I’m talking movies, not comics. Also, no amount of dmg can shatter time, nor any amount of strength hold tectonic plates (the rock would just break).
|
I’m talking movies, not comics. Also, no amount of dmg can shatter time, nor any amount of strength hold tectonic plates (the rock would just break).
fantasy settings and comics don't really care about things like "realistic".
Remember whenever something like that happens the answer is "a wizard did it"
Depends on the game, especially the role the mechanics play in the game. “Old school” play needs “realistic” working mechanics.
“Old school” play needs “realistic” working mechanics.
not really, it just needs good mechanics, realistic or not....
What makes mechanics “good” depends greatly on what you need them to do, and for old school play, mechanics are not the game but rather are play aids in a similar vein to a ruler or graph paper, and therefore need to line up with the narrative world the fictional milieu, which is vastly different from a storytelling game (which needs to match up with story beats and moments) or combat minis game (which needs to be numerically balanced).
The fictional milieu is a false reality and the mechanics need to represent that fictional reality the same way the laws of physics represent the real world, and for that style of play, there is room for simplification and abstraction but not the kind of inconsistency mentioned like holding tectonic plates together without the rock just breaking apart.
A major reason for that is because no one is supposed to make plans based on mechanics, you don’t find traps by rolling a trapfinding check whenever the GM notices you get close to one, nor do you get a trapfinding check just because you say you “look for traps.” No, in old school play, you have to actually do things, and sometimes what you do doesn’t need a check and sometimes it does, and when it does, there is very rarely a specific check or bonus or DC for precisely the thing being tried, and so the mechanics need to match realistically with the narrative milieu so the GM can make inferences and judgement calls to ad hoc the rolls, bonuses, and DCs and yet retain consistency, maintain verisimilitude, and keep the game feeling “real.”
Most scientists believe that dwarf star material would simply explode in earths atmosphere. In the game world it's the GM's choice. What's the best balance between risk and reward to make the game worth playing?
Also, rules need to be simple enough that they don't slow down the game too much, but complex enough to apply to all situations. Not everyone wants the game to feel real.
Not everyone wants the game to feel real.
Obviously, but of course, when a system is initially designed to feel real, then it becomes a problem when supplements undo all that work while pretending to stick to the initial paradigm, and it can also be a problem when players have expectations that don’t match the system’s design, especially when trying to find other players as some will claim to play the system looking for others who play as designed while others will claim to play the system looking for others who don’t play as designed, and when they meet they think the other group is stupid or newbies that just don’t know how to play or something similar.
I wouldn’t really say there is a right way to play, but I would say there is a difference between playing as designed vs not, and that distinction should be recognized.
Frankly I love Paizo for their stories and how thematic they can get, but their weakness (at least early on, not really sure about 2e) is in handling mechanics. PF1 really didn’t do a good job of sticking with the designed structure and meaning of the numbers (+18 to strength is a fine example), which I don’t really blame them for because they obviously don’t support playing as 3.x was designed, but I don’t think they adapted 3.x to their style very well either. Of course, the popular way to play also drifted away from 3.x’s design as well and I think it mostly succeeded from familiarity and the design of 3.x was really robust even if few played as intended.
|
|
Not everyone wants the game to feel real.Obviously, but of course, when a system is initially designed to feel real, then it becomes a problem when supplements undo all that work while pretending to stick to the initial paradigm, and it can also be a problem when players have expectations that don’t match the system’s design, especially when trying to find other players as some will claim to play the system looking for others who play as designed while others will claim to play the system looking for others who don’t play as designed, and when they meet they think the other group is stupid or newbies that just don’t know how to play or something similar.
I wouldn’t really say there is a right way to play, but I would say there is a difference between playing as designed vs not, and that distinction should be recognized.
Frankly I love Paizo for their stories and how thematic they can get, but their weakness (at least early on, not really sure about 2e) is in handling mechanics. PF1 really didn’t do a good job of sticking with the designed structure and meaning of the numbers (+18 to strength is a fine example), which I don’t really blame them for because they obviously don’t support playing as 3.x was designed, but I don’t think they adapted 3.x to their style very well either. Of course, the popular way to play also drifted away from 3.x’s design as well and I think it mostly succeeded from familiarity and the design of 3.x was really robust even if few played as intended.
Uh...
Do you remember how polymorph spells worked in 3.0/3.5? You can get a lot more strength from thoseOr characters like Pun Pun or "the Wish and the Word" (look them up if you wanna see how bad the system falls apart)
Pun pun literally makes themselves the most powerful diety possible, and can do it at level 1.
You clearly don’t understand “mechanics as play aids.” Complaining about Punpun is like complaining that a ruler has more centimeters than inches.
3.x is not supposed to prevent Punpun, that’s the GM’s job.
You use Punpun’s existence as a mark against the system because you believe that the rules are supposed to make a fair and balanced playfield. That is an incorrect notion, one which leads you to incorrect conclusions about the system.
My leveled mutations are designed to start out weak and grow stronger as they level.
Even the cartoons are saddled with returning to limbo every time they die and not being able to be resummoned (or return through a gate) for a 24 hour day. Also, they have the number of powers based on their dice or class levels.
You clearly don’t understand “mechanics as play aids.” Complaining about Punpun is like complaining that a ruler has more centimeters than inches.
3.x is not supposed to prevent Punpun, that’s the GM’s job.
You use Punpun’s existence as a mark against the system because you believe that the rules are supposed to make a fair and balanced playfield. That is an incorrect notion, one which leads you to incorrect conclusions about the system.
Actually it was quickly discovered that the DM was often not fair or balanced. I’m thinking that the designers did try to make the rules that way in order to compensate.for that. But then players got ahold of the rules, and did their best to break them. Something I watched happen on the D&D 4th edition forums, back then. Might have been stronger for 4th ed, than for some other versions . Hatred for 4th ed seemed high.
To be honest, I think GMing well is the most difficult of arts and often because most GMs can’t do it well, a lot of people stop looking for GMs to run the game well and start looking to mechanics to pick up the slack so it’s easier for GMs and therefore more fun for players.
Problem is, when you have a fair amount of experience with a GM that can actually run the game well without needing to rely on mechanics to compensate, then one finds an experience that simply can not be replicated by any GM relying on mechanics to make things fun, because there is flat out no competition. The GM that that can GM well is far removed from those that rely on mechanics that the games aren’t even the same game regardless of how similar the mechanics are.
I have had a great GM. In the past 15 years, I have had a lot of GMs that are good people, but simply are not up to running the game. No one else has ever run the game even close.
It was like being introduced to the game with a lvl 15 GM and never meeting another GM higher than lvl 2 since.
Edit: No that’s not right, more like playing chess then everyone else is just tic tac toe.