On Mechanics/Fluff Integration

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu May 07, 2015 5:54 pm

I think the thing to really get upset about is shit like the 5e Kraken. It's supposed to be a big kaiju that stomps up rivers and molesters cities and shit. In reality, the city guard of a small town can take it out with minimal losses. This is a problem. It's like that because 5e's rules aren't very good and the authors didn't put very much work into their text or their ramifications.

Whether doves fly around is at best a distraction. If the game is supposed to have doves fly around and it does, that's good design. If it's supposed to not have doves fly around but it does, that's bad design. And vice versa. If the fluff matches the results generated by the crunch, that's well done. Whether you like that particular fluff or crunch is irrelevant.

The issue with 4e's "dissociated mechanics" wasn't that the things that happened in the fluff and the crunch were stupid (although of course, they were), it was that there wasn't any fluff explanation at all for why most of the game effects happened. There was never any explanation for why ice got slipperier if higher level characters looked at it.

Now granted a lot of people struggle to describe what exactly is so shitty and terrible about all of this, but it's not like hogarth hasn't had this crap explained to him a couple dozen times already. He's just doing his "intentionally thick asshole" routine. It's actually quite tiresome.

-Username17

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu May 07, 2015 6:29 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: The issue with 4e's "dissociated mechanics" wasn't that the things that happened in the fluff and the crunch were stupid (although of course, they were), it was that there wasn't any fluff explanation at all for why most of the game effects happened. There was never any explanation for why ice got slipperier if higher level characters looked at it.

-Username17

See, if I were to try to explain that, the rules would be like this:

-Everything has inherent magic. Shit's like radiation, there's always a little bit around.

-Travelling around a lot, fighting stuff, killing things, that exposes you to lots of magic which you catch some of.

-Magic makes stuff more intense. Monsters get stronger, swords get closer to the platonic ideal of a perfect sword, fire gets hotter.

-The bleedoff of characters affects inanimate matter near them. So the ice really does get more slippery. That door does get stronger.

But that would be stupid and just a contrivance for an endless treadmill in D&D, or for canny operators stapling a level 25 goblin minion to the back of a door to make it impenetrable to most of the known world.

But that's if I had to explain it.

violence in the media · Thu May 07, 2015 6:55 pm

RelentlessImp wrote: WHY?

I tend to think that it's because you have people that want to engage in the power fantasy aspect of gaming but, for whatever reason, are bad at actually making that happen in the context of the rules of the game. Sometimes they even resent that there is some amount of effort required on their part, in terms of learning and remembering the rules of the game, in order to accomplish their goals. As a result, they want to be able to go outside of the rules to find or create that success. However, when a game has rules that they are clearly violating in this process, people tend to refer to them as cheaters and stop playing with them.

Rules-light games, and those with disassociated or non-existent mechanics, give these people exactly what they want. There aren't a lot of rules for them to remember (and most of those rules are probably negotiable on the spot anyway), there's little chance of a rule or rule interaction they didn't know about cock-blocking them or making their effort ineffective or irrelevant (say, their "clever" idea for fighting a fire, drawn from their personal experience, obviated by the presence of a party member that can extinguish flames at will), and there's less ground for other players to conclusively demonstrate wrongdoing on their part.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Thu May 07, 2015 7:04 pm

One of the truly remarkable aspects of discussion on 'The Pundit's Own Forums' dealt with their common supposition that Fighters can do anything because there are no rules to get in the way. You want to jump on a dragon's back and stab it with your sword and hold on (worked in Willow), you could play mother-may-I with the GM and that was possible. It was clear from the context that they were applying a double-standard (Fighters were permitted to creatively invent 'stunts', but if a Wizard did it even with better qualifications in every way, it wouldn't be allowed because wizards have actual abilities).

