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.