what most people mean when they say D&D is a pass/fail system.

Except d20 doesn't stop there. It determines DC in a fashion that relates to the narrative milieu, meaning the results and DCs are actually informative about the world milieu. They are literally descriptive of the world.

A counter-example is Savage Worlds. You always have 4 as the DC. That DC therefore says nothing about the world, nothing at all. It has no meaning beyond whether the check passes or not. The same is not true of d20.

A relevant Alexandrian article that may explain better (since we aren't having luck with each other),

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-yo ur-expectations-2

The module, much like Emerald Spire, doesn't detail all of the NPCs...

NPCs are not the only things that can be described. Besides, what I meant by description was to describe milieu.

For example, something like "Unless otherwise noted, all locks on the doors in the keep were created by the Mastersmith Gorzo, and as a master of creating locks, the locks all have a DC of 34 plus 1d6."

In this fashion, you have additional info about the keep and it's creators, as well as using the mechanics to both demonstrate the master's skill as the thing which sets the difficulty and as a description of the lock's high quality nature (instead of simply being a bland and arbitrary chance of success), yet also includes variance as each lock is individually made.

This use also is recognizing the DC as a result of the mastersmith's skill and not the level of the PCs (especially if it were included in a non-linear, multi-level module).

I don't understand how the rules prevent players and GMs from rolling with that.

There is a difference between "prevention," "discouragement," and "lack of support."

The 4e rules by their very nature emphasize thinking like a game of chess. It is very difficult to play theatre of mind (and doing so still basically requires seeing the grid in your mind).

The rules don't explicitly say "you can't change me," but theg way theg are all tied together and work makes it harder to do anything really different without impacting many other areas, and trying to do anything that falls outside the rigid format established feels wrong regardless of how much it makes sense in the milieu.

Does 4E simply not have spells like that anymore?

Not really. Most of the ones that do remain have a completely different format for use called rituals.

In 3.5, I built a sorcerer that used Minor and Major Creation in combat. The gm allowed me special feats to cast them at combat speeds. A very simple and easy solution to implement.

4e rituals would not be that simple to include because they were designed from the ground up with different rules, format, and expectations in mind. It'd take more work from the gm to make it work.

And the more work a gm has to do to make something work, the less likely they are to do it.

I'm having a hard time imagining a group playing through this module and the GM telling their players, "no, you can't do that, you're only allowed to do what this page says you can."

There are lots of gms that do say that. Heck, I could even dig a couple examples right from the boards here with characters I've played. (recently tried a deception in a pfs module, and it literally got ignored until I said "hey" after which it finally explicitly addressed in which I was told "no, it's not in the module." So yes, it does indeed happen.)

However, when it happens, it is not an issue with the module, nor even the system. It is an issue with the gm.

This part of your concern seems like something that already applies to PF1,

It isn't actually a pure system issue. A system can require something by building other things that depend on it, but even when it doesn't have such dependancies, it can still make it easier or more difficult.

But it is also important to note, that a system lacking such depencies, still leaves it open to the gm to handle it in a variety of ways.

Initiative for example. because of how d20 handles initiative, it is easy to have the players go clockwise around the table instead of by numbers, or as I do for pbp, in which all players post for a turn and I simply weave the actions as simultaneous but in the rare cases where it is actually important to know what happened first, then I'll actually do an initiative roll-off behind the screen to determine the result.

Some systems literally cam't do that, while those that can may still be run by gms who rule with iron dice and are strict about it anyway.

One of my players might think of something their character wants to do and phrase it in-character, but another might look at their character sheet and wonder what the optimal path forward is.

The thing here is that most players of the latter sort are the latter sort precisely because they see only the mechanics. They literally don't think of or look at anything outside the mechanics, and if a disussion gets this far with them and they catch enough to realize a style might make decisions on world milieu but not mechanics, then they completely fail to see why one would have mechanics at all. They make their choices based on mechanics because they see that as the point and purpose of the mechanics.

4e designers obviously had that mindset, which is why there was so little dealing with out of combat scenerios, because they saw no purpose to mechanics if a choice was made non-mechanically. That is also why 4e is harder to adjust and adapt, because the designers expected that all or nealy all combat decisions would be based almost entirely on mechanics.

