Scourge of the Seas: too much?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?

It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.

This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.

Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in news:MPG.1d82ba08fee935ef9897c5
@news.iskon.hr:

> Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
>
> It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
> can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
> 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
>
> This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
> frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
> runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
> for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
> need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
> whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
>
> Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
> one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?

From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
facing the patently fearsome.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:17 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:

>Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in news:MPG.1d82ba08fee935ef9897c5
>@news.iskon.hr:
>
>> Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
>>
>> It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
>> can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
>> 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
>>
>> This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
>> frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
>> runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
>> for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
>> need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
>> whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
>>
>> Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
>> one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?

While I have never read Stormwrack, in real life chasing down a ship
that was fleeing usually took several hours under the best
circumstances.

>
>From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
>mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
>game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
>feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
>facing the patently fearsome.

That depends. While of course it is perfectly reasonable for merchant
captains to surrender as soon as they see the flag of the Dread Pirate
Murgatroyd, no matter how much a military captain may be wetting
himself, he pretty much has to put up at least a little fight.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

David Johnston <rgorman@block.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:17 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in news:MPG.1d82ba08fee935ef9897c5
>>@news.iskon.hr:
>>
>>> Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
>>>
>>> It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
>>> can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
>>> 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
>>>
>>> This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
>>> frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
>>> runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
>>> for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
>>> need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
>>> whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
>>>
>>> Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
>>> one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
>
> While I have never read Stormwrack, in real life chasing down a ship
> that was fleeing usually took several hours under the best
> circumstances.

I was thinking the same thing -- frightened for up to an hour won't make
a difference in most cases *unless* they can't run.

>>From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
>>mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
>>game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
>>feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
>>facing the patently fearsome.
>
> That depends. While of course it is perfectly reasonable for merchant
> captains to surrender as soon as they see the flag of the Dread Pirate
> Murgatroyd, no matter how much a military captain may be wetting
> himself, he pretty much has to put up at least a little fight.

Also, *too* fearsome a reputation can work against you. If you're the
biggest, baddest pirate out there and never leave survivors, those
you're hunting will either run away or fight to win -- you never give
quarter, so if they can't run fighting their damnedest is their only
hope.

OTOH, if you're a strong enough pirate with a reputation for letting
people live, you might find that they strike their sails when you
challenge, pay the toll, and get on with their lives.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <Xns96C7B23F263EF619void@199.45.49.11>, void@verizon.net
says...

> > Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
> >
> > It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
> > can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
> > 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
> >
> > This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
> > frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
> > runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
> > for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
> > need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
> > whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
> >
> > Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
> > one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
>
> From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced.

It seems so...

> But I love that base D&D mechanics are going Simulationist.

They are?

> There is no good reason why the actual
> game world should be game balanced in many areas.

I think there is: so that the game is fun and for everyone, not just for
the scourge of the seas.

> This Scourge of the Seas
> feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
> facing the patently fearsome.

I'm not questioning whether ship captains and crews should run away when
faced with the patently fearsome.

I'm questioning whether a single feat, with prerequisites that can be
fulfilled at 2nd-level, should make you one of the patently fearsome.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in
news:MPG.1d8593837f2377799897cb@news.iskon.hr:

> In article <Xns96C7B23F263EF619void@199.45.49.11>, void@verizon.net
> says...
>
>> > Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from
>> > Stormwrack is?
>> >
>> > It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship
>> > that can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened
>> > for 1d6 x 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender
>> > instead.
>> >
>> > This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a
>> > ship, frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the
>> > whole ship runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory
>> > unless you're out for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will
>> > be, but still, all you need to do is to slow down the enemy
>> > (through damage or magic or whatever) so that it cannot run away
>> > and they surrender.
>> >
>> > Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost
>> > of one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
>>
>> From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced.
>
> It seems so...

I'll have to read the book, though. It's on order though -- I suppose my
interest in the book was peaked by Hurricane Katrina.

