If flavor and lore is not enough to make your character feel unique ... you have problems.
While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:
Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else. A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing. 10 or better means you kill the target.
Is flavor and lore enough to make you feel like a rogue, and not like a fighter? Are you really prepared to say anyone dissatisfied with not feeling unique has "problems" ?
While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else. A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing. 10 or better means you kill the target. Is flavor and lore enough to
If flavor and lore is not enough to make your character feel unique ... you have problems.
While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:
Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else. A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing. 10 or better means you kill the target.
Is flavor and lore enough to make you feel like a rogue, and not like a fighter?
Rogue: "I do two somersaults up to the monster, then deftly stick it between the ribs." Fighter: "I march up to it and smash it over the head with my hammer."
So, yes.
While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else. A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing. 10 or better means you kill the target. Is flavor and lore enough to
If flavor and lore is not enough to make your character feel unique ... you have problems.
While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:
Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else. A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing. 10 or better means you kill the target.
Is flavor and lore enough to make you feel like a rogue, and not like a fighter?
Rogue: "I do two somersaults up to the monster, then deftly stick it between the ribs." Fighter: "I march up to it and smash it over the head with my hammer."
So, yes.
Could easily also be
Fighter: "I do two somersaults up to the monster, then deftly stick it between the ribs." Rogue: "I march up to it and smash it over the head with my hammer."
With Mand's system, so...no.
While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else. A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing. 10 or better means you kill the target. Is flavor and lore enough to
If that's how the player wants to flavor his character, let him.
So, yes.
Your character doesn't have to feel like 'a fighter' or 'a rogue' or anything of the sort. It needs to feel like your character.
If that's how the player wants to flavor his character, let him.So, yes.Your character doesn't have to feel like 'a fighter' or 'a rogue' or anything of the sort. It needs to feel like your character.
If that's how the player wants to flavor his character, let him.
So, yes.
Your character doesn't have to feel like 'a fighter' or 'a rogue' or anything of the sort. It needs to feel like your character.
And it won't, if anyone else who isn't playing 'your' character can do the exact things you can do. You cannot be unique if everyone is the same as you are.
And it won't, if anyone else who isn't playing 'your' character can do the exact things you can do. You cannot be unique if everyone is the same as you are.
That is fine and dandy in another game but in D&D my ability scores, class features, and race are the major factors in determining how my character feels.
That is fine and dandy in another game but in D&D my ability scores, class features, and race are the major factors in determining how my character feels.
The developers mentioned in the latest hangout video that they pay close attention to making sure that classes feel different from each other. They want rogues to feel like a seperate class than fighter narritively and mechanically.
I have the feeling that some people are forgeting that D&D is a class based game :P
The developers mentioned in the latest hangout video that they pay close attention to making sure that classes feel different from each other. They want rogues to feel like a seperate class than fighter narritively and mechanically.I have the feeling
If that's how the player wants to flavor his character, let him.
So, yes.
Your character doesn't have to feel like 'a fighter' or 'a rogue' or anything of the sort. It needs to feel like your character.
And it won't, if anyone else who isn't playing 'your' character can do the exact things you can do. You cannot be unique if everyone is the same as you are.
Not really, no, because how you do what you do matters, and what you will choose to do matters as well ("A spider? Uh ... you handle the spider. They creep me out."). Unified mechanics do not create identical characters.
The only flavor that matters is the flavor the player gives his character.
And it won't, if anyone else who isn't playing 'your' character can do the exact things you can do. You cannot be unique if everyone is the same as you are.[/quote]Not really, no, because how you do what you do matters, and what you will choose to d
I agree completely. But in what I describe, how you do what you do is always the same. And yet, somehow, you think it isn't.
In the mechanical sense, yes. In the narrative/roleplay sense, no.
I agree completely. But in what I describe, how you do what you do is always the same. And yet, somehow, you think it isn't.[/quote]In the mechanical sense, yes.In the narrative/roleplay sense, no.
Yeah...this, unfortunately. It's one thing to criticize something. It's another thing entirely to jump on the bandwagon and parrot an argument that was wrong when it was first conceived and became even more wrong as 4e progressed.
You demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of how different the class mechanics were in 4e, which does no service to your credibility in discussing potential class mechanics in Next.
Yeah...they just streamlined the progression and the procedure to build characters and the rate they get new abilities...but the classes are alot more diferent from each other than they were in past editions in my opinion...and more than on the current playtests too. Even when 2 classes had powers that were very similar, their class features and class feats made them use them in a very diferent ways and situations...Even 2 characters of the same class end up playing very diferent from each other
Yeah...they just streamlined the progression and the procedure to build characters and the rate they get new abilities...but the classes are alot more diferent from each other than they were in past editions in my opinion...and more than on the curre
If flavor and lore is not enough to make your character feel unique ... you have problems.
While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:
Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else. A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing. 10 or better means you kill the target.
Is flavor and lore enough to make you feel like a rogue, and not like a fighter? Are you really prepared to say anyone dissatisfied with not feeling unique has "problems" ?
Well, sort of.
In this case, you would still describe the character, and you could say that they're a cook, or a noble, or especially agile, or tough, and the DM could-- that is, would _have_ to, in a system this lightweight, adjucate the situation.
In FATE, you can distill an opponent to a single number, which usually represents how good they're at doing their schtik. They would just default to zero when doing other things - or, actually, if the character turns out important, the DM can fill in the details as needed.
So, you could say that a character is nth-level rogue, and use that n as a bonus on a d20 roll. Then, you just have to ask, "is this a rogue thing they're doing?" If not, they would default to zero.
But, that's a different game. I'd like some more support for the character concept from rules in D&D's case.
While this is a great quip, let's actually take this to its extreme:Everyone has one, exact, identical mechanic, and nothing else. A straight d20 roll, no modifiers, no nothing. 10 or better means you kill the target. Is flavor and lore enough to
LolaBonne, what you are describing is called "freeform roleplaying."
While cool, it is not the same thing as a roleplaying game.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...
If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.
Nothing saying you can't have fun freeform RPing using D&D as a basis, but you're not 'playing D&D' as the rest of us know it, and using your experience to design Next is not appropriate.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...[/quote]If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.Nothing saying you can't have fun free
LolaBonne, what you are describing is called "freeform roleplaying."
While cool, it is not the same thing as a roleplaying game.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...
If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.
Nothing saying you can't have fun freeform RPing using D&D as a basis, but you're not 'playing D&D' as the rest of us know it, and using your experience to design Next is not appropriate.
Freeform roleplaying D&D is playing D&D as an RPG, and it is just fine. It is a valid form of roleplay that DDN should support if it wants to keep as many players as possible, myself included. It is entirely appropriate and relevant to DDN playtesting and game design.
I feel your post borders on baiting, especially when you declare yourself the arbiter of what is appropriate.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...[/quote]If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.Nothing saying you can't have fun free
When it comes down to it D&D is a class based system. It always has been, and from the looks of the playtest this version will be no exception. Not only is it A class based system, it is THE class based system. I don't see the hard distinction between classes going anywhere, and rightly so.
When it comes down to it D&D is a class based system. It always has been, and from the looks of the playtest this version will be no exception. Not only is it A class based system, it is THE class based system. I don't see the hard distinction betwee
'Class-based' and 'handcuffed' are not synonymous. It is not difficult to make the class-based system flexible, to allow for many different concepts within archetypes.
'Class-based' and 'handcuffed' are not synonymous. It is not difficult to make the class-based system flexible, to allow for many different concepts within archetypes.
LolaBonne, what you are describing is called "freeform roleplaying."
While cool, it is not the same thing as a roleplaying game.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...
If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.
Nothing saying you can't have fun freeform RPing using D&D as a basis, but you're not 'playing D&D' as the rest of us know it, and using your experience to design Next is not appropriate.
And, of course, one of the things they said when designing 5e was that there was no wrong way to play D&D, and 5e was to support that conceit. A pleasure to know your true colors. I shall not be dealing with you in the future. Good day.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...[/quote]If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.Nothing saying you can't have fun free
'Class-based' and 'handcuffed' are not synonymous. It is not difficult to make the class-based system flexible, to allow for many different concepts within archetypes.
You are mistaking flexible for allowing any possibility.
The system allows for plenty of flexibility, but stops when you start stepping on the toes of other classes.
You are mistaking flexible for allowing any possibility. The system allows for plenty of flexibility, but stops when you start stepping on the toes of other classes.
It is that the designs have been very general and nonspecific of what each class is. Therefore the defining aspects of each class are hard to pin down.
The issue is not that D&D is class based.It is that the designs have been very general and nonspecific of what each class is. Therefore the defining aspects of each class are hard to pin down.
The issue is not that D&D is class based. It is that the designs have been very general and nonspecific of what each class is. Therefore the defining aspects of each class are hard to pin down.
This is a good thing, as it gives more flexibility, particularly when it comes to reflavoring. I quite enjoyed being able to easily reflavor the 4e classes, and I hope that remains.
This is a good thing, as it gives more flexibility, particularly when it comes to reflavoring. I quite enjoyed being able to easily reflavor the 4e classes, and I hope that remains.
It can also be a bad thing as it leads to people getting misconceptions due to the classes vagueness. Is the rogue a trickster, a skill expert, a skrimisher, or a underworld native? If you don't tell people what it is and they create a view different than yours then problems arise.
