Lets push GNS terminology over the cliff or out the window - shall we?

D&D is not "narrativist". It is what it currently is. Its a game burdened with too many power card gimmicks in the 4th edition of its famous title.

- Ed C.

Quote from: two_fishes;413878The whole complaint about martial dailies has always bugged me for being especially tedious. It has always struck me as a kind of rigidity of thinking that gets all verklempt about it. It's never bothered me very much that some rules limitations don't have a direct, in-game fictional correlation. Is it really so hard to simply accept that it is an artificial constraint and then put that knowledge away and play the game? If I needed an explanation, it was enough to say that I, the player, am given the ability to dictate the most opportune moment to execute this move for the character.

I only care about immersion when I play an rpg. I still like strategy, and I'll happily play risk or Titan or axis and allies or whatever you got, but don't ask me to do both at the same time.

I guess 4e would be ok, as a strategy game, if each encounter was so difficult it killed characters, who were then raised after each fight, sure. At least then it would be something to think about.

Usually, to me, it is neither hard nor immersive, which makes it pointless.

Quote from: two_fishes;413878It's never bothered me very much that some rules limitations don't have a direct, in-game fictional correlation. Is it really so hard to simply accept that it is an artificial constraint and then put that knowledge away and play the game?

Yes, for some people it's really hard, and bothersome, because they are bothered by things that don't bother you, are basically not you, and search for something different in gaming than you do. Shocker, I know. Next!

yyyeeeaaah, I know. And I know it's stupid to be bothered that this thing bothers people, but for some reason this particular complaint just gets under my skin.

Benoist, you're speaking to one of the Forge white knights you called out earlier, what do you expect?

EDIT: there should be a term to go with badwrongfun, to denote an inability to accept that some people might not like what you do.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;413892there should be a term to go with badwrongfun, to denote an inability to accept that some people might not like what you do.

Pollyanna?

No, that's too nice. Something that evokes the "ZOMG you can't not like X, even if you say you don't, you secretly do".

brain-damagery?

Two fishes wasn't being unreasonable. Fuck, it seems to irritate him less than thieves that fight to the bloody last man irritate me.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;413892Benoist, you're speaking to one of the Forge white knights you called out earlier, what do you expect?

Even so, there are a few Forge-related designers who've expressed dissatisfaction with the artificial limits, and even V. Baker's "clouds and arrows" explanation of mechanics feeding into fiction creation (or world effects, for those of you offended by the term fiction) notes that a lot of indie games suffer from the problem of a hiccup effect between mechanics and the game-world, and I don't think 4e is exempt from this.

It's not going to bother everyone, but I think it bugs enough people that it's worth looking into some more from a design perspective.

Quote from: RPGPundit;413863Dude, on the one hand, Cylonophile has been undertaking an orchestrated campaign of persecution and off-topic insults against Koltar for YEARS now, apparently over at least THREE different forums.

On the other hand, I don't even remember who I said "fuck your mother" to.  

In other words, they are two completely different situations.  One is cyber-stalking, the other just business as usual on theRPGsite.

RPGPundit

my latter post,#315,addresses this very difference...

Quote from: Benoist;413873They might make sense when you read the description of the PHB power sources very closely, and notice that while things like basic attacks and movement are not derived from power sources, martial powers are derived from the Martial Power Source. Which means basically that, though martial powers are not "magical", i.e. arcane, per se, they are supernatural, affected by a source of power beyond the realms of basic combat moves.

That's how I can explain it to myself. It's right there, on the page, though it's not explicitly explained like many role players would want it to be. This to me, implies that all 4e PCs are basically beyond the realms of mortals from day one. This would be core of any 4e setting I would build from there. Now thankfully, ED&D adresses this to some extent, so I don't need to take this idea to unreasonable levels of make-believe at this point.

That's a post hoc explanation though. The reality is that 4e D&D does not bother explaining why some abilities can be used once every five minutes or so and other abilities can be used once per extended rest and still other abilities are down for only a random number of rounds before they come back online. The authors do not think this is important. And indeed, within the context of Forgesque "Gamist" design, it's not. Supposedly, the people who like "gamist" games are supposed to care only about how abilities recharge, not why. And obviously, that's wrong. People do care.

It pretty much comes down to the observation that most D&D players would be willing to have their character wear a live duck on their head or assless pants if it gave them +2 to Strength. But the part where this goes straight into crazy town is the part where the designers decided that this means that character equipment flavor does not matter. Which is clearly wrong, because only most players would let their butt cheeks swing for +2 to Strength. If flavor actually didn't matter at all, then everyone would uncover themselves for the bonus. And interestingly, if you drop the bonus a bit, to say +1 Strength, a majority of people won't put the damn duck on their head. Clearly, these "flavor issues" do have a value to players that is comparable to numerical advantage.

So when the 4e designers got all "Gamist" on us and took out the flavor explanations of things, they really did hurt the game. Just the fact that people like you want to write one back in demonstrates that removing that stuff caused genuine damage.

-Frank

Quote from: Peregrin;413907Even so, there are a few Forge-related designers who've expressed dissatisfaction with the artificial limits, and even V. Baker's "clouds and arrows" explanation of mechanics feeding into fiction creation (or world effects, for those of you offended by the term fiction) notes that a lot of indie games suffer from the problem of a hiccup effect between mechanics and the game-world, and I don't think 4e is exempt from this.

It's not going to bother everyone, but I think it bugs enough people that it's worth looking into some more from a design perspective.

I really don't know what you're talking about. The last time I heard anything from Vincent Baker that made any sense, he was talking about "leading with the fiction", which was somewhat of a critique of the overall rules-first & drama-first trend among story-games. Only thing is, it wasn't a discovery, it was just what normal RPGs were about until various types of story-orientation crept in. It was like a flat-earther suddenly claiming credit for realizing the world is round.

Quote from: RPGPundit;413863Dude, on the one hand, Cylonophile has been undertaking an orchestrated campaign of persecution and off-topic insults against Koltar for YEARS now, apparently over at least THREE different forums.

On the other hand, I don't even remember who I said "fuck your mother" to.  

In other words, they are two completely different situations.  One is cyber-stalking, the other just business as usual on theRPGsite.

RPGPundit

That should be this website's new slogan:

"The RPGSite, where saying Fuck Your Mother to a poster is just business as usual!"

Quote from: two_fishes;413878The whole complaint about martial dailies has always bugged me for being especially tedious. It has always struck me as a kind of rigidity of thinking that gets all verklempt about it. It's never bothered me very much that some rules limitations don't have a direct, in-game fictional correlation. Is it really so hard to simply accept that it is an artificial constraint and then put that knowledge away and play the game? If I needed an explanation, it was enough to say that I, the player, am given the ability to dictate the most opportune moment to execute this move for the character.

Honestly, your choice of derogatory language to describe what you don't agree with is what's tedious. I happen to not like martial dailies. That's my opinion. Ducky for you that it doesn't bother you but that doesn't automatically mean it's the failing of everyone else. My position is why should I accept the artificial constraints that I don't like when there are plenty of games without those specific artificial constraints? Why do you feel the need to denigrate folks who don't see things the way you do? Are you really then surprised that folks give you shit for being a "storygamer" when you play into the stereotype so willingly?