[Hank Parsons]

Originally posted by Rataxes: [QB] Why didn't you just say that a dozen posts earlier? I think the whole core of this debate isn't whether a mod is realistic or not, since I think you've demonstrated how even the poorest game design ideas can be explained as realistic, but rather is it fun? Does it enhance the gaming experience?

I *fully* agree that is what the debate should be about, Rataxes. If you frame the debate as you just stated -- is it fun? -- then you don't have to worry so much about whether something technically breaks some supposedly-sacred rule, like if a powerful mages casts 2 spells at the same time with no casting delay. It's no big deal, it's fun, and if you have a good imagination, it is plausible (but we've agreed plausibility doesn't matter as much as fun).

The problem is that the critics here are not answering this question: is it fun? Time and time again, they are claiming it is unreasonable, wrong, unprofessional, implausible, unrealistic, etc. I am merely answering those accusations (which are, in many cases, patently incorrect and unimaginative, and contrary to the flexible and creative spirit of D&D).

Here, maybe we can simply agree to disagree on what is fun. This debate would be a lot better if people would admit "I don't think that's fun" instead of trying to prove that Tactics is so wrong for offering the option. I thought the Tactics componants I've defended were fun (except Improved Faldorn which was impossible for me to beat legitly and therefore not fun; and Small Teeth Pass which I haven't played). For example, I think Improved Ilych, and Improved Bodhi, are fun. If you don't think it's fun, just say so, and I will have no disagreement with that, because "fun" is the player's opinion and the player's choice. Compare:

"I don't like the sky being blue."
vs.
"The sky cannot be blue, it's not realistic."
"The sun should not make the sky pink and purple, it's unprofessional."

I believe it is important for a good game mod to keep within it's respective world's realm of plausibility, but the reverse doesn't fly. Ie, a mod or game design idea isn't good just because it's plausible.

I agree, but also these corollary statements:

A mod isn't bad just because some player can't think of (or you failed to read) a story justification. E.g. one player here said that Bodhi should be a normal vampire with no special powers due to this player's perception of Bodhi's unflinching role in the story. I say that you can reimagine Bodhi's role and see her as a powerful adversary.

A mod isn't bad just because it doesn't adhere to every stat in the Monster Manual. The dungeon master in traditional D&D can modify a monster's statistics at any time to make the game more fun. I only ask that Weimer be given the same consideration, if you choose Tactics as your DM/adventure-giver.

A mod is bad if it is not fun. Tactics, on the whole, is definitely fun.

I could make a mod that randomly kills of the entire party when exploring caves.

Ah, you mean the old p'n'p D&D module, Temple Of Doom? (Did I remember the title right? Surely someone knows this killer module.) That happens in that module, and you're right: it is not fun. The party simply chooses the wrong tunnel, and BOOM: buried alive. A good DM would really emphasize the falling-rocks and creaking sounds, giving the party some chance of avoiding that cave or escaping. If you played this module though, it was out-of-the-frying pan, into the fire. Traps just got worse around the next corner.

It's an unfair argument trick to say something is wrong just because an extremely exaggerated variation of it would be wrong. For example, it's not fair to say that Libertarians (want less gov't) are wrong just because Anarchists (want no gov't) are wrong. Another example, it's incorrect to say that drinking alcoholic beverages will kill you, just because drinking 2 gallons of Vodka in an hour would kill you.

The killer-cave mod is not a Tactics componant. If you think some componant of Tactics is equal to a killer-cave (in fun, or in quickness of death, or impossibility), then say that directly. Don't just say that killer-caves are wrong and therefore Tactics is wrong.

I don't see why the last dozen posts in this thread has been about the plausibility of a 20d10 fireball annihilating your entire party immediately upon entering the Small Teeth Pass, when at the end of the day it is still a terrible idea for amping up the challenge of the area.

Some people are really averse to anyone in their party dying, and would define someone dying as "not-fun." They went through the whole game and no one died. For me, that takes away the fun of the game. I want to play with the threat of death, the challenge to survive to epic victory. For me, the possibility of dying makes the game fun again.

I love the idea of walking into an area, a dragon kills 2 of the party members, and yet you survive, win, and ressurect. Heck, even if someone gets chunked, you'll always have that epic story of the time you faced nearly-impossible odds and won, and put a plaque where Nalia got obliterated. That is epic heroism, in game-terms, to me.

Before someone says it's wrong, they should claim it's impossible. I remember the days when people said soloing with a druid is "impossible" and that was proven wrong. Calling "impossible" issues a challenge to other players, to see if it really is impossible. If it's really impossible, then there is no point in playing it. And if no one plays it, then obviously it's not fun, and it's not a good mod.

For me: "impossible to beat legitly" is the worst (and also the best) criticism you can lay against a mod. If SixOfSpades did testing and determined that Improved Faldorn was impossible to beat legitly, then I would agree that componant should be changed (AFIK, he did, and I do). For me,
Impossible To Beat Legitly = Not Fun.

I still disagree strongly with the pervasive idea that "Not Playing By Every Sacred Rule" = Unprofessional / wrong / unreasonable. For example when people say that Skeletons should not be able to cast a Horror spell because they didn't have this ability in BG1 or in D&D - I disagree with that. Skeletons casting adds to the fun, and is therefore good (regardless of whether it is plausible or realistic, which, by the way, it is. If you have imagination.)

[ 08-31-2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Hank Parsons ]