TheRPGSite

Serious question. With the "narrative logic" that is the basis of both 4E and Pathfinder (see Gamemastery Guide), with the Fortune Cards (http://www.livingdice.com/5029/wizards-of-the-coast-gen-con-interview-part-2-of-2-dd-gamma-world-fortune-cards/#ixzz0x6anEZm6) around the corner, and Paizo's Plot Twist Cards (http://paizo.com/gameMastery/itemPacks/v5748btpy8b8m) already here, with Action Points and other mechanics allowing players to have an impact on the story/narrative of the game, I think it's fair to ask: is modern D&D a storygame, now?

Quote from: Benoist;401485Serious question. With the "narrative logic" that is the basis of both 4E and Pathfinder, with the Fortune Cards (http://www.livingdice.com/5029/wizards-of-the-coast-gen-con-interview-part-2-of-2-dd-gamma-world-fortune-cards/#ixzz0x6anEZm6) around the corner, and Paizo's Plot Twist Cards (http://paizo.com/gameMastery/itemPacks/v5748btpy8b8m) already here, with Action Points and other mechanics allowing players to have an impact on the story/narrative of the game, I think it's fair to ask: is modern D&D a storygame, now?

You have to define story-game.

The definition that the forgies wanted to impose is one in which a specifically moral or political lesson is learned via story or the players experience some kind of psychological, therapeutic, or moral catharsis.

Stories are created in all roleplaying games, D&D or otherwise, and specific to D&D there's no editional difference.

By storygame I mean a game that actually is collaborative story telling, with a narrative, protagonists, players affecting the way the narrative unfolds, as opposed to an actual role playing game, which, to me, is not about creating a "story", but living the "actuality" of the game world. See this thread for my take on the notion of "story" and narratives in RPGs. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17329)

Quote from: Benoist;401488By storygame I mean a game that actually is collaborative story telling, with a narrative, protagonists, players affecting the way the narrative unfolds, as opposed to an actual role playing game, which, to me, is not about creating a "story", but living the "actuality" of the game world. See this thread for my take on the notion of "story" and narratives in RPGs. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17329)

I don't think that would be the case, unless all other editions of D&D are also considered storygames under the exact same standards.

Quote from: Benoist;401488By storygame I mean a game that actually is collaborative story telling, with a narrative, protagonists, players affecting the way the narrative unfolds, as opposed to an actual role playing game...

Players don't affect the way the narrative unfolds in "actual" roleplaying games? Sounds like you're saying they're all railroads.

That aside, I think anyone who has actually played a "storygame" and 3e or 4e can see that the latter aren't in any danger of becoming the former.

Seanchai

I'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.

Quote from: Seanchai;401497Players don't affect the way the narrative unfolds in "actual" roleplaying games? Sounds like you're saying they're all railroads.

No, not at all. What I'm saying is that there's no such thing as a "narrative" in an RPG, to me. That players affect the events unfolding in the game world through their characters the same way you and I affect the events of the real world around us.

Quote from: Seanchai;401497That aside, I think anyone who has actually played a "storygame" and 3e or 4e can see that the latter aren't in any danger of becoming the former.

Seanchai

Well there's a consensus between AM, you and Sigmund on this one. Now my question would be: why? Why is it that 3e and 4e (notice I'm not discriminating between 4E and PF/3E here) are in no danger of becoming storygames? Which specific elements are missing, and really unlikely to happen, that would make them "storygames", in your opinion?

There was a group of guys that predated us at the local shop, and I still see them every once in a while. They would hang out in the main gaming area, and talk, and they took up a gaming table as if they were gaming, so I always assumed they were. Every once in a while I think/gather that one of the PCs might attack another PC or there would be some drinking game going on in character. I overheard an extended negotiation for buying equipment one time. From what I could eavesdrop, the PCs rarely left the tavern.

I just assumed that was a very aimless roleplaying group. I can't tell what the Dm did if anything, but one guy was definitely the DM.

They didn't seem to be going anywhere or doing anything in particular, and often enough, only a few people would show up, or none at all. There was definitely roleplaying, just not much adventure.

Is this what is meant by an organically created story?

The opposite.

The logic of martial characters having dailies is justified by some of the 4e fans in terms of narrative structure: it's not about the character being able to accomplish X or Y only 1/day, it's about player exerting narrative control via key moments.

I read this in the context of some fans discussing martial PCs (fighters, so far) in 4.Essentials no longer having dailies, how this compromises the narrative structure of 4.0 and attempts to revert 4E to pre-4E "simulationist" times.

I found that a pretty interesting observation.

Quote from: Benoist;401500No, not at all. What I'm saying is that there's no such thing as a "narrative" in an RPG, to me. That players affect the events unfolding in the game world through their characters the same way you and I affect the events of the real world around us.


Well there's a consensus between AM, you and Sigmund on this one. Now my question would be: why? Why is it that 3e and 4e (notice I'm not discriminating between 4E and PF/3E here) are in no danger of becoming storygames? Which specific elements are missing, and really unlikely to happen, that would make them "storygames", in your opinion?

My personal opinion of storygames is that they are the ultimate simulation. The entire point is to simulate a story.

And they do it through exactly what you describe. There's a designated protagonist, designated theme, a premise, and an authors vision of how things are going to take place. Just is if you were writing a book. Except you are doing it via group and everyone is taking turns.

By contrast most roleplaying games (D&D included) can say that there's a story but in general each player controls his or her own PC, and there's a situation, but the outcome and details just aren't predetermined, and nobody asserts narrative control or anything like that.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;401503Is this what is meant by an organically created story?

Well to me, there's no such thing as a "story" organically created in a role playing game or otherwise. The game's about immersing yourself in the game world through a character and for your character, and thus you also, there is no story unfolding whatsoever, everything is unfolding live, in actuality, just like real life would.

As a DM, I do have factions, locales, situations prepared, but there is no "narrative" to it. It's not a "story". These are elements that may or may not come in play in the characters' adventure as they live through it. Even I the DM don't know what the adventure will exactly be made of, whether the characters will find out if this NPC lies or come to trust him, whether they will confront the BBEG or ally with him. My game elements (NPCs, monsters, locales, factions, situations, motives etc) are just that: game elements that exist in the game world and that the players' character have a chance to interact with, which itself jumpstarts other events in the game, and so on. It's the antithesis of the railroad, though railroad there still may be, if you design your adventure badly.

In this context, for instance, the concept that a player would use a card to affect events unfolding in the game as if he was an author participating in bird's eye view to a "story" is strange and counterproductive, to put it mildly. The same way, the notion that one has a "daily" move because that's "that one move you only see once in a movie" doesn't make any sense whatsoever, because the events depicted by the game are not a movie or story, but actual, if fictional, reality.

I hope I'm clearer.

Quote from: Windjammer;401505The opposite.

The logic of martial characters having dailies is justified by some of the 4e fans in terms of narrative structure: it's not about the character being able to accomplish X or Y only 1/day, it's about player exerting narrative control via key moments.

I read this in the context of some fans discussing martial PCs (fighters, so far) in 4.Essentials no longer having dailies, how this compromises the narrative structure of 4.0 and attempts to revert 4E to pre-4E "simulationist" times.

I found that a pretty interesting observation.

Well, sure, in a way. But we're talking about a single attack between extended rests, not a moment to narrate the moral importance of how a character is illustrating his internal battle against gender oppression via a well-placed pommel smash. A martial daily is just one good solid hit with enough flavor text to make it like.. a cool moment.

Quote from: Benoist;401507Well to me, there's no such thing as a "story" organically created in a role playing game or otherwise. The game's about immersing yourself in the game world through a character and for your character, and thus you also, there is no story unfolding whatsoever, everything is unfolding live, in actuality, just like real life would.

As a DM, I do have factions, locales, situations prepared, but there is no "narrative" to it. It's not a "story". These are elements that may or may not come in play in the characters' adventure as they live through it. Even I the DM doesn't know what the adventure will exactly be made of, whether the characters will find out if this NPC lies or trust him, whether they will confront the BBEG or ally with him. My game elements (NPCs, monsters, locales, factions, situations, motives etc) are just that: game elements that exist in the game world and that the players' character have a chance to interact with, which itself jumpstarts other events in the game, and so on. It's the antithesis of the railroad, though railroad there still may be, if you design your adventure badly.

In this context, for instance, the concept that a player would use a card to affect events unfolding in the game as if he was an author participating in bird's eye view to a "story" is strange and counterproductive, to put it mildly. The same way, the notion that one has a "daily" move because that's "that one move you only see once in a movie" doesn't make any sense whatsoever, because the events depicted by the game are not a movie or story, but actual, if fictional, reality.

I hope I'm clearer.

I think there's a lot of different approaches to gaming, and that's one of them.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;401511I think there's a lot of different approaches to gaming, and that's one of them.

My hope is that I can reconcile my take on role playing with what Essentials is trying to do. I think that was Bill S. (or Mike Mearls) who was saying that they were trying to connect the game mechanics more to the game world through Essentials. I hope the direction they're taking appeals more to my tastes. I'm wondering about all this because I find less and less appeal in the game master's advice in both Pathfinder RPG and 4E because of this storytelling bent that is now omnipresent, at every turn, and informs the games' designs themselves. The swarm grabbing discussion (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=401482&postcount=31) brought that main issue I have with both games in sharp contrast to my attention, hence this thread.

Quote from: Windjammer;401505I read this in the context of some fans discussing martial PCs (fighters, so far) in 4.Essentials no longer having dailies, how this compromises the narrative structure of 4.0 and attempts to revert 4E to pre-4E "simulationist" times.

Put in other words, that's exactly what I hope Essentials will accomplish.

D&D has been a Game of Stories since 1974.

It just depended on the group and the GM.  Some people played to have a "fictional reality" like what Benoist is describing.  Others wanted to play grand epics like Arthur's saga or LotR and others wanted more player empowerment, movie-experience where their characters were the stars of a movie and pretty much destined to win.

The entire success of OD&D and AD&D was because DM and players developed a story together through play.  

Never give "story game" to the Forgies.  Never.  

Its as absurd as giving "RPG" to the video game companies.

Every time I play OD&D, CoC, Trav, WFRP, Rifts or whatever, I am engaging in an interactive story telling game.

And don't confuse "story" with literature.   Story is just "characters making decisions with consequences or rewards"

Quote from: Spinachcat;401518D&D has been a Game of Stories since 1974.

For 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.

Quote from: Spinachcat;401518The entire success of OD&D and AD&D was because DM and players developed a story together through play.

To some people, you included, for sure. Not in general, no. I for one would say that it allowed me to be a hero exploring dungeons and fantasy worlds of our imagination the time of a game session, which is not predicated on the idea of story, but actuality. There is a nuance here that some will refute, or simply discard, but there are also some like myself who see this as an important nuance. One of the differences then between then and now is that then, we would both have been right, and the game was inclusive of many takes on role playing and game styles, whereas now games like PF and 4E have chosen a squarely narrativist-gamist definition of what the game is and isn't that antagonizes people with my inclinations. The focus sharpened, and ends up killing the fun of the game for people like me.

When Ben talks about narrative control, and story, what he means is not that our characters don't set out to the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief with the intent to slay him and stop a giant invasion.  That's exactly what we are doing.

What Ben is talking about is that when evrything is said and done, we will be able to talk about what happened and tell stories about it, about how the Paladin held the line while the Cleric healed the Fighter, etc...  

It's all about player intent.  A storygame is almost like 4th wall gaming.  If I go in knowing I want to tell a specific story, and can alter the gameworld to affect that story through some metagaming resource like Fate points, then I'm moving away from simulating a world to simulating a novel, comic, whatever.  I'm moving away from roleplaying toward storygaming.  