>> But I love that base D&D mechanics are going Simulationist.
>
> They are?

3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different from
First and Second Edition AD&D. I get my Simulationist (and Narrativist)
kicks in the current game more from the side products like the
Dragonlance and Eberron lines. However, I'm noticing more Simulationist
fluff and even crunch in the base 3.5 D&D rulebooks. New mythologies in
Races of Stone, Simulationist (setting) in the Environment Series,
expanded prestige class pages based on how they fit into the game world
(strongly Simulationist), even those +2 +2 skill feats in the 3.5 PHB
are strongly Simulationist (System).

>> There is no good reason why the actual
>> game world should be game balanced in many areas.
>
> I think there is: so that the game is fun and for everyone, not just
> for the scourge of the seas.

Depends upon the group, but NPCs can't influence the attitudes of PC
captains anyway. PCs who board ships without being the captain should
realize they are taking these kinds of risks.

>> This Scourge of the Seas
>> feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and
>> captains when facing the patently fearsome.
>
> I'm not questioning whether ship captains and crews should run away
> when faced with the patently fearsome.
>
> I'm questioning whether a single feat, with prerequisites that can be
> fulfilled at 2nd-level, should make you one of the patently fearsome.

To be truly effective against the competent you will need a good
Intimidate score, though.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Joseph wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in
> news:MPG.1d8593837f2377799897cb@news.iskon.hr:
>
>
>>In article <Xns96C7B23F263EF619void@199.45.49.11>, void@verizon.net
>>says...
>>
>>
>>>>Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from
>>>>Stormwrack is?
>>>>
>>>>It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship
>>>>that can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened
>>>>for 1d6 x 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender
>>>>instead.
>>>>
>>>>This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a
>>>>ship, frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the
>>>>whole ship runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory
>>>>unless you're out for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will
>>>>be, but still, all you need to do is to slow down the enemy
>>>>(through damage or magic or whatever) so that it cannot run away
>>>>and they surrender.
>>>>
>>>>Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost
>>>>of one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
>>>
>>>From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced.
>>
>>It seems so...
>
>
> I'll have to read the book, though. It's on order though -- I suppose my
> interest in the book was peaked by Hurricane Katrina.
>
>
>>>But I love that base D&D mechanics are going Simulationist.
>>
>>They are?
>
>
> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different from
> First and Second Edition AD&D. I get my Simulationist (and Narrativist)
> kicks in the current game more from the side products like the
> Dragonlance and Eberron lines. However, I'm noticing more Simulationist
> fluff and even crunch in the base 3.5 D&D rulebooks. New mythologies in
> Races of Stone, Simulationist (setting) in the Environment Series,
> expanded prestige class pages based on how they fit into the game world
> (strongly Simulationist), even those +2 +2 skill feats in the 3.5 PHB
> are strongly Simulationist (System).
>
>
>>>There is no good reason why the actual
>>>game world should be game balanced in many areas.
>>
>>I think there is: so that the game is fun and for everyone, not just
>>for the scourge of the seas.
>
>
> Depends upon the group, but NPCs can't influence the attitudes of PC
> captains anyway. PCs who board ships without being the captain should
> realize they are taking these kinds of risks.
>
>
>>>This Scourge of the Seas
>>>feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and
>>>captains when facing the patently fearsome.
>>
>>I'm not questioning whether ship captains and crews should run away
>>when faced with the patently fearsome.
>>
>>I'm questioning whether a single feat, with prerequisites that can be
>>fulfilled at 2nd-level, should make you one of the patently fearsome.
>
>
> To be truly effective against the competent you will need a good
> Intimidate score, though.

A 2nd level Draconic Human with Skill Focus: Intimidate and a 16
Charisma (really a 14 plus the +2 racial mod) could have an Intimidate
modifier of +13. If bards have intimidate as a class skill, this could
easily be higher.