If you are not basing choices on mechanics, then you can use whatever system you want, though the system design can make it easier and smoother to use that way, or harder.

D20 is a good example of system that is smoother. It is easier to judge what DCs should be because the DC scale is objective and universal. 40 for any check is as difficult and groundbreaking as Einstein establishing the thoery of reletivity.

There are plenty of cases where it's appropriate to go beyond that, so it isn't a limit or anything, but with that as a benchmark, anytime you need to pull a DC out of thin air, that scale makes it easy to not only determine a DC but to determine one appropriate to the narrative milieu. Using that scale allows the DC to inform the players about the world. If a lock has a DC of 12, that is literally a signal to players that that lock was poorly made and likely crafted by an apprentice.

and I assume your list would also work in 4E or 5E, and will also work in the PF2 Playtest.

Aye, but the distinction here is in how it affects your way of thinking about the game and the events there-in, particularly when it comes to decision-making, in the same way constantly saying "I can't" in the real world is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How you think about, talk about, and refer to the rules and narrative milieu willl determine how you think about and make decisions regarding the game.

A relevant Alexandrian article,
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/magic-items.html

As he points out, mechanics do not make magic items interesting and magical seeming.

What could "pass/fail" mean other than a result range being limited to Pass and Fail?

Even college uses the term for classes/tests where you don't get a letter grade, instead getting only Pass or Fail (though college classes naturally still include the non-grade results like Incomplete and Withdrawn).

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

simple pass/fail which was the case in PF1

D20 and PF1 are not and have never been simple pass/fail. There might have been some things that are so simple they are expected to be not worth rolling for except in cases where penalties apply, with take 10 as a simple guideline for when in doubt, but that isn't pass/fail.

Heck, in my system, a core tenant is that every single action, every step taken could be represented as a check, but that most of that stuff would not actually be rolled unless the result is uncertain and would add to the game in a good way. I see that as a minor extension of what d20 already does.

You seem to have misunderstood the distinction between pass/fail and degrees of success as the default system.

It's true that PF1 has the occassional "fail by 5 or more" or sometimes "succeed by 5 or more", but the baseline system is that you either pass the check or you fail the check. Even when you don't roll the dice, such as when taking 10, you either pass or your fail.

I'm not talking about "fail/pass by a certain number for extra effect." I'm talking about the fact that you can make a skill check and see just how good a character performed in context of the world milieu without even comparing to a DC.

How far you jumped doesn't require a DC. You just make a check (subtract 5 if 3.0) and viola, that is how many feet you jumped. Whether you jumped far enough is a separate issue entirely in which you look at how far you jumped and compare that to how far you needed to jump.

Pass/fail systems are strictly meta. They have no context what-so-ever outside the difference between result and DC.

D20 is not pass/fail because the results have meaning and context ourside and separate from whether the check passed or failed.

The DC to pick a lock tells you just how skillfully that lock was made, and a master locksmith will have the same difficulty on her locks regardless of the level of the players trying to pick it.

I certainly agree, the gm makes or breaks the game, but I'd consider that true regardless of what style you play, though I can see how breaking the game might be easier for some ways of playing than others.

Heck, as far as I'm concerned, being a great gm requires enough skill, knowledge, and talent to be worthy of a college degree.

Is this view really any different from the'rulings not rules' approach?

No idea. Depends on what you mean by "rulings, not rules."

If you are referring to Alexandrian (one of his articles had something about rulings vs rules uf I recall correctly), then yes but not by a lot.

What I mean is that the DC to climb that Oak tree/wall of ice/ the thin slivers of hardlight that permeate the plane of air are in no way based on the level of the person attempting to achieve it. They are what they are. I perfectly understood what the numbers in PF1 meant and bounding the scale doesn't harm that, all it does is make it easier for other people to understand.

If that is the case, then awesome.

simple pass/fail which was the case in PF1

D20 and PF1 are not and have never been simple pass/fail. There might have been some things that are so simple they are expected to be not worth rolling for except in cases where penalties apply, with take 10 as a simple guideline for when in doubt, but that isn't pass/fail.

