QuoteOriginally Posted by Spinachcat

Is this all about suspension of disbelief?

Suspension of Disbelief is a choice. Everyone decides what barriers they will erect in their minds as "requirements" that must be check off before they allow themselves to choose to suspend their disbelief.

It's like how people define the rules that allow them to feel happy. Some people can never allow themselves to be happy and others are joyful over the little things. Again, this is a choice.

My suggestion is to try to lower your barriers when gaming. And if you can't, then only play those RPGs that don't trigger your barriers.

Aspects are a barrier for me. So is shared narrative control. They diminish immersion for me so I avoid RPGs with those elements.

Quote from: Benoist;402147You do have a point.

Were I to play Non-Essentials 4E right now, that's what I'd probably do. I would start by actually not playing a martial character at all (which kinda sucks, because I love playing fighters, but hey, you can't have everything).

If others are playing the martial classes, it would make it a lot easier for me to ignore. The issue wouldn't be there for me, as far as immersion in my own character would be concerned.

As for other mechanics of narrative control, sure, there is always the solution of trying to just get along with it. If I was to play a Vampire game tomorrow with guys I love in a very narrative way, I would just hold my nose and jump right in. People trump games and systems, to me. If I was to choose myself what to run for friends, however, as GM the problem would be harder for me to ignore. If I couldn't work it out in the campaign itself somehow (like the stuff we discuss with the Wrench and Ramon, for instance), I probably would end up running something else instead.

I'm not so sure I completely agree. Seems to me SoD can be chosen only to a degree before it gets lost despite a conscious choice. The barriers are erected by experiences as much or more than choice. Speaking from my own perspective, I can tolerate the "metagame" aspects of DnD up to 3.x (although that can stretch it a touch), but the power structure of 4e stretches my personal SoD too far it seems. I really, really want to like it, but I even started playing a wizard, and it was no good. With the same group I had played 3.5 with quite happily, I found myself getting bored and/or irritated (depending on what was going on in-game) while playing 4e. The at-will and encounter powers of my wizard at first seemed very cool to me, but the more combats we ran, and the more we worked with the power structure, and the push/pulls and marking mechanics and being forced to discuss and focus on the various conditions/rules during combat the more dissatisfied I became. I can only conclude it was the game, because the group was the same, the snacks were the same, the location of our games were the same. I ended up feeling like I was playing a board game most of the time during combat. In all actuality, the powers ended up coming across much better for me during the "RPing" portions of the game, where I could use my mage hand, ghost light, etc. to act and feel more "wizardly". I freely admit that where I am concerned, the whole problem could be that DnD doesn't play like DnD "should" anymore. I'm hoping that the simple changes and streamlining of Essentials can tip that back over to acceptable for me. These aren't really issues that I choose, it's just my personal limits where SoD is concerned. I think trying to overcome these limits, if I even could, ends up not being worth the effort when I can just choose to play or do other things.

Quote from: Benoist;402107You guys just don't have any fucking argument to contribute other than "hey, I don't have any problem with it, so you must be lying, you must be making stuff up, or you're just pathetic and a poor role player!"

Not so. I made an argument in post #21 about storygames being different in their approach from D&D, a post to which you did not respond.

Here it is again.

To my mind, storygames are differentiated from other RPGs by their focus on and consciousness of the element of story in the process. A game having some kind of narrative mechanism isn't enough to turn it into a storygame as many modern games have such elements. While they may allow players to shape or in limited ways control the events in play, these don't provide the kind of scope or focus necessary to achieve the ends of the storygame.

Moreover, the storygame has something specific in mind with its focus and consciousness of the media. A storygame wants you to do or experience something, whether that's a particular story, type of story, emotion, relationship with the other participants, et al..

D&D lacks these elements. It may have narrativistic element or two, but these are blips on the radar. D&D is random. The D&D experience is determined mostly by the DM, not the game itself.

Quote from: Benoist;402109Notice also that I'm ACTUALLY proposing some solutions to my own issues.