Storygaming Example = Using a Fate/Action Point whatever to "edit" the world, like I'm Neo in the Matrix.  The bad guys are following me into a dead end alleyway.  But wait, I spend a Narrative resource point and find a crumbling hole in a wall I didn't see before.  Now I can escape, but to pay the price for editing the hole, I cut myself going through it and now the bad guys can follow me better.

Roleplaying example= Let the dice fall where they may, DM fudge or have something like Luck points, which let a player reroll.  That's about as metagamey as a Traditional RPG will get.

Do I think 4e incorporates more narrative elements? Certainly.  Do I think it is going to become a storygame?  I doubt it, Essentials seems like they're already realizing they need to tone it down some.

WFRP3 on the other hand, is much more narratively inspired.

Quote from: Spinachcat;401518D&D has been a Game of Stories since 1974.

There's no evidence of this. At a later date, perhaps, yes. But there's no need to distort the record to make your point.

Is Arkham Horror a story game?

Quote from: Benoist;401500No, not at all. What I'm saying is that there's no such thing as a "narrative" in an RPG, to me.

I would say that a plot is a "narrative." Moreover, a story can be (or, actually, is) defined as: "an account of incidents or events." Doesn't say anything about it being predetermined or even coherent. Thus, in my estimation, even casual sandbox games have plots and stories: "We wander around and do shit."

That being the case, the players, their actions, and their choices affect the "narrative" even in "actual" roleplaying games.

Quote from: Benoist;401500Now my question would be: why? Why is it that 3e and 4e (notice I'm not discriminating between 4E and PF/3E here) are in no danger of becoming storygames? Which specific elements are missing, and really unlikely to happen, that would make them "storygames", in your opinion?

I'm not an expert in "storygames." I own some and have played them a time or two. Still, it seems to me that "storygames" have two elements: they're "meta conscious" and they conscious of their "meta outcomes."

By "meta conscious" I mean that they direct participant's focus to the process in a straightforward and deliberate fashion. Participants know, for example, that they're sitting down to build a story, completed with comments to the audience, about a Ghostbuster-esque organization when they play InSpectres. The game out and out says so.

By conscious of their "meta outcomes" I mean that the "storygame" uses it's text, mechanics, etc., to direct participants to a particular outcome or event. The game wants something of those who play it, whether that's a certain attitude toward their fellow players, certain types of situations, a certain mindset, or a particular resolution, it has a goal in mind.

In contrast, D&D doesn't deliberately direct players in the way "storygames" do. D&D players might focus on the game as an abstract entity, but that's incidental. And the best example of "meta outcomes" I can think of with D&D is having fun, winning, or being heroic.

Mechanics such as action points, which in 4e just provide an extra standard action, included, D&D doesn't approach itself like "storygames" do...

Seanchai

Story does not require a pre-defined arc.   It is true that most modern RPGs assume success for the heroes and that's the player mindset.   You sit down for an adventure and most likely you will win.  Sometimes not everyone survives, but victory is usual.

In 0e/1e/2e, there was a high chance of failure, but success/failure rate has nothing to do with story.  "We entered the dungeon, all got whacked and the Necromancer now rules the land" still a story.

"Life unfolding" is a story because its characters taking actions and experiencing the results of those actions.  

And regardless how impartial a GM, or how devoted to immersion or simulation, the GM still has huge narrative control.  It's the nature of RPGs.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;401537There's no evidence of this. At a later date, perhaps, yes. But there's no need to distort the record to make your point.

There is 100% evidence.   Since the time when White Box was just Gygax's notes, his players made characters who were more than playing pieces who did things beyond the confines of a boardgame or wargame.   And those character altered, changed and developed histories as they continued in play.

Quote from: Spinachcat;401549There is 100% evidence.   Since the time when White Box was just Gygax's notes, his players made characters who were more than playing pieces who did things beyond the confines of a boardgame or wargame.   And those character altered, changed and developed histories as they continued in play.

You make it sound like these things are fundamentally predicated on the concept of "story" in RPGs, which to me is not the case at all. You can have characters who are more than playing pieces, who do things beyond the confines of boardgame and wargame, and alter, change and develop elements of the setting around them, including and not limited to their own identity and those of the characters and locales around them, without ever having such a thing as a "storytelling", "plots" and "narratives" in the game.

You do understand the difference I'm making between the notions of "narrative" and "actuality"/immersion in the game, don't you? The fundamental difference I'm making is between the player as the character (immersion/actuality) and the player considering the "narrative" in a bird's eye view, apart from the character in the game (narrative/story).

Sigh. Spinachcat, you need to reread CRKrueger's efforts at distinguishing narrative RPGs and traditional/immersive.

Ok, what Benoist is saying is that he may create a functioning world regarding the human nature and players can participate by lending themselves to some individuals (player characters) of that world.

The other way is where players could create parts of that functioning world that go beyond the power of a player character: the player decides for something beyond the PCs power in a simulationist kind of way. For example the PC may decide for another individual, for example an NPC, a faction or what.

Now, Benoist is wondering whether Essentials caters to the first situation instead of the second one which 4e seems to have been catering a bit with dailies and what not.

Is this what you are saying Benoist?

More or less, yeah. *nod*

That said, this kind of stuff is pretty old. Not 1974 old, but it does go back at least as far as Ars Magica's Whimsy Cards (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/cards/whimsycards.html).

Even if you look at any particular instance of this type of mechanic and see (as with Whimsy Cards) that the GM has final say, it's still a way of concretizing, through mechanics or accessories, the idea of players having narrative input as players.

Some people like that stuff now and then, it always seems like a cute idea, and so companies make it. Whether they actually get used on a regular basis, is another thing.

Also, while I'm not familiar with Paizo's Gamemastery Guide, story-based GMing tactics have been in GMing notes in games for ages. People ignored them or used them as they wished.

And that's really the thing. Maybe I'm too far removed but it sounds to me like PF and D&D 4-dot-mumble are pretty robust with or without the player narrative control add-ons and with or without story-path-type GMing. So no, they aren't becoming storygames, although maybe some people who like story-game-stuff will be happy to see it included as options.

EDIT: (forgot the conclusion) It's not like the games where you really can't play the game at all while just playing your character.

Quote from: Seanchai;401547I
I'm not an expert in "storygames." I own some and have played them a time or two. Still, it seems to me that "storygames" have two elements: they're "meta conscious" and they conscious of their "meta outcomes."

By "meta conscious" I mean that they direct participant's focus to the process in a straightforward and deliberate fashion. Participants know, for example, that they're sitting down to build a story, completed with comments to the audience, about a Ghostbuster-esque organization when they play InSpectres. The game out and out says so.

By conscious of their "meta outcomes" I mean that the "storygame" uses it's text, mechanics, etc., to direct participants to a particular outcome or event. The game wants something of those who play it, whether that's a certain attitude toward their fellow players, certain types of situations, a certain mindset, or a particular resolution, it has a goal in mind.

In contrast, D&D doesn't deliberately direct players in the way "storygames" do. D&D players might focus on the game as an abstract entity, but that's incidental. And the best example of "meta outcomes" I can think of with D&D is having fun, winning, or being heroic.


Seanchai

Not a bad description.
Meta consious.  OK.

Quote from: CRKrueger;401530WFRP3 on the other hand, is much more narratively inspired.

Very much so. Jay Little, the head designer, is a fan of GNS and Ron Edwards. As soon as that came to light i knew that my chances of writing for WFRP under the new regime was close to zero. Considering what has been done to it, i'm pretty glad, all things considered.

AFAICT, everything the players in my group do is still either in light of their character's personality or whatever is most entertaining for the moment, even in games where fate points/bennies or other player-narrative subsystems are implemented, and I see very little regard for any overarching story or plot.

I have, on occasion with games that involve small amounts of player narrative input (and some that don't), held OOC discussions about where the campaign is "moving" towards and taken player input (an entire session was changed around last minute due to a single player's input -- to great effect), but those discussions were apart from the system, and I don't find there's anything inherent in 4e or other games that give the players a small economy of points to play with that makes it anymore a story-game.

Now if the core rules allowed for player purchasing of specific scenes, NPCs, etc., with an explicit mechanical system, then I'd think maybe it was moving towards the story side of things.  But for right now it seems to sit squarely in the GM-driven adventure-path type mode, with the players reacting to situations/plot via their characters.

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:

(http://enrill.net/images/forump/pramas2.jpg)
(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:

(http://enrill.net/images/forump/pramas2.jpg)
(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! :D

PS. By the way. (http://paizo.com/store/sale/paizoStimulusPackage/v5748btpy7pox) Check out the reviews.

Quote from: Sigmund;401754Two 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.

Well, 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.

Quote from: Sigmund;401754Second, 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?

The 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.

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 try.

Dailies for non-magic characters have nothing to do with the game world or its "physics".  They have everything to do with metagame concepts like narrative pacing or game balance.  Even if you say that dailies are abilities that can only be pulled off on rare occasions then it doesn't make it sense to limit them to once per day.

Non-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.  

Non-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.

Exactly what I'm trying to say. Thanks. :)

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;401809I can try.

Dailies for non-magic characters have nothing to do with the game world or its "physics".  They have everything to do with metagame concepts like narrative pacing or game balance.  Even if you say that dailies are abilities that can only be pulled off on rare occasions then it doesn't make it sense to limit them to once per day.

Non-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.  

Non-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.

Try?  There is no try, there is only do.

And you certainly did it. :)

You nailed it succinctly.

All well and good but I think it's pretty clear that this is a case of narrative rationalization for fundentally gamist (resource management; power balance) mechanics.

Drums 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.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;401823All well and good but I think it's pretty clear that this is a case of narrative rationalization for fundentally gamist (resource management; power balance) mechanics.

Maybe, 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.

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.

And?  Vampire the Masquerade is chock full of all manner of rambling pretentious monologues all about everything from the evils of science to the virtues of the game as a political drama, and how it's all about telling "stories" and so on and so forth.

Didn't stop the game mechanics themselves being about superpowered vampires whooping each other's asses across the streets of Chicago.

And I already explained a zillion times. If you want to be thick-headed about it, go ahead, but just going tough internet guy on me isn't going to change my mind, J. Read my previous posts.

Quote from: Benoist;401837And I already explained a zillion times. If you want to be thick-headed about it, go ahead, but just going tough internet guy on me isn't going to change my mind, J. Read my previous posts.

And I'm saying you're muddying up your influences and coming to an inaccurate conclusion as a result.

4e isn't a storygame.  It's a reflection of what storygamers think regular games are.

It's an important difference, reflected in the design.  Failing to recognize that weakens the argument against the game considerably.

Quote from: J Arcane;401838And I'm saying you're muddying up your influences and coming to an inaccurate conclusion as a result.

4e isn't a storygame.  It's a reflection of what storygamers think regular games are.

It's an important difference, reflected in the design.  Failing to recognize that weakens the argument against the game considerably.

I'm not saying it's a story game either. The whole premise of the thread is to ask whether it already is, or is becoming one. What I'm saying is that narrative and/or gamist logics are clearly there, however.

Quote from: Benoist;401841I'm not saying it's a story game either. The whole premise of the thread is to ask whether it already is, or is becoming one. What I'm saying is that narrative and/or gamist logics are clearly there, however.

Right.
We've pretty much established, by how we define shared narrative control, that 4e does not have real shared narrative control.
Your assertation is that it is moving closer to one than earlier editions.  Such as daily's that don't make sense as to why they are limited to once a day.

That's it, yes.

Quote from: VreegSuch as daily's that don't make sense as to why they are limited to once a day.

Thinking about the rationalization behind the way certain game mechanics work kinda reminds me of OD&D and some odd bits, like how monsters have special vision (lowlight, I believe?), but lose it upon being recruited by the party if they were able to scare/convince the monster to join the troupe.  Basically there just to keep the party from gaining a really nice advantage.

Sometimes stuff is just done because it makes the game work better in play.  Some people like it, others don't.  4e goes to a relative extreme.