@LolaBooneIt can also be a bad thing as it leads to people getting misconceptions due to the classes vagueness. Is the rogue a trickster, a skill expert, a skrimisher, or a underworld native? If you don't tell people what it is and they create a view
If you look back at 4e, you'll see that most classes are mechanically very similar, all have Daily, Encounter and At-will powers. The big difference between them was power selection and the flavor of the abilities, and while the system allowed for a very good power balance between classes it lacked in differentiation and that hurt the experience IMO.
When I posted this, I never compared it with 3.5 or any previous editions. Funny how everyone jumps into conclusions, I thought that Edition Warring was prohibited on these forums.
Anyway, if you want to expand on the topic, in third edition you had basically two classes, the caster and non-caster. But still, many classes had many unique identifying abilities that couldn't be (easily) replicated that allowed your character to at least feel a little different.
Now again, the point is not to compare different editions, but rather take the most positive features from all previous iterations in DnD in order to make Next the best that it can be in this particular subject.
What I'd want to see is classes having different power structures from each other and to manage different resource systems to fuel their spells abilities.
When I posted this, I never compared it with 3.5 or any previous editions. Funny how everyone jumps into conclusions, I thought that Edition Warring was prohibited on these forums.Anyway, if you want to expand on the topic, in third edition you had b
What I'd want to see is classes having different power structures from each other and to manage different resource systems to fuel their spells abilities.
Yeh they heard you and fighters get no resource management does it make you happy
Yeh they heard you and fighters get no resource management does it make you happy
It can also be a bad thing as it leads to people getting misconceptions due to the classes vagueness. Is the rogue a trickster, a skill expert, a skrimisher, or a underworld native? If you don't tell people what it is and they create a view different than yours then problems arise.
The answer should be, pick any of the above.
Or a diplomat, for that matter.
The answer should be, pick any of the above.Or a diplomat, for that matter.
@LolaBoone It can also be a bad thing as it leads to people getting misconceptions due to the classes vagueness. Is the rogue a trickster, a skill expert, a skrimisher, or a underworld native? If you don't tell people what it is and they create a view different than yours then problems arise.
No, it doesn't, if you remember that their character is their character, and thus their business, not yours. How another player at the table envisions their character is nobody's business but their own. In other words, if you don't like the fact that I have reflavored a bard into something that does not sing or otherwise perform, tough luck.
No, it doesn't, if you remember that their character is their character, and thus their business, not yours. How another player at the table envisions their character is nobody's business but their own. In other words, if you don't like the fact th
@LolaBoone It can also be a bad thing as it leads to people getting misconceptions due to the classes vagueness. Is the rogue a trickster, a skill expert, a skrimisher, or a underworld native? If you don't tell people what it is and they create a view different than yours then problems arise.
No, it doesn't, if you remember that their character is their character, and thus their business, not yours. How another player at the table envisions their character is nobody's business but their own. In other words, if you don't like the fact that I have reflavored a bard into something that does not sing or otherwise perform, tough luck.
Which was how the classes were expressed back in basic edition... very generalised if I recall.
No, it doesn't, if you remember that their character is their character, and thus their business, not yours. How another player at the table envisions their character is nobody's business but their own. In other words, if you don't like the fact th
The issue is not that D&D is class based. It is that the designs have been very general and nonspecific of what each class is. Therefore the defining aspects of each class are hard to pin down.
This is a good thing, as it gives more flexibility, particularly when it comes to reflavoring. I quite enjoyed being able to easily reflavor the 4e classes, and I hope that remains.
+1 again.
I never had an issue of making two identical stat'ed characters play differently. I never needed mechanics to do the work for me.
+1 This is a good thing, as it gives more flexibility, particularly when it comes to reflavoring. I quite enjoyed being able to easily reflavor the 4e classes, and I hope that remains.[/quote]+1 again.I never had an issue of making two identical sta
@LolaBoone It can also be a bad thing as it leads to people getting misconceptions due to the classes vagueness. Is the rogue a trickster, a skill expert, a skrimisher, or a underworld native? If you don't tell people what it is and they create a view different than yours then problems arise.
No, it doesn't, if you remember that their character is their character, and thus their business, not yours. How another player at the table envisions their character is nobody's business but their own. In other words, if you don't like the fact that I have reflavored a bard into something that does not sing or otherwise perform, tough luck.
I meant mechanics matching their view of their character. If the class' mechanics works different than what you expect, issues arise.
The 2e, 3e, 4e, and the last few playtest rogues each fill a different suite of archetypes best, making rogueplaying certain archtypes easier or harder depending on what edition you are playing as the results of gameplay differ from what you expeted.
No, it doesn't, if you remember that their character is their character, and thus their business, not yours. How another player at the table envisions their character is nobody's business but their own. In other words, if you don't like the fact th
If the class's mechanics don't match the view of your character, you find a class whose mechanics do, and reflavor when necessary. The class name and inherent flavor is irrelevant; you start with the concept, then pick the mechanics that best help you realize that concept.
If the class's mechanics don't match the view of your character, you find a class whose mechanics do, and reflavor when necessary. The class name and inherent flavor is irrelevant; you start with the concept, then pick the mechanics that best help y
If the class's mechanics don't match the view of your character, you find a class whose mechanics do, and reflavor when necessary. The class name and inherent flavor is irrelevant; you start with the concept, then pick the mechanics that best help you realize that concept.
For that to happen, all classes must have disctint mechanics that separate one from each other and give the players options to better build on their character concepts.
If all classes are mechanically similar and they don't match the view of your character then you have problems.
For that to happen, all classes must have disctint mechanics that separate one from each other and give the players options to better build on their character concepts.If all classes are mechanically similar and they don't match the view of your char
If you look back at 4e, you'll see that most classes are mechanically very similar, all have Daily, Encounter and At-will powers. The big difference between them was power selection and the flavor of the abilities, and while the system allowed for a very good power balance between classes it lacked in differentiation and that hurt the experience IMO.
When I posted this, I never compared it with 3.5 or any previous editions. Funny how everyone jumps into conclusions, I thought that Edition Warring was prohibited on these forums.
Anyway, if you want to expand on the topic, in third edition you had basically two classes, the caster and non-caster. But still, many classes had many unique identifying abilities that couldn't be (easily) replicated that allowed your character to at least feel a little different.
Now again, the point is not to compare different editions, but rather take the most positive features from all previous iterations in DnD in order to make Next the best that it can be in this particular subject.
What I'd want to see is classes having different power structures from each other and to manage different resource systems to fuel their spells abilities.
I think the reason some people have taken issue with your opinion is that 4E's surface similarities between classes are out-weighed by the actual in-game "how it plays" differences. And in my experience with 4E, I will have to agree with them. While the shared AEDU structure means that each class has a common underlying mechanic, the actual choice of powers, feats, and class-features make even playing the same class very different experiences.
In 4e, a Fighter could be an Eladrin Teleport-charger. Or he could be a Dragonborn Polearm weilding Tank who knocks people prone with his Glaive and then stomps on them. Or he could be a twin-blade whirling dervish who concentrates on movement, or a classic Battleraging Dwarf with a big hammer who soaks damage with temporary hitpoints. They're all fighters, and all use AEDU, but all play so completely differently. And each of those will play very differently than the wizard who locks down groups of enemies with status effects from a distance. Or lets compare Clerics - the Cleric of Kord who leads from the front with his big weapon will play rather differently than the Radiant Servant of Pelor who strikes his targets with Divine Light from the back ranks.
Given that AEDU means that "the powers you have are the powers you have", there's no more "casters are new characters every day" issue to contend with.. It also means that two characters may be the same class, but share almost no powers in common, and so play very differently.
When I posted this, I never compared it with 3.5 or any previous editions. Funny how everyone jumps into conclusions, I thought that Edition Warring was prohibited on these forums.Anyway, if you want to expand on the topic, in third edition you had b
I think the reason some people have taken issue with your opinion is that 4E's surface similarities between classes are out-weighed by the actual in-game "how it plays" differences. And in my experience with 4E, I will have to agree with them. While the shared AEDU structure means that each class has a common underlying mechanic, the actual choice of powers, feats, and class-features make even playing the same class very different experiences.
This. So much this. Anybody who thinks that different classes play identically simply because they have unified mechanics is delusional.
This. So much this.Anybody who thinks that different classes play identically simply because they have unified mechanics is delusional.
My point is that the game has to provide the mechanical reinforcement of your character. For example, The designers made the first playtest monk very narrow in scope purposely. The fans raged as what they saw in the monk was different from what the game currently designed the monk to be. Now the monk has various methods of using their ki and maneuvers. The same happened which other classes.
The purpose of using a RPG's game system is to use the agreed upon mechanical representation of the game character's actions. But the gamers must agree with the results. And in order to agree with them, the gamer must understand what is there.
Misconceptions and misunderstandings of a game is often a source of a lot of game hate.
My point is that the game has to provide the mechanical reinforcement of your character. For example, The designers made the first playtest monk very narrow in scope purposely. The fans raged as what they saw in the monk was different from what the g
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I think the reason some people have taken issue with your opinion is that 4E's surface similarities between classes are out-weighed by the actual in-game "how it plays" differences. And in my experience with 4E, I will have to agree with them. While the shared AEDU structure means that each class has a common underlying mechanic, the actual choice of powers, feats, and class-features make even playing the same class very different experiences.
In 4e, a Fighter could be an Eladrin Teleport-charger. Or he could be a Dragonborn Polearm weilding Tank who knocks people prone with his Glaive and then stomps on them. Or he could be a twin-blade whirling dervish who concentrates on movement, or a classic Battleraging Dwarf with a big hammer who soaks damage with temporary hitpoints. They're all fighters, and all use AEDU, but all play so completely differently. And each of those will play very differently than the wizard who locks down groups of enemies with status effects from a distance. Or lets compare Clerics - the Cleric of Kord who leads from the front with his big weapon will play rather differently than the Radiant Servant of Pelor who strikes his targets with Divine Light from the back ranks.