- Ron ^*^

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d82ba08fee935ef9897c5@news.iskon.hr>,
Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:

> Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
>
> It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
> can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
> 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
>
> This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
> frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
> runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
> for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
> need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
> whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
>
> Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
> one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?

It's a funny one. It is as narrow as hell, but extraordinarily
powerful. A similar Feat that worked on land would obviously be far too
powerful.

I would be inclined to limit the Feat to high level (or even Epic)
characters.

--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

 

[KAOS]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> dared
speak in front of ME:

>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
>> upon a tablet of ether:
>>
>>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different from
>>> First and Second Edition AD&D.
>>
>> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
>
>No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure the
>texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that.

Eh?

Rules that covered only Gamist concerns, and a general attitude of "if
it ain't in the rules, it's not possible" was... simulationist?

--
The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
the conservative adopts them.
Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:

>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
>> upon a tablet of ether:
>>
>>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different from
>>> First and Second Edition AD&D.
>>
>> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
>
>No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure the
>texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that. Just l

Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off cliffs
exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:431b92a0.53177495@news.telusplanet.net:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>>news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
>>> upon a tablet of ether:
>>>
>>>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different
>>>> from First and Second Edition AD&D.
>>>
>>> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
>>
>>No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure
>>the texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that. Just l
>
> Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off cliffs
> exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
>

Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a highly
magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters capable of great
preternatural feats.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:17 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> > Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
> > one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
>
> From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
> mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
> game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
> feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
> facing the patently fearsome.

Pah. That's not simulationist of much at all. RL merchant ships only
surrendered if it was clear they couldn't get away, and likely
wouldn't win a fight (that's where your rep helps). If you have a rep
for going harshly on captured crews even if they surrendered right
away (as many 'primitive' pirates did) they'd fight anyway, no matter
your rep. If you had a rep for being generous to those who didn't
fight, and harshly on those that did, they'd be far less likely to
fight.

Even in pirate movies merchants generally only surrender immediately
if the pirate has got the jump on them and they can't escape. Often
there's still a fight, though.

And what the heck sort of world is it where naval vessels just
surrender? Some might, especially if they're from a 'navy' that's
really just a shake-down operation. Any captian from a real navy that
surrendered because the opponent was scary may as well commit suicide,
though - if the captor doesn't kill him, his own government will.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:17 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
>
>>>Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
>>>one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
>>
>>From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
>>mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
>>game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
>>feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
>>facing the patently fearsome.
>
>
> Pah. That's not simulationist of much at all. RL merchant ships only
> surrendered if it was clear they couldn't get away, and likely
> wouldn't win a fight (that's where your rep helps). If you have a rep
> for going harshly on captured crews even if they surrendered right
> away (as many 'primitive' pirates did) they'd fight anyway, no matter
> your rep. If you had a rep for being generous to those who didn't
> fight, and harshly on those that did, they'd be far less likely to
> fight.
>
> Even in pirate movies merchants generally only surrender immediately
> if the pirate has got the jump on them and they can't escape. Often
> there's still a fight, though.
>
> And what the heck sort of world is it where naval vessels just
> surrender? Some might, especially if they're from a 'navy' that's
> really just a shake-down operation. Any captian from a real navy that
> surrendered because the opponent was scary may as well commit suicide,
> though - if the captor doesn't kill him, his own government will.

I'm reminded of "Eric the Viking"...

"No one's ever fought us before -- they were always too scared of us!"

- Ron ^*^

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
news:jq6oh1pr2f4egp8j6qgqadgu6l7m4c5l69@4ax.com:

>
> Rules that covered only Gamist concerns, and a general attitude of "if
> it ain't in the rules, it's not possible" was... simulationist?