Quote from: Peregrin;401876Thinking about the rationalization behind the way certain game mechanics work kinda reminds me of OD&D and some odd bits, like how monsters have special vision (lowlight, I believe?), but lose it upon being recruited by the party if they were able to scare/convince the monster to join the troupe.  Basically there just to keep the party from gaining a really nice advantage.

I 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.

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 (http://www.philotomy.com/#dungeon) 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.

I can see where Jarcane is coming from.  It's not a Storygame, as he said (and Pundit has said numerous times), it's the post-GNS D&D.

Its high level of disassociated mechanics point to a design philosophy that just didn't take setting immersion/verisimilitude into account.  It's become the game that Forgers always said D&D was, but actually wasn't.

The narrative stuff does seem to be shoehorned in after the fact.  I think they went for the universal mmog system of cooldowns and then later slapped on some narrative elements because more games are these days.

It's not set up at its core to be narrative, like WFRP3.

However, Narrative design is making it's way into a lot of games.

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;401958I 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.

I'm with ya.

Quote from: Benoist;401732Question: Why is it that a fighter can only do this [the Crack the Shell daily] once a day?

There are have always been such limits. Looking though a copy of the AD&D PHB, why can a Druid only change shape three times per day? Why can a Paladin only lay hands on once per day and cure diseases only once per week? Why can monks heal themselves only once per day and use quivering palm only only per week? And so on.

Like the breakdown of powers in 4e, these exist not for narrative reasons, but for game balance ones.

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;401793And that's why Pramas' reasoning is flawed.

I'm not sure that alone is why his reasoning is flawed. People have been making claims about D&D since it was purchased by WotC. For example, once quest cards were mentioned in the 4e previews, people were sure they indicated that 4e was going to be released in some collectible card format...

Seanchai

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.

It's interesting that when folks want to demonstrate that 4e is just an MMO, the books are all about combat, with little that's non-combat related, but when they want to prove that 4e has a narrative bent, the books go "on and on about stories, narrative pacing (get on to the fun etc) and so on."

Seanchai

Looking at it again it seems like the narrativist talk amongst 4e proponents might come from a desire to to not give in entirely to its gamist design.

Immersive/Simulationist jusifications hold very little water.  Purely gamist justifications are strongest, but admitting that might not be comfortable to some 4e players.  Therefore narrativist justifications are the only thing left.  It just so happens that the "movie moves" or "climactic maneuvers" lend themselves to that sort of justification.

Quote from: Seanchai;401979It's interesting that when folks want to demonstrate that 4e is just an MMO, the books are all about combat, with little that's non-combat related, but when they want to prove that 4e has a narrative bent, the books go "on and on about stories, narrative pacing (get on to the fun etc) and so on."

Seanchai

Most of the content in the PHBs are taken up with powers.  Many of those are geared towards combat.  The DMG on the other hand contain lots of stuff about how to run a campaign, how to promote story into your game, etc.  This sort of stuff is also in the campaign specific books like Open Grave.

And before it seems like I'm completely down on 4e, let me state that the 4e DMGs are excellent books for new DMs.  They contain a lot of good advice on how to run and plan for a game and how to treat players.

Quote from: CRKrueger;401961I can see where Jarcane is coming from.  It's not a Storygame, as he said (and Pundit has said numerous times), it's the post-GNS D&D.

Its high level of disassociated mechanics point to a design philosophy that just didn't take setting immersion/verisimilitude into account.  It's become the game that Forgers always said D&D was, but actually wasn't.

The narrative stuff does seem to be shoehorned in after the fact.  I think they went for the universal mmog system of cooldowns and then later slapped on some narrative elements because more games are these days.

It's not set up at its core to be narrative, like WFRP3.

However, Narrative design is making it's way into a lot of games.

Please don't drag me into the neo-Forge bollocks this thread is spouting.  Yes, you've half-identified my point, but then you've dragged it into the hypocrisy that is this "dissociative mechanics" claptrap.

I think it's hilarious that people are arguing against 4e on story grounds while simultaneously accusing it of being a story game.

Quote from: J Arcane;401986Please don't drag me into the neo-Forge bollocks this thread is spouting.  Yes, you've half-identified my point, but then you've dragged it into the hypocrisy that is this "dissociative mechanics" claptrap.

Yeah. It's much easier to just point the finger and cry about "neo-Forge bollocks" when people are using words that are too long or complicated for you rather than actually discuss the ideas, right? Want to talk non-Forge? Fucking do it, then, instead of bitching about the way other people post!

Quote from: J Arcane;401986I think it's hilarious that people are arguing against 4e on story grounds while simultaneously accusing it of being a story game.

What? Where, exactly, have you seen me arguing against 4E on "story grounds"?

And BTW. I'm not arguing against 4E, unless of course any criticism of a game system now becomes a criticism against the whole thing. Let me remind you this is not a 4E-specific thread. The conversation just focused on the logic sustaining Daily/Encounter powers in 4E because Sigmund asked questions about it.

I'm actually curious about any potential narrative elements in Pathfinder.

Quote from: Seanchai;401975There are have always been such limits. Looking though a copy of the AD&D PHB, why can a Druid only change shape three times per day? Why can a Paladin only lay hands on once per day and cure diseases only once per week? Why can monks heal themselves only once per day and use quivering palm only only per week? And so on.

Like the breakdown of powers in 4e, these exist not for narrative reasons, but for game balance ones.

Seanchai

All magical powers, so a false equivalence.  Par for the course.

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;401983Most of the content in the PHBs are taken up with powers.  Many of those are geared towards combat.  The DMG on the other hand contain lots of stuff about how to run a campaign, how to promote story into your game, etc.  This sort of stuff is also in the campaign specific books like Open Grave.

You're missing the point: It doesn't matter what the actual content of the books is...

Seanchai

Quote from: J Arcane;401986Please don't drag me into the neo-Forge bollocks this thread is spouting.  Yes, you've half-identified my point, but then you've dragged it into the hypocrisy that is this "dissociative mechanics" claptrap.

I think it's hilarious that people are arguing against 4e on story grounds while simultaneously accusing it of being a story game.

You said

Quote from: JArcane"4e isn't a storygame. It's a reflection of what storygamers think regular games are."

I said

Quote from: Me"It's become the game that Forgers always said D&D was, but actually wasn't."

I think we're seeing eye to eye up to here.

You realize that what (as you put it) "storygamers think regular games are." are mechanics for the sake of game balance only, Gamism, right?  Having never really understood the S of GNS, designers following the forge model overlook or just ignore that type of design.

These dissociative mechanics you decry are what proves your point.

P.S. I said it wasn't a storygame, despite the obvious forge/narrative fingerprints on the design.

Quote from: CRKrueger;402016I think we're seeing eye to eye up to here.

You realize that what (as you put it) "storygamers think regular games are." are mechanics for the sake of game balance only, Gamism, right?  Having never really understood the S of GNS, designers following the forge model overlook or just ignore that type of design.

These dissociative mechanics you decry are what proves your point.

P.S. I said it wasn't a storygame, despite the obvious forge/narrative fingerprints on the design.

I don't recognize the validity of the "dissociative" language.  It's a bunch of pretentious bollocks that means nothing more than "I don't like/understand it".

Look, the thing is, metagame mechanics are absolutely nothing new.  All you people have done in this thread is drawn some arbitrary lines in the sand on where they're allowed to exist, and tarted it up in pretentious language and whiny white Wolf era story gaming nonsense.

If anything, it is the at-will powers that are at the root of 4e's problems, not encounter or daily powers, those are nothing particularly new at all, and yes, there were martial classes and prestige classes in 3e that had "per day" abilities.  The Monk, for starters.  

And the excuse used to lambaste them is straight out of the most pretentious of narrative nonsense.  You've decided you can't come up with a story excuse for their existence, so that makes them bad.

That's retarded.  

The rhetoric that has been built around D&D criticism, here and in other threads now countless in number, is inherently contradictory, and silently cleaves to the very things it claims so often to repudiate.

As far as in-game explanations of Dailies/Encounter powers go in 4E, there is this on page 54 of the PHB:
   
Encounter powers produce more powerful, more dramatic effects than at-will powers. If you're a martial character, they are exploits you've practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while.

Daily powers are the most powerful effects you can produce, and using one takes a significant toll on your physical and mental resources. If you're a martial character, you're reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit.


So you can still move the same way, not be fatigued or have any other side effects take place once you've used an Encounter or Daily Exploit, use as many At-Wills as you want, etc, but somehow, there is some mental and physical barrier that takes effect and prevents you from performing this specific move again. I can't crack my enemies armor to pieces again (Crack the Shell, Level 5 Daily exploit), but I can still "sting and hinder nearby foes with a savage fury of strikes aimed at their legs" (Thicket of Blades, Level 9 Daily exploit).

That just doesn't compute with me.

Quote from: BenoistThat just doesn't compute with me.

They can try and explain it away, but it's there for the gameplay, nothing else.

I prefer an in-game analogue myself (fatigue score, action points to spend per round a la Fallout/RQ that's related to Dex, etc.), but nothing much I can do to change the way 4e is.

The good news is that everything I've read about their revisions/future format for powers seems that they've caught onto the fact that a lot of people enjoy having an in-game explanation for why their character can/can't do something.

Quote from: J Arcane;402019I don't recognize the validity of the "dissociative" language.  It's a bunch of pretentious bollocks that means nothing more than "I don't like/understand it".

Look, the thing is, metagame mechanics are absolutely nothing new.  All you people have done in this thread is drawn some arbitrary lines in the sand on where they're allowed to exist, and tarted it up in pretentious language and whiny white Wolf era story gaming nonsense.

If anything, it is the at-will powers that are at the root of 4e's problems, not encounter or daily powers, those are nothing particularly new at all, and yes, there were martial classes and prestige classes in 3e that had "per day" abilities.  The Monk, for starters.  

And the excuse used to lambaste them is straight out of the most pretentious of narrative nonsense.  You've decided you can't come up with a story excuse for their existence, so that makes them bad.

That's retarded.  

The rhetoric that has been built around D&D criticism, here and in other threads now countless in number, is inherently contradictory, and silently cleaves to the very things it claims so often to repudiate.

Amazing.
No reason to even post for you, then.  If you don't recognize the existence of the terminology used, stop trying to speak the language.  
Daily abilities have existed for longer than that.  But the Monks abilities were normally explained to use us a certain amount of chi, and that explained why there were a certain amount of daily uses.
And it is the fact that they were explained that makes the mechanic work logically.   There is no disconnect as to why the monk can use that skill a certain amount of times in a given period.

Quote from: J Arcane;402019I don't recognize the validity of the "dissociative" language.  It's a bunch of pretentious bollocks that means nothing more than "I don't like/understand it".

If you examine a skill,spell,power,mechanic and ask why it works the way it does and the answer is rooted within the reality of the game setting, it is associative.

If you examine a skill,spell,power,mechanic and ask why it works the way it does and the answer is NOT rooted within the reality of the game setting, it is dissociative.

That's it.  It's simple.
At-Will powers for Martial Characters, they are moves you know, so you can try them whenever.

Encounter Powers are harder maneuvers to try, so they should have a penalty to try them or come with fatigue or something.  4e passes the smell test with this one because you could rationalize that once I do that move, the opponent knows what to look for, so I'll never surprise him with it during that combat.

Daily Powers for non-magical characters make no sense.  They represent trying something very hard, that is very fatiguing, whatever.  Instead of having a rationale rooted in the game setting, they use two dissociative rationales
1. It's just there for game balance
2. It takes the excitement and punch of firing off a very hard stunt and puts the dramatic reins in the hands of the player.  He gets to choose when to be awesome.

All the "metagaming" elements you are talking about in prior editions mostly have to do with some sort of power source, Magic, Divine , Chi, what have you.  Also most of those "per days" since they were rooted in supernatural power sources weren't metagame at all.