Heck, in my system, a core tenant is that every single action, every step taken could be represented as a check, but that most of that stuff would not actually be rolled unless the result is uncertain and would add to the game in a good way. I see that as a minor extension of what d20 already does.

Nope lvl 20 is Hercules at the end of his arc. Not Conan. They give out Beowulf as an example of a level 13-15 character. [/qoute]

What the heck kind of story has Beowolf as anywhere near level 13? I've seen a few stories of him, and not one of them has him that high.

Quote:

If you character doesn't want the mount you take out the mount feature, and then they just don't take any feats about mounts. Nice and simple. If you want a character to have favoured enemy options you can paste it in and any feats that build of it. Nice and simple. For character who want to avoid certain styles enabled by certain feats, they just don't take those feats. With more stuff moved to feats instead of baked in class features it is more likely that you can avoid those things without having to touch the chassis at all.

In d20, certainly.

But the new system has class feats. This implies that each class has trees of feats like 4e, that are specific to the class. These feats might be singular in topic, but they could also be very tied together, i.e. maybe a feat in one spot increases your attack and then increases it more while mounted on your special mount, and maybe that feat has a requirement of the feat that increases speed while mounted (and having no use without the mount).

For example, my copy of Halls of Undermountain has information on the world above, backstory and NPC's, as well as possible story hooks and advice on how to improvise more of these elements.

How much of it was conveyed via numbers, stats, and mechanics?

The tools used to convey info is an entirely different issue from the info conveyed.

I.E. telling the a character is a great leader is far more vague then telling you that they have a charisma of 16 and a leadership score of 19. The latter is less vague.

Pages 14-15 (devoted to GM advice) mention at least 6 different times some variation of "you can and should add, remove or modify anything you want in here, to fit your group's needs/preferences and flesh out the details."

There was a vast amount of similar advice in d20 too. Rarely was it ever used. Heck I pointed it out to several gms and still almost never saw them use any of that advice.

It may or may not be true that the players and GMs who gravitated towards 4E were more preoccupied with tactical board-game-style combat than others, but that seems from my view to be their personal preference and not a hard limitation of the system.

How about using traditionally non-combat abilities in combat? What about vague or unspecific abilities, like Silent Image.

Silent Image is a staple of any of my casters, as it can be concealment, both deceptive and protective. I've used it to keep enemies from knowing what spaces we were in, used to make enemies think a tower was on fire instead of under attack, used it to herd fey, block exits, terrify, and even to show maps and objects to communicate to others (I even used it once to show a tailor the design of a dress I wanted).

4e doesn't allow something to be used in such a variety of ways like that. You use it exactly as the rules say, or you are throwing a wrench in a well oiled machine.

And the entire design feels like a game of WoW, the MMO. Every class carefully constructed for balance and it is expected to face encounters of appropriate level.

DCs are dependent on level and they even have tables telling you what DCs to use for levels, not the world.

There are suggestions on how certain factions of NPC/monsters might react to non-combat solutions or taking someone captive instead of killing them, as well as history and motives for quite a few of them, which an enterprising GM could easily expand upon.

A good GM can play any module in any system. That doesn't really affect my argument at all.

I might point out though, that you should read The Alexandrian articles on the first 4e adventure and why and how he had to change many things in order to play it.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1861/roleplaying-games/keep-on-the-shad owfell-the-complete-collection

Actually, just read all his stuff. Every letter of it would be worth being printed on sheets of gold.

This bolded part, I believe, is the crux of this discussion.

Indeed it is.

It seems most of us here view these RPGs not as singular tools that must be taken or left exactly as they are, but toolboxes or bags full of a variety of tools that can be picked and utilized as needed and as preferred.

But this isn't actually what happens. And even for those who do something like this, they take chunks and use them exactly and consider this stuff that must be decided upon beforehand or if an unexpected problem arises only. Things like deciding how initiative works, but never making on the fly decisions customized to particular situations.

Basically, people avoid gm rulings in favor of solid rules. It isn't seen as good enough to make a one time call, it must always be a rule that always applies with full force.

I rolled a d100 and sure enough, there was actually a cat for them to chase. There's no rule in PF1 for that, but nobody needs permission to make the game more fun for the people playing.

