Quote from: Benoist;366105So to you 4e really doesn't try to be "gamist" at all. Doesn't try to then include "narrativist" elements in later supplements, like the DMG2. Doesn't embrace the GNS theory at all in its design. Correct?

That is correct. Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering sure, GNS, no.

Quote from: Benoist;366105So to you 4e really doesn't try to be "gamist" at all. Doesn't try to then include "narrativist" elements in later supplements, like the DMG2. Doesn't embrace the GNS theory at all in its design. Correct?

When you get anti-4e sentiment from the Story Games crowd, it is often because they've attempted to play it from a strict gamist perspective and found it to be shallow and uninteresting. This is because 4e is a fairly poor game if you play it as nothing more than a miniatures skirmish game.

Quote from: Thanlis;366108When you get anti-4e sentiment from the Story Games crowd, it is often because they've attempted to play it from a strict gamist perspective and found it to be shallow and uninteresting. This is because 4e is a fairly poor game if you play it as nothing more than a miniatures skirmish game.

I've seen very little anti-4e sentiment among the indie/story-games crowd, in fact I've seen a significantly more positive reaction compared to the old-guard/trad-games-only stalwarts.

Quote from: Originally Posted by Thanlis Speaking of which, an interesting thought exercise: you are a DM completely new to OD&D. You have a party of fifth level PCs. How do you create a fight that will challenge them but not overwhelm them? What tools do you have available to you to make this easier?

My adventures in any area are already written before the PCs get there.  My Online group that is playing tonight is going into an adventure I wrote over a dozen years ago.  Wilderness encounters are decided by dice.  

My biggest tools are the tools of the NPCS and legends, heresay and research.  I try not to ever jump the PCS with an encounter that is way out of their league without giving them every chance to bail out.  But I have always run the sandbox mentality, long before it was called that.   Let the players try to figure out if they can take the chimera they just found; the day I scale things is a sad day for the level of versimilitude and immersion of my setting.
(That's me.   it's not right or wrong..just that question struck me funny)

Quote from: LordVreeg;366110My adventures in any area are already written before the PCs get there.  My Online group that is playing tonight is going into an adventure I wrote over a dozen years ago.  Wilderness encounters are decided by dice.  

My biggest tools are the tools of the NPCS and legends, heresay and research.  I try not to ever jump the PCS with an encounter that is way out of their league without giving them every chance to bail out.  But I have always run the sandbox mentality, long before it was called that.   Let the players try to figure out if they can take the chimera they just found; the day I scale things is a sad day for the level of versimilitude and immersion of my setting.
(That's me.   it's not right or wrong..just that question struck me funny)

I want to fork this into another topic about adventure design.

Quote from: Peregrin;366109I've seen very little anti-4e sentiment among the indie/story-games crowd, in fact I've seen a significantly more positive reaction compared to the old-guard/trad-games-only stalwarts.

There is a fascinating thread in which a bunch of Boston indie gamers try to treat 4e like a 16 bit console game, get frustrated, and give up. It illustrates the sentiment I'm talking about. I'm not by any means saying it's a majority reaction.

Quote from: Thanlis;366112There is a fascinating thread in which a bunch of Boston indie gamers try to treat 4e like a 16 bit console game, get frustrated, and give up. It illustrates the sentiment I'm talking about. I'm not by any means saying it's a majority reaction.

I think they're missing the point of RP, or GNS definitions, in general.  Gamist play doesn't mean a lack of RP, or plot, or that you have to treat it as a "simple" game.  It just means the focus is on overcoming challenges and fair rules to promote that type of play.

You can have story, and deep characters, and all of that, and it can jive really well with the encounter/challenge format.  I've personally done it.  It's just the RAW don't necessarily encourage that type of play (or help support it).  It's a conscious choice the group has to make, sometimes in spite of the type of behavior the rules may encourage (acting in a way that best benefits your group's ability to overcome a challenge rather than what would create the most interesting fictional situation).

Quote from: Thanlis;366108When you get anti-4e sentiment from the Story Games crowd, it is often because they've attempted to play it from a strict gamist perspective and found it to be shallow and uninteresting. This is because 4e is a fairly poor game if you play it as nothing more than a miniatures skirmish game.

Really? Why is that? I haven't tried it, but it seems to me it would be great for that. I'm not saying this as a bash either, I absolutely loved Melee and Wizard back in the day, and have thought that maybe 4e played this way would help me side-step the things I like least about 4e.

Quote from: AM

Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegMy adventures in any area are already written before the PCs get there. My Online group that is playing tonight is going into an adventure I wrote over a dozen years ago. Wilderness encounters are decided by dice.

My biggest tools are the tools of the NPCS and legends, heresay and research. I try not to ever jump the PCS with an encounter that is way out of their league without giving them every chance to bail out. But I have always run the sandbox mentality, long before it was called that. Let the players try to figure out if they can take the chimera they just found; the day I scale things is a sad day for the level of versimilitude and immersion of my setting.
(That's me. it's not right or wrong..just that question struck me funny)

I want to fork this into another topic about adventure design

Sure, "Whither thou goest, I will go, and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God." ..."

or at least I know that I enjoy these crazy-ass conversations.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366093I'm thinking of a funny conversation I heard about the 4E forgotten Realms Campaign Guide where there's a sample adventure that starts with goblins busting through a wall to attack.