Given that AEDU means that "the powers you have are the powers you have", there's no more "casters are new characters every day" issue to contend with.. It also means that two characters may be the same class, but share almost no powers in common, and so play very differently.
Finally something of substance. You point out a big difference on "how it plays" and "how it looks", and from what I've seen there somewhat of a division on what is the priority. In a perfect system, classes would both look to be different on the surface AND provide a very different playstyle.
AEDU seems to be completely out of the question for Next, but how would you try to recapture that feel of classes playing differently? You mention having distinct different powers per class, and making classes commit to powers rather that choosing different ones daily.
Do you see the latest packets failing at this? Do you think classes seem distinct enough? What would you change?
Finally something of substance. You point out a big difference on "how it plays" and "how it looks", and from what I've seen there somewhat of a division on what is the priority. In a perfect system, classes would both look to be different on the su
The purpose of using a RPG's game system is to use the agreed upon mechanical representation of the game character's actions. But the gamers must agree with the results. And in order to agree with them, the gamer must understand what is there.
This has always been quite obvious to me, so it's kind of weird to see so many people who either don't get the concept or else reject it in favor of other ideals.
Ah well, everyone has their own priorities.
This has always been quite obvious to me, so it's kind of weird to see so many people who either don't get the concept or else reject it in favor of other ideals. Ah well, everyone has their own priorities.
@Saelorn It is odd to me as well. You play structured RPGs for the rules and you read it for the fluff.
There is a disagreement on how much of that fluff needs to be backed up with rules. I can use the fluff to make my character feel unique from another character that has 100% the same mechanics. Some are saying that they need a mechanical difference to make themselves feel unique. It's a POV I don't really understand.
There is a disagreement on how much of that fluff needs to be backed up with rules. I can use the fluff to make my character feel unique from another character that has 100% the same mechanics. Some are saying that they need a mechanical difference t
There is a disagreement on how much of that fluff needs to be backed up with rules. I can use the fluff to make my character feel unique from another character that has 100% the same mechanics. Some are saying that they need a mechanical difference to make themselves feel unique. It's a POV I don't really understand.
You mention having distinct different powers per class, and making classes commit to powers rather that choosing different ones daily.
Roles and actually differing approaches to roles where some of the ingredients (my rogue who was a duelist and nobleman is an in your face style striker who focuses on a single enemy and wants allies to pull any other enemies away and stylistically avoids distractions ... but many rogues on are basically flanking buddies and having an ally nearby on the same enemy to be the enemies distraction is perfect). Obviously they also have differing skill sets along side that ... I actually found it annoying that the duellist had to have thieving skill that he refuses to use.
Roles and actually differing approaches to roles where some of the ingredients (my rogue who was a duelist and nobleman is an in your face style striker who focuses on a single enemy and wants allies to pull any other enemies away and stylistically a
I believe the issue is which parts of their character is important.
Some players don't care if their slayer's attack doesn't deal more damage or hit another target. Others need the slayer attack to matter.
I believe the issue is which parts of their character is important.Some players don't care if their slayer's attack doesn't deal more damage or hit another target. Others need the slayer attack to matter.
I believe the issue is which parts of their character is important. Some players don't care if their slayer's attack doesn't deal more damage or hit another target. Others need the slayer attack to matter.
Some players don't see the slayer dealing more or less damage as what makes that character unique. Anyone can deal damage if you focus them that way, but dealing damage is a common ability and not what I'd call unique.
Some players don't see the slayer dealing more or less damage as what makes that character unique. Anyone can deal damage if you focus them that way, but dealing damage is a common ability and not what I'd call unique.
There is a disagreement on how much of that fluff needs to be backed up with rules.
That's an understatement.
I see the fluff/mechanic interface as only enforced in one direction, though. If we have fluff, then the game mechanic explains how to interpret that fluff into game-language. Whenever that fluff shows up, we need to use that mechanic to resolve it.
If we're starting with a mechanic, though, then there can be any variety of different fluff explanations for why that mechanic is what it is. Most classes (and individual maneuvers/powers/traits) have fluff, though, so trying to change that fluff while maintaining the mechanics would violate causality.
If every class was "just go up to the enemy and hit it", then you could fluff that any way to want, no questions. If the rogue has a backstab maneuver to represent an exceptionally direct strike against the unguarded vitals of a disadvantaged target, then it doesn't sit well with me for someone to try and re-fluff that as a flurry of blows, because that's a separate maneuver entirely which has its own mechanical representation.
That's an understatement.I see the fluff/mechanic interface as only enforced in one direction, though. If we have fluff, then the game mechanic explains how to interpret that fluff into game-language. Whenever that fluff shows up, we need to use th
If the rogue has a backstab maneuver to represent an exceptionally direct strike against the unguarded vitals of a disadvantaged target, then it doesn't sit well with me for someone to try and re-fluff that as a flurry of blows, because that's a separate maneuver entirely which has its own mechanical representation.
That makes no sense to me. Backstab/Sneak Attack just means extra damage. Wouldn't a rapid-fire strike deal extra damage as well?
Again, if you don't wish to reflavor, you don't have to. But if someone else chooses to, that's their business.
That makes no sense to me. Backstab/Sneak Attack just means extra damage. Wouldn't a rapid-fire strike deal extra damage as well?Again, if you don't wish to reflavor, you don't have to. But if someone else chooses to, that's their business.
Backstab/Sneak Attack just means extra damage. Wouldn't a rapid-fire strike deal extra damage as well?
Sure, it would makes sense to me too (and I might even allow it, if the monk didn't exist), but the game has clearly defined that a series of rapid strikes is mechanically represented as making multiple attack rolls for base damage. It would violate the game's internal consistency if anyone could just play a monk or a rogue based on preferred mechanics, without regard for the meaning behind those mechanics.
The rules of the game are like the laws of physics in the game setting, to which everyone agrees when you decided to play this game rather than some other one. You can't have one guy go around making one very calculating stab to the back that is all-or-nothing double damage or miss, and then have another guy go around making a very calculating stab to the back that deals either one or two or three times weapon damage - there's no way to reconcile that with consistent physical laws, and the entire story loses meaning.
Sure, it would makes sense to me too (and I might even allow it, if the monk didn't exist), but the game has clearly defined that a series of rapid strikes is mechanically represented as making multiple attack rolls for base damage. It would violate
Sure, it would makes sense to me too (and I might even allow it, if the monk didn't exist), but the game has clearly defined that a series of rapid strikes is mechanically represented as making multiple attack rolls for base damage. It would violate the game's internal consistency if anyone could just play a monk or a rogue based on preferred mechanics, without regard for the meaning behind those mechanics.
No, it wouldn't, because nobody in the game world can see your character sheet. The only flavor that matters is the flavor that the player gives his character. If the Monk wants his flurry to be something other than 'rapid hitting', there's no reason to say no.
The rules of the game say 'the monk can deal extra damage'. That's all the rules say. The flavor can be whatever you want. And since Hit Points are completely abstract, there's no way of telling who did more damage, since a physical blow need not have been struck in any case.
No, it wouldn't, because nobody in the game world can see your character sheet. The only flavor that matters is the flavor that the player gives his character. If the Monk wants his flurry to be something other than 'rapid hitting', there's no reas
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I think the reason some people have taken issue with your opinion is that 4E's surface similarities between classes are out-weighed by the actual in-game "how it plays" differences. And in my experience with 4E, I will have to agree with them. While the shared AEDU structure means that each class has a common underlying mechanic, the actual choice of powers, feats, and class-features make even playing the same class very different experiences.
..snip ..
Given that AEDU means that "the powers you have are the powers you have", there's no more "casters are new characters every day" issue to contend with.. It also means that two characters may be the same class, but share almost no powers in common, and so play very differently.
Finally something of substance. You point out a big difference on "how it plays" and "how it looks", and from what I've seen there somewhat of a division on what is the priority. In a perfect system, classes would both look to be different on the surface AND provide a very different playstyle.
AEDU seems to be completely out of the question for Next, but how would you try to recapture that feel of classes playing differently? You mention having distinct different powers per class, and making classes commit to powers rather that choosing different ones daily.
Do you see the latest packets failing at this? Do you think classes seem distinct enough? What would you change?
I'm not sure that I agree that a perfect system requires "looks to be different" in a mechanical sense. For one thing , a bunch of different mechanical systems has the potential for the variable interactions to spiral out of control exponentially (although in practice, so long as you define a good baseline mechanic, and reduce cross-class poaching, it's probably not _that_ bad).
I personally think that a common underlying mechanic is just fine, so long as there are sufficient class or role differences. That's one of the advantages of 4E class design. If you play a defender class, you're going to have a class feature baked in that makes you different from all other non-defender classes -- you get some kind of mark and/or "ignore me at your peril" power right in your class from day one. (And fantastically enough, not every defender class even has the exact same brand of these powers -- so you're not even "looking the same" on that level either). If you play a Leader class, you get a minor action heal usable 2+ times an encounter. Baked in. So you get a free feature that helps you fill a role, but that's where the similarities end. Everything else is different. They look different, read different, and play differently. Consider the Leaders.. to name a few : Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Shaman, Warlord -- and those are just the ones that I've played, or had played in our games. They don't look the same. Not even close. For Example : just in regard to this one healing feature they all have in common : The Cleric heals the "standard" way - the target spends a surge and gets their surge value + Xd6 + Cleric's Wisdom healing. The artificer creates arcane objects in his spare time. He uses them in an encounter and the target gets surge value (+ small amount) without spending a surge. Then, during a short rest, anyone can spend one of their surges to refresh expended objects. The Bard heals less than the cleric, but can slide the ally around (great for flankers) or grant temp hps. The Shaman lets you spend a surge, but gives the +Xd6 to a different ally who is next to his spirit companion The Warlord heals less than the cleric (without feats) but he has other class features that work with the party giving them actions out of turn, and enhancing them as a team.