Yes. And since I'm not playing at your table, they're not germane to me, thus not worthy of commenting or dwelling on. And since I don't have the same issues with 4e, they're not germane to me, thus not worthy of commenting or dwelling on.

Moreover, they're weird. It's like a solution from someone who doesn't like the taste of ketchup but for some reason wants to eat ketchup, so he buys a ketchup bottle, empties it out, gets some mustard, puts enough food coloring in the mustard to turn it a pinkish color, then puts it in the ketchup bottle so he can use "ketchup." If you don't like 4e, don't play it.

Seanchai

I think it's been established that D&D, in any edition, isn't a storygame.  I think some of the mechanics of 4e can seem like narrative mechanics if you squint hard enough, and there is certainly more talk of story as a very important aspect of play as opposed to exploration of a virtual world.

But you're right Seanchi, I don't play 4e so it ultimately doesn't matter how I'd go about fixing it.  It's just interesting to talk about from time to time.

I do play 3e and hope to play Pathfinder at some point.  I find the "level appropriate" mechanics of 3e a big turn off.  My regular group mostly ignores them.  They know that when I'm DMing that they can't expect to face level appropriate encounters.  

I'm not sure how the ELs, CRs, certain feats, etc are narrative elements though.  I'd like to hear from someone about why they might be.

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;402164I do play 3e and hope to play Pathfinder at some point.  I find the "level appropriate" mechanics of 3e a big turn off.  My regular group mostly ignores them.  They know that when I'm DMing that they can't expect to face level appropriate encounters.  

I'm not sure how the ELs, CRs, certain feats, etc are narrative elements though.  I'd like to hear from someone about why they might be.

Well, it's like the power structure in 4E. You can either take these elements as just part of the game and its balance, or you explain them on a metagame, narrative point of view.

For instance, you could explain ELs and CRs as a natural evolution of the characters, the fact that in movies, heroes fight first small critters, then henchmen and lieutenants of the BBEG, up to the BBEG himself. Narrative pacing. It doesn't matter if that doesn't reflect any fictional reality in the game world. The point is that there is a build up, a crescendo in the challenges faced, which conveniently fit the characters' abilities, up to the climax at the end of the adventure/campaign. The very concept of Levels, both dungeon levels and character levels, which are part of D&D since its very start, could ALSO be explained that way.

(See what I did there? I actually involved ALL editions of the game here. Notice, people?)

The thing here is that there is a trend that gets more and more obvious over time. From the original game with character and dungeon levels, to 3rd ed with challenge ratings and encounter levels, to 4E with encounter budgets, treasure parcels, magic items levels and such. This is getting more and more codified. Mostly in the name of "fairness", according to most fans, though it does have an effect on the metagame approach of the game, which becomes more story-like, TV episode paced, in nature.

As for certain feats, I'm talking mostly of feats that are on/off switches of character abilities. Cleave, for instance. Either you have the feat, and can Cleave, or you don't, and you can't. Why is it that a fighter can't Cleave? Power Attack is even more obvious. Whirlwind Attack. So I can just swirld around me and hit several enemies surrounding me until I'm like 15th level? WTF? Again, like Powers, you have two ways to explain this: it either makes sense on a rules balance level, or a narrative-pacing level. Not on a game world point of view.

Just examples.

I'm not sure I'm entirely with you on the feats thing.  I've always viewed Cleave, Power Attack, etc (as they exist now) as indications of training, and thus a part of the game world.  I can see how it's bogus that no one can try them at all.  That's why I've always liked Conan d20s combat maneuvers.  If you meet the requirements you can perform these maneuvers.

Maybe a better way would be to have those combat feats be available to everyone as maneuvers.  Taking a feat would then make them better.

Example: Anyone with a +1 BAB and Str 13+ can make a power attack on a 1-1 basis up to -5 to hit for +5 damage.  If you take the Power Attack feat then you can trade 1 BAB for 2 dam with 2handers or go beyond the -5 cap limit.

