Quote from: Benoist;401877I don't have much trouble with this on an immersive point of view, because I'm operating under the assumption that the Dungeon itself is a conscious force in the game, that helps monsters in some ways and forsakes them when they are recruited by the party.

A living dungeon...that would be a pretty cool adventure hook.  Perhaps a titan from a previous age that was put to sleep and inhabited by a wizard so he could study it from the inside, but it's able to control aspects of the dungeon from its "dreaming" state.

Sorry, off-topic a bit.

Quote from: Benoist;401877I see what you mean. Like the way doors work differently for monsters or adventurers in the dungeon. I don't have much trouble with this on an immersive point of view, because I'm operating under the assumption that the Dungeon itself is a conscious force in the game, that helps monsters in some ways and forsakes them when they are recruited by the party. Same way with doors, for instance. So from an immersion point of view, I really have no problem explaining it for myself.

Ukk.
Love you, man, but this is where you lose me.  Immersion is something that GM's work to create for the players, not the GM.  The dungeon as a consious force?  Maybe in some few places, but not in a normal dungeon.  The same way I take 4e to task for mechanics that destroy immersion, I always make sure my traps and locks and secrets all make sense if the monsters know about them, use, them, etc.  it's back to that great early episode of 'Goblins' when the goblins are guarding the treasure chest but the seer of the tribe won't let them use the items inside to protect the tribe...

Quote from: J Arcane;401828Drums of War has abilities that are, in 4e speak, essentially daily or encounter powers.

It has nothing to do with narrative motive, it has to do with them being far too powerful to just be able to run around all day slinging them about.  It places limits on certain actions and casts them as "desperation" moves of a stripe.

The concept of limiting an action by arbitrary metagame means is hardly new to D&D.  From turn undead to the basic spell casting system itself, it's not a new thought to arbitrarily limit the number of times per day one can call upon a given ability.  

You need to try harder than that.

I'd say the main difference is that turning undead and spells are magical and therefore it's perfectly okay to have them on a per day basis.  For martial abilities it doesn't make sense from an in game/in character perspective.  If it's because they're powerful then that's okay as well, but that's for game balance.  It's not the per day thing it's the martial aspect.  

Whether it's a narrative mechanic is debatable, but from my perspective it sure looks suspicious.  This goes double if the information about how 4e designers looked to indie narrative games for ideas.

Really all it would take for me to be fine with 4e mechanics is to say that all dailies are inherently magical, like say Tome of Battle characters or Dawn Caste Exalted.  If 4e is about mythic heroes then why limit yourself to mundane martial abilities.  Go all out and avoid the problem entirely.

Right, but then you run into the problem of what magical currency the characters are using, when it runs out, how it runs out, how this power is channeled or made stronger, etc.

Exalted answers those questions because everything on your character sheet is directly tied to the game-world.  4e answers none of those questions, and using the current model of character abilities would provide a simplistic and unsatisfactory model for how "mythic" characters use abilities.  It'd take a complete re-working of the system to make to make it align with a "game as physics" or world-emulation type perspective.

Anyway, "narrative" mechanics have nothing to do with indie designs.  They were there before and they'll be here long after indie games.  "Narrativist" games and their designs have nothing to do with 4e, as they concentrate on the pieces that make the whole story, not necessarily when a person uses a cool power.  I think you're thinking of "gamist" designs like Agon where a meta-game currency exists to control the flow of the game and the general pacing to provide more satisfactory play for people who enjoy the challenge aspect.

I can see your point about Agon and gamist mechanics controlling pacing.  It wouldn't be a fun game without some kind of pacing and balance.  It wouldn't be fun in Monopoly if the car got more turns because its faster than the top hat.

Furthermore, fourth edition is clearly not a full on narrative game or a storygame.  Its mechanics are just disconnected from the game world, and that kills immersion.  I think that the way this is set up suggests a narrative influence because it forces a player to step outside their character's viewpoint and look at the game as a game.  This means that the player has a harder time connecting to the game world as an immersive experience and an easier time looking at it through an authorial perspective.  


A lot of advice coming from both official and non official channels also focuses on plot and storytelling as an end product.  When combined with the game mechanics it suggests a narrative influence on DnD 4e.

Stance doesn't indicate a narrative influence, it's just associated with certain techniques, regardless of whether a system focuses more on the game aspects, the world aspects, or the story aspects.

The powers are balanced and laid out to cater to a specific style of delving and create satisfying play, not necessarily to invoke more player narration -- that's something for the group to handle outside of the system.  It's not like other systems, say, like Exalted where you get bonuses for adding narrative description to the scene.