My argument, I guess, is that 4e only "looks the same" at a very cursory level.
In any case - to your other questions :
1/ Different powers per class gave 4E classes different feels, within the same framework. I'm a few playtest packets behind, but the version of the Monk with the "more dice = more magical" flavor was a decent attempt at making a class that felt different from the Rogue/Fighter. However, the Rogue was not differentiated enough from the fighter in that system to be relevant. (Not sure how each of them look now). Especially when Sneak Attack was his only in-combat option worth talking about and it was _strictly_ less useful than Deadly Strike, without having _any_ other redeeming features that made it look, feel, or play differently than the Fighter.
2/ Classes committing to powers for the whole of a level was a great thing for balance, and for DMs. (BTW - the 4e Wizard got a token spellbook, which allowed them to choose between 2 Daily spells for each one they knew each day, by default -- but that was an underused feature IMX). The fact that the pre-4e Vancian Casters could effectively change role every day was pretty terrible for the game. (Divine casters especially -- with access to the entire spell-level of spells without a book to worry about)
I lamented the loss of versatility as a player. At first. In the end, our games were better for it. I haven't missed it as much as I thought I would as a player. As a DM, I rejoiced :D
3/ Role-specific class features. Even if it comes from a background/template/specialty/trait / whatever you call it module. (I had high hopes for this system, until it got thrown under the "module-optional" bus. )
Finally something of substance. You point out a big difference on "how it plays" and "how it looks", and from what I've seen there somewhat of a division on what is the priority. In a perfect system, classes would both look to be different on the su
No, it wouldn't, because nobody in the game world can see your character sheet. The only flavor that matters is the flavor that the player gives his character. If the Monk wants his flurry to be something other than 'rapid hitting', there's no reason to say no.
People within the game world can see that sneaky guy A, wearing leather clothing and wielding a dagger (actually a rogue, in leather armor, with a real dagger) can only ever - over the course of a hundred battles - hit dead on perfect for massive damage, or else whiff utterly and look like a doofus; while sneaky guy B, wearing leather clothing and wielding a dagger (actually a monk, in non-armor clothing, holding a dagger in the hand used to make unarmed attacks) can very consistently cause small or moderate amounts of injury while more rarely hitting for massive damage.
Identical characters performing identical actions (as observed in-game; not talking about mechanical actions) should have nearly identical results, or else you violate basic causality. Remember, the game mechanics don't exist, as far as your characters are concerned; they only know what they can see in the game.
People within the game world can see that sneaky guy A, wearing leather clothing and wielding a dagger (actually a rogue, in leather armor, with a real dagger) can only ever - over the course of a hundred battles - hit dead on perfect for massive dam
Yes. And characters in the game would SEE my rogue stabbing a guy several times quickly, and they would SEE the monk poking the guy with a single finger with precise placing, because that's how I chose to narrate and flavor my character's abilities.
They would not know that the rogue scratched out 'Sneak Attack' and wrote in 'Flurry of Blows' and would not know that the monk scratched out 'Flurry of Blows' and wrote in 'Sneak Attack'.
Yes. And characters in the game would SEE my rogue stabbing a guy several times quickly, and they would SEE the monk poking the guy with a single finger with precise placing, because that's how I chose to narrate and flavor my character's abilities.
Saying I am a legion of insects and spiders that can assimilate into a humanoid form is one thing. Being able to dive onto the ground in a splash of vermin and crawl through the cracks in the walls and under doors is a whole different thing. (There was a theme in 4e that let you shape shift into a rat at-will. I refluffed that.)
Although I don't need mechanics to back a character up, I enjoy it as a tool because it is a very powerful tool in the hands of someone who can both stat and fluff a character. The more variety I have to work with, the better. Freeform is the starting point, I want D&DN to have more variety than Freeform.
Saying I am a legion of insects and spiders that can assimilate into a humanoid form is one thing. Being able to dive onto the ground in a splash of vermin and crawl through the cracks in the walls and under doors is a whole different thing. (There w
Yes. And characters in the game would SEE my rogue stabbing a guy several times quickly, and they would SEE the monk poking the guy with a single finger with precise placing, because that's how I chose to narrate and flavor my character's abilities.
They would not know that the rogue scratched out 'Sneak Attack' and wrote in 'Flurry of Blows' and would not know that the monk scratched out 'Flurry of Blows' and wrote in 'Sneak Attack'.
Yep. If my monk threw flaming kill kittens instead of punching several times, as long as the mechanics stay the same who cares? Once I refluffed my thief into a puppet master and had my sling be a magic wand that commanded my puppets (sling bullets) to attack. After battles, I'd collect my dolls and repair them (buy new bullets). Everything worked 100% the same with the mechanics, but she didn't look like the average rogue.
Yep. If my monk threw flaming kill kittens instead of punching several times, as long as the mechanics stay the same who cares? Once I refluffed my thief into a puppet master and had my sling be a magic wand that commanded my puppets (sling bullets)
Yes. And characters in the game would SEE my rogue stabbing a guy several times quickly, and they would SEE the monk poking the guy with a single finger with precise placing, because that's how I chose to narrate and flavor my character's abilities.
They would not know that the rogue scratched out 'Sneak Attack' and wrote in 'Flurry of Blows' and would not know that the monk scratched out 'Flurry of Blows' and wrote in 'Sneak Attack'.
Actually trading class abilities is beyond the scope of the discussion at hand. I can't speak to whether it's fair to trade both fluff and mechanics of one ability for both fluff and mechanics of another ability - that would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, and I'm not a stickler for complete balance in any case.
I can only declare with confidence that describing the mechanics of one ability by using the fluff of another ability is inconsistent and thus bad.
Actually trading class abilities is beyond the scope of the discussion at hand. I can't speak to whether it's fair to trade both fluff and mechanics of one ability for both fluff and mechanics of another ability - that would have to be done on a cas
Once I refluffed my thief into a puppet master and had my sling be a magic wand that commanded my puppets (sling bullets) to attack. After battles, I'd collect my dolls and repair them (buy new bullets). Everything worked 100% the same with the mechanics, but she didn't look like the average rogue.
fun... at some point after reading HERO, I realized I could have back in 1e have flavored molotov cocktails as conjured fire storms with a lowish component cost and darts as runes that I painted on my staff and launch as magical missile fire and could recover by touching the places they hit after the battle. That it wasnt encouraged by AD&D but could have been promptly annoyed me.
fun... at some point after reading HERO, I realized I could have back in 1e have flavored molotov cocktails as conjured fire storms with a lowish component cost and darts as runes that I painted on my staff and launch as magical missile fire and coul
Yes. And characters in the game would SEE my rogue stabbing a guy several times quickly, and they would SEE the monk poking the guy with a single finger with precise placing, because that's how I chose to narrate and flavor my character's abilities.
They would not know that the rogue scratched out 'Sneak Attack' and wrote in 'Flurry of Blows' and would not know that the monk scratched out 'Flurry of Blows' and wrote in 'Sneak Attack'.
Actually trading class abilities is beyond the scope of the discussion at hand. I can't speak to whether it's fair to trade both fluff and mechanics of one ability for both fluff and mechanics of another ability - that would have to be done on a case-by-case basis, and I'm not a stickler for complete balance in any case. I can only declare with confidence that describing the mechanics of one ability by using the fluff of another ability is inconsistent and thus bad.
He didn't mean trading skills, he meant trading fluff. To your other point 'using the fluff of another ability is inconsistent and thus bad ', it only has to be internally consistent for the character. How you fluff the mechanics shouldn't ever matter. No player KNOWS your class and it's ins and outs but you. My 'rogue' might be a monk, fighter, cleric, wizard or even a rogue with the right skills and my rogue might never sneak attack, hide or open locks. So why would my sneak attack that looks like a flurry of blows be inconsistent to anyone? How do they know what I can/should do?
Actually trading class abilities is beyond the scope of the discussion at hand. I can't speak to whether it's fair to trade both fluff and mechanics of one ability for both fluff and mechanics of another ability - that would have to be done on a cas
My 'rogue' might be a monk, fighter, cleric, wizard or even a rogue with the right skills and my rogue might never sneak attack, hide or open locks. So why would my sneak attack that looks like a flurry of blows be inconsistent to anyone? How do they know what I can/should do?
The only important thing is that your thing that looks like a flurry of blow uses the same mechanics as anyone else doing something that looks like a flurry of blows. If the same move - based on the in-game description of what's going on - operates differently based on something that's in-game meaningless (like class, and the name of the ability), then that violates consistency of in-game physics.
It would be like one person jumping out of a window and falling to a splat, while another person jumps out of a window and spontaneously floats up to the moon. The same fluff must always lead to the same mechanics.
The only important thing is that your thing that looks like a flurry of blow uses the same mechanics as anyone else doing something that looks like a flurry of blows. If the same move - based on the in-game description of what's going on - operates
Consistency is a rather important issue, it one of the big things that glue any kind of fantasy setting and helps tons with suspension of disbelief.