The First Edition DMG, for example, did not cover only Gamist concerns; it
was strongly Simulationist. Gygax's idiosyncratic text is full of hard-line
Simulationist priorities that focus upon the correctness of his alternate
world. One example is Gary's stressing on the absolute importance of
keeping extensive records of game time. I think Gygax's rule purity is
another hallmark of fidelity to the "proper" Exploration of a fantasy
world. It certainly wasn't relevant to Gamist concerns of challenging
performance among the actual players. That said there were some Gamist
adventures in the First Edition Era (though not adventures like Expedition
to the Barrier Peaks, the classic Ravenloft modules, or the Dragonlance
line). Products like First Edition's Wilderness Survival Guide are classic
old school Simulationist rulebooks. But as I said many people played Gamist
during First Edition; I think it was Dragonlance that made it obvious to
those Gamist gamers where the focus of AD&D was going -- further away from
Gamism, to where Gamism wasn't even a secondary priority as it was in early
AD&D.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:57:12 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:


>> Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off cliffs
>> exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
>>
>
>Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a highly
>magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters capable of great
>preternatural feats.

So then they were simulating Road Runner cartoons? Because I can't
think of any fantasy novel where you can toss say, Fafhrd or Aragorn
off a cliff, they can fall straight to the bottom and then get up and
dust themselves off.

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:431c1355.2156407@news.telusplanet.net:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:57:12 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off
>>> cliffs exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
>>>
>>
>>Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a
>>highly magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters
>>capable of great preternatural feats.
>
> So then they were simulating Road Runner cartoons? Because I can't
> think of any fantasy novel where you can toss say, Fafhrd or Aragorn
> off a cliff, they can fall straight to the bottom and then get up and
> dust themselves off.

That reminds me of the Two Towers movie where Aragorn almost does that. But
I believe Gary later recanted the falling damage rules, but I think that is
because of too much streamlining of the rules -- not because of Gamist rule
concerns.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:

> Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
> what world are you simulating where a character is either concious and
> fighting, or dead?

D&D3.x is the most gamist system I know of, and I would estimate I have
read a 100 or more RPGs at one time or another (counting substantially
different editions as different games).

That said: Adrenaline. HP are at least as good a simulation of the real
world as death spirals, and a far better simulation of much of pulp
fiction where the hero being tired or wounded clearly has no
significant effect on his performance. The ability to get knocked
unconsious is a BETTER simulation of the pulp type source material, but
HP aren't really bad.

ANY single rule can be simulationist, if nothing else you are
simulating "what would the world be like if things worked like this".
What makes D&D3.x gamist is the entire package. HP are a resorce
management tool, because the ability to take damage is a resource in
the Game; spells come in slots because spells are a resource in the
game; encounters run roughly 1:4 to the party's strength (regardless of
the party's strength) because that is part of the game; and death has a
revolving door because permanent death of a long time played character
is no fun in the game.

DougL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Joseph wrote:

> Yes, I agree, but I think WOTC is starting to realize the Gamist well
> (producing a lot of splatbooks) is starting to dry up. I'm noticing more
> Simulationism and even some Narrativist color in the recent
> supplementary material. Interestingly, Eric Mona recently veered Dragon
> magazine away from hard Gamist D&D coverage which prevailed recently
> with the relaunch to a hybrid Gamist/Simulationist mix. Compare the
> editorial from Dragon 323 with Eric's Dragon 328 editorial. Dragon has
> become a must read for me again.

Splat books aren't gamist. Consider that AFAIK the term was first
applied to World of Dorkness suplements, which is an explicitely
dramatist game system.

Nor has WotC slowed down much on production of splat books, races of
this that and the other, the complete munchkin, and enviroment-d20
between them seem to be producing at least a suplement a month.

Nor have I seen much in the Dragon worrying about the likely effects of
their rules add ons and continuing silly proliferation of prestige
classes.

The feat that started this whole discussion is a disaster from a
simulationist PoV.

What is the world like where level 2 characters can force anyone the
can corner to surrender? what happens when two of these go up against
each other? Do navys insist on having only Paladins command warships
for their imunity to fear? Do crews mutiny when their captain insists
on wimping out for no good reason? Enquiring minds want to know. And
GMs NEED to know to run simulationist in a world with such a feat!.