Quote from: J Arcane;402019You've decided you can't come up with a story excuse for their existence, so that makes them bad.

Dude, dailies already have a story excuse, that's WHY I don't like them.  What they don't have is a setting excuse.

I have absolutely no clue where you're getting the idea that I'm coming at this from the Narrative point of view(Benoist or Vreeg either).  Most of the time, narrative elements in RPGs make my teeth itch.

Instances where the power structure in the 4E core books could make sense in game world terms to me:

   - The characters are robots (or clones, or pre-human experiments etc) with specific combat moves programmed into them. Their memories reboot after an encounter partially, whereas some more complex routines need to be rebooted after an extended rest (dailies). This would explain why some complex combat moves could only be performed once. This is a limitation inherent to the character's nature.

- The universe itself limits the capabilities of the characters. It could be an edict of the Gods, or some universal Law of the Cosmos. Maybe the game is all about a competition taking place in some artificial universe. Or the whole game world in fact is a virtual reality generated by computers. Or something similar that implies that the laws of nature themselves force these limitations onto the characters.

Applications could include a universe where PCs are pre-human heroes trying to break free from the rules of the Gods, the Architects, whatever forces controls them, or a d20 Modern game where characters may enter a virtual reality that is in effect a 4E game within the boundaries of the virtual world/matrix, and so on, so forth.

Quote from: Benoist;402045The universe itself limits the capabilities of the characters. It could be an edict of the Gods, or some universal Law of the Cosmos. Maybe the game is all about a competition taking place in some artificial universe. Or the whole game world in fact is a virtual reality generated by computers. Or something similar that implies that the laws of nature themselves force these limitations onto the characters.

The game setting is actually an MMO. Genius.

They're totally ripping off of .hack.

Quote from: Benoist;402023So you can still move the same way, not be fatigued or have any other side effects take place once you've used an Encounter or Daily Exploit, use as many At-Wills as you want, etc, but somehow, there is some mental and physical barrier that takes effect and prevents you from performing this specific move again. I can't crack my enemies armor to pieces again (Crack the Shell, Level 5 Daily exploit), but I can still "sting and hinder nearby foes with a savage fury of strikes aimed at their legs" (Thicket of Blades, Level 9 Daily exploit).

That just doesn't compute with me.

Not sure what else there is to discuss on-topic, but may I suggest that if you don't like this, a possibly way out is to apply a "spell-point" system to physical powers, just like people did who didn't care for "Vancian" magic.

Basically as I described here (http://therpghaven.com/viewtopic.php?p=3361#p3361).

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;402050Not sure what else there is to discuss on-topic, but may I suggest that if you don't like this, a possibly way out is to apply a "spell-point" system to physical powers, just like people did who didn't care for "Vancian" magic.

Basically as I described here (http://therpghaven.com/viewtopic.php?p=3361#p3361).

I didn't know anybody did something like this with 4E. It's a neat idea.

Maybe this would require implementing a Mana pool and a Divine Favor pool in the game for Arcana and Divine power sources respectively to keep things equal between classes?

Quote from: LordVreeg;402030Amazing.
No reason to even post for you, then.  If you don't recognize the existence of the terminology used, stop trying to speak the language.  

I'm not.  I'm not interested in using the RPGsite's pet jargonated bullshit anymore than I am in using the jargonated bullshit of the Forge.

"Dissociative mechanics" is just the latest in a long line of meaningless bollocks that means "I don't like this, but I want to say it whilst sounding smart."

Speak fucking English, or shut the fuck up.  If you can't explain your point without resorting to invented language, then you don't know what the fuck you're talking about anyway.

QuoteDaily abilities have existed for longer than that.  But the Monks abilities were normally explained to use us a certain amount of chi, and that explained why there were a certain amount of daily uses.
And it is the fact that they were explained that makes the mechanic work logically.   There is no disconnect as to why the monk can use that skill a certain amount of times in a given period.

More arbitrary line drawing, and nothing more.  It fails to address the core point that D&D is, and has always been, rife with metagame mechanics, from hit points, to levels, to turns per day, to spells, to Weapon Master attacks, it's turtles all the way down.

All you've done is declared arbitrarily what "makes sense" to you, and used that as the basis to make value judgements, while hiding behind a lot of pretentious gibberish.  

It doesn't take more than an ounce of intelligent thought to realize why that's as useless a metric as they come.

QuoteDude, dailies already have a story excuse, that's WHY I don't like them.  What they don't have is a setting excuse.

I have absolutely no clue where you're getting the idea that I'm coming at this from the Narrative point of view(Benoist or Vreeg either).  Most of the time, narrative elements in RPGs make my teeth itch.

You're attacking them solely because you can't personally fit them within the story and setting of your game.

That's a stupid thing to judge them on, while ignoring so many similar occurrences.

Quote from: Benoist;402023That just doesn't compute with me.

Isn't the topic "Is D&D Becoming a Storygame?"

Because when you first posted, it just seemed like another anti-4e troll to me. Then you indicated that no, you actually interested in hearing the answer. So folks discussed why D&D and 4e were or were . But now we're right back to why you don't like 4e and why it's Bad Wrong Fun.

Is the problem, in regard to becoming a storygame, with the division of Powers in 4e that they seem narrativistic to you? If so, how do you respond to D&D always having had abilities which characters could use in various increments of time?

Seanchai

It's not the RPG sites pet terminology, it was used on the Alexandrian website before that.  And has been well proven, it defines a certain circumstance of rule design.  Like all terms, it saves the writer the effort of writing out the whole description.  That is what terms are for.  The words are english, the definition is english, and is very clear to everyone except those who have decided they don't want to understand.

Willfully misunderstanding that the issue in question is what rules are congruent with the logic of the internal setting logic and which are not, and perjuring these as arbitrary, and then claiming it as gibberish because you don't want to agree, puts you back in bed with the logic bottom-dwellers of this site.
No one is saying there are not a lot of metagame rules in D&D, that's one of the reasons I don't play it.  Or that all rules are abstracted.  But the very simple fact of it is that some rules have no association with the game world.
Hit points describe how much damage a person takes.  AS a person becomes more skilled, it in-game logic is that they become harder to kill, due to luck, providence, skill, and a little bit more toughness.  So it's not metagamed, as the rule defines part of the internal setting logic.

Your batting average in the above post is very low.

The only thing I'll agree to is that it does not take more than an ounce of intelligent thought to understand the metric in question.

Quote from: Seanchai;402058Isn't the topic "Is D&D Becoming a Storygame?"

Because when you first posted, it just seemed like another anti-4e troll to me.

Well it isn't, since the thread is about whether D&D is becoming a storygame, and included examples from both 4E and Pathfinder. Therefore, it is not stating that either 4E nor Pathfinder are storygames at this point (it's a question), and it is not specific to 4E. If you understand this as an anti-4E troll, this is due to your own bias entering the conversation, not my choices in writing the OP.

The whole tangent on whether daily/encounter powers make sense to me is a tangent that came from an example of how these powers make sense either from a pure rules in a vacuum, theoretical balance, standpoint, or a narrative, "this is what heroes do once a scene/episode", standpoint. Example which spawned further questioning from Sigmund, specifically.

Quote from: J Arcane;402055You're attacking them solely because you can't personally fit them within the story and setting of your game.

Then enlighten us on how you'd fit them in your own game, instead of bitching endlessly at the words people choose to talk about them.

 :rolleyes:

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;402048The game setting is actually an MMO. Genius.

If I was to run core Heinsoo 4E, it's something like this I'd do. I was thinking of a -literally- dark setting, with people cowering in Citadels (the "points of light" thing makes me think of Citadels in the night, with torches burning, keeping the darkness at bay), and Heroes somehow touched by the night and allowing them to perform feats beyond human capabilities. A bit like Corum with his hand and eye, some alien touch that could both allow them to be super-heroic, but also would at times limit or control their actions (which would explain the rules, and maybe could involve some other mechanics like Sanity, switching personalities when the alien thing takes control of the character, or whatever else). Just an idea.

Quote from: Benoist;402064Then enlighten us on how you'd fit them in your own game, instead of bitching endlessly at the words people choose to talk about them.

 :rolleyes:

Why would my personal interpretation of a mechanic be any more meaningful than yours?

It is exactly that pointless subjectivity masquerading as an intelligent point that I'm attacking here.

Quote from: Seanchai;402058Is the problem, in regard to becoming a storygame, with the division of Powers in 4e that they seem narrativistic to you? If so, how do you respond to D&D always having had abilities which characters could use in various increments of time?

It's just an example in the context of the conversation. We could just as well discuss about the on/off switch nature of certain feats in 3rd ed/Pathfinder, or the notion of Challenge Ratings and Encounter Levels, Level-appropriate everything, which point out to a game that is geared towards an "appropriate", tailored on a metagame level, challenge for player characters rather than a fully open world, etc. I mean, there are tons of examples of these things we could talk about besides Powers or 4E.

As for other abilities that in previous iterations of D&D wouldn't have made any sense other than on a purely metagame or narrative point of view, there's none that come to mind right now. We've gone through Vancian casting, which to me makes perfect sense in its own way, and the Monk's Chi abilities, which also make sense to me in the game world. To give a purely martial example in a d20 game I really love too, the token pools in Iron Heroes. These make complete sense to me: you gather specific tokens by performing specific actions in the game, which you then can spend of specific abilities. This makes sense in the game world to me.

Now, what examples of abilities would you like to talk about? Maybe they'll make sense to me, and then, maybe not, and I didn't think about them until now?

Quote from: J Arcane;402066Why would my personal interpretation of a mechanic be any more meaningful than yours?

Because it would help me understand how you work out these mechanics yourself in the game world, and thus maybe inspire me with explanations of my own?

Please. If you've got some possibilities in mind, let's share them.

Quote from: J Arcane;402066Why would my personal interpretation of a mechanic be any more meaningful than yours?

It is exactly that pointless subjectivity masquerading as an intelligent point that I'm attacking here.

J, because we are open to other interpretations.  Intellectual discourse is the only way any of us really reach deeper levels of understanding.  Nothing in this thread has been 'pointlessly subjective', so why would Iwe assume that you interpretation would not contain some validity, or at least a better understanding of your position.

Quote from: Benoist;402052I didn't know anybody did something like this with 4E. It's a neat idea.

Maybe this would require implementing a Mana pool and a Divine Favor pool in the game for Arcana and Divine power sources respectively to keep things equal between classes?

You could, but you could just as well balance by other means--make the fighter & rogue pay for their flexibility by having their "action pool" work out to fewer actions than the relatively inflexible magic system. Or even have (some) magic users go all the way back to classic Vancianism (with number of memorized spells adjusted). Arguably more flavorful that way.

Quote from: Benoist;401488By storygame I mean a game that actually is collaborative story telling, with a narrative, protagonists, players affecting the way the narrative unfolds, as opposed to an actual role playing game, which, to me, is not about creating a "story", but living the "actuality" of the game world. See this thread for my take on the notion of "story" and narratives in RPGs. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17329)[/QU

I'm not into D&D but my friend joe is and he thinks it's becoming too much like a tabletop version of WoW and MTG.

Quote from: Cylonophile;402071I'm not into D&D but my friend joe is and he thinks it's becoming too much like a tabletop version of WoW and MTG.

Well, WoW is popular for a reason. I mean obviously, that's a kind of Fantasy that has found a huge audience, so it comes as no wonder that WotC would like to emulate that feel. Which may be a mistake, because the more you make D&D look like WoW, the more you're forcing the comparison in prospective players' minds, with the obvious answer for most brain-dead iPod-loving near-illiterate XBOX live zombies being "WTF? WoW is so much better."

As for MtG well, it's WotC's baby as well, and it's best selling property last I heard. How could a WotC executive *not* want D&D to replicate MtG's design and marketing?