While it's true that the characters don't see the mechanics, most mechanics are related to certain in-game circunstances.
For example in this case for Sneak Attack I think that you need to have the advantage to be able to use it, it makes sense that you NEED advantage in combat you will be able to unleash a precise and deadly strike. If your friend the wizard tells you to cut the throat of this orc just like you did last time with the goblin you could explain that you need to distract him first or something to open up a weak spot.
But do you really need combat advantage for that flurry of blows? What happens when your friend the Wizards suggests for you to unleash your flurry of blows on this hobgobling like you did on the zombie the other day, it's going to be a bit harder to explain that you can't attack really fast like you did before in these circunstances. Maybe it won't be and imposibble task and you will be able to explain why you need to have "advantage" in order to attack really fast or you could even lie and say that you are tired and thus can't do it again, but as time passes everyone will be able to tell that the rate at which you can use your flurry will be completely unconsistent.
You will find out that some re-fluffs will simply not be able to be logically explained.
Now if you can get away with re-fluffing everything with your group, maybe they really don't care, or they are nice enough to let you have your fun even if it spoils their own. As with everything in DnD and most similar games you can switch everything around if your group doesn't mind it, but that doesn't mean that it's right for the base product.
Consistency is a rather important issue, it one of the big things that glue any kind of fantasy setting and helps tons with suspension of disbelief.While it's true that the characters don't see the mechanics, most mechanics are related to certain in-
It would be like one person jumping out of a window and falling to a splat, while another person jumps out of a window and spontaneously floats up to the moon. The same fluff must always lead to the same mechanics.
Not at all. If one person jumps out of the window and floats down, like a feather fall, that has already thrown out that 'same mechanic'. What if they use a controlled fall? Does having the controlled fall having you float change anything? Does having featherfall allow you to land perfectly instead change the mechanics? Nope!
Two things looking the same doesn't mean they HAVE to have the same mechanics no more than having two things looking different means they have different mechanics. My question to you is, does having an ability that allows you to 'flurry of attacks' mean that the game can NEVER have another ability/power/feat/ect that lets you attack multiple times in melee? Just because the monk have an ability that does?
Not at all. If one person jumps out of the window and floats down, like a feather fall, that has already thrown out that 'same mechanic'. What if they use a controlled fall? Does having the controlled fall having you float change anything? Does havin
Now if you can get away with re-fluffing everything with your group, maybe they really don't care, or they are nice enough to let you have your fun even if it spoils their own. As with everything in DnD and most similar games you can switch everything around if your group doesn't mind it, but that doesn't mean that it's right for the base product.
Why would having different fluff spoil anyone's fun? How is making multiple attacks when the foe is distracted any more 'right' than getting a precise shot? You know the good old one, two combo when the guy isn't looking? Or the combo that takes a moment to start up and only works when you have him off guard. IMO, if it ruins someones fun, then they must think that everything has to be THEIR way. I don't normally tell people how to play their characters and I expect the same in return.
EDIT: there IS an exception for things that do not belong in the world, like spaceships and cyborgs in a normal d&d. I don't see the refluffing we've been talking about as something like that though.
Why would having different fluff spoil anyone's fun? How is making multiple attacks when the foe is distracted any more 'right' than getting a precise shot? You know the good old one, two combo when the guy isn't looking? Or the combo that takes a mo
So, whenever you have a character, it's pretty important that his abilities differenciate from other characters by actually showing him to be better at his specialized tasks. But it's not only that, I believe that having the character play itself diferently is a very under appreciated thing.
I agree that characters feeling different in play is important. However, I don't think that different subsystems for each class is the best way to achieve this. It can work, if done right(though D&D has managed to mess it up before...) but you pay a cost to do so. You pay it in modularity, in elegance, in ease of design, in balance, and in the ease of learning the game(as someone who ends up introducing at least a couple people a year to the hobby, that one is important to me).
I agree that characters feeling different in play is important. However, I don't think that different subsystems for each class is the best way to achieve this. It can work, if done right(though D&D has managed to mess it up before...) but you pay
If one person jumps out of the window and floats down, like a feather fall, that has already thrown out that 'same mechanic'. What if they use a controlled fall? Does having the controlled fall having you float change anything? Does having featherfall allow you to land perfectly instead change the mechanics? Nope!
Two things looking the same doesn't mean they HAVE to have the same mechanics no more than having two things looking different means they have different mechanics. My question to you is, does having an ability that allows you to 'flurry of attacks' mean that the game can NEVER have another ability/power/feat/ect that lets you attack multiple times in melee? Just because the monk have an ability that does?
If someone jumps out of a window, and their falls slows down to 10 feet per round, then I expect that person to not be injured from that fall unless they suddenly accelerate again before hitting the grounds (to remain consistent with feather fall). If someone is falling, and in the air they contort their body in a particular way such that they don't hit the ground quite so hard, then I expect them to take reduced falling damage - or potentially none at all (to remain consistent with the Controlled Fall maneuver).
If someone without the Controlled Fall maneuver jumps out a window, and tries to contort themselves in the air in the same way that the monk did when she took reduced damage, then I would expect that person to fail to mimic the maneuver closely enough - because the result is taking full damage, and full damage does not follow from successfully falling in a controlled manner.
Two things that look the same mean they MUST have at least recognizably the same mechanics. That's what it means to have a consistent game system. That the monk has an ability to strike rapidly by making multiple attack rolls means that any ability/power/feat which strikes multiple times is going to require multiple attack rolls - whether that's a feat, or item power, or enemy ability. The monk ability has DEFINED that multiple strikes requires multiple attack rolls to represent.
If someone jumps out of a window, and their falls slows down to 10 feet per round, then I expect that person to not be injured from that fall unless they suddenly accelerate again before hitting the grounds (to remain consistent with feather fall).
It would be like one person jumping out of a window and falling to a splat, while another person jumps out of a window and spontaneously floats up to the moon. The same fluff must always lead to the same mechanics.
Not at all. If one person jumps out of the window and floats down, like a feather fall, that has already thrown out that 'same mechanic'. What if they use a controlled fall? Does having the controlled fall having you float change anything? Does having featherfall allow you to land perfectly instead change the mechanics? Nope!
Two things looking the same doesn't mean they HAVE to have the same mechanics no more than having two things looking different means they have different mechanics. My question to you is, does having an ability that allows you to 'flurry of attacks' mean that the game can NEVER have another ability/power/feat/ect that lets you attack multiple times in melee? Just because the monk have an ability that does?
As long as it is consistent, some adaptions will work. Some of them simply won't because of the cirunstances that allow the use of its underlying mechanics.
Let's say you have a martial character that knows how to have controlled falls or knows how to lessen the impact of certain falls, now lets say that mechanically his ability is to ignore falling damage from falls from less than 30ft.
Now the mage has feather fall which allows him to float down at a certain speed, lets say that it's duration allows for 60ft of happy floating down.
Now you want to reflavor your martial characters ability as a float down, your character jumps off 30ft and floats down gently, the party is impressed.
Now you jump down a 40 feet ledge, now lets take two possible descriptions.
a) You fall to the ground normally without floating down, your party wonders what happened to your nifty trick.
b) you float down 30 feet down and then fall 20 feet, but still take massive damage corresponding to a 50feet fall. Your party wonders why did that seemingly 10 feet drop had so devastating effects in you.
Neither of the two cases is consistent, you might be able to come with a consistent explanation on why you can float down only on small falls if you take description a, and you might be able to explain how you are extremely vulnerable to small falls, but it's going to be quite hard.
Consistency is key, if you want to overlook it, that's on you.
Not at all. If one person jumps out of the window and floats down, like a feather fall, that has already thrown out that 'same mechanic'. What if they use a controlled fall? Does having the controlled fall having you float change anything? Does havin
I make two characters, one is a flighty, swashbuckling, full-of-derring-do airship captain. The other a boulder-like half-giant brute that loves hitting things, his club, and hitting things with his club.
If all my character options boil down to "I attack, roll a bonus, do x damage" for either character? I find this to be vastly inferior to the swashbuckler having mechanical systems that reward him for moving rapidly, vaulting tables, and a mechanical system that rewards the half-giant for smashing things with his club really hard.
That somebody would look at the second option and go "that interferes with roleplaying" or "that's not needed" is pretty silly to me, as one is obviously superior to the other. No you do not need mechanics that back up how you feel your character swings a weapon or talks to the duke or opens the locked door; but a system that offers ways to do that in a fashion that rewards that kind of different behavior is a superior system.
(As an aside, since it seems to be briefly discussed here: People that think that an RPG's mechanics are a layer of physical laws that are constant in that game are doing it wrong. An RPG's mechanics are there to determine the outcome - primarily "success" or "failure" - of any particular action. Trying to use them as a series of laws of physics is absurd, sorry. They simply need to be predictable by players at the table, consistent in that manner. Otherwise, it's telling a story - you do what is right for the story.)
I make two characters, one is a flighty, swashbuckling, full-of-derring-do airship captain. The other a boulder-like half-giant brute that loves hitting things, his club, and hitting things with his club.If all my character options boil down to "I at
(As an aside, since it seems to be briefly discussed here: People that think that an RPG's mechanics are a layer of physical laws that are constant in that game are doing it wrong. An RPG's mechanics are there to determine the outcome - primarily "success" or "failure" - of any particular action. Trying to use them as a series of laws of physics is absurd, sorry. They simply need to be predictable by players at the table, consistent in that manner. Otherwise, it's telling a story - you do what is right for the story.)