Maybe I have bad luck, but I can count on one hand the number of GMs I've played under that would go even just that far. (and that still isn't the perspective of my style, though it is rather important to it)

The rules may say to use the Climb skill to scale a cliff, but someone can just as easily use a Survival, Knowledge: Geography or Nature check to find an easier path;

This at once is a step in my direction and yet also points out that you aren't there.

This is a list of mechanics. Why is this a list of mechanics, and not options seen by the character?

Why is it not a list like this: look for a footpath, use a spell, have the barbarian carry you, use a grappling hook and a pully to hoist yourself up, make a hot-air/lighter-than-air balloon, etc?

Do you see the difference between the lists? Not the specific options, but that your list is a list looking at the mechanics for an answer vs a list looking at the world for an answer.

Certainly, every option in my list could easily have mechanics chosen to suit them, but my list isn't a list of mechanics, it is a list of narrative milieu based options. My list could be be for any system. Some might be good for as there would be mechanics easily adapted or used directly (survival skill check for finding the footpath), while other options and systems might require something to be cobbled together (hoisting with the pulley).

My list is system agnostic, but relies on a an understanding about the narrative milieu, i.e. obviously magic exists as that is on the list.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

My concern is that as pf2 heads away from d20 that'll go towards 4e, and lose more and more usefullness in these ways,
-it'll lose connection between numbers and the world milieu,
-it'll be more like legos and less like clay in terms of the scale at which flexibility is found.
-it'll try so hard to always have answer that it becomes harder to cobble together an answer when the system does fail to provide.
-it'll string things together so tightly, that it becomes a nightmare to make adjustments. I.E.,will the classes be so dependant on...

There we go some actual meat to your concerns. None of which seem to be particularily enlightened or requiring several pages of metaphors to get to.

It seems they are keeping the connection between numbers and the world. Devs have stated that numbers that represent a tree represent that tree whether you are lvl 1 or lvl 20. That isn't any different from PF1 as far as I can tell, and with the more bounded levels of modifiers you can actually expect these numbers to stay more reasonable.

Not entirely sure what they mean by that, but I suspect what they mean is that the numbers will now be simple pass/fail.

One of the great things about D20 was that it wasn't bounded. But because the lack of being bounded, it required a good understanding of what the numbers actually meant, but the d20 books didn't spell it out for you as explicitly as they could have, thus you had people seeing lvl 20 as the limit and assuming therefore that all the best heroes from stories were level 20 because that was the highest level mentioned, but that was false, and so they would discover problems, such as Conan being able to mechanically perform feats of supernatural ability far beyond what he could in stories.

Even James considers Einstein a high level character, but he isn't, he is a level 5.

The problem here was that Conan was never a level 20.

What the statement from Paizo sounds like to me, is that they plan on making it so level 20 is Conan's level.

Problem with this is that it then eliminates the rest of the scale.

Middle Earth for example had Aragorn as a level 5 character and yet one of the best humans, then Gandalf was higher but not even level 10. Sauron was between 11-15, and the Valar (the entities that went into Arda at the beginning of time and shaped middle earth) were the ones that were nearly level 20.

But you can only do that in a system that can span that vast range of power levels, like d20.

Players though, see level 20 as a limit of sorts and therefore assume that the best heroes are at level 20 because that is the limit, and therefore expect that heroes are only heroic at high levels, when actually, level was a hero and got your name in the history books, and level 5 made you a household name like Einstein.

I suspect they are doing away with that.

...

I also don't see class feats as particularily problematic in any regard. If anything a reliance on options over set in stone features makes it simpler for you to make adjustments.

Well, for example, in d20 there is the example of altering the paladin class to better suit a player's concept. In the example, the player did not want the mount. Well, if pf 2 expects the paladin to have a mount, the gm must change everything that relies in whole or in part on the paladin having a mount. If the mount feature is self contained, then it is easy, but if there parts throughout the whole paladin tree built on the expectation of the mount, then it becomes a major job to remove the mount from the paladin.