Similarly with Cleave.  Anyone who meets the requirements can attempt a Cleave, but maybe at a to hit penalty to represent your aim being thrown off or an AC penalty to represent leaving yourself wide open.  If you take the feat you eliminate those penalties and perhaps get a small bonus.

It'd take some creative thinking to extend this to Whirlwind Attack though.

Edit:  Or maybe you could create a set of maneuvers like Conan's, perhaps using toned down versions of Bo9S's maneuvers, and have feats modify those to make the maneuvers stronger.

Oh I completely agree. It's far from being impossible to house rule. *nod*

That's actually how I would adjudicate if someone wanted to try a power attack without the feat. I'd probably allow it, but either not to the same extent as someone who's got the feat, limiting the non-feat action to +1/-1 or +2/-2, maybe, or I would allow the non-feat action to reproduce the actual written feat, and make the Feat itself even more rewarding that it presently is.

In the old RGFA discussions that led to the Threefold (thus the direct source of "Gamist", and indirectly of "Narrativist"), both "story-based" mechanics/GMing and "fairness-based" mechanics/GMing were seen as "metagame". Working from the The immersionist/simulationist bias that many of the participants shared, they're two kinds of metagame motivations being superimposed on the in-game reality of the game-world.

I basically share this perspective. So as far as I'm concerned, you're making a category error by saying "it's explained as fairness, but it looks like metagame". Fairness-as-a-goal is a kind of metagame; so is the dramatic-structure-as-a-goal.

Where they split is in motivation...and also historical development. RPGs evolved from pure gamey-games no matter how far back you trace (whether to Helwig and Reisswitz or Dave Weseley), and for much of their early history, the biggest tension over the identity of the form was whether it was more of a GAME or more of a virtual-world-simulator. At some later point actual narrative concerns--pacing, character-centrism--started to appear.

But that's a digression. More important: look to the motivation. And also consider whether the whole linear-progression-to-big-bad that you cite as TV influence may actually be backwash from how video games have influenced other media.

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;402164I think it's been established that D&D, in any edition, isn't a storygame.

Great. 'Cause it didn't seem like it.

Seanchai

I just can't figure out when it stopped being fun just hitting someone with a sword, and instead the PCs had to have all kinds of "pseudo-mythical" abilities, with restrictions on their use. Seriously - I played RPGs for years and years, intentionally just playing "martial" classes because I didn't want to be bothered with learning the magic rules. Since then, I have branched out and (since 3e) played magic classes and enjoyed them. But I also just like wailing on orcs with a sword or mace (magical, preferably). I was content leaving the flashy stuff to the squishy guys in the back. I made my own flash, through describing my actions. For some reason, 4e decided everyone needed to be flashy, by the book.

I ran my first session of 4e on Sunday, and it went well. We had one combat that lasted over an hour, with the rest just being social interaction and "setting the hook" for the rest of the adventure. Things moved quickly and with good energy, until the combat, and then the wargame aspect took over, but that's how the rules are laid out, so no real complaint - knew how it was going to be going in, and even though I tried to up the pace a bit it still was the energy-sink of the session. I think that might be an artifact of minis, I really do, because when you start going all tactical and square-counting and reading through three sheets of powers, things have to slow down. In 3e, even if I was a caster I could pop off a spell and roll dice in less than 30 seconds (but we rarely used minis).

In conclusion, 4e is not a story game; it is a set of rules used to resolve conflict in stories the DM creates and the players participate in. Pretty much, the same as any other version of D&D or any other RPG, for that matter. To my mind, it is a needlessly complicated set of rules bogged down with miniatures. BUT - we still had fun, and I did get to spend a week making terrain with styrofoam which I haven't done in ages so it wasn't all bad.

I love to make terrain out of styrofoam too.

Quote from: Werekoala;402188BUT - we still had fun, and I did get to spend a week making terrain with styrofoam which I haven't done in ages so it wasn't all bad.

