You can purchase NPCs and relationships in Champions and games like DC Heroes. It's not a new concept.

Isn't this all really a concern over how people are playing (and which people are playing) rather than what the game is in the first place?

I also think it's an empty concern, (because why does it matter..) but isn't that what this really is?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;401707You can purchase NPCs and relationships in Champions and games like DC Heroes. It's not a new concept.

Weird. I don't see the purchase of contacts and allies, status or group membership, as being story-gaming per se. It's akin to choosing a character class or spending points in your charisma score. It's a part of character generation or development between sessions, to me, and perfectly fine within that realm.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;401707Isn't this all really a concern over how people are playing (and which people are playing) rather than what the game is in the first place?

No, not really. If people enjoy storygaming the hell out of first ed AD&D, I'm perfectly fine with it. Whatever rocks these people's boats.

It's when the game's design itself is affected that I start to object, because it becomes harder and harder for me to enjoy the game right out of the box without houseruling the heck out of it. Like for instance how Dailies work for martial classes, just because it's "a cool move you do once on a TV episode", or when you have mechanics that are clearly narrative in nature, like just coming up with stuff from a bird's eye, out-of-character view, like the hole in the street example Krueger came up with earlier, or Plot Twist Cards that affect the game not through your character, but just from a metagaming, plot and story point of view.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;401707I also think it's an empty concern, (because why does it matter..) but isn't that what this really is?

Well really, I'm not surprised this isn't a concern for you, Peter. We all know you're perfectly fine with 4E mechanics and its philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that!

But this certainly is not an empty concern to me. If I'm breaking out of character to use narrative mechanics all the time, or if I have to houserule the hell out of the game to be able to enjoy its mechanics in immersive ways, I have a problem with the rules system. To me, part of the point to play RPGs is to immerse in a character and experience the game world from a first-person, hands-on point of view. If I can't do that with the game, there's a big part of the incentive to play this game instead of, say, Carcassone or Diplomacy, that's just no longer there, to me. I might as well just not play RPGs at all, and enjoy some board, video or card game that doesn't require any prep on my part instead.

So really, just because you don't think it's a big deal doesn't mean it isn't one for me. Your argument is kinda pointless, from that point of view.

Quote from: Benoist;401709Your argument is kinda pointless...

Took you long enough.  

Quote from: StormBringer;401710Took you long enough.  

Nope. I always give a next chance when I feel it ain't gonna be fruitless to do so. Right now, I operate under the assumption that Peter is here to genuinely discuss POVs, and I must say our exchanges have improved during the last while. I hope it goes on like this, so I won't take shots at him simply for disagreeing with me.

Quote from: Benoist;401521For some people, sure, you are right, the difference I am seeing being that the "story" paradigm is becoming or already is the default assumption under which RPGs like 4E and Pathfinder are written and designed now, which was not the case with OD&D or AD&D.

What particular mechanics are giving you this impression? I have only ever seen the at-will/encounter/daily power structure as an attempt to simplify resource management. It's not a method I particularly care for, but I certainly don't read any more into it than that. I think those that do, like the folks I think WJ mentioned, are just trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole.

Quote from: Benoist;401714Nope. I always give a next chance when I feel it ain't gonna be fruitless to do so. Right now, I operate under the assumption that Peter is here to genuinely discuss POVs, and I must say our exchanges have improved during the last while. I hope it goes on like this, so I won't take shots at him simply for disagreeing with me.

Yes.  Good call.

Quote from: Benoist;401709when you have mechanics that are clearly narrative in nature, like... Plot Twist Cards that affect the game not through your character, but just from a metagaming, plot and story point of view.

One of the big differences for me between (most) storygames (in my experience) and "trad" RPGs is whether the mechanics require you to have to think about the story, or whether you can just act according to your character's goals.

D&D implementations of things like an action point usually expect you'll play it to advance what your character is trying to do. In contrast, what I see as typical storygame mechanics require you to put obstacles in your character's way, so that you're thinking about "what will make this story more dramatic".

A related but separate issue is that of abstraction. I think it's true that old-school D&D tends to be more concrete (I'm trying to kill the green slime by burning it with a torch, and this is my last torch), new-school tends to be more abstract (I'm trying to kill the slime by spending my last action point, which we'll visualize as a desperate flurry of torch blows), and storygame mechanics may eschew concreteness altogether (I'm trying to kill the slime,  and at the same time I'm going to decide that a wind blows out my torch to make the situation more interesting, but we won't imagine that my character is now the god of wind; there's no concrete in-game representation of the story-complication mechanic).