Then you have to consider the reverse. If the player wanted a favored enemy instead of the mount, it might fit the character, but how easily can it be added. If the feature is self contained, then it should be easy, but the idea of favored enemies is spread out amongst many choices in the ranger tree, then it would be very difficult or even pointless to try to give it to the altered paladin.

I like the blatant dismissal of other systems as "all are less capable as tools than D20".

I'm not calling them bad systems, but they don't do the things I described as well as d20, and indeed, do not seem like those functions were part of the design goals.

...Other systems - even the few listed, cover a huge range in terms of style and crunchiness and whatever else you want to consider.

Crunchiness is not the point. More crunch does not mean that the crunch does what I want it to.

Likewise, style can be altered in a massive number of ways without straying from a small zone of concept. Look at all the boardgames, chess, checkers, chinese checkers, backgammon, they all have the same scope and space of design as games about moving pieces around a board, yet their styles vary wildly.

To use the vehicle metaphore again, Savage Worlds, Champions, and Rifts are cars, designed to be driven around on roads. D20 is a plane designed to fly, despite the popularity of driving it around.

(Is 5E D20 in this scheme? I dunno.)

Couldn't say, I haven't had much chance to play it, but the little I've seen makes it too swingy and doesn't really bring much of the character's capability to the dice results. I'd love to see just how it handles skill checks to compare.

I know I have certainly had roleplaying beyond the mechanical and yet not completely freeform in many non-d20 systems (which I think is what you're talking about? Maybe. It's really hard to tell what you mean.)

When you use the mechanics, why did you them? Was it because the mechanic was the most mechanically efficient choice, or because it best fit what you the character would do from the in-world perspective?

A lot of players look only at the mechanics, make the best mechanical choice, then claim the character would naturally do that since it was the best choice, but the problem with that is that the player is only looking at the mechanics.

Then when they are not in an encounter, they just freeform it, without using the mechanics in an informative or communicative fashion.

It isn't just whether you can roleplay. Freeform players do that all the time. It is the ability to use the rules as tools without the rules being thought of as rules.

Oh, try this. The rules are like blue lines on grid paper. Those lines do not dictate what you can draw, but they can help keep your proportions right and better judge where to draw certain things to make the picture like right.

But players generally use the grid paper to draw only on the lines, making everything look blocky and seriously limiting the scope. Those who don't like the blocky look then disregard the gridpaper entirely seeing it as useless and stick to pure freeform instead under the claim that they don't the restrictiveness of mechanics.

Others like the gridpaper because the lines tell them exactly where to draw and don't mind drawing only blocky things.

A fair number will use gridpaper and blank paper side by side, drawing blocky shapes on the gridpaper for certain things, then use the blank paper for other things. This is the most common type of player claiming to play my style.

Few however, use the grid as a mere reference grid, drawing non-blocky images on the gridpaper. Few can use the grid without being limited to the grid.

It is like the moment you put the grid on the paper, somehow the players lose the ability to anything but the grid. They don't look at the pillars and see them as things to be toppled because there aren't mechanics for toppling pillars, they only see the cover behind the pillars because that is all the mechanics include about the pillars.

And in 4E for that matter, though it pushed in a direction I wasn't fond of.

4E has very little support for rp. Leaving such rp to be freeform. To continue the gridpaper, 4e was designed to use gridpaper with the expectation that you would only draw on the lines, and then expects you to use a blank paper for nearly everything else.

Though systems certainly have influence on the experience, GM and group style usually matter far more.

And a major part of style is how you apply the rules.

@TheAlicornSage

Okay, so… accepting as a given that there are different ways to play, and house-ruling is not just allowed but expected, in what way do the Playtest rules presented thus far jeopardize your ability to play the way you want?

I've played in 4 distinct RPG rule systems (not counting editions or variations), and read the rules for many more, and while the "feel" changes from one to the next, the core of the game stays the same throughout. Some are more crunchy while others are more free-form, but the core experience is available in all of them.

I'm pretty sure I understand what you're trying to say about the difference between playing the rules and playing the game, but what I don't understand is how it relates to the Playtest.

I think stepping back and refocusing might be helpful here. =]

Okay, so the reason the new edition worries me,

D20 was always about being descriptive and giving tools that you could pluck and manipulate at need to serve any situation, and even had the expectation of the rules being bent in favor of narrative.