Quote from: Benoist;402193I love to make terrain out of styrofoam too.

Assholes!  You probably both have a Hot Wire and a nice set of blades to go with it, too!  Why don't you both just come over to my house and slap me in the face?



(I've been playing with Sculpey recently, maybe I will see about making a couple of minis for your fancy terrain.  Any requests?)

Ooo... that looks interesting. Maybe if I get REAL fancy I'll look into that..

What's Sculpey?

Quote from: Werekoala;402188Things moved quickly and with good energy, until the combat, and then the wargame aspect took over, but that's how the rules are laid out, so no real complaint - knew how it was going to be going in, and even though I tried to up the pace a bit it still was the energy-sink of the session. I think that might be an artifact of minis, I really do, because when you start going all tactical and square-counting and reading through three sheets of powers, things have to slow down.

I'm not sure it's an artifact of minis. I think it has more to do with the particular players, paying attention, and choices. We had a discussion about it last week after our session and my thoughts were:

1. Some players take more time than others, particularly juxtaposed with points 2 and 3. Personally, I take pride in having a very short turn. I know what I'm going to do and then do it quickly. Some people...dither more than others.

2. Some players don't pay attention to what's happening on the field until it's their turn. They have to catch up, then decide what they're going to do.

3. There's more choice with 4e. Everyone has Powers, instead of just the magic using classes, and thus each player has to decide what they're going to do, figure out if they can do it, rework their plans if they can't, and then do it. Some people are faster than others at this.

None of this may describe your players, of course, and I do think that, all things being even, 4e combat is longer than in previous editions. But I don't think it has much to do with minis per se.

Seanchai

Quote from: Imperator;402134So, when you are mowing minions, they're so weak because they are just tiny shards of malevolence given form, while more strong monsters may be shards of evil that have been there for a longer time, or maybe they were born from bigger events. So, a minion goblin may be born form a petty act of evil, an elite monster may be born from a cruel murder, and so on.

Great stuff!  Especially for a horror fantasy RPG.

Quote from: Benoist;402147If I was to choose myself what to run for friends, however, as GM the problem would be harder for me to ignore. If I couldn't work it out in the campaign itself somehow (like the stuff we discuss with the Wrench and Ramon, for instance), I probably would end up running something else instead.

I will happily play games with good friends that I would never run.  I even played a two year campaign of GURPS.  I would never run any RPG that didn't totally groove with my GMing style.

Quote from: Sigmund;402160I'm hoping that the simple changes and streamlining of Essentials can tip that back over to acceptable for me.

It might!  Suspension of Disbelief is so variable and personal.  For me, 4e is ten times more immersive than 3.x which never flowed for me (and I tried repeatedly).  Obviously the people who went to Pathfinder instead of 4e felt the opposite.

But most fortunately, the hobby is full of RPG choices.

Quote from: Benoist;402149Thanks mate. I'm trying, and I'm sure AM noticed as well. I intend to keep that up.

I'm happy to hear that

QuoteDude, that's a great idea. In my example about heroes touched by Darkness and defending the points of light from the Night, maybe the monsters would be directly spawned by the Night, at first weak, following stronger shadows, gaining strength over time. Maybe these shadows are spawned by the fears of the Citadels refugees which fuel the Darkness around by their own sense of isolation and despair?
That actually would mesh well with the whole stuff here. That's cool!

See, you live in a Citadel, and own a shop. You say a little lie to a customer and sell him some not-so-good stuff: maybe a minor creature, a kobold, or something, spawns to life in the dungeon. That would explain how kobolds get to be so fucking prollific.

Now you go home, get drunk and beat your wife. Next morning you feel horrible, and hate yourself. Bam, something nastier comes to life. And so and so.

All of a sudden, clerics and paladins get to be super important, I guess, because they may be aware of what creates monsters and how important is to fight them with a pure heart (i.e., self-defense only) or you will spawn more of them.