And how the mechanics enable you being able or unable to do on certain situations and "success" or "failure" of diferent tasks should be consistent otherwise it affects supension of disbelief.
It that sense mechanics do resemble a set of "laws of physics" albeit loosely. I see them more like the framework upon which the fantasy is built on.
And how the mechanics enable you being able or unable to do on certain situations and "success" or "failure" of diferent tasks should be consistent otherwise it affects supension of disbelief.It that sense mechanics do resemble a set of "laws of phys
And how the mechanics enable you being able or unable to do on certain situations and "success" or "failure" of diferent tasks should be consistent otherwise it affects supension of disbelief.
It that sense mechanics do resemble a set of "laws of physics" albeit loosely. I see them more like the framework upon which the fantasy is built on.
Honestly, even that is just a preference. I have no problem suspeding disbelief if the mechanics support the story, no matter how inconsistent they may be with other mechanics.
Honestly, even that is just a preference. I have no problem suspeding disbelief if the mechanics support the story, no matter how inconsistent they may be with other mechanics.
And how the mechanics enable you being able or unable to do on certain situations and "success" or "failure" of diferent tasks should be consistent otherwise it affects supension of disbelief.
It that sense mechanics do resemble a set of "laws of physics" albeit loosely. I see them more like the framework upon which the fantasy is built on.
Honestly, even that is just a preference. I have no problem suspeding disbelief if the mechanics support the story, no matter how inconsistent they may be with other mechanics.
A timely reflavor of an instance of an skill in a crucial time or doing something outside of the mechanics once can easily be attributed to the heroic nature of the story that will have "it's moments", those "how'd you do that?" can always be responded with "I don't know, it just happened" but it's easy to see how stuff like that being common just takes away from the special of those moments and makes for a game where anyone can do anything on any given moment.
That's completely different from saying that you will dress up your sneak attack into a flurry of blows or that your controlled fall looks just like a feather fall spell.
Honestly, even that is just a preference. I have no problem suspeding disbelief if the mechanics support the story, no matter how inconsistent they may be with other mechanics.[/quote]A timely reflavor of an instance of an skill in a crucial time or
People that think that an RPG's mechanics are a layer of physical laws that are constant in that game are doing it wrong.
It really depends on the game. GURPS, for example, is all about this sort of consistency. More on topic, 3E was strongly in favor of game mechanics as consistent in all cases. Though you may consider 3E to be an outlier as far as D&D over-all is concerned, it defines D&D every bit as much as AD&D or 4E has done, and Next will need to cater to that audience if they want the demographic to buy into the game.
It really depends on the game. GURPS, for example, is all about this sort of consistency. More on topic, 3E was strongly in favor of game mechanics as consistent in all cases. Though you may consider 3E to be an outlier as far as D&D over-all is
More on topic, 3E was strongly in favor of game mechanics as consistent in all cases. Though you may consider 3E to be an outlier as far as D&D over-all is concerned, it defines D&D every bit as much as AD&D or 4E has done, and Next will need to cater to that audience if they want the demographic to buy into the game.
For one, game mechanics should be consistent and predictable; if Bob rolls a 1d20 and adds a number to see if he hits a monster with a sword, that's how it should work for all players, more or less (this being a gross simplification). That is a consistency for the players to easily understand how the rules of the game work, though, not because there is a hard-coded set of physics in that fantasy world that whenever anybody anywhere tries to hit somebody else, some deity-like meta-being in the sky rolls a d20 to determine the outcome.
For two, you should not, as a game company, feel pressured to keep a faulted game mechanic - or really this goes deeper, to a faulted game design philosophy - in order to keep a small subset of your gaming community at the risk of alienating a larger portion.
For three, you should always be willing to set aside the rules entirely and let something that is Just Plain Cool happen. Rules should never, ever, ever hold you back from doing something interesting with a story or scene (this does not mean that players get free reign to insta-kill dragons just by doing something cool - however, they should not be mechanically punished for doing something really interesting, provided it fits the feel of the campaign and group playstyle).
Back to the core of the thread however: You should be able to re-fluff the abilities of your class however you want (provided it fits the feel of the campaign and group playstyle, of course); this does nothing to change the fact that a system that more freely mechanically rewards you for playing your character the way you think it should be played is superior to one that does not (all other things being equal).
For one, game mechanics should be consistent and predictable; if Bob rolls a 1d20 and adds a number to see if he hits a monster with a sword, that's how it should work for all players, more or less (this being a gross simplification). That is a consi
I like classes to have distinct mechanics/features (Incarnate, etc).
I don't dig one-size-fits-all (might as well go class-less at that point).
I totally agree with the OP (on all counts).I like classes to have distinct mechanics/features (Incarnate, etc).I don't dig one-size-fits-all (might as well go class-less at that point).
The biggest disappointment is when your character vision based on flavor or fluff does not pan out mechanically. A flexible rule system that is balanced helps. As to whether one size fits all versus numerous sub-systems is better is debatable. However, it is easier to add diversity of choices to a one-size fits all, versus the other, because the mechanics are less of a concern. For the purposes of D&D, a rule system that supports casters verus martials as a primary split, or a two tier system would be the best approach in my opinion. However, this means the pillars of play would change to be primarily a DM tool versus how classes are currently developed in 5E.
The biggest disappointment is when your character vision based on flavor or fluff does not pan out mechanically. A flexible rule system that is balanced helps. As to whether one size fits all versus numerous sub-systems is better is debatable. Howeve
LolaBonne, what you are describing is called "freeform roleplaying."
While cool, it is not the same thing as a roleplaying game.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...
If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.
Nothing saying you can't have fun freeform RPing using D&D as a basis, but you're not 'playing D&D' as the rest of us know it, and using your experience to design Next is not appropriate.
And, of course, one of the things they said when designing 5e was that there was no wrong way to play D&D, and 5e was to support that conceit. A pleasure to know your true colors. I shall not be dealing with you in the future. Good day.
Freeform roleplaying is not playing a RPG. D&D is a RPG.
If you call that my 'true colors' then fine. You should be very clear that I'm not willing to sacrifice a well-designed game just because some people don't care about having a well-designed game. The idea that we should just not care about the G part of the RPG, just because you are happy enough freeform roleplaying, would be a major mistake. It's an inherently selfish perspective, because no matter what form the G part takes, you'll still be happy if the RP side is fine. Even if I do get what I want, you still get what you want. The same is not true if we use your ideals as a design goal.
And that's not acceptable.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...[/quote]If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.Nothing saying you can't have fun free
And, of course, one of the things they said when designing 5e was that there was no wrong way to play D&D, and 5e was to support that conceit. A pleasure to know your true colors. I shall not be dealing with you in the future. Good day.
Freeform roleplaying is not playing a RPG. D&D is a RPG.
If you call that my 'true colors' then fine. You should be very clear that I'm not willing to sacrifice a well-designed game just because some people don't care about having a well-designed game. The idea that we should just not care about the G part of the RPG, just because you are happy enough freeform roleplaying, would be a major mistake. It's an inherently selfish perspective, because no matter what form the G part takes, you'll still be happy if the RP side is fine. Even if I do get what I want, you still get what you want. The same is not true if we use your ideals as a design goal.
And that's not acceptable.
These should be a completely separate topic, and maybe even a sticky. I've seen many discussions of game mechanics turn into a RP vs G debate which isn't very fruitful, and as you so eloquently mentioned the RP crew will be happy as long as the RP side is fine and they shouldn't disrupt debates on how to properly balance or implement a gaming system for those of us who really care about it.
Freeform roleplaying is not playing a RPG. D&D is a RPG.If you call that my 'true colors' then fine. You should be very clear that I'm not willing to sacrifice a well-designed game just because some people don't care about having a well-designed ga
I make two characters, one is a flighty, swashbuckling, full-of-derring-do airship captain. The other a boulder-like half-giant brute that loves hitting things, his club, and hitting things with his club.
If all my character options boil down to "I attack, roll a bonus, do x damage" for either character? I find this to be vastly inferior to the swashbuckler having mechanical systems that reward him for moving rapidly, vaulting tables, and a mechanical system that rewards the half-giant for smashing things with his club really hard.
That somebody would look at the second option and go "that interferes with roleplaying" or "that's not needed" is pretty silly to me, as one is obviously superior to the other. No you do not need mechanics that back up how you feel your character swings a weapon or talks to the duke or opens the locked door; but a system that offers ways to do that in a fashion that rewards that kind of different behavior is a superior system.
I don't think anyone is saying that having a 'mechanical systems that reward' the players way of playing isn't nice, I just don't think it's needed to make your character unique.
I don't think anyone is saying that having a 'mechanical systems that reward' the players way of playing isn't nice, I just don't think it's needed to make your character unique.
There is a difference between John the Fighter being a unique fighter and John the fighter playing as a unique fighter.
*shrug* Unique is unique. Looking at the title of the post, It's about feeling unique, NOT being unique or playing unique. So taking the OP's question and answering it, I have to say I have no issue feeling my characters are unique without having each character have it's own unique mechanic.
And with race, skill, feat and manuever picks in the mix, why isn't john the fighter both unique and playing unique?
*shrug* Unique is unique. Looking at the title of the post, It's about feeling unique, NOT being unique or playing unique. So taking the OP's question and answering it, I have to say I have no issue feeling my characters are unique without having eac
I don't think anyone is saying that having a 'mechanical systems that reward' the players way of playing isn't nice, I just don't think it's needed to make your character unique.