But the feat works pretty well in a bad dramatist game where the DM can
make sure it works the way he wants it to or in a bad gamist game where
the DM designs challenges arround it.

DougL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Joseph wrote:
> rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
> news:431c8843.32095734@news.telusplanet.net:
>
> > On 5 Sep 2005 17:10:35 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>Splat books aren't gamist. Consider that AFAIK the term was first
> >>applied to World of Dorkness suplements, which is an explicitely
> >>dramatist game system.

Note that the only form of game balance that gamist really cares about
is that there be multiple options of roughly equal utility available to
the characters so that the players will have meaningful choices to
make.

Intraparty balance is ONLY important in the metagame. And IME the vast
majority of groups actually don't care in real play. Nor is the
importance of intraparty balance more or less important based on style.
If you can get a group to try something like Ars Magica then IME they
will quickly decide and that Grogs are often more fun to play with more
screen time than the more powerful companions who in turn are often
more entertaining than the vastly more powerful mages.

Party-World balance is more easily adjusted in gamist play than in any
other style. Just throw in more enemies or smarter enemies.

> > In fact they are the opposite of being gamist, because the cool toys
> > that new splats exist to provide inevitably undermine game balance.
>
> Hence it leads to likely dysfunctional Gamism...

It is worse for the other styles. Dramatist it wrecks ongoind story
lines. Simulationist it upsets the entire gameworld if it turns out
that all the character builds so far seen were massively sub-optimal at
their nominal job for no good reason.

Gamist you just pile on more opponents. It is only a problem if the
newly introduced option is plainly so superior that it flunks the
"would everyone take this" test since then it is eliminating meaningful
choices.

Splat books with more powerful than core options are a bad idea for ALL
styles of gaming except blatant Munchkin gaming (which can be fun to,
but wears thin about as fast as Paranoia IME, both too good and too
weak are boring). This is why I follow Hong and just say no for the
most part.

But gamist play can survive them as long as the splat books present
LOTS of alternatives, other styles they are catastrophic for. (Or to
put it another way, were I running pure gamist I would probably default
to allowing the splat books since more options are good.

DougL

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:57:12 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
> news:431b92a0.53177495@news.telusplanet.net:
>
> > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
> >>news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
> >>> upon a tablet of ether:
> >>>
> >>>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different
> >>>> from First and Second Edition AD&D.
> >>>
> >>> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
> >>
> >>No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure
> >>the texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that. Just l
> >
> > Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off cliffs
> > exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
> >
>
> Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a highly
> magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters capable of great
> preternatural feats.

So, what world, other than itself, was it simulating in which heroes
fall off 200+ foot cliffs and walk away?

Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person could
fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just keel over,
dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can be cut up, lose
conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but throughly wounded) -
you're alive and okay, or you're dead.

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
news:5u2oh11u6m2di3i9jt5d1e854o1sb9can2@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:57:12 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
>> rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
>> news:431b92a0.53177495@news.telusplanet.net:
>>
>> > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
>> >>news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
>> >>
>> >>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net>
>> >>> carved upon a tablet of ether:
>> >>>
>> >>>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite
>> >>>> different from First and Second Edition AD&D.
>> >>>
>> >>> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
>> >>
>> >>No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure
>> >>the texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that. Just l
>> >
>> > Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off
>> > cliffs exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
>> >
>>
>> Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a
>> highly magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters
>> capable of great preternatural feats.
>
> So, what world, other than itself, was it simulating in which heroes
> fall off 200+ foot cliffs and walk away?
>
> Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person could
> fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just keel over,
> dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can be cut up, lose
> conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but throughly wounded) -
> you're alive and okay, or you're dead.

You are confusing the resource mechanics of hit points with anti-
Simulationism. It isn't. Hit points are based upon pulp fiction and
fantasy heroics of characters like Conan.