But these things aren't new to 4E really. 4E is just the latest attempt to reinvent D&D for a new generation of gamers in this regard.

Quote from: Benoist;402068Because it would help me understand how you work out these mechanics yourself in the game world, and thus maybe inspire me with explanations of my own?

Please. If you've got some possibilities in mind, let's share them.

I just enjoy the fucking game.  Because I'm not interested in being "That guy" at the table, the one whining about how "unrealistic" the hit point system is, and how it "makes no sense" that I can't sling around Power X all day long.

My conception of the game world is not so pathetically fragile that it needs to fit up with my own personal prejudices to be enjoyable.  

Remember that whole thing I posted some time back about the death of "Suspension of disbelief"?

It's like that.

Quote from: J Arcane;402075I just enjoy the fucking game.  Because I'm not interested in being "That guy" at the table, the one whining about how "unrealistic" the hit point system is, and how it "makes no sense" that I can't sling around Power X all day long.

So basically you're just bitching because you're just comfortable playing with those game mechanics, which is fine, but does not help me at all. And really, "pathetic"? Coming from the guy who just keeps on bitching because the words have too many syllables or are just too complicated for him to understand, boo-hoo-hoo? Fuck you, man. Go buy yourself a fucking dictionary, or an education, or even better, some empathy. Asshole.

Quote from: Benoist;402077So basically you're just bitching because you're just comfortable playing with those game mechanics, which is fine, but does not help me at all. And really, "pathetic"? Coming from the guy who just keeps on bitching because the words have too many syllables or are just too complicated for him to understand, boo-hoo-hoo? Fuck you, man. Go buy yourself a fucking dictionary, or an education, or even better, some empathy. Asshole.

I just expect better from you people.  There's nothing you and your buddies have written in this thread that's any better than the bullshit on the Forge.  A lot of pseudointellectual posturing and subjective judgement passing as legitimate criticism.

This thread is so full of bullshit it makes me nauseous.

We get it, you don't like 4e.  Neither do I.  But you've been railing against it so long you've lost the plot, and now you're walking into real danger of becoming a gaggle of Mirror-Rons yourselves.

Quote from: J Arcane;402078I just expect better from you people.

Well then, we're too, because I fully expected MUCH better from you, but no. Your intent visibly is just to keep on whining about how people don't speak fucking English, how I'm just that guy that breaks your fun at the game table, that I'm pathetically fragile, blablabla.

Come on. Like that couldn't be expected the way you keep attacking me. So now I'm speaking your language: the thread doesn't suit your particular liking, and uses big words you don't like? Nobody's forcing you to read it. The same way, I'm not forced to just take your aggressive bullshit, bend over and say "amen". I won't. Fuck off.

Quote from: Benoist;402062Well it isn't, since the thread is about whether D&D is becoming a storygame, and included examples from both 4E and Pathfinder.

Which didn't include dailies. Now, suddenly, it's the presence of dailies that are supposedly making 4e into storygame and we're back on the "dissociative" track.

Quote from: Benoist;402062If you understand this as an anti-4E troll...

As I said, I thought the thread might be an anti-4e troll. You have a history of such things. For example, your recent thread about Encounters. Is it actually a troll? Shrug. Hard to say.

Quote from: Benoist;402067As for other abilities that in previous iterations of D&D wouldn't have made any sense other than on a purely metagame or narrative point of view, there's none that come to mind right now.

I listed some. Monk's once per X abilities to heal and use quivering palm were examples. You mentioned chi, but that doesn't appear in the rules. Instead, we have "Monks are monastic aesthetics who practice rigorous mental and physical training and disciple in order to become superior" (pg 30). That's where they get their powers - training.

It's no different from fighters training to become good at combat or weapons. Neither monks or fighters have some supernatural agency granting them once per X powers, yet both have them. They're intrinsic. In one case you're claiming that's "dissociative" and narrative and in the other you're hand waving them away because you've come up with some non-canon explanation for them...

Seanchai

Quote from: J Arcane;402078We get it, you don't like 4e.

There are some aspects of 4E I like. Defenses, the basic concept of powers, even the tactical aspect of combat. There are lots of things different from other iterations of the game I could do with it, and I hope Essentials makes it easier for me to enjoy.

For FUCK SAKE. This is NOT an ANTI-4E TROLL, BITCHES.

Quote from: J arcaneI just expect better from you people. There's nothing you and your buddies have written in this thread that's any better than the bullshit on the Forge. A lot of pseudointellectual posturing and subjective judgement passing as legitimate criticism.

You know, this thread was more of an analysis and an invitation for opinion than anything else.  You made your opinion, backed with a dozen posts of nothing more than whining about the language, very clear.  
You also made it clear that your only real argument is that, " You just enjoy the fucking game."  As if that helps anything, explains anything, or gives you the right to pass judgement.  This thread is part of analysis, not the 'anti 4e plot'.  You just can't see anything other than in the light you wish it to be, no matter what the reality. Go back to your own games and 'unfragile' game view, assured that no matter how intelligent or useful the critique, you are immune, inviolate in your unnaccepting rigidity.

Quote from: SeanchaiI listed some. Monk's once per X abilities to heal and use quivering palm were examples. You mentioned chi, but that doesn't appear in the rules. Instead, we have "Monks are monastic aesthetics who practice rigorous mental and physical training and disciple in order to become superior" (pg 30). That's where they get their powers - training.

It's no different from fighters training to become good at combat or weapons. Neither monks or fighters have some supernatural agency granting them once per X powers, yet both have them. They're intrinsic. In one case you're claiming that's "dissociative" and narrative and in the other you're hand waving them away because you've come up with some non-canon explanation for them...

Actually, I mentioned that.

And my comments on chi are based on Oriental adventures.  You are absolutely correct that the original PHB was somewhat dissociated, especially in regards to the healing part.  I think the chi explanation makes some sense, for some settings, but the PHB did not make that argument.  So you are correct.

The only thing that makes you people more pathetic is this backpedaling act.

Do you really think anyone fucking believes this shit at this point?

"Is D&D becoming a story game?" isn't about 4e?  Seriously?  

If it is, exactly by what fucking vector is it doing so other than the current edition?  Is 5e out already and no one told me?

This thread was utterly transparent from the title alone, before we even get to the content, and so was it's direction.

Jesus Christ, I only looked in on the thread out of curiosity, I washed my hands of D&D ages ago, I just wanted to see where the "4e sucks" discourse had drifted these days.  It used to be at least marginally intelligent, but this shit has me sympathizing with Pseudoephedrine again.

Quote from: Benoist;402084For FUCK SAKE. This is NOT an ANTI-4E TROLL, BITCHES.

And yet...

Seanchai

Quote from: LordVreeg;402086And my comments on chi are based on Oriental adventures.

I was actually responding to Benoist's statement about monks and chi. Perhaps he mentioned it because of your mention.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;402084For FUCK SAKE. This is NOT an ANTI-4E TROLL, BITCHES.

Sure it was.

The current edition of D&D is 4th edition.

Your thread title refers to "D&D" in the present tense - that means its a thread about 4th edition and whatever design trends it is showing as a game.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;402106Sure it was.

The current edition of D&D is 4th edition.

Your thread title refers to "D&D" in the present tense - that means its a thread about 4th edition and whatever design trends it is showing as a game.

- Ed C.

No it is not.

Do you guys know how to fucking read?

The ACTUAL OP:

   Serious question. With the "narrative logic" that is the basis of both 4E and Pathfinder (see Gamemastery Guide), with the Fortune Cards (http://www.livingdice.com/5029/wizards-of-the-coast-gen-con-interview-part-2-of-2-dd-gamma-world-fortune-cards/#ixzz0x6anEZm6) around the corner, and Paizo's Plot Twist Cards (http://paizo.com/gameMastery/itemPacks/v5748btpy8b8m) already here, with Action Points and other mechanics allowing players to have an impact on the story/narrative of the game, I think it's fair to ask: is modern D&D a storygame, now?

Can you read the mention of PATHFINDER in there?

Did you miss all these other posts where I talk about other examples, like for instance CRs and Encounter Levels which you know, are NOT PART OF 4E? Or Feats in 3e/Pathfinders as on/off have/don't have switches? GO. READ MY FUCKING POSTS. It's right there for you morons just going in assuming I'm just crapping on 4E!

It is NOT about 4E exclusively, and it is a serious question.

You 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!"

This is ridiculous! What's the deal now? I can't have any fucking issue with any games without you guys doing the police of whether you yourselves have this issue or not, and therefore, whether I'm authorized to have the issue or not? What the fuck is this?

Quote from: Benoist;402065If I was to run core Heinsoo 4E, it's something like this I'd do. I was thinking of a -literally- dark setting, with people cowering in Citadels (the "points of light" thing makes me think of Citadels in the night, with torches burning, keeping the darkness at bay), and Heroes somehow touched by the night and allowing them to perform feats beyond human capabilities. A bit like Corum with his hand and eye, some alien touch that could both allow them to be super-heroic, but also would at times limit or control their actions (which would explain the rules, and maybe could involve some other mechanics like Sanity, switching personalities when the alien thing takes control of the character, or whatever else). Just an idea.

Neat.

Quote from: Imperator;402108Neat.

Thank you, Ramon!

Notice also that I'm ACTUALLY proposing some solutions to my own issues. And I seem to be the one willing to do so! The guys who feel slighted by my approach to the topic? They bitch and moan, but where is the contribution. NO-FUCKING-WHERE. And I'm the bad guy? Damn right that pisses me off!

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: J Arcane;402019I don't recognize the validity of the "dissociative" language.  It's a bunch of pretentious bollocks that means nothing more than "I don't like/understand it".

Just because you don't recognise the validity, doesn't make the argument invalid. Perhaps it's you that's lacking understanding. A vast majority of the rest of us, whether we love or hate them, clearly see and understand the disassociated nature of the 4e powers mechanic. That in itself doesn't make them bad. Speaking for myself, their implementation just happens to not work for me. If you have a problem with that, it's your problem.

Quote from: J Arcane;402055I'm not.  I'm not interested in using the RPGsite's pet jargonated bullshit anymore than I am in using the jargonated bullshit of the Forge.

"Dissociative mechanics" is just the latest in a long line of meaningless bollocks that means "I don't like this, but I want to say it whilst sounding smart."

Speak fucking English, or shut the fuck up.  If you can't explain your point without resorting to invented language, then you don't know what the fuck you're talking about anyway.

No, it's a way to describe something without having to type out a paragraph. Don't like it, don't let the digital door hit ya in the ass on the way out.

QuoteMore arbitrary line drawing, and nothing more.  It fails to address the core point that D&D is, and has always been, rife with metagame mechanics, from hit points, to levels, to turns per day, to spells, to Weapon Master attacks, it's turtles all the way down.

So what. I don't recall anyone saying it wasn't. It's not the nature of the mechanics, it's the way they were implemented. How about addressing something anyone is actually talking about.

QuoteAll you've done is declared arbitrarily what "makes sense" to you, and used that as the basis to make value judgements, while hiding behind a lot of pretentious gibberish.  

It doesn't take more than an ounce of intelligent thought to realize why that's as useless a metric as they come.



You're attacking them solely because you can't personally fit them within the story and setting of your game.

That's a stupid thing to judge them on, while ignoring so many similar occurrences.

You're an idiot. Attacking the mechanics because I can't fit them into a story and setting is the best reason to attack them. I prefer my DnD games not to play like Saturday morning cartoons. I don't want to play the RPG equivalent of a bad Anime when I play DnD. For me, the fucking power bullshit sucks ass, especially the martial dailies, which are one of the most moronic implementations of a RPG mechanic I've seen in awhile. Fuck, Faery's Tale makes more sense in the context of the setting than 4e DnD. Why don't get off your high horse before you fall and hurt yourself.