As the OP:
It might not be needed, but having a good consistent system providing tools and mechanics that ensure both proper characterization and a feeling if uniqueness and heroism is something that IMO DnDNext should strive for. As proven over the last 10 or 20 posts, simply re-dressing and changing the fluff for the mechanics is not a viable solution (for everyone) as it will damage in-game world consistency.
At least for my enjoyment of the game, switching up descriptions to something completely out of the ordinary and taking actions outside of the base mechanics is something that should be saved for Heroic moments and Plot Devices.
As the OP:It might not be needed, but having a good consistent system providing tools and mechanics that ensure both proper characterization and a feeling if uniqueness and heroism is something that IMO DnDNext should strive for. As proven over the l
For two, you should not, as a game company, feel pressured to keep a faulted game mechanic - or really this goes deeper, to a faulted game design philosophy - in order to keep a small subset of your gaming community at the risk of alienating a larger portion.
Agreed entirely. Tradition is one of the worst reasons to keep anything.
For three, you should always be willing to set aside the rules entirely and let something that is Just Plain Cool happen. Rules should never, ever, ever hold you back from doing something interesting with a story or scene (this does not mean that players get free reign to insta-kill dragons just by doing something cool - however, they should not be mechanically punished for doing something really interesting, provided it fits the feel of the campaign and group playstyle).
Disagreed entirely. If you have to alter causality to get something to happen, then that action is not logical and detracts from the integrity of the setting. The degree to which an individual cares about system integrity over narrative freedom is a highly personal thing, though, which is why we have different systems with different goals in the first place (and why it's very important that everyone in group is on the same page for such things).
Back to the core of the thread however: You should be able to re-fluff the abilities of your class however you want (provided it fits the feel of the campaign and group playstyle, of course); this does nothing to change the fact that a system that more freely mechanically rewards you for playing your character the way you think it should be played is superior to one that does not (all other things being equal).
Agreed, except where it would conflict with design goals of a higher priority. If I prioritize consistency above freedom, then using different mechanics to describe the same fluff will never fit the feel of the campaign playstyle (and again, is why it's very important for everyone to agree on what that playstyle actually is).
Agreed entirely. Tradition is one of the worst reasons to keep anything.Disagreed entirely. If you have to alter causality to get something to happen, then that action is not logical and detracts from the integrity of the setting. The degree to wh
LolaBonne, what you are describing is called "freeform roleplaying."
While cool, it is not the same thing as a roleplaying game.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...
If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.
Nothing saying you can't have fun freeform RPing using D&D as a basis, but you're not 'playing D&D' as the rest of us know it, and using your experience to design Next is not appropriate.
And, of course, one of the things they said when designing 5e was that there was no wrong way to play D&D, and 5e was to support that conceit. A pleasure to know your true colors. I shall not be dealing with you in the future. Good day.
Freeform roleplaying is not playing a RPG. D&D is a RPG.
If you call that my 'true colors' then fine. You should be very clear that I'm not willing to sacrifice a well-designed game just because some people don't care about having a well-designed game. The idea that we should just not care about the G part of the RPG, just because you are happy enough freeform roleplaying, would be a major mistake. It's an inherently selfish perspective, because no matter what form the G part takes, you'll still be happy if the RP side is fine. Even if I do get what I want, you still get what you want. The same is not true if we use your ideals as a design goal.
And that's not acceptable.
Freeform roleplaying is absolutely an RPG. Mind's Eye Theatre is a system predicated on that very notion. While it has its own issues (specifically the arguments that require a thesaurus to adjudicate), it is a system that is IMO superior in concept to many rules heavy TTRPGs. Freeform roleplaying doesn't necessarily mean one has to sacrifice a well balanced game, either. For me, a balanced game is necessary for good freeform roleplaying because it allows the rules to get out of the way of the roleplaying, encouraging more of it. Imbalanced and bad rules inhibit freeform roleplaying, not encourage it.
That's funny, since it's worked just fine for me in D&D for decades. Guess I'm doing it wrong. And I was having so much fun, too ...[/quote]If you're not playing D&D as an RPG, then you are doing it wrong, yes.Nothing saying you can't have fun fr
"Freeform roleplaying doesn't necessarily mean one has to sacrifice a well balanced game"
That's exactly what it means. "Freeform" means it's not restricted by arbitrary rules. It's essentially improv theater. And it's really awesome, but it's not an RPG.
If there's rules, then it's not freeform. "Free"
"Freeform roleplaying doesn't necessarily mean one has to sacrifice a well balanced game"That's exactly what it means. "Freeform" means it's not restricted by arbitrary rules. It's essentially improv theater. And it's really awesome, but it's not
"Freeform roleplaying doesn't necessarily mean one has to sacrifice a well balanced game"
That's exactly what it means. "Freeform" means it's not restricted by arbitrary rules. It's essentially improv theater. And it's really awesome, but it's not an RPG.
If there's rules, then it's not freeform. "Free"
Arbitrary rules are bad even in a TTRPG. They restrict any game. Freeform RPGs allow for the roleplaying to be free, not necessarily the mechanics. Again, I point to MET as an example.
Arbitrary rules are bad even in a TTRPG. They restrict any game. Freeform RPGs allow for the roleplaying to be free, not necessarily the mechanics. Again, I point to MET as an example.
"Freeform roleplaying doesn't necessarily mean one has to sacrifice a well balanced game"
That's exactly what it means. "Freeform" means it's not restricted by arbitrary rules. It's essentially improv theater. And it's really awesome, but it's not an RPG.
If there's rules, then it's not freeform. "Free"
Arbitrary rules are bad even in a TTRPG. They restrict any game. Freeform RPGs allow for the roleplaying to be free, not necessarily the mechanics. Again, I point to MET as an example.
All rules are arbitrary.
People misuse the word. They use it to signify rules they dislike. Which is in itself arbitrary, go figure.
Arbitrary rules are bad even in a TTRPG. They restrict any game. Freeform RPGs allow for the roleplaying to be free, not necessarily the mechanics. Again, I point to MET as an example.[/quote]All rules are arbitrary.People misuse the word. They use
"Freeform roleplaying doesn't necessarily mean one has to sacrifice a well balanced game"
That's exactly what it means. "Freeform" means it's not restricted by arbitrary rules. It's essentially improv theater. And it's really awesome, but it's not an RPG.
If there's rules, then it's not freeform. "Free"
Arbitrary rules are bad even in a TTRPG. They restrict any game. Freeform RPGs allow for the roleplaying to be free, not necessarily the mechanics. Again, I point to MET as an example.
All rules are arbitrary.
People misuse the word. They use it to signify rules they dislike. Which is in itself arbitrary, go figure.
Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Objective, well thought out systems that strive to remove the whims of players and developers alike are not arbitrary. Those same systems lack the subjective pitfalls that often inhibit roleplaying by trapping the player in someone else's paradigm.
Arbitrary rules are bad even in a TTRPG. They restrict any game. Freeform RPGs allow for the roleplaying to be free, not necessarily the mechanics. Again, I point to MET as an example.[/quote]All rules are arbitrary.People misuse the word. They use
Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system". It has nothing to do with like or dislike. Objective, well thought out systems that strive to remove the whims of players and developers alike are not arbitrary. Those same systems lack the subjective pitfalls that often inhibit roleplaying by trapping the player in someone else's paradigm.
Which is why the definition uses the term reason, not reasons. It means "Sound judgement, good sense" not "a basis or cause, as for some belief" or "a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief".
Which is why the definition uses the term reason, not reasons. It means "Sound judgement, good sense" not "a basis or cause, as for some belief" or "a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief".
Definition of arbitrary aside, freeform roleplaying means not adhering to many, if any, set rules or guidelines. A game, by definition, adheres to a preconcieved set of rules.
game
/gām/
Noun
A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
Free-form Roleplaying(n.) A style of roleplaying which allows a player complete freedom to control his or her own character within the inherent restrictions of a setting.
edit: Sorry for the bad formatting. The first definition refuses to format correctly.
Definition of arbitrary aside, freeform roleplaying means not adhering to many, if any, set rules or guidelines. A game, by definition, adheres to a preconcieved set of rules.game /gām/ Noun A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one pla
How does D&D Next NOT have freeform roleplaying? You can roleplay your character any way you want. There are no rules to tell you how to roleplay, no dice to roll to decide what your character is doing.
The only way you wouldn't be free to roleplay is if the books had charts and tables for it. "Ok...let me roll on the Opening Line chart to see what I say first...'Nice to meet you, sir/madam!'"
How does D&D Next NOT have freeform roleplaying? You can roleplay your character any way you want. There are no rules to tell you how to roleplay, no dice to roll to decide what your character is doing.The only way you wouldn't be free to roleplay
Structured Results games where the success, failure, and the degree of either is agreed upon by impartial game mechanics.
Freefrorm Results games where the success, failure, and the degree of either is created by the players and GMs themselves.
D&D is a Structured game. The book and the dice determine your success chance and tell you whether you pass or fail.
All that can be argued is how the success rate and degree of success is determined and how much you prefer your choices affect this.
There are 2 kinds of gamesStructured Results games where the success, failure, and the degree of either is agreed upon by impartial game mechanics.Freefrorm Results games where the success, failure, and the degree of either is created by the players
Structured Results games where the success, failure, and the degree of either is agreed upon by impartial game mechanics.
Freefrorm Results games where the success, failure, and the degree of either is created by the players and GMs themselves.
D&D is a Structured game. The book and the dice determine your success chance and tell you whether you pass or fail.
All that can be argued is how the success rate and degree of success is determined and how much you prefer your choices affect this.