Besides 'artifact sword', Fighters were given an implicit 'be awesome' ability that would activate whenever the player could give a semi-plausible description of how they were going to be awesome.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Thu May 07, 2015 7:48 pm

deaddmwalking wrote:Besides 'artifact sword', Fighters were given an implicit 'be awesome' ability that would activate whenever the player could give a semi-plausible description of how they were going to be awesome.

I can see the appeal. Fighters need a 'be awesome' ability (or abilities), but writing explicit versions is difficult. So you MTP it up as a kludge. It seems like the sort of thing that has probably improved many game experiences. The part I don't understand is pretending it's part of the game and not something they made up.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Thu May 07, 2015 8:46 pm

Honestly, you could write that up explicitly and people would buy it. "In this rule-lite game, you can either play a "fighter" and do whatever you can bullshit your MC into doing -- and the MC is instructed to be extraordinarily permissive -- or you can play a "wizard" and have an extensive list of defined abilities -- and the MC is instructed to be harsh in evaluating them." It wouldn't be an amazing game, but I think people would play it.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Thu May 07, 2015 9:40 pm

You could just right "stunting" as a fighter ability and say it allows the fighter to use "some skill" to do "some stunt" and it will have the following effects: blah blah blah. People love that kind of shit because they don't like hearing that fighters are bad/useless because that flies in he face of all the time they spent thinking the opposite. I was surprised to even find out that there are some people who feel a wizard using their abilities to do stuff is offensive ROLL playing.

Foxwarrior · Post by **Foxwarrior** » Fri May 08, 2015 7:04 am

Sigh, not this again.

Rules for jumping on the backs of dragons and stabbing them really don't have to be that complicated.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Fri May 08, 2015 7:19 am

Jumping should be handled by the universal rules for character movement.
Getting on the dragon's back to stab it should be handled by the universal rules for grappling and/or balancing on angry platforms. Maybe some people have bonuses to certain maneuvers, or it costs less actions for them to do it ("anyone else would require a standard action to grab and standard to attack, but the dragoon can grab on a swift action"), but the 4e exception based design of "Here's a jumping grab power for your fighter that uses different mechanics than jump n' grab for the barbarian and various monsters"

Foxwarrior · Post by **Foxwarrior** » Fri May 08, 2015 7:25 am

Yes, universal rules.

"Moving on top of a creature causes you to be riding it. It may force you to hit it with an attack against GD in order to succeed; if you miss, you lose 3 meters of movement, it deals its unarmed damage to you, and you cannot try to ride that creature again this round."

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri May 08, 2015 2:30 pm

Maxus wrote: See, if I were to try to explain that, the rules would be like this:

-Everything has inherent magic. Shit's like radiation, there's always a little bit around.

-Travelling around a lot, fighting stuff, killing things, that exposes you to lots of magic which you catch some of.

-Magic makes stuff more intense. Monsters get stronger, swords get closer to the platonic ideal of a perfect sword, fire gets hotter.

-The bleedoff of characters affects inanimate matter near them. So the ice really does get more slippery. That door does get stronger.

But that would be stupid and just a contrivance for an endless treadmill in D&D, or for canny operators stapling a level 25 goblin minion to the back of a door to make it impenetrable to most of the known world.

But that's if I had to explain it.

This explains why PCs are always spending time in bars, even when they're high level. The beer and bar maids must be fucking fantastic!

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Fri May 08, 2015 4:30 pm

You see, I personally think that as a VAH/low-grade DMF jumping on the back of a dragon and stabbing it is retarded. It's retarded in the same way as people doing combat rolls in fist-fights. If I was running a freeform or rules-light game and the VAH/DMF outlined that plan, I'd give it as much in-game effectiveness as a rat-flail.

In fact, you know the only situation in which I as the DM would allow a plan like that to work? If the player could point to a set of rules or precedents where I would be forced to accept it. Like, say, 'here's my fucking Jump check, here's my Balance/Ride check; suck it dry, DOUCHEMASTER'. But in a system without strong rules? If they just looked up at me with puppy-dog eyes and asked me pretty-please to sign off on their faux-cool plan because they worked really hard on it, I'd have the dragon casually whip them off and/or breath a huge cloud of fire and fly through.