Quote from: J Arcane;402078I just expect better from you people.  There's nothing you and your buddies have written in this thread that's any better than the bullshit on the Forge.  A lot of pseudointellectual posturing and subjective judgement passing as legitimate criticism.

This thread is so full of bullshit it makes me nauseous.

We get it, you don't like 4e.  Neither do I.  But you've been railing against it so long you've lost the plot, and now you're walking into real danger of becoming a gaggle of Mirror-Rons yourselves.

Then stop reading it ya whiny little bitch. I hope ya puke.

Quote from: J Arcane;402088The only thing that makes you people more pathetic is this backpedaling act.

Idiot.

QuoteDo you really think anyone fucking believes this shit at this point?

Who fucking cares? Don't believe it, go the fuck away and stop threadcrapping you fucking troll.

Quote"Is D&D becoming a story game?" isn't about 4e?  Seriously?

Actually, Benny mentioned 3.x too, so while it really is about 4e, it's not just about 4e. It helps if you actually read and understand.

QuoteIf it is, exactly by what fucking vector is it doing so other than the current edition?  Is 5e out already and no one told me?

Idiot.

QuoteThis thread was utterly transparent from the title alone, before we even get to the content, and so was it's direction.

Who the fuck are you, the thread police? Fuck off.

QuoteJesus Christ, I only looked in on the thread out of curiosity, I washed my hands of D&D ages ago, I just wanted to see where the "4e sucks" discourse had drifted these days.  It used to be at least marginally intelligent, but this shit has me sympathizing with Pseudoephedrine again.

Then go start your own thread. Fuck, I mean I hate the forge talk bullshit too, but folks using it is still no reason to throw a fucking diva sized tantrum over it.

Quote from: Benoist;402109Thank you, Ramon!

Notice also that I'm ACTUALLY proposing some solutions to my own issues. And I seem to be the one willing to do so! The guys who feel slighted by my approach to the topic? They bitch and moan, but where is the contribution. NO-FUCKING-WHERE. And I'm the bad guy? Damn right that pisses me off!

Yup, recently I have noticed a huge and positive change on you when discussing 4e stuff with AM, for example. I think that is great, because edition wars were wearing me out.

I have made a firm determination of discussing only things I love, things I want to know about, and things that I don't like but can be solved,like in your post. That is the exact kind of contributions that make me use internet messageboards in the first place. I find the idea most lovely, actually.

You can go even a bit further with it. For example, the division of the monsters in elites, solos, minions and all that could obey to some kind of general hierarchy of hell, or something like that. So, 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.

Dragons are born from massive, terrible acts of cruelty and evil. They're the psychich by product of concentration camps and the like.

Just an idea.

Quote from: Spinachcat;402113Is 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.

You 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.

Quote from: Imperator;402134Yup, recently I have noticed a huge and positive change on you when discussing 4e stuff with AM, for example. I think that is great, because edition wars were wearing me out.

Thanks mate. I'm trying, and I'm sure AM noticed as well. I intend to keep that up.

Quote from: Imperator;402134I have made a firm determination of discussing only things I love, things I want to know about, and things that I don't like but can be solved,like in your post. That is the exact kind of contributions that make me use internet messageboards in the first place. I find the idea most lovely, actually.

And that's the thing really. I'm not out there bashing 4E or Pathfinder because they'd be shitty games and that's it. I'm actually trying to discuss stuff that rubs me the wrong way so I can see if someone came up with an idea I didn't think about, or some other way to look at it that would suit my needs, and in this respect, barring a few threadcrapping Bozos, it's already been greatly useful to me. Maybe to others too.

Quote from: Imperator;402134You can go even a bit further with it. For example, the division of the monsters in elites, solos, minions and all that could obey to some kind of general hierarchy of hell, or something like that. So, 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.

Dude, 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?

Quote from: Imperator;402134Dragons are born from massive, terrible acts of cruelty and evil. They're the psychich by product of concentration camps and the like.

Just an idea.

That actually would mesh well with the whole stuff here. That's cool!

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 (http://hotwirefoamfactory.com/home.php) 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.

The "metagame"-y stuff in 4e, that some call "narrative" is not about fairness; it is the obesity scooter.

(http://www.it-takes-work.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/fat-scooter-227x300.jpg)

Quote from: Spinachcat;402262But most fortunately, the hobby is full of RPG choices.

This is probably the most important and useful thing said in the whole thread so far.

Short answer:  No

Long answer:  No

Quote from: Werekoala;402216Ooo... that looks interesting. Maybe if I get REAL fancy I'll look into that..

What's Sculpey?

It's a polymer based clay that you bake in your oven.  It doesn't get hard like ceramic, but it is much easier to work with than regular clay.

Polyform website (http://www.sculpey.com/)

There are other brands, like Fimo, but they are all roughly the same.  I think Stuart had a blog post about making miniatures with Sculpey a while back.

Quote from: StormBringer;402210Assholes!  You probably both have a Hot Wire (http://hotwirefoamfactory.com/home.php) 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?

Isn't there a queue? ;)

Quote from: Benoist;402065If I was to run core Heinsoo 4E, it's something like this I'd do. I was thinking of a -literally- dark setting, with people cowering in Citadels (the "points of light" thing makes me think of Citadels in the night, with torches burning, keeping the darkness at bay), and Heroes somehow touched by the night and allowing them to perform feats beyond human capabilities. A bit like Corum with his hand and eye, some alien touch that could both allow them to be super-heroic, but also would at times limit or control their actions (which would explain the rules, and maybe could involve some other mechanics like Sanity, switching personalities when the alien thing takes control of the character, or whatever else). Just an idea.

The eternal night idea sounds very much like William Hope Hodgsons "The Night Land", which btw is available at Project Gutenberg for free...I found it a fairly good read, though I had to wince a bit at the domestic violence scene later in the book.
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10662 (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10662)

On the original topic - I'd agree with Sigmund that the narrative stuff is all "smoke and mirrors" - so I'm disagreeing with Windjammer. There may be player decisions in when a character can use their powers, but this doesn't really give any substantial degree of story control/ability to aid story development to the players.  
At best, you get to tell how the evil Orcus was killed by [Power X] instead of how you grinded him to death in a gruelling epic battle.

I think its interesting that people are taken in by the "narrative" explanation for power use but the powers are fundamentally about gameplay. I'm guessing Forge people generally approve of the removal of sim elements from D&D as fixing "incoherent design", but in general I expect their opinion is that its still D&D and so for peasants.

Fundamentally, I don't think D&D can be a "storygame". As a game, there is a battle going on between the players and the GM for the PCs actual survival, and consequently ability to control the storyline or narrate events is going to be used by the players for their personal advantage. A player can't be trusted with a substantial share of the GM's job in a D&D-type system, so any control over the story passed to the players will be heavily restricted by lots of rules. In other words, attempting to share power with the players instead passes this power on to the rulebook.

The Drama Cards or Plot Cards mentioned at the start could be a move in the story direction, but I suspect what these do will be fairly limited.
Pathfinder like 3.5 is complex enough as a system that "on the fly" GMing is difficult, so players probably have to be encouraged to follow the GMs plot and any "plot complications" cards introduce would be minor stuff - nothing adventure changing.

I'm not sure DnD emphasizes the competitive aspects between players a d DMs anymore.  At least it's no longer about out witting the DM and more about beating the level appropriate encounters.

Quote from: Fifth Element;402364Isn't there a queue? ;)

Well, I can make sure certain people get priority tickets.  :)

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;402368I'm guessing Forge people generally approve of the removal of sim elements from D&D as fixing "incoherent design", but in general I expect their opinion is that its still D&D and so for peasants.

Not the impression I've gotten at all, especially since John Harper talks and plays about 4e all the time, and Baker's current project is a purely gamist dungeon-crawl-ish game.  Clinton R. Nixon has said he likes the OSR, and the consensus I was able to glean was that B/X D&D is a very well put together game -- AD&D got the short end of the stick because it espoused too much "sim" design.

In fact, I don't think I ever got the impression that D&D was for peasants, or any other trad games seen as "Gamist" in nature.  If anything, there was a massive hate-on for White-Wolf and other unfocused sim designs bent on trying to tout story and whatnot as a goal, but I never saw such animosity towards D&D as a whole, since both Nar and Gamist designs were lauded, while Sim generally gets the short end of the stick (except for the few that are considered "coherent", or basically just super focused on one thing, like CoC).

And hell, there are even some Forge peeps who don't like 4e much at all, not because it's D&D, but because they themselves don't like the uber-gamey focus.

Quote from: MonkeyWrench;402372I'm not sure DnD emphasizes the competitive aspects between players a d DMs anymore.  At least it's no longer about out witting the DM and more about beating the level appropriate encounters.

It really never was about outwitting the DM. A DM could always squash any party if he didn't restrain himself. Before 3rd edition, when DMs didn't straitjacket themselves into encounter budgets, setting up encounters was ultimately DM's discretion; and even in 3rd edition, the DM doesn't HAVE to set budgeted encounters, does he now. You could only ever outwit the DM as far as he let you.

You don't have to set budgeted encounters in 4e, either.  The DM has the final discretion and there is advice for tweaking up and down and sideways in difficulty.

The encounter budget is just a tool for the DM to eyeball how difficult an encounter is -- just a more detailed and well thought-out version of hit-dice in TSR versions.  It's by no means a straight-jacket, it's just useful.

Quote from: Peregrin;402436You don't have to set budgeted encounters in 4e, either.  The DM has the final discretion and there is advice for tweaking up and down and sideways in difficulty.

The encounter budget is just a tool for the DM to eyeball how difficult an encounter is -- just a more detailed and well thought-out version of hit-dice in TSR versions.  It's by no means a straight-jacket, it's just useful.

I ran an encounter that was waaaaay outside of the XP budget last week. It was a lone frost giant who happened to have taken up residence in a valley where the PCs were trying to recover the wreckage of a crashed Spelljammer.

The frost giant had an AC of 28. He wasn't unhittable, exactly, but the toughest, most optimized dude in the group would have needed a 17 to hit him.

Luckily the players only goal was to kill the frost giant, not necessarily battle it. And they figured that out fairly quickly.

The monk stealthed into the cave, located a stolen keg of brandy and poisoned it. Then the drow bard approached with the carcass of a Hippogriff the party had killed earlier.. and bluffed that she had returned from a great hunt. First they shared the food and then she suggested a drinking contest, which the frost giant won...


...by drinking the poison.

handled as an improvised skill challenge.

I suppose I meant that in 3e and 4e the tone of the game wasn't as adversarial as in older additions.  In purely anecdotal terms the various group I've played in never ran it as adversarial either.  Character death was minimal and usually temporary.

The impression I got from playing 4e is that encounters should are built around the PCs level and that there is an expectation of ultimate PC victory.  Of course individual games may vary - I know I tried my damnedest to kill PCs w/o overwhelming them.

Quote from: Peregrin;402436You don't have to set budgeted encounters in 4e, either. The DM has the final discretion and there is advice for tweaking up and down and sideways in difficulty.

No! Dammit, no! Despite what it actually says in the rules, DMs are to be strictly held to encounter budget. When a DM is suspected of going over budget or if a player begins to feel the encounter is too difficult, WotC should be immediately notified via Form 23b, Possible Rogue DM, and then the DM should be taken out back and shot, not necessarily in that order.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;402451No! Dammit, no! Despite what it actually says in the rules, DMs are to be strictly held to encounter budget. When a DM is suspected of going over budget or if a player begins to feel the encounter is too difficult, WotC should be immediately notified via Form 23b, Possible Rogue DM, and then the DM should be taken out back and shot, not necessarily in that order.

Seanchai

In other words, the written rules set absolutely no expectations for play.

It's a GM tool, why would it inform player expectations?  Just wondering about the reasoning behind your statement, SB.

Quote from: Peregrin;402478It's a GM tool, why would it inform player expectations?  Just wondering about the reasoning behind your statement, SB.