I understand the difference between structured and freeform games. But I don't understand why D&D is a structured game for everything. While you could certainly roll dice for every single action taken, you don't have to. The DM guidelines even talks about simply ignoring the dice. In other words, the game is as structured as you want to make it.
While I think most people who play D&D closely follow the rules when it comes to combat resolution, roleplaying (at least in my experience) is freeform. Dice will be rolled when the outcome is uncertain (how will the high priest react to this argument? roll the dice), but most of the time players simply roleplay.
I understand the difference between structured and freeform games. But I don't understand why D&D is a structured game for everything. While you could certainly roll dice for every single action taken, you don't have to. The DM guidelines even tal
I don't think anyone is saying that having a 'mechanical systems that reward' the players way of playing isn't nice, I just don't think it's needed to make your character unique.
The only thing that is needed to make a "unique" character is an imagination, that statement should be so obvious to anybody that has role-played in any capacity I feel silly even having to write it down. You don't need rules to be unique; you don't need rules to do anything but impartially resolve player actions.
The thing is, it's pointless to talk about what people imagine in these forums, so it's sort of a place to discuss the mechanics of a system. And that comes to the basic point of my argument: You should have a way of mechanically differentiating between characters, because it's better that way.
As for the people that are apparently very confused on what "free form RP" is and why it's not an RPG (let alone D&D, which is a pretty rules-heavy game):
I don't see a "G" when anybody says "Free-FormRP". There is a reason for that. "Free form RP" is basically mutual storytelling - there are no mechanics (because that would make it a free-form RPG, and thus inherently contradictory to itself). It is not a game. It is a way for two people to mutually tell a story or "role-play".
RPG stands for Role-Playing game. That means there are rules, there are mechanics. If those rules and mechanics prevent role-playing, then obviously the G is preventing the RP and it's not an RPG.
So no, free-form RP cannot be an RPG; D&D (of any edition) is an RPG.
Yes you can have an RPG with more free and liberal rules - there are tons of games out there that run from pretty-free to barely-any-dice.
Please stop confusing these terms.
The only thing that is needed to make a "unique" character is an imagination, that statement should be so obvious to anybody that has role-played in any capacity I feel silly even having to write it down. You don't need rules to be unique; you don't
How does D&D Next NOT have freeform roleplaying? You can roleplay your character any way you want. There are no rules to tell you how to roleplay, no dice to roll to decide what your character is doing.
The only way you wouldn't be free to roleplay is if the books had charts and tables for it. "Ok...let me roll on the Opening Line chart to see what I say first...'Nice to meet you, sir/madam!'"
Structured Results games where the success, failure, and the degree of either is agreed upon by impartial game mechanics.
Freefrorm Results games where the success, failure, and the degree of either is created by the players and GMs themselves.
D&D is a Structured game. The book and the dice determine your success chance and tell you whether you pass or fail.
All that can be argued is how the success rate and degree of success is determined and how much you prefer your choices affect this.
I understand the difference between structured and freeform games. But I don't understand why D&D is a structured game for everything. While you could certainly roll dice for every single action taken, you don't have to. The DM guidelines even talks about simply ignoring the dice. In other words, the game is as structured as you want to make it.
While I think most people who play D&D closely follow the rules when it comes to combat resolution, roleplaying (at least in my experience) is freeform. Dice will be rolled when the outcome is uncertain (how will the high priest react to this argument? roll the dice), but most of the time players simply roleplay.
D&D is as structured as you want it to be.
The only issue and point of this thread is how much should the description of the characters and their actions and how much that affects the rate and degree of success. D&D has become more and more roleplay to mechanics as the years go by.
You can make all weapons attacks deal 1d8 damage. Or you can adjust his weapon to 1d12 because you RP a character wielding a greatsword. And you can add his STR mod because you RP a strong character
You can negotiate terms with the Prince with a check And you can make it a CHA vs WIS check to introduce character ability And you can add skill dice to introduce roleplayed character skill
I understand the difference between structured and freeform games. But I don't understand why D&D is a structured game for everything. While you could certainly roll dice for every single action taken, you don't have to. The DM guidelines even tal
Definition of arbitrary aside, freeform roleplaying means not adhering to many, if any, set rules or guidelines. A game, by definition, adheres to a preconcieved set of rules.
game
/gām/
Noun
A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck.
Free-form Roleplaying(n.) A style of roleplaying which allows a player complete freedom to control his or her own character within the inherent restrictions of a setting.
edit: Sorry for the bad formatting. The first definition refuses to format correctly.
FATE is a roleplaying game with rules that allows player complete freedom to control his or her character within the inherent restrictions of the setting.
I also disagree with your definition. Most freeform RPGs use a referee or Storyteller for adjudication based on a preconceived ruleset.
FATE is a roleplaying game with rules that allows player complete freedom to control his or her character within the inherent restrictions of the setting.I also disagree with your definition. Most freeform RPGs use a referee or Storyteller for adju
FATE is a roleplaying game with rules that allows player complete freedom to control his or her character within the inherent restrictions of the setting.
So if you wanted, at any time, you could simply say "my character hits that guy, knocking him clean out with the first blow" without rolling any dice, spending any fate points, nothing, you just say your character does it? Then why are there even rules when you can simply dictate the outcomes of your actions by simply saying it is so? That is what Free-Form RP is. The outcome of character actions is not determined by dice, or game rules - it's simply determined mutually by all parties participating in the Free-Form RP session. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I also disagree with your definition. Most freeform RPGs use a referee or Storyteller for adjudication based on a preconceived ruleset.
Please explain to me what a "freeform RPG" is, and how it is different from a regular TTRPG?
So if you wanted, at any time, you could simply say "my character hits that guy, knocking him clean out with the first blow" without rolling any dice, spending any fate points, nothing, you just say your character does it? Then why are there even rul
How does D&D Next NOT have freeform roleplaying? You can roleplay your character any way you want. There are no rules to tell you how to roleplay, no dice to roll to decide what your character is doing.
The only way you wouldn't be free to roleplay is if the books had charts and tables for it. "Ok...let me roll on the Opening Line chart to see what I say first...'Nice to meet you, sir/madam!'"
Thank you.
So, you should be absolutely fine with having a robust, mechanically well-designed game, then?
Thank you.[/quote]So, you should be absolutely fine with having a robust, mechanically well-designed game, then?
How does D&D Next NOT have freeform roleplaying? You can roleplay your character any way you want. There are no rules to tell you how to roleplay, no dice to roll to decide what your character is doing.
The only way you wouldn't be free to roleplay is if the books had charts and tables for it. "Ok...let me roll on the Opening Line chart to see what I say first...'Nice to meet you, sir/madam!'"
Thank you.
So, you should be absolutely fine with having a robust, mechanically well-designed game, then?
There are people that simply don't answer when the answer wouldn't help their side of the argument. It is a shame indeed.
I don't quite understand people arguing against stuff that will have a minimal effect on their playstyle.
Thank you.[/quote]So, you should be absolutely fine with having a robust, mechanically well-designed game, then?[/quote]There are people that simply don't answer when the answer wouldn't help their side of the argument. It is a shame indeed.I don't q
FATE is a roleplaying game with rules that allows player complete freedom to control his or her character within the inherent restrictions of the setting.
So if you wanted, at any time, you could simply say "my character hits that guy, knocking him clean out with the first blow" without rolling any dice, spending any fate points, nothing, you just say your character does it? Then why are there even rules when you can simply dictate the outcomes of your actions by simply saying it is so? That is what Free-Form RP is. The outcome of character actions is not determined by dice, or game rules - it's simply determined mutually by all parties participating in the Free-Form RP session. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I also disagree with your definition. Most freeform RPGs use a referee or Storyteller for adjudication based on a preconceived ruleset.
Please explain to me what a "freeform RPG" is, and how it is different from a regular TTRPG?
Sure, you can say it. That doesn't mean it happens. More to the point, you can say it is what you want to do whenever you want to do it, with no mechanical preventions. Freedom to control a character does not equate to success in that character's attempted action.
So if you wanted, at any time, you could simply say "my character hits that guy, knocking him clean out with the first blow" without rolling any dice, spending any fate points, nothing, you just say your character does it? Then why are there even rul
Fighters use martial damage dice which they expend each turn to perform maneuvers.
Barbarians use pain and anger to fuel their rage. Causing damage or receiving damage builds their power throughout an encounter. They become progressively more powerful as they inflict or receive injuries.
Rogues use skill tricks ( get rid of the martial damage dice)
Cleric prayers are based on a percent likelihood of success depending on their class level and their faith or obedience level in following the will of their deity. No maximum number per day but percent success decreases per spell level cast. Druids are a form of cleric which worships nature as a deity.
Wizards use ritual only magic. Their spells are easily disrupted but are potentially the most powerful. They all have verbal, somatic, and material components. Wizards have spells pools. Spell use drains them until they can no longer cast.
Sorcerers are innate magic-users. All their spells are at will. They gradually build to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level spells.
Warlocks, Binders, and Channelers are Vancian in nature as their spells are granted by pacts with otherworldly powers, bound vestiges, or channeling celestial beings. Spells do not drain them but they have limited use of these powers.
Monks use ki power which are at will, encounter, and daily powers.
Bards and Assassins are themes to add to any of the previous classes. They require certain sacrifices but add certain abilities.
Rangers and Paladins are multiclass fighter/druids and fighter/clerics.
My thoughts:Fighters use martial damage dice which they expend each turn to perform maneuvers.Barbarians use pain and anger to fuel their rage. Causing damage or receiving damage builds their power throughout an encounter. They become progressively