Quote from: LordVreeg;401879Ukk.
Love you, man, but this is where you lose me.  Immersion is something that GM's work to create for the players, not the GM.  The dungeon as a consious force?

Yes. See The Dungeon as a Mythic Underworld from Philotomy's Musings:

As for ecology, a megadungeon should have a certain amount of verisimilitude and internal consistency, but it is an underworld: a place where the normal laws of reality may not apply, and may be bent, warped, or broken. Not merely an underground site or a lair, not sane, the underworld gnaws on the physical world like some chaotic cancer. It is inimical to men; the dungeon, itself, opposes and obstructs the adventurers brave enough to explore it. For example, consider the OD&D approach to doors and to vision in the underworld, as described in Vol. III of the original rules:

       Generally, doors will not open by turning the handle or by a push. Doors must be forced open by strength...Most doors will automatically close, despite the difficulty in opening them. Doors will automatically open for monsters, unless they are held shut against them by characters. Doors can be wedged open by means of spikes, but there is a one-third chance (die 5-6) that the spike will slip and the door will shut...In the underworld some light source or an infravision spell must be used. Torches, lanterns, and magic swords will illuminate the way, but they also allow monsters to "see" the users so that monsters will never be surprised unless coming through a door. Also, torches can be blown out by a strong gust of wind. Monsters are assumed to have permanent infravision as long as they are not serving some character. (The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, pg 9)

    Special Ability functions are generally as indicated in CHAINMAIL where not contradictory to the information stated hereinafter, and it is generally true that any monster or man can see in total darkness as far as the dungeons are concerned except player characters. (Monsters & Treasure, pg 5)

Notice that all characters, including those which can see in normal darkness (e.g. elves, dwarves)*, require a light source in the underworld, while all denizens of the place possess infravision or the ability to see in total darkness. Even more telling, a monster that enters the service of a character loses  this special vision. Similarly, characters must force their way through doors and have difficulty keeping them open; however, these same doors automatically open for monsters. This is a clear example of how the normal rules do not apply to the underworld, and how the underworld, itself, works against the characters exploring it.

I basically operate under a similar assumption, but I actually worked it out in the background of the Black Abbey and the Tower, my related underworld settings, when using OD&D (by which I mean, running these settings with different game systems might imply other basic game assumptions, and change the nature of the game. Which is cool because it keeps things fresh for me, and gives a choice to the players at the start of the campaign as to the exact style of campaign they want). There are two different explanations in there as to why the Underworld itself might become an active foe of the people exploring its depths.

Quote from: Peregrin;401878A living dungeon...that would be a pretty cool adventure hook.  Perhaps a titan from a previous age that was put to sleep and inhabited by a wizard so he could study it from the inside, but it's able to control aspects of the dungeon from its "dreaming" state.

Sorry, off-topic a bit.

Could be an explanation, sure! And a cool one at that.

Quote from: Benoist;401797Well, I just explained at length in my previous post how my example Daily power is explained either with the game system balance in mind, or the narrative approach, or both. That's how I see them making the most sense. As mechanics that simulate a reality of the game world... not so much. I don't think I can explain much more clearly. It's fine if you're not seeing the issue, but I do. I just wish I could explain it better. It's so crystal clear to me that it actually makes it a lot harder to explain. A bit like demonstrating that 1+1 equals 2.

I can totally see the game balance issue you're referring to, but consider it almost a non-issue, because that would have been a guiding factor no matter what actualy mechanic they had ended up using. Like it or not, it's the way the games are being made today. The narrative crap I'm not seeing. Is there fluff text? Yes. Can I ignore the shit? Yes, and often do. I simply think the power structure was created to both simplify resource management, and to create conformity among the classes so they can try to eliminate the complaints of "wizards are weaker/stronger/OPed compared to fighters" bullshit. My opinion is that it's a silly goal, and a crappy way to attempt to achieve the silly goal, but I see nothing "story game" about it. Do me a favor, and just point out the specific bit that makes it "story game" to you.

QuoteThe collectible aspect of the cards is a red herring to me. It has nothing to do with the discussion. What I was doing by including the Pramas tweets was to explain why I felt like it'd be useful to discuss the narrative and/or gamist logic sustaining modern D&D iterations, so that they don't become more exclusive of other play styles than they already are. That's all there was to it.

As for the way the mechanics of powers make 4E more of a story game, I explained how, to me, a Daily/Encounter power can either be explained from a third-person gamist point of view (the game world thus being a consequence of the rules' logic, instead of the reverse), or explained via narrative logic (these are powers you can only use once in a while because that's the sort of move you see once a scene, or episode, in a TV series), or both. I can't explain it much more clearly, I'm afraid.

Now if you guys are not seeing it, it's cool. Either I'm completely off mark here, or I'm just not explaining it clearly enough. I wish I could.