Some other things I think tend to be more true of storygames than of D&D, and don't see as likely for D&D to adopt:

- Individual scenes. Most storygames assume you'll move the spotlight from this character's actions to that one, while most D&D assumes you'll have the party together at all times. It's not just storygames - Kevin Siembada's Rifts GM book advice sounds like he runs his campaigns this way. I think D&D is getting even more focused on "never split the party" with each edition; in TSR D&D, where one character may have combat-ending powers all by himself and many encounters are lethal, splitting the party is a much better tactic than in 4E where all characters need to work together to overcome the encounters it's expected they'll defeat.

- Drama comes from conflict between the PCs. Most storygames expect and support characters screwing with one another - if you have two PCs in a scene, it's often because they're in conflict. D&D expects everyone to get along, and again it seems more so in new editions (compare the explicit ban on evil alignments in 4E with the Hackmaster advice that all adventuring parties should consult a lawyer to agree on the consequences when someone inevitably steals from the party).

Quote from: Sigmund;401715What particular mechanics are giving you this impression? I have only ever seen the at-will/encounter/daily poser structure as an attempt to simplify resource management. It's not a method I particularly care for, but I certainly don't read any more into it than that. I think those that do, like the folks I think WJ mentioned, are just trying to hammer the square peg into a round hole.

Well let's take a Daily as an example. PHB p. 79: Crack the Shell, Fighter Attack 5, Daily Exploit. Strength vs. AC. It's a power that allows you to do some damage, plus ongoing damage, plus penalty to AC to the target. The description of the power: "You break through your enemy's armor and deal a painful bleeding wound."

Now, it's a cool power isn't it? Question: Why is it that a fighter can only do this once a day? Is there some magical barrier that just stops the fighter from attempting another attack to crush his opponent's armor, or any other's for that matter, once he successfully did it once this day? Nope.

There are basically two ways to explain this. One is the narrative answer: "you can do it only once because it would get old really fast if you did it all along. It's a cool move that you use for the dramatic fight at the end of the adventure, like Chuck Norris' super-duper move at the end of the movie." The second explanation is the purely gamist one: "you can do it only once because it's a lot more powerful than other powers, and it's necessary to keep things balanced not only with the other fighter powers, but between classes also". The balance argument.

Another way to explain it in a pseudo-immersive way would be to say something like "the fighter actually is can attempt to go through his opponent's armor any time, but it's just modelled once by this particular power, the other times being only normal attacks that just cannot succeed the way he expects to." But then I ask to myself... "isn't that what the check of Strength vs. AC is supposed to model in the first place?"

So see, with this example, I'm just presenting the way I'm trying to grasp the implications of a particular combat move being a "Daily" power as opposed to an At-will move. Same could be said of other Daily, or Encounter powers. Which could just as well be renamed "Episode" and "Scene" powers. This is the gamist and/or narrative logic that sustains the power structure in 4E.

Now that's not because I use this example from 4E that 3rd and Pathfinder aren't without any blame in this. We could find other examples and discuss them, like for instance the notion of Level-Appropriate everything, from CRs and Encounter Levels, to Magic Item Levels, through treasure parcels and so on. Or Action Points and their significance from a player-as-author instead of player-as-character point of view. Or the Fate Cards and Plot Twist Cards from 4E and Pathfinder respectively.

Let me just say that I do not think this is an unsurmontable problem with either of these games, particularly when considering that stuff like the Cards are completely optional... at least they are now. And this is where I think this whole thing is worth discussing. Because I wouldn't like it if this trend was going and going any further in the next years up to the point D&D, all versions considered, would become a full-blown 3rd person tactical storygame. Which would suck ass, to me.

Pramas puts it very well, to me, when talking about the collectible aspect of the new Fate Cards:


(read from the bottom up)

If this is a trial balloon, that for marketing reasons WotC has been dying to apply the collectible format to RPGs, and if this new attempt succeeds, we'll see a lot more of it in the future, probably with these iterations not being so optional than this one.

Now apply this to what I'm seeing in terms of gamist and/or narrative bents in both modern popular systems for the D&D game (4E and Pathfinder), and you'll understand why I feel it's worth discussing now, rather than later.

Quote from: Sigmund;401499I'd have to agree with AM and Seanchai on this one. In this specific respect I see little difference between 3-4e and all the previous versions of DnD. Mechanically speaking anyway.

WOW.

No offense intended, but...just...wow.

Quote from: areola;401539Is Arkham Horror a story game?

I can't answer this question. I've never played Arkham Horror (and would really like to).

Quote from: thedungeondelver;401736WOW.

No offense intended, but...just...wow.

Could you elaborate please, because if you don't I'm just going to assume you missed the part where I said "In this specific respect". I'd contend that "wow" is not an effective counter.

Quote from: Benoist;401732Well let's take a Daily as an example. PHB p. 79: Crack the Shell, Fighter Attack 5, Daily Exploit. Strength vs. AC. It's a power that allows you to do some damage, plus ongoing damage, plus penalty to AC to the target. The description of the power: "You break through your enemy's armor and deal a painful bleeding wound."