4e is a good example of the opposite. 4e has no tools for description of the world. The numbers in 4e do mot relate to anything at all, I.E. the difficulty of a trap depends on your level, not the skill of the trapmaker.

4e is however, a good combat minis game. It became a good combat minis game because it didn't even try to be useful in way other than act as a combat minis game.

My concern is that as pf2 heads away from d20 that'll go towards 4e, and lose more and more usefullness in these ways,
-it'll lose connection between numbers and the world milieu,
-it'll be more like legos and less like clay in terms of the scale at which flexibility is found.
-it'll try so hard to always have answer that it becomes harder to cobble together an answer when the system does fail to provide.
-it'll string things together so tightly, that it becomes a nightmare to make adjustments. I.E.,will the classes be so dependant on the class feat trees that it becomes impractical to alter a class to fit an individual's concept (not the greatest example given archetypes, but I figured simple and hopefully clear).

Basically, my concern is that it will become so much a game, that it's utility as a mere tool gets hindered.

Other systems, such as Savage Wirlds, Fate, Champions, Rifts, they all are less capable as tools than d20.

D20 is not only the most capable as a mere tool, but it also is highly popular. I can find people to play it, and even when they don't play my way, we can still play together, and when I gm (in person at least) I can give an exoerience beyond the mechanical.

If PF moves away from that, then I can no longer play my way with others who don't play my way. I'll be forced into playing their way or playing by myself.

Edit: I play with d20 for it's utility as a tool and the ability to play others who aren't like me. Removing the utility from the system removes all the reason I even use a system at all.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

don't think the mechanics are similar. That doesn't change the goal though.

I don’t think there’s much point continuing. I realised you were speaking about goal, not mechanics.

At this stage you are misunderstanding pretty much every post I’ve made and replied with longer and longer replies which repeat the part of your theory I’m not challenging. I’m afraid I can’t think of any other way to say it.

You asked why I thought something was similar between editions, so I described what was similar and how it related to both. That relation being why I think there is a similarity. I'm not sure why that doesn't answer your question.

Quote:

A bit like trying to tell a lifelong blind man that a bottle and a box are both blue. The blind man can't understand blue itself, therefore can't understand that the bottle and the box have something in common. Only with the games, that trait of being blue is the thing I want people to understand.

Now imagine that the guy trying to explain blue is not speaking to a blind person but to other sighted people who think that it’s purple. They want to discuss the difference between blue/purple and the first guy keeps talking about boxes and bottles.

Only, I haven't had anybody mention color yet. I've had questions, and sometimes people mention soft vs hard, but no one has mentioned color.

I've played with people who claim to understand, then demonstrate that they don't understand at all.

There have been exceptions (just about every one of which understood from the day they started gaming), but those are so rare it's ridiculous.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

snip for formatting sanity

Everyone I have ever played with has approached roleplaying in that way. Maybe I'm apparently one of the old guard (doubtful I am only 28) but none of your examples sound revolutionary to me. Although you seem to always be skirting around what you actually mean, telling us through analogy that we just don't have the framework to understand (frankly that is insulting) but as far as I can tell your vision of what roleplaying could be/is doesn't seem to be any different than the way any of those I choose to play with understand it, some of which are very new to the hobby and originally introduced to it via a shared love of board/war/video games.

Maybe you should make a blog or something that really expands on what it is you seem to be talking about and then link it here. Really give yourself the space to make yourself understood.

I've had several people say that, only to play with them and it be not even close to true.

As for the blog, if I can't be clear here, how am I supposed to be clear in a blog?

TheAlicornSage wrote:

dragonhunterq wrote:

Telling anyone that they doing it wrong, and only your way is the right way. or asserting that there is one true way the game is intended to be played has to be wrong in principle.

...

Will people please stop assuming this. I am not saying, in any way, shape, or form, that any particular way of playing is right or better.

Quite simply, the way I like to play is dying, but not from a lack of popularity, but rather because so many seem to be introduced to rpgs in such a way that they are almost incapable of understanding the way I like to play.