Players read the books, too.

EDIT:  Sorry, it's been a rough couple of days.  I was more making a statement about the 'rules don't matter' tone.  Which is complete nonsense, really.  It's fairly obvious to those of us with a good deal of experience in gaming, much the same as many of us would have a pretty good feel for adjusting the prices in Monopoly.  It's hardly intuitive for people new to the hobby, however.  So, when you have a section of the rules devoted to an xp budget or treasure parcels, the players are going to expect the GM to stick to that.

Wait. Because it's somehow illogical to assume that a GM searching for tools and guidelines in a "DM Guide" will follow said advice, and thus be influenced by them?

Color me confused. :confused:

The last time I read it, it also recommended mixing up the difficulty of encounters to keep things from becoming stale.

I see it like how AD&D gives you tons of randomized charts and spends a lot of time explaining how you should use wandering monsters, but there's also a blurb that suggests that wandering monsters shouldn't be used all the time.  The people who don't know what they're doing or who don't read the entire chapter might use wandering monsters all the time because that's what the book gives them, and it's quick and easy, but in application wandering monsters are just a tool that you can disregard when you feel like it.

Quote from: StormBringer;402480EDIT:  Sorry, it's been a rough couple of days.  I was more making a statement about the 'rules don't matter' tone.  Which is complete nonsense, really.  It's fairly obvious to those of us with a good deal of experience in gaming, much the same as many of us would have a pretty good feel for adjusting the prices in Monopoly.  It's hardly intuitive for people new to the hobby, however.  So, when you have a section of the rules devoted to an xp budget or treasure parcels, the players are going to expect the GM to stick to that.

The rules do matter - but these aren't rules. They're guidelines, and they are explicity explained as guidelines in the DMG.

Quote from: StormBringer;402480Players read the books, too.

"Player expectations" are not the same as "expected hard and fast rules".

Every game/player I know knows the rules are guidelines, not The Ten Commandments.

While balanced encounters are are great guiding principle, GMs can, and will, go outside that to challenge players.

Quote from: Peregrin;402485...but there's also a blurb that suggests that wandering monsters shouldn't be used all the time.

There's also a blurb about how AD&D encounters should be matched to the PCs capabilities. And weren't the wandering monster tables organized by roughly how capable the monsters were? You don't really see Elder Red Dragon on the first level table...

Seanchai

Quote from: Peregrin;402485The last time I read it, it also recommended mixing up the difficulty of encounters to keep things from becoming stale.

Well this was in 3rd ed also, of course, but people generally completely forgot about that part as soon as the discussion about whatever was "fair" and "unfair", as far as running a game was concerned, was popping up on a message boards.

You know it as well as I do, Peregrin: there is what the book says, and what the book rules, and what the players get from it all, which are all different things. Point in case, and this has been the case since AD&D at the very least, a lot of people playing D&D actually use the charts and rules while having only cursorily read the advice, the actual text surrounding said charts and rules. Cue combats in First Ed AD&D using the To-Hit charts and none of the text surrounding them, which was EXTREMELY common IME at the time. Same thing with 3rd ed and CRs/ELs, (or Prestige Classes and how they were meant to be used!). Same thing with 4E and encounter budgets, treasure parcels and what-have-you.

Some (many, I'd say) people take the rules as set in stone, regardless of what the book actually says around them. It's just lame, and stupid, but that's a simple fact, IMO.

Now, the real question we should be asking ourselves then is how a game book can change this behavior. Or whether it can change this behavior at all. Whatever the case may be, the silver bullet hasn't been found for the past thirty years. I'm kind of doubtful it's gonna be found any time soon, to be honest.

Quote from: Seanchai;402490There's also a blurb about how AD&D encounters should be matched to the PCs capabilities. And weren't the wandering monster tables organized by roughly how capable the monsters were? You don't really see Elder Red Dragon on the first level table...

Seanchai

It's interesting (I've brought that up to when this war raged on and on two years ago, ah, has it been that long?)

There's a master table where you roll for what level table. So for example, on the 1st level of a dungeon, I think it's (d20) 1-16 Dungeon Level I, 17-19 Dungeon Level II, and 20 Dungeon level III

Those dungeon level tables are stratified AND include a footnote about how many monsters should appear per encounter. It's definitely a rudimentary CR system.

Quote from: Benoist;402491Now, the real question we should be asking ourselves then is how a game book can change this behavior.

Well, Burning Wheel uses a very in-your-face tone sometimes when explaining how procedures work, but most people didn't take too kindly to that.

Also, the design philosophy behind 3e was "give the players the system, but don't tell them what to do with it."  A lot of people did like that, but then you miss out on all the sage advice on how to actually conduct a campaign (a la AD&D), and end up with a boring, clerical work that is easily abused by rules-lawyers.

Personally, I prefer a more conversational and insightful type of guide that gives lots of advice from personal experiences, but that's just me.

Quote from: Hackmastergeneral;402488"Player expectations" are not the same as "expected hard and fast rules".

Every game/player I know knows the rules are guidelines, not The Ten Commandments.

While balanced encounters are are great guiding principle, GMs can, and will, go outside that to challenge players.

But we know a different kind of gamer.  For every one of us, there are ten out there that get huffy because their treasure parcel wasn't filled this level.

Quote from: Fifth Element;402487The rules do matter - but these aren't rules. They're guidelines, and they are explicity explained as guidelines in the DMG.

Quote from: Benoist;402491Well this was in 3rd ed also, of course, but people generally completely forgot about that part as soon as the discussion about whatever was "fair" and "unfair", as far as running a game was concerned, was popping up on a message boards.

You know it as well as I do, Peregrin: there is what the book says, and what the book rules, and what the players get from it all, which are all different things. Point in case, and this has been the case since AD&D at the very least, a lot of people playing D&D actually use the charts and rules while having only cursorily read the advice, the actual text surrounding said charts and rules. Cue combats in First Ed AD&D using the To-Hit charts and none of the text surrounding them, which was EXTREMELY common IME at the time. Same thing with 3rd ed and CRs/ELs, (or Prestige Classes and how they were meant to be used!). Same thing with 4E and encounter budgets, treasure parcels and what-have-you.

Some (many, I'd say) people take the rules as set in stone, regardless of what the book actually says around them. It's just lame, and stupid, but that's a simple fact, IMO.

Now, the real question we should be asking ourselves then is how a game book can change this behavior. Or whether it can change this behavior at all. Whatever the case may be, the silver bullet hasn't been found for the past thirty years. I'm kind of doubtful it's gonna be found any time soon, to be honest.

My respected colleague from north of the border sums up my opinion nicely here.

A flashing neon sign stating "GUIDELINES AHEAD" won't change the fact that players will virtually demand the rules be used as written, especially when those rules are in their favour.  Not a knock against players, it's just human nature.

We know they are guidelines, and if everyone in the group has the buy-in, they can be endlessly tweaked for maximum enjoyment.  Games really haven't been written that way in years, however.  It's similar to CPUs these days; many are designed to be overclocked, but do you think your grandparents (or some other novice user) would just jump in and start twiddling with BIOS settings?  In some ways, twiddling with the rules can be just as hazardous.

Quote from: Seanchai;402490There's also a blurb about how AD&D encounters should be matched to the PCs capabilities. And weren't the wandering monster tables organized by roughly how capable the monsters were? You don't really see Elder Red Dragon on the first level table...

Seanchai

This is profoundly stupid.  It's a class/level game.  At least come up with a counter-point that isn't rabidly unintelligent.

Quote from: StormBringer;402557My respected colleague from north of the border sums up my opinion nicely here.

You'll have to be more specific...Benoist and I share latitude, if not longitude.

Quote from: StormBringer;402557A flashing neon sign stating "GUIDELINES AHEAD" won't change the fact that players will virtually demand the rules be used as written, especially when those rules are in their favour.  Not a knock against players, it's just human nature.

It is true that some players are like this, but I do tend to assume that I'm playing with reasonable people in any discussion.

Quote from: StormBringer;402558This is profoundly stupid.  It's a class/level game.  At least come up with a counter-point that isn't rabidly unintelligent.

He has something of a point, which is that D&D has always provided guidelines as to the challenge level of monsters they should generally be facing at a given level. Which in turn implies that 3E/4E including such things is not much different than previous editions.

Beyond that, is the above an example of the adult conversation you're pining for?

Quote from: Fifth Element;402559You'll have to be more specific...Benoist and I share latitude, if not longitude.

Plus the two posts SB quoted are actually not contradictory. :)

One (yours) states a basic principle (with which I completely agree), and the other states deviations from this principle in practice.

Quote from: Benoist;402567Plus the two posts SB quoted are actually not contradictory. :)

One (yours) states a basic principle (with which I completely agree), and the other states deviations from this principle in practice.

Good point. And for the record, I do know who he was referring to...

Quote from: Fifth Element;402559It is true that some players are like this, but I do tend to assume that I'm playing with reasonable people in any discussion.

Fair enough.  In those cases, we will fail to have a disagreement.  Of course, in those cases, rules don't really need to be marked as 'guidelines'.

My major irritation, however (and I am not accusing you of this behaviour), is when the rules are touted as being the super fantastic ultimate expression of the game while simultaneously being advised to ignore parts of it as 'guidelines'.  'Parts' has a variable meaning of anywhere from 'these three paragraphs' to 'everything but these three paragraphs'.

I am happy to discuss the rules in whatever manner is comfortable for people.  I don't expect to collate a document describing exactly which part of the rules is which.  But when the argument is consistently presented that some contentious portion of the rules is a 'guideline', one begins to wonder why they are having the discussion at all.  Again, not accusing you of such behaviour, but I am pretty sure you know what I am talking about.

This is also why I am perhaps a bit more fastidious when talking about rules.  One group's 'guidelines' is another group's 'iron-clad law'; I will posit that this is some percentage of the issues certain games suffer from.

Quote from: Fifth Element;402560He has something of a point, which is that D&D has always provided guidelines as to the challenge level of monsters they should generally be facing at a given level. Which in turn implies that 3E/4E including such things is not much different than previous editions.

That was inherent in my pointing out the class/level part, but more directly, the level part.  I mean, that is why they are there, you know?  Shorthand for a moderately broad metric for how powerful the character or party in question has become.  Honestly, it borders on tautology: D&D gauges the level of the challenge based on the level of the characters.  I mean, duh.  

It's still quite a difference from ECL and xp budgets.  In the latter case, it would be a logistical nightmare.  10 kobolds would have to be closely equal to one orc or something, so you would need to make sure (among other things) that the ten kobolds hit roughly as often as one orc, and do roughly the same amount of damage.  But then, they all have to attack one player, because an orc can't spread out ten attacks, and if the kobolds spread out the attacks, they are not nearly as effective as one orc.  And that is just scratching the surface of two monsters.  I don't want to derail the conversation, but we already know WotC sucks at math.  ;)

QuoteBeyond that, is the above an example of the adult conversation you're pining for?

I have been on his ignore list for quite some time, and beyond that, I have totally burned out my patience with engaging in good faith arguments when the other participant clearly has no intention of ever dong so.

To paraphrase my favourite Taoist principle:  The sage never argues.  But sometimes, I don't feel like being a sage.  :)

As I have often said, EL and treasure parcels, if even guidelines and such, are still handmaidens to in-game illogic and thus dampen versimilitude.If the player EVER can look at an encounter or treasure placement from the perspective of why the GM did it or how the guidelines request the GM to do it, immersion is screwed to some degree.
 
Not edition specific, Seanchai pointed our earlier charts in early editions fairly.  Just the more we move this waym the more we move away from roleplaying.

The new move for 4.5e away from wishlists and towards magic rarity?  A step in the right direction.