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1125962005.945045.190480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>
>> Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
>> what world are you simulating where a character is either concious
>> and fighting, or dead?
>
> D&D3.x is the most gamist system I know of, and I would estimate I
> have read a 100 or more RPGs at one time or another (counting
> substantially different editions as different games).
>
> That said: Adrenaline. HP are at least as good a simulation of the
> real world as death spirals, and a far better simulation of much of
> pulp fiction where the hero being tired or wounded clearly has no
> significant effect on his performance. The ability to get knocked
> unconsious is a BETTER simulation of the pulp type source material,
> but HP aren't really bad.
>
> ANY single rule can be simulationist, if nothing else you are
> simulating "what would the world be like if things worked like this".
> What makes D&D3.x gamist is the entire package. HP are a resorce
> management tool, because the ability to take damage is a resource in
> the Game; spells come in slots because spells are a resource in the
> game; encounters run roughly 1:4 to the party's strength (regardless
> of the party's strength) because that is part of the game; and death
> has a revolving door because permanent death of a long time played
> character is no fun in the game.

Yes, I agree, but I think WOTC is starting to realize the Gamist well
(producing a lot of splatbooks) is starting to dry up. I'm noticing more
Simulationism and even some Narrativist color in the recent
supplementary material. Interestingly, Eric Mona recently veered Dragon
magazine away from hard Gamist D&D coverage which prevailed recently
with the relaunch to a hybrid Gamist/Simulationist mix. Compare the
editorial from Dragon 323 with Eric's Dragon 328 editorial. Dragon has
become a must read for me again.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On 5 Sep 2005 17:10:35 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote:

>Joseph wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree, but I think WOTC is starting to realize the Gamist well
>> (producing a lot of splatbooks) is starting to dry up. I'm noticing more
>> Simulationism and even some Narrativist color in the recent
>> supplementary material. Interestingly, Eric Mona recently veered Dragon
>> magazine away from hard Gamist D&D coverage which prevailed recently
>> with the relaunch to a hybrid Gamist/Simulationist mix. Compare the
>> editorial from Dragon 323 with Eric's Dragon 328 editorial. Dragon has
>> become a must read for me again.
>
>Splat books aren't gamist. Consider that AFAIK the term was first
>applied to World of Dorkness suplements, which is an explicitely
>dramatist game system.

In fact they are the opposite of being gamist, because the cool toys
that new splats exist to provide inevitably undermine game balance.

 

[Joseph]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:431c8843.32095734@news.telusplanet.net:

> On 5 Sep 2005 17:10:35 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Joseph wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, I agree, but I think WOTC is starting to realize the Gamist
>>> well (producing a lot of splatbooks) is starting to dry up. I'm
>>> noticing more Simulationism and even some Narrativist color in the
>>> recent supplementary material. Interestingly, Eric Mona recently
>>> veered Dragon magazine away from hard Gamist D&D coverage which
>>> prevailed recently with the relaunch to a hybrid
>>> Gamist/Simulationist mix. Compare the editorial from Dragon 323 with
>>> Eric's Dragon 328 editorial. Dragon has become a must read for me
>>> again.
>>
>>Splat books aren't gamist. Consider that AFAIK the term was first
>>applied to World of Dorkness suplements, which is an explicitely
>>dramatist game system.
>
> In fact they are the opposite of being gamist, because the cool toys
> that new splats exist to provide inevitably undermine game balance.

Hence it leads to likely dysfunctional Gamism...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:21:04 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> > Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person could
> > fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just keel over,
> > dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can be cut up, lose
> > conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but throughly wounded) -
> > you're alive and okay, or you're dead.
>
> You are confusing the resource mechanics of hit points with anti-
> Simulationism. It isn't. Hit points are based upon pulp fiction and
> fantasy heroics of characters like Conan.

Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
what world are you simulating where a character is either concious and
fighting, or dead?

--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."