|
1 year ago ::
Jan 23, 2012 - 9:17PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 17, 2012
|
A consensus has to be reached if we want people to be satisfied with 5e. Well at least a good part of the 4e fans and of the 3.5 fans so that 5e can be a financial success.
So how much realism would you give up in the name of balance?
How much balance would you give up in the name of realism?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 23, 2012 - 10:25PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Well think of it this way... when spell casting classes can be held to the same standards of "realism" as are martial classes then all is good.
Or we could conform closer to myth and legend and non-D&D fantasy fiction and assure that the guy carrying a sword is the one who almost always wins the day, because generally magic is feebly slow.
Or I guess I can ignore the new edition as being nostalgic dribble and go play 4e or Skyrim or Freeform or Dresden Files or even WoW. There is no dearth of other options.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 23, 2012 - 10:26PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Note their seems to be an assertion that they can avoid needing any such concensus by using rules modularity.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 23, 2012 - 10:28PM
#4
|
|
|
I have no problems with the game being balanced but I think it is more important for the classes to have their own unique mechanics.
4E's biggest flaw was that it tied everything to the same mechanics and the same progression. Even with each class having it's own collection of powers, by sticking to the exact same mechanics for every class it made everything feel very bland and not very fun.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 23, 2012 - 10:42PM
#5
|
|
|
Balance and realism are mere tangents to the real focus: is the experience fun for everyone?
Balance is only a tool to keep things fun. If it results in loss of interesting choice, rule contortions, or systems so elaborate they intimidate new players, then forget balance. People kill games paying too much attention to balance. You could say the same for realism, too.
Realism for mechanics just means knowledgeable players feel they are mentally experiencing actual travel and survival in adventurous lands & dire depths, not like they are being handed things without due effort or being unfairly handicapped.
A lot of realism could be chocked up to how a game is run as opposed to rolling chances or modifier amounts. For example, when the DM only describes what the party sees to their right, back, left, etc and letting them figure out where they are on the map they drew earlier and wonder if they can find the gold before their lamp oil runs out or if they remember if the North constellation looked like the one they are looking at in the sky now instead of rolling all the judgement away, the potential for getting lost and the vulnerability of adventuring are felt more (as are the rewards for overcoming them). Detailing such methods of running the game in the rule book beyond what I've seen in 3-4e would be a boon.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 23, 2012 - 11:29PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
Getting a balanced game that can run smoothly is a good thing. As with any of the systems players will find a way to pull the balance toward them. As far as the advancement of the level system in 4E, everyone can still use the same chart, just give them adv. rewards at their own intervals. Keeping but, modifying this mechanic will aid the DM in building encounters.
As far as realism goes, lets no go down that path, it is FANTASY ROLE PLAYING. Like Dreamstryder said but I will put a little more emphasis on it though. “Choke” is putting it lightly. If you love charts, cross referencing conditions, consulting definitions and figuring modifiers then by all means add in the realism. Not only will you slow any combat to a dead stop at each players turn but, also any encounter in which a player makes a die roll.
MY DM COMMITMENT
To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
Gary Gygax
Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games.
Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 23, 2012 - 11:46PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
My thinking is all spell casting should result in something called thricefold returns, basically a mystical form, of "what you sow so shall ye reap" which makes combat magic mostly impractical because it harms the caster in due measure.... quite realistic.
As far as realism goes, lets no go down that path, it is FANTASY ROLE PLAYING.
Ah bummer I was just getting to how transmutational magic was more dangerous on wiling targets than victims because of "internal and external" equivalence.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 24, 2012 - 12:09AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Jul 13, 2011
|
My thinking is all spell casting should result in something called thricefold returns, basically a mystical form, of "what you sow so shall ye reap" which makes combat magic mostly impractical because it harms the caster in due measure.... quite realistic.
As far as realism goes, lets no go down that path, it is FANTASY ROLE PLAYING.
Ah bummer I was just getting to how transmutational magic was more dangerous on wiling targets than victims because of "internal and external" equivalence.
I have always been a fan of "Magic as dangerous". Paradox from W.W. Mage and the darke magick of Warhammer. Really just speaking about HtH combat and the like. Ever seen what a rapier wound can really do?
MY DM COMMITMENT
To insure that those who participate in any game that I adjudicate are having fun, staying engaged, maintaining focus, contributing to the story and becoming legendary.
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
Gary Gygax
Thanks for that Gary, so now stop playing RAW games.
Member of the Progressive Front of Grognardia Suicide Squad
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 24, 2012 - 1:08AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2001
|
A consensus has to be reached if we want people to be satisfied with 5e. Well at least a good part of the 4e fans and of the 3.5 fans so that 5e can be a financial success.
So how much realism would you give up in the name of balance?
'Realism' is undesireable in an FRPG. What would D&D be like without magic items, wizards & dragons? Without faith bestowing actual power upon the faithful? Without heroes able to perform super-human feats of strength, skill & daring? It'd just be Dungeons & Dungeons, the depressing medieval RPG - make saves vs Black Plague, everyone...
It's not even limited to D&D or FRPGs in general. In any RPG, realism sucks the fun right out of it. It introduces burdensome complexity, limits both DM and players, stifles creativity and imagination, and is generally anathema to the entire exercise. Reality, afterall, is what we're escaping from when we 'become' noble knights, daring rogues, and fell sorcerers in an imaginary world.
How much balance would you give up in the name of realism?
There are different sub-categories of balance. Those that can be measured and improved or sacrificed in a meaningful way are generally more closely tied to the actual mechanics of the game, which can be divorced for the story elements (which can be more or less realistic as desired) to a fairly high degree, if desired.
That is, you shouldn't have to give up balance in the name of realism, at all - if the game is well-balanced from the ground up.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? Join the Old Guard of 4e"You want The Tooth? You can't handle The Tooth!" - Dahlver-Nar. "If magic is unrestrained in the campaign, D&D quickly degenerates into a weird wizard show where players get bored quickly" - E. Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 24, 2012 - 1:52AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
May 16, 2004
|
I think there is a difference between "realism" and plausibility. When most people talk about "realism" they actually mean plausibility. So it is not about "the real world" vs. "the fantasy world". It is about the question what feels real in a fantasy world.
And there are different ways of accomplishing this feeling of plausibility in game design. You can do it on a rules level. Let's take spell descriptions for example. On a rules level, the designers could write the text of a fireball spell so that it is clear that fireballs burn stuff, ignite stuff, do x damage and look, sound and feel a certain way. Even the caster's movements while casting the spell can be described. All of this would then be set a THE rule, changed by GM fiat.
A different way would be to just state how much damage a fireball deals in what area and range, that it deals fire damage and that is that. The designers can then design the rules in a way that allows the players at the table, including the GM, to narrate all the rest in a way that feels plausible to that specific game group.
I forgot how the very old editions of DnD handled this, but in 3e the designers did the former and in 4E they did the latter.
I prefer the latter, because this design gives more power to all players as the default. I get the feeling though that a huge amount of people would prefer the former. I hope I am wrong.
|
|
|