Quote from: StormBringer;402592I am happy to discuss the rules in whatever manner is comfortable for people.  I don't expect to collate a document describing exactly which part of the rules is which.  But when the argument is consistently presented that some contentious portion of the rules is a 'guideline', one begins to wonder why they are having the discussion at all.  Again, not accusing you of such behaviour, but I am pretty sure you know what I am talking about.

This is also why I am perhaps a bit more fastidious when talking about rules.  One group's 'guidelines' is another group's 'iron-clad law'; I will posit that this is some percentage of the issues certain games suffer from.

Yeah, fair enough. In this case I see a clear delineation between rules and guidelines. But I understand what you're talking about.

Quote from: LordVreeg;402636The new move for 4.5e away from wishlists and towards magic rarity?  A step in the right direction.

Did you just call Essentials 4.5? :D

Quote from: Benoist;402640Did you just call Essentials 4.5? :D

yes.  I spend much time on this on too many places.  CAll it what it is, without fear or rancour.  I consider it a move in the right direction.

Quote from: Benoist;402640Did you just call Essentials 4.5? :D

Of course. We all know that the change to magic missile marks the change to 4.5. The fact that that change has nothing to do with Essentials is meaningless nitpicking.

Quote from: Fifth Element;402642Of course. We all know that the change to magic missile marks the change to 4.5. The fact that that change has nothing to do with Essentials is meaningless nitpicking.

Ahhh, Iain. You are not disappointing me on this one! :D ;)

Quote from: Fifth Element;402642Of course. We all know that the change to magic missile marks the change to 4.5. The fact that that change has nothing to do with Essentials is meaningless nitpicking.

Honest inquiry:  Would you be able to summarize the changes this spell has going through since 2008?  

Obviously, I don't keep up on the errata much, but at the beginning of that debate, I read a blog post or something stating that whole character builds developed around it throughout the various incarnations.  My stuck-in-the-olden-days brain could only formulate one response: "...the fuck?"

I think it is pretty cool, really, if that is what they did.  I've always liked the idea of a 'signature spell', but it is harder than hell to implement properly without turning a character into a one-trick pony.

Quote from: StormBringer;402480Players read the books, too.

EDIT:  Sorry, it's been a rough couple of days.  I was more making a statement about the 'rules don't matter' tone.  Which is complete nonsense, really.  It's fairly obvious to those of us with a good deal of experience in gaming, much the same as many of us would have a pretty good feel for adjusting the prices in Monopoly.  It's hardly intuitive for people new to the hobby, however.  So, when you have a section of the rules devoted to an xp budget or treasure parcels, the players are going to expect the GM to stick to that.

Unless the GM tells them that he's not doing that.

I don't get how there can be a controversy. When I run a game, I always make explicit which rules are in use, and which exceptions there are.

It doesn't matter,because 90% of the time my players won't bother reading the rules, and will believe whatever I tell them. :D

Quote from: Imperator;402699Unless the GM tells them that he's not doing that.

I don't get how there can be a controversy. When I run a game, I always make explicit which rules are in use, and which exceptions there are.

So, it's your contention that every single gaming group is exactly like yours, and the issue of unruly players is totally made up?

QuoteIt doesn't matter,because 90% of the time my players won't bother reading the rules, and will believe whatever I tell them. :D

Ha!  Casual gamers really are the best.  :)

Quote from: LordVreeg;402636Not edition specific, Seanchai pointed our earlier charts in early editions fairly.

It's more than just charts, however. Gygax out and out said not to make the game too difficult for the players. He said his game was finely balanced. The idea of balanced encounters, even putting aside charts and tables, was present in the game as early as the first printing of the AD&D DMG.

Did Gygax provide you tools to work with said balance, particularly in regard to encounters? Nope. But that's par for the course with AD&D, just as providing those tool is par for the course with 3e and 4e.

Seanchai

Quote from: Benoist;402491You know it as well as I do, Peregrin: there is what the book says, and what the book rules, and what the players get from it all, which are all different things.

Yes. You can show a group of people a sentence that reads, "Using one creature per player is an appropriate challenge. The GM may, of course, use more or few creatures as he or she wishes" and they'll come away with different interpretations.

Thus it really doesn't matter what a rulebook says. The problem here isn't the game or the rulebooks, it's the participants. Any finger pointing should go squarely in their direction.

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;402701So, it's your contention that every single gaming group is exactly like yours, and the issue of unruly players is totally made up?

Of course not. Quite the opposite, actually: really, many of the problems attributed to rulesets are really communication problems.

It's similar to many of Ron Edwards' statements regarding some games (specially Vampire): he described some games as 'incoherent', and blamed the design for things that were simply dick GMing or dickish players. The rules could be good or bad or whatever, but rules don't make you act as a fucking asshole.

Then he came up with Sorcerer, which is a great game, and completely and totally the same as Vampire, D&D or Champions, despite some really great GMing advice.

GM describes situation - Players describes intent - Either you say yes, or no, or roll some funky dice - Game goes on. Here, the father of indie gaming explained.

Now, some we will say that I am stupid and wrong and whatever because Sorcerer has Kickers, Bangs and shit. But I am right (as usual), because those are not mechanical rules, so you may find groups that don't run using Bangs, don't create Kickers in chargen, and all that. Those are GMing techniques (and good ones), applied to a perfectly regular RPG.

Here we have the same stuff, people saying that 4e makes people do this and that, or that OS games allowed people to do this and the other and everything was pretty and magicl and then came Lorraine Williams and from then on EVERYTHING SUCKS.

I find most of that to be bullshit.

The main problem comes from people not stating clearly what they want,and which houserules they will use to get it, and negotiating whatever needs to be negotiated.

So, if I, as a GM, don't use any algorithm to design encounters and I don't want to get my players pissed because they expected me to do it, the best I can do is go ahead before the game and say "I'm not using The Perfect Algorithm of Encounter Eyeballing, so don't expect all the encounters to be perfectly balanced and winnable. You will have to learn to assess danger, folks." That way, my crew knows where to stand.

So, discussing if CR is a good or bad thing is moot IMO. Also, I play RQ III so all those gay conventions about "balance" can get fucked in the ear for all I care. Fucking pussies.

QuoteHa!  Casual gamers really are the best.  :)

Around here, in Spain, most gamers are, even if they play 3 times/week. We assume that only the GM needs to know rules stuff. SOme players bother to read the books, but they usually are also GMs.

Quote from: StormBringer;402650Honest inquiry:  Would you be able to summarize the changes this spell has going through since 2008?

As far as I know, there's only been one change. It used to be a regular attack roll, causing 2d4+Int modifier damage to a single target. Now it's an automatic hit, which causes 2+Int modifier damage. I think. To be honest, I don't keep up too closely on specific errata. I let my players use whatever version they like.

Quote from: StormBringer;402650Obviously, I don't keep up on the errata much, but at the beginning of that debate, I read a blog post or something stating that whole character builds developed around it throughout the various incarnations.  My stuck-in-the-olden-days brain could only formulate one response: "...the fuck?"

I also don't pay much attention to character builds, so I don't know about this. There is one daily power that lets you use magic missile once per round as a minor action, so that might be part of it. I don't know.

I think I just found the blog post you were talking about it. It doesn't go into specifics, but mentions add-on effects to magic missile that no longer apply. I don't know if that's accurate, and I'm really not interested enough to look into it!

Quote from: Fifth Element;402735As far as I know, there's only been one change. It used to be a regular attack roll, causing 2d4+Int modifier damage to a single target. Now it's an automatic hit, which causes 2+Int modifier damage. I think. To be honest, I don't keep up too closely on specific errata. I let my players use whatever version they like.

It really seemed kind of cheesy to nerf the 2d4, honestly, even with autohit.  You could memorize 9 of those a day and blast off five auto-hit d4+1 missiles per day, and monsters back then had far fewer hit points.  Just changing it to auto-hit, if they were going for the 'classic' feel like it stated, wouldn't have made that much difference.  Are there 45 rounds of combat in a given day?  Seems like a pretty fiddly fix to a very minor power.

QuoteI also don't pay much attention to character builds, so I don't know about this. There is one daily power that lets you use magic missile once per round as a minor action, so that might be part of it. I don't know.

I think I just found the blog post you were talking about it. It doesn't go into specifics, but mentions add-on effects to magic missile that no longer apply. I don't know if that's accurate, and I'm really not interested enough to look into it!

That's the one.  The whole thing just seems odd, because everyone knows that fireball is the real workhorse of any adventuring party.  :)

Quote from: Imperator;402716Of course not. Quite the opposite, actually: really, many of the problems attributed to rulesets are really communication problems.

A succinct statement describing our lack of disagreement.  :)

QuoteAround here, in Spain, most gamers are, even if they play 3 times/week. We assume that only the GM needs to know rules stuff. SOme players bother to read the books, but they usually are also GMs.

You crazy Europeans!

Any of the big box stores selling red box yet?

Quote from: StormBringer;402650Honest inquiry:  Would you be able to summarize the changes this spell has going through since 2008?  

Obviously, I don't keep up on the errata much, but at the beginning of that debate, I read a blog post or something stating that whole character builds developed around it throughout the various incarnations.  My stuck-in-the-olden-days brain could only formulate one response: "...the fuck?"

I think it is pretty cool, really, if that is what they did.  I've always liked the idea of a 'signature spell', but it is harder than hell to implement properly without turning a character into a one-trick pony.

Characters in 4e have a very strong tendency to have a "signature move" that they use in excess of half a dozen times over the course of a battle. That's not an exaggeration.

At base, your character has two "at-will" abilities that they can use as often as they want, with other abilities limited to once per combat or once per long rest period. Of those, you start with one of each and gradually increase as you go up in level until you get about 4 and 4. Combats meanwhile last many more rounds than they did in 3rd edition or even 2nd edition. So as a character (regardless of class), you are expected to fall back on one of your at will powers several times in every battle.

So one of the standard character "types" is one who gets a bunch of boosts for one of their at-will powers and uses it a lot. Like, in preference to their once-per-encounter powers in many cases (by the time you've boosted your at-will to the point where it's better than your limited use powers, you on't use the limited use powers very often). Magic Missile is a pretty good candidate for that treatment (or was), because it counted as a "basic attack" in addition to being a Power. So you could get boosts that applied to powers and boosts that applied to basic attacks and add them together.

So yes. People seriously made Wizards who pretty much only cast Magic Missile. And did so often more than ten times in a single combat.

-Frank

Quote from: FrankTrollman;402781Characters in 4e have a very strong tendency to have a "signature move" that they use in excess of half a dozen times over the course of a battle. That's not an exaggeration.

That's excessive.  I was thinking the "signature" should be an encounter power, perhaps two per encounter or an action point to re-charge kind of thing.

QuoteSo one of the standard character "types" is one who gets a bunch of boosts for one of their at-will powers and uses it a lot. Like, in preference to their once-per-encounter powers in many cases (by the time you've boosted your at-will to the point where it's better than your limited use powers, you on't use the limited use powers very often). Magic Missile is a pretty good candidate for that treatment (or was), because it counted as a "basic attack" in addition to being a Power. So you could get boosts that applied to powers and boosts that applied to basic attacks and add them together.

That adds a layer of logistics for designers in regards to stacking.  I would have figured it easier to just apply one or the other at a time, instead of simultaneously.  Unless they are gimped individually, but that would nearly force people to find two bonuses to make it worthwhile.  Hmmm...

QuoteSo yes. People seriously made Wizards who pretty much only cast Magic Missile. And did so often more than ten times in a single combat.

-Frank

I wonder if it would have been easier to just make at-wills really dinky cantrip level spells, put the big guns for combat into encounters, and leave the nuclear option and most utilities for dailies.  That would have opened up some higher level at-wills to play around with, and provided a greater diversity of options. (A 3d6 fireball at 5th level once per day?  16 levels to fly for five minutes? Weaksauce.)

Once those were set up, making designing similar options for the rest of the classes wouldn't have been too tricky.