Your theory jargon is throwing me off. Never liked that junk. I do see what you're saying, however, I think that 4e actually is going in a vastly different direction than towards "story games' in that I think it's actually designed to play more like a game than older DnD versions, so it seems to me that'd be away from the "story game" stuff. As always, I could be wrong.

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;401809...narrative pacing ...

I don't see this in dailies at all.

Quotegame balance

I see loads of this in dailies.

QuoteNon-magic dailies represent maneuvers that the characters have mastered.  To limit them to once per day draws the player out of an immersive experience and forces them to interact with the game mechanics in a blatantly metagame way.  For people who want intuitive, fade into the background mechanics they stick out like a sore thumb.  

I agree with this 100%

QuoteNon-magic dailies are a prime example of disassociated game mechanics and point toward a trend in adopting narrative elements.  For some people that's a problem.

I'm one of those people.

Quote from: Benoist;401829Maybe, but that actual rationalization is strongly supported by the game's writing itself, which goes on and on about stories, narrative pacing (get on to the fun etc) and so on.

I think it goes on with all that because it's so obvious that the crap is pure metagame BS and they forsaw folks having difficulty with it. The "narrative" junk is just smoke and mirrors IMO.

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;401885This means that the player has a harder time connecting to the game world as an immersive experience and an easier time looking at it through an authorial perspective.  

I don't follow you all the way here. I do have a hard time connecting to the game world as an immersive experience, but that's where it stops for me. I've never looked at any rpg from an "authorial" perspective, and that holds true for 4e as well.

QuoteA lot of advice coming from both official and non official channels also focuses on plot and storytelling as an end product.  When combined with the game mechanics it suggests a narrative influence on DnD 4e.

All that junk comes across to me as an attempt to justify and/or cover-up the metagame nature of 4e.

Quote from: Sigmund;401933All that junk comes across to me as an attempt to justify and/or cover-up the metagame nature of 4e.

Ah. I think I understand where you're coming from, now. To you, the issues we're talking about do indeed exist, but they're purely related to "gamist", game balance, rules system in a vacuum issues. The narrative stuff is just a way to camouflage it.

OK. I see what you mean I think.

It's just that from the books' text itself which embrace the notion of pacing, narrative, story, "like a movie" thing to some fans of 4E (like our very own Abyssal Maw here, who explained dailies as "movie moves" at least once recently) who keep explaining these sorts of rules in narrative terms, I didn't pull the narrative logic out of my ass - it's been supported by the people using the game themselves, and it *does* make sense in those terms too, IMO. I'm just not a fan of either "pure rules/game" nor "narrative" logics to explain why rules are the way they are. Either way, that rubs me the wrong way.

Quote from: Benoist;401943Ah. I think I understand where you're coming from, now. To you, the issues we're talking about do indeed exist, but they're purely related to "gamist", game balance, rules system in a vacuum issues. The narrative stuff is just a way to camouflage it.

OK. I see what you mean I think.

It's just that from the books' text itself which embrace the notion of pacing, narrative, story, "like a movie" thing to some fans of 4E (like our very own Abyssal Maw here, who explained dailies as "movie moves" at least once recently) who keep explaining these sorts of rules in narrative terms, I didn't pull the narrative logic out of my ass - it's been supported by the people using the game themselves, and it *does* make sense in those terms too, IMO. I'm just not a fan of either "pure rules/game" nor "narrative" logics to explain why rules are the way they are. Either way, that rubs me the wrong way.

I'm not a fan of it either, and honestly, while I see where you're coming from, to me it comes across more as a way to try to camouflage the game-centric nature of 4e, rather than as an attempt to make 4e more like a story game. Now what their actual intentions were, I have no idea. I only know how I perceive it.

Quote from: Sigmund;401949I'm not a fan of it either, and honestly, while I see where you're coming from, to me it comes across more as a way to try to camouflage the game-centric nature of 4e, rather than as an attempt to make 4e more like a story game. Now what their actual intentions were, I have no idea. I only know how I perceive it.

I definitely see that.

Bottom line for me is that the disassociated mechanics are a HUGE turn off for me.  It was easy for me to see this as partially narrative due to the same reasons that Benoist mentioned.  

Upon looking at it again there's very little hard evidence that the game is going in a narrative direction.  You could certainly look at some mechanics as being useful in narrative sense, but it doesn't seem the designers intended it this way.

More than anything I just don't like the direction 4e took for one of my favorite games.  The way they addressed the complaints about 3e went the opposite of what I'd like.  However it's not that big of a deal because my old games are still on my shelf waiting for me.  Also the games like 2 years old so I might as well get over it.  I just like talking about it is all.