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Fri May 08, 2015 4:44 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:You see, I personally think that as a VAH/low-grade DMF jumping on the back of a dragon and stabbing it is retarded. It's retarded in the same way as people doing combat rolls in fist-fights. If I was running a freeform or rules-light game and the VAH/DMF outlined that plan, I'd give it as much in-game effectiveness as a rat-flail.

In fact, you know the only situation in which I as the DM would allow a plan like that to work? If the player could point to a set of rules or precedents where I would be forced to accept it. Like, say, 'here's my fucking Jump check, here's my Balance/Ride check; suck it dry, DOUCHEMASTER'. But in a system without strong rules? If they just looked up at me with puppy-dog eyes and asked me pretty-please to sign off on their faux-cool plan because they worked really hard on it, I'd have the dragon casually whip them off and/or breath a huge cloud of fire and fly through.

Yeah, but that's just because you're a caster cocksucker.

Sakuya Izayoi · Post by **Sakuya Izayoi** » Fri May 08, 2015 5:12 pm

Monster Hunter 4 seems to handle DMFs jumping onto the backs of monsters well. It isn't Shadow of the Colossus either, where jumping on their back is the solution to the puzzle monster. It's just something you can do by combining the "jump from a height" verb with the "push attack button near the monster's back" verb.

Not all monsters react the same to being kited towards a conveniently placed ledge, either. Some are smarter than to charge in, or let your friend distract them. Some of them are only exhausted enough to not shake you off after a lengthy battle of attrition

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sat May 09, 2015 12:51 am

Lago PARANOIA wrote:You see, I personally think that as a VAH/low-grade DMF jumping on the back of a dragon and stabbing it is retarded. It's retarded in the same way as people doing combat rolls in fist-fights. If I was running a freeform or rules-light game and the VAH/DMF outlined that plan, I'd give it as much in-game effectiveness as a rat-flail.

In fact, you know the only situation in which I as the DM would allow a plan like that to work? If the player could point to a set of rules or precedents where I would be forced to accept it. Like, say, 'here's my fucking Jump check, here's my Balance/Ride check; suck it dry, DOUCHEMASTER'. But in a system without strong rules? If they just looked up at me with puppy-dog eyes and asked me pretty-please to sign off on their faux-cool plan because they worked really hard on it, I'd have the dragon casually whip them off and/or breath a huge cloud of fire and fly through.

Jumping on the dragon's back isn't just something VAHs want to do (although they're much shorter on other options)

Low-level Naruto wants to jump on the dragon's back to stab it in its soft parts. Low-level Goku wants to jump on the dragon's back to... ride it, I guess.

Now, I think it's reasonable to do some sort of level-dependent comparison where you go, "no, you're level 6 and that's a great wyrm red dragon. it shakes you off like water from a dog.", but a categorical dismissal is not something I agree with.

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sat May 09, 2015 1:22 am

RadiantPhoenix wrote:Now, I think it's reasonable to do some sort of level-dependent comparison where you go, "no, you're level 6 and that's a great wyrm red dragon. it shakes you off like water from a dog.", but a categorical dismissal is not something I agree with.

me wrote:You see, I personally think that as a VAH/low-grade DMF jumping on the back of a dragon and stabbing it is retarded.

Y'see, what separates Naruto and Goku from being able to fight a dragon by jumping onto it is that they have narrative justification for it. We can buy Goku, even comparatively low-level and young Goku being able to ride a dragon because not only is he super-strong as a little kid but he can ride on a fucking cloud and do crazy stunts. Low-level Naruto is a little bit harder to buy, but after we've seen him ride a giant frog, stick to the underside of a tree branch, and walk on water he has enough narrative bullshit to justify the stunt.