I try to fix that issue. To make this radically different way of playing more understood and known. The difference is a radical one. All those commonly seen playstyles are metaphorically 2 dimensional, and I'm trying to show people the 3rd dimension. It's not a circle, it's a sphere.

If many people are assuming this, then maybe you need to look at your presentation, It doesn't take much to see wording littered throughout your posts that shouts out "you are doing it wrong". Things like "New players have no sense of how the game is supposed to play out" doesn't strike you as sounding very much like 'new players aren't doing it right'. I mean even in this very reply you are saying everyone else is playing a flat 2D game and only your way of playing is 3 dimensional.

Surely you can see how that is not saying "here's a different way to play", but "this is a better way to play"?

Everyone drives cars, and iI want to introduce airplanes. One is not really better than the other, but it is an entirely new dimension. Requires a shift in thinking.

No, I don't see how I'm being insulting or making things sound like a one-true-wayism.

I'm terrible at communication and text in particular is the worst way for me to communicate. Unfortunately, text is all I have right now. (Hence why I really want a discord group for the testplay).

I find it quite hard to judge what others think of particular phrasing. People tend to take a sentence as more than the literal meaning. This extra or shift in meaning makes no sense to me most of the time.

TheAlicornSage wrote:

Examination of the systems primarily. It isn't some idea I just came up with one day. It is what I see in the mechanics. My "hypothesis" is the result of analysis, not a preposition guessed at and waiting to be analyzed.

You can tell that OD&D and 3.5 had similar design goals by looking at the mechanics?

If that’s your standard of evidence, it would be no wonder your conclusion is so far from mine. I’d want to hear something from the designers about what their goals were. However, I suspect you thought I was questioning your position on game mechanics.

I did read your post thoroughly, but it didn’t really address my point. I’m not challenging your analysis of the rules (I disagree with your way of breaking things up and many of your conclusions, but there’s not much to be gained by arguing that, in my view. I think of RPG rules differently from most, so I expect to disagree with pretty much anyone’s take on the rules).

The claim you keep making that I think is surprising (and unfounded) is that OD&D and 3.5 were designed with similar goals in mind. That’s an unusual claim that needs evidence, in my view (or retraction - personally I don’t think it adds anything to your point to claim that 3.5 has the long term pedigree you describe). I don’t know why you’d stick with it given the public statements from Gygax on what he thought of 3.5 and the statements of the 3.5 designers on the creation of their game. It certainly needs more evidence to overcome that than you thinking the mechanics are similar.

My reason for challenging you may have come across as confrontational, but it was intended to be helpful. I think you’ve made a claim without sufficient evidence and, when challenged, have doubled down rather than reconsidering your position. Remember you’re discussing this with people with as much or more experience as you and with the same desire to critically analyse the games. If you make a claim that everyone (pretty much?) as qualified as you rejects...

I don't think the mechanics are similar. That doesn't change the goal though.

Compare with cars. A car is made with the goal of getting from A to B. Some will be fast, others have more cargo, or are more comfortable.

This seems to be the limit of most discussions on the design, the differences among cars. I'm trying to point out how a couple of these cars are actually planes intended to get from A to B by flying through the air instead of a road. One might be a ww2 biplane and the other a 747, but they share flying, yet most folks insist on driving them on land.

Look at what I wrote. The idea of a system intended as a tool but not itself a game. That is the full extent of what I'm saying is the same between 3.x and earlier editions.

Yet few recognize even the possibility of a system being anything other than the entirety of a game. Few understand the thing that is the same. They can't understand the similarity because they can't understand the trait itself that is shared.

A bit like trying to tell a lifelong blind man that a bottle and a box are both blue. The blind man can't understand blue itself, therefore can't understand that the bottle and the box have something in common. Only with the games, that trait of being blue is the thing I want people to understand.

To try another explanation,

In chess, the rules are everything. You can change the names, call the pawns soldiers if you want. That is just flavor and changing it has no impact on how you choose your actions. This is playing the rules.

There is a way of playing ttrpgs that is the reverse. A way of playing in which the flavor must stay the same, but that changing mechanics can be done without altering how you choose your actions. The rules serve a purpose, but that purpose is not about defining your choices. This is playing the story.