This guy was totally focused on that busting through the wall thing, and for the FRCG to be any good it had to answer questions about goblins busting through walls. The physics involved, how tough the wall was, what kind of explosive or mining techniques used, etc. All of this was very important to him.

I think what he really wanted was a Goblins Busting Through walls guide. In any case, if I'm in an adventure and goblins bust through the walls and attack... the last thing my character cares in that moment is details of exactly how the goblins bust through walls.

But for the collectible mathematical-model-of-the-universe-guy that kind of info is very important.

That's not what that was about at all. You're talking about NiTessine's review of the book. He mentions that the intro adventure doesn't rationalize what happens. We aren't talking about making goblins into rational creatures. We're talking about making the encounter where they bust the wall fit into a credible overall situation. NiTessine mentions, for instance, that the module leaves open the question how the town guard who's standing on the wall couldn't see the goblins approach out of a forest into the open, cross 2 miles of open field in plain sight, and plant (and ignite) their explosive devices next to the city wall without anyone seeing them. NiTessine also queries how the goblins knew exactly where the target location of the explosion was - sc. nearest to the shop of a guy who had an artefact of theirs - if they had never been in town. And so on.

If you look at the threads WotC 4E module writer Rodney Thompson put up on Enworld and tBG where Thompson queries what people perceive to be weaknesses in 4E modules, this one comes up fairly often: that 4E encounters are 'cool' cinematic combats, but why and when they occur is poorly rationalized ... if often by absence: no one thought why this fight starts to take place in that location, least of all the author, and so on. Just like goblins placing a detonation in broad daylight in that encounter the FRCG is on about.

So yes, I agree it's a bit futile to argue about these things. It's like getting together with your mates for an evening of booze and porn flicks, and then there's this noisy guy who interrupts the group's entertainments by pointing out the 'plot holes' in the flicks. I mean seriously, man, this is not a story, it's a loose series of unmotivated bombastic ... hmm I forgot where I was going with this.

Quote from: Sigmund;366116Really? Why is that? I haven't tried it, but it seems to me it would be great for that. I'm not saying this as a bash either, I absolutely loved Melee and Wizard back in the day, and have thought that maybe 4e played this way would help me side-step the things I like least about 4e.

It's kind of dry, particularly at the lower levels. You know the criticism that at-wills are boring? I actually agree with that if all you're doing is rolling dice. If you're emotionally engaged with the character, however, and you're throwing that Magic Missile in a desperate attempt to save your brother even though the tactically smart thing to do would be to attack the other giant rat over there? That's interesting.

Quote from: Thanlis;366126It's kind of dry, particularly at the lower levels. You know the criticism that at-wills are boring? I actually agree with that if all you're doing is rolling dice. If you're emotionally engaged with the character, however, and you're throwing that Magic Missile in a desperate attempt to save your brother even though the tactically smart thing to do would be to attack the other giant rat over there? That's interesting.

Yeah, I can see that, but what I'm seeing is that played as a miniature skirmish game there's no reason not to break out the big guns when they might be useful. It kinda removes some of the resource management and lets the character's rock their entire arsenal.

Quote from: Windjammer;366122That's not what that was about at all. You're talking about NiTessine's review of the book. He mentions that the intro adventure doesn't rationalize what happens. We aren't talking about making goblins into rational creatures. We're talking about making the encounter where they bust the wall fit into a credible overall situation. NiTessine mentions, for instance, that the module leaves open the question how the town guard who's standing on the wall couldn't see the goblins approach out of a forest into the open, cross 2 miles of open field in plain sight, and plant (and ignite) their explosive devices next to the city wall without anyone seeing them. NiTessine also queries how the goblins knew exactly where the target location of the explosion was - sc. nearest to the shop of a guy who had an artefact of theirs - if they had never been in town. And so on.

If you look at the threads WotC 4E module writer Rodney Thompson put up on Enworld and tBG where Thompson queries what people perceive to be weaknesses in 4E modules, this one comes up fairly often: that 4E encounters are 'cool' cinematic combats, but why and when they occur is poorly rationalized ... if often by absence: no one thought why this fight starts to take place in that location, least of all the author, and so on. Just like goblins placing a detonation in broad daylight in that encounter the FRCG is on about.

So yes, I agree it's a bit futile to argue about these things. It's like getting together with your mates for an evening of booze and porn flicks, and then there's this noisy guy who interrupts the group's entertainments by pointing out the 'plot holes' in the flicks. I mean seriously, man, this is not a story, it's a loose series of unmotivated bombastic ... hmm I forgot where I was going with this.

Ask yourself this: Does any of that matter in a sample adventure in the campaign guide?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;366131Ask yourself this: Does any of that matter in a sample adventure in the campaign guide?

It does if you are looking to have a long term campaign where immersion and verisimilitude matter to those involved.

Quote from: Drohem;366136It does if you are looking to have a long term campaign where immersion and verisimilitude matter to those involved.

Listen up, Noisy Guy TM: stop it with the coitus interruptus!!!

Ah, okay, I'm getting all mixed up with these sexual references, so I better stop while I'm going... if you get the gist.