In absence of sufficiently convincing narrative justification, I'd need a hard rules cite. I'll even accept Captain Hobo bullshit, but if you don't have even that? Then, no, Batman does not dodge the Omega beams. Madmartigan does not jump on the dragon's back and cling to it. Benoist's archer team does not rout the dragon nor does it find the hideout hidden in the mountains. Not when I'm GMing.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sat May 09, 2015 5:57 am

A VAH should start with jumping on the backs of dogs, alligators, black bears, lions, brown bears, bulls, and elephants before they try that on a dragon.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat May 09, 2015 2:45 pm

3e does have some conveniently small dragons to practice on. But then, 3e also has it's mechanics and it's fluff fairly well integrated. Wizards are the secret rulers and protectors of their campaign worlds, and monsters mostly only exist because a mad Wizard did it, for instance. They even kept the mad Wizards in charge of the monster-infested regions of their game worlds.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Sat May 09, 2015 3:43 pm

Lago PARANOIA wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:Now, I think it's reasonable to do some sort of level-dependent comparison where you go, "no, you're level 6 and that's a great wyrm red dragon. it shakes you off like water from a dog.", but a categorical dismissal is not something I agree with.
me wrote:You see, I personally think that as a VAH/low-grade DMF jumping on the back of a dragon and stabbing it is retarded.
Y'see, what separates Naruto and Goku from being able to fight a dragon by jumping onto it is that they have narrative justification for it. We can buy Goku, even comparatively low-level and young Goku being able to ride a dragon because not only is he super-strong as a little kid but he can ride on a fucking cloud and do crazy stunts. Low-level Naruto is a little bit harder to buy, but after we've seen him ride a giant frog, stick to the underside of a tree branch, and walk on water he has enough narrative bullshit to justify the stunt.

In absence of sufficiently convincing narrative justification, I'd need a hard rules cite. I'll even accept Captain Hobo bullshit, but if you don't have even that? Then, no, Batman does not dodge the Omega beams. Madmartigan does not jump on the dragon's back and cling to it. Benoist's archer team does not rout the dragon nor does it find the hideout hidden in the mountains. Not when I'm GMing.

My answer would be that, "if a character is level 6 (or whatever) and doesn't explicitly have superpowers, that is clearly a writer oversight and we should ignore that typo and proceed with the understanding that the character does have superpowers."

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sun May 10, 2015 5:39 am

It feels like a hate crime when a level appropriate dragon is killed by single digit level characters, and reminds me of that painting of a baby dragon that is hanging from a tree as adventures smile

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun May 10, 2015 6:51 am

I just think that the game should be able to handle something as simple as 'X character jumps on Y things back' regardless of how much people (specifically Lago) hate VAHs.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun May 10, 2015 7:02 am

MGuy wrote:I just think that the game should be able to handle something as simple as 'X character jumps on Y things back' regardless of how much people (specifically Lago) hate VAHs.

Okay, but you can totally deal with it by having it fucking fail, because you don't have the ability to grapple a dragon and win.

Ice9 · Post by **Ice9** » Sun May 10, 2015 8:48 am

I think you can make the case that jumping on top of a dragon (or other big creature) should be a lot easier than putting said dragon in a full-nelson, however.

MGuy · Post by **MGuy** » Sun May 10, 2015 9:46 am

Kaelik wrote:
MGuy wrote:I just think that the game should be able to handle something as simple as 'X character jumps on Y things back' regardless of how much people (specifically Lago) hate VAHs.
Okay, but you can totally deal with it by having it fucking fail, because you don't have the ability to grapple a dragon and win.

Whether it fucking fails on a dragon at any point in time isn't even the point. The game should be able to handle at least having it. Jumping on shit to attack is something actual animals do and for fuck sake the game should be able to handle it.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Sun May 10, 2015 10:47 am

I imagine a dragon that survives humans crawling and stabbing them then go on to tell others about the time "Fighters ripped my flesh!":

The Gaming Den

On Mechanics/Fluff Integration

Re: On Mechanics/Fluff Integration