The similarity of 3.x and earlier dnd is that they are both support systems for that style of game where the mechanics are mutable because the mechanics are not the game. They are support for playing the story.

What most people have trouble with, is how can you possibly have a game where the specific mechanics used are not important. Most don't seem able to wrap their head around this concept. But this concept is fundemental to the style of play supported by 3.x and earlier editions despite the variance in rules.

At this point, most give up and tell me to go play freeform or some rules-light system. The reason they do this, is because they can't comprehend that more detailed system, like dnd, can serve a purpose in a game without being rules. They can't comprehend that the systems are more like a language to communicate the world, that the rules are a toolbox, the use of which is determined by the game and do not determine the game.

Telling anyone that they doing it wrong, and only your way is the right way. or asserting that there is one true way the game is intended to be played has to be wrong in principle.

...

Will people please stop assuming this. I am not saying, in any way, shape, or form, that any particular way of playing is right or better.

Quite simply, the way I like to play is dying, but not from a lack of popularity, but rather because so many seem to be introduced to rpgs in such a way that they are almost incapable of understanding the way I like to play.

I try to fix that issue. To make this radically different way of playing more understood and known. The difference is a radical one. All those commonly seen playstyles are metaphorically 2 dimensional, and I'm trying to show people the 3rd dimension. It's not a circle, it's a sphere.

Umm, none taken (I'm rarely offended by anything other than intent to offend).

But I couldn't figure out a shorter explanation that answered his question. Still not sure if it's adequate.

1st: I don't use anything. It's unneeded. At best it's just flavor description.

Flavor description for what? If you didn't do anything, then what is there to describe in a flavorful way?

3rd: If your idea of manipulation had any merit, then the cutoff point for the meneuver would not be Size, it would be Intelligence, as it is with Feint (which is what you describe, a manipulation that works if the enemy doesn't realize the danger you are setting them up for.) . A Size cutoff implies you have no physical way to act upon the enemy in a significant way. Much like Drag and Bull Rush.

As I said, larger targets wouldn't need to leave their current fighting space.

Also, what happens when you are really really strong, like from magic, then your augmented strength would be not limit the size of the creature you can shove around, only the weight and their strength to resist.

Thus, if reposition was from grabbing and manhandling, size wouldn't be the limit, weight and strength would be.

Additionally, holding someone allows them to hold you. Thus grabbing someone and tossing them over a ledge would certainly allow them to hold you and pull you with. This is why grapple affects both creatures and not just one. It is also why a trip, even with a weapon, allows the opponent to use the attack against you.

It should also be noted that the grappling section mentions "grappling, grab, and similar abilities" clearly placing the two as related.

Also, neither grab, nor trip, nor combat maneuvers, nor reposition clarify whether you need to touch, grab, or merely threaten an enemy. Clearly, they writers expect it to either be an obvious choice, or leave to the gm to go with what fits best for a given situation (I'd expect the latter myself).

4th: Grapple is a specific way of manhandling an enemy, just like...

Not really, a grapple is when your trying to limit your opponent's options in a way that they can do the same to you. It does not specify a particular type of manhandling, however, it is a condition that applies to both you and your target. You can not grab someone without putting yourself in a place to be easily grabbed in return.

Also, the grappling rules already cover how to move someone you have grabbed.

There is the drag maneuver, which is new and has no heritage in d20 core, but it also can represent classic tactics of the medival era where polearms with hooks would try to catch an opponent and pull them around.

Trying to push an enemy sideways with a weapon is ridiculously difficult, as you have lots and lots of mechanical disadvantage (the physical kind of mechanical, not rules mechanical). But manipulation is actually possible.

Reposition is also new, but there was a gap, as there was not a mechanic for the classic maneuvers you see in movies with swashbucklers, where they fight and one person uses the flow of the fight to manipulate their opponent into moving from one place to another. Like in Pirates of the Caribbean.

Manhandling was covered, manipulation was not. Makes far more sense to add a mechanic to fill a gap than to cover something already covered. And even if they wanted to change the rules for manhandling an enemy, why leave the old method there (moving while grappled) and also add a new method?