Now, it's a cool power isn't it? Question: Why is it that a fighter can only do this once a day? Is there some magical barrier that just stops the fighter from attempting another attack to crush his opponent's armor, or any other's for that matter, once he successfully did it once this day? Nope.

There are basically two ways to explain this. One is the narrative answer: "you can do it only once because it would get old really fast if you did it all along. It's a cool move that you use for the dramatic fight at the end of the adventure, like Chuck Norris' super-duper move at the end of the movie." The second explanation is the purely gamist one: "you can do it only once because it's a lot more powerful than other powers, and it's necessary to keep things balanced not only with the other fighter powers, but between classes also". The balance argument.

Another way to explain it in a pseudo-immersive way would be to say something like "the fighter actually is can attempt to go through his opponent's armor any time, but it's just modelled once by this particular power, the other times being only normal attacks that just cannot succeed the way he expects to." But then I ask to myself... "isn't that what the check of Strength vs. AC is supposed to model in the first place?"

So see, with this example, I'm just presenting the way I'm trying to grasp the implications of a particular combat move being a "Daily" power as opposed to an At-will move. Same could be said of other Daily, or Encounter powers. Which could just as well be renamed "Episode" and "Scene" powers. This is the gamist and/or narrative logic that sustains the power structure in 4E.

Now that's not because I use this example from 4E that 3rd and Pathfinder aren't without any blame in this. We could find other examples and discuss them, like for instance the notion of Level-Appropriate everything, from CRs and Encounter Levels, to Magic Item Levels, through treasure parcels and so on. Or Action Points and their significance from a player-as-author instead of player-as-character point of view. Or the Fate Cards and Plot Twist Cards from 4E and Pathfinder respectively.

Let me just say that I do not think this is an unsurmontable problem with either of these games, particularly when considering that stuff like the Cards are completely optional... at least they are now. And this is where I think this whole thing is worth discussing. Because I wouldn't like it if this trend was going and going any further in the next years up to the point D&D, all versions considered, would become a full-blown 3rd person tactical storygame. Which would suck ass, to me.

Pramas puts it very well, to me, when talking about the collectible aspect of the new Fate Cards:


(read from the bottom up)

If this is a trial balloon, that for marketing reasons WotC has been dying to apply the collectible format to RPGs, and if this new attempt succeeds, we'll see a lot more of it in the future, probably with these iterations not being so optional than this one.

Now apply this to what I'm seeing in terms of gamist and/or narrative bents in both modern popular systems for the D&D game (4E and Pathfinder), and you'll understand why I feel it's worth discussing now, rather than later.

Two things. I see nothing about daily powers in general, or the daily power you provide as an example, that make them "story game" mechanics rather than just the implementation of (what I consider to be) a stupid idea.

Second, of course WotC is trying to tie something collectible into the DnD brand, Hasbro wants them to make frickin money. Hello capitalism. Still not seeing the "story game" thing. Maybe I'm just slow or somethin. Leaving the bullshit fluff that most decent players with half a brain ignore anyway aside, what in the mechanics of the powers, or anything else in 4e, makes it more like a "story game"? Maybe I'm just mistaken about the nature of "story games". Still, it seems to me that 4e DnD is a game, with players and a DM, about killin shit and taking it/their stuff. How am I wrong in that perception?

Quote from: Sigmund;401752Could you elaborate please, because if you don't I'm just going to assume you missed the part where I said "In this specific respect". I'd contend that "wow" is not an effective counter.

I did exactly that, and I retract my WOW.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;401755I did exactly that, and I retract my WOW.

That explains it then. Just to be clear, in almost every other respect, my view of 4e vs. previous editions matches your sig line very closely.

Any discussion of collectible components (other than miniatures) in the context of 4E is moot as far as I am concerned, because every game mechanical component of 4E turns up at DDI sooner or later. Just remember the exclusive power cards that came with the first "D&D Heroes" miniature boxes - these powers went straight up to DDI.

Fate cards or event cards (or whatever) are a bit different, sure. They are precisely things that, by their nature, aren't uploaded to the character builder because these don't exist for character building reasons.

And that's why Pramas' reasoning is flawed. The extension of the current concept (collectible cards) to something much more pervasive ignores the many disanalogies between fate and feat cards (if these existed). Pramas is just beating a dead horse - his dead horse, in fact. Back in early 2008, shortly after D&D Experience which featured the first public 4E play tests, Pramas was among the first and most vocal to voice the claim that 4E is basically D&D turned into M:tG.

In other words, collectible rules elements can't be married to 4E in its current form. WotC would need a new edition to fully implement it. And they'd need something really good to counter the fanrage over the DDI's Character Builder being seriously hampered (say, by customers having to "unlock" content on an individual basis) by something worthwhile... like a Virtual Gaming Table!

PS. By the way. Check out the reviews.