Quote from: James McMurray;224959We sometimes express our actions in narrative terms. We always express them in rules terms.

If you're playing a game, and you want to stick to the rules, it's important that everyone know what is happening from a rules point of view.

Sure, but my point is that the rules differences don't match up very well to the story differences. The particular one I noticed was the different kinds of movement ("Conan walked across the room - but it was plain to see that he wasn't taking a move action, nor a series of steps, but rather a minor action. Halfway across the great chamber he yelled, and ran at the foul beast, brandishing his sword - but not in such a way as to be running or charging").

It could even be as complicated, if the different options were such things as 'slashing' vs 'stabbing'.

It sounds pretty dull.

Quote from: Stuart;224858I think it's a difference between high complexity ("crunch") rules systems and more rules-light / abstracted systems.

I also think so, although it is probably more of an unintentional side-effect. In systems where the core gameplay is highly defined, there is a tendency for stronger separation between "regulated" and "unregulated" segments of the game session. There might also be a stronger incentive to focus on the "meat" of the play experience, which is the regulated and highly defined part, and write off the rest as "secondary" or "fluff", but I am not entirely sure I am right in this case. In 4e's case, for example, the "encounter" or the "skill challenge" would be the regulated, well-defined and emphasised element of the game session.

In any case, I prefer a more fluid playing experience with less rigid separation between regulated and unregulated segments.

Quote from: Age of Fable;224850Is this a problem with 4th edition, or D&D in general, or role-playing games in general?

As others have said, yes.

I think what matters, however, is how you follow up such talk as the GM or DM. What I like to do in that role is talk about the mechanics first, briefly if I can, then repaint the scene narritively. "The bandit leader rolls an 18. That hits for 8 points of damage. You can see how much he hates you he brings his big sword down on your collar bone."

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;225100As others have said, yes.

I think what matters, however, is how you follow up such talk as the GM or DM. What I like to do in that role is talk about the mechanics first, briefly if I can, then repaint the scene narritively. "The bandit leader rolls an 18. That hits for 8 points of damage. You can see how much he hates you he brings his big sword down on your collar bone."

I do the same, albeit in reverse order: "Your whole body shudders as the hobgoblin's mace hits your arm just above the elbow. Leaning forward, his snarling, enraged face is now inches from your own. Eight points of damage." My players tend to pay more attention to the description when it comes first.

Quote from: Age of Fable;224991Sure, but my point is that the rules differences don't match up very well to the story differences. The particular one I noticed was the different kinds of movement ("Conan walked across the room - but it was plain to see that he wasn't taking a move action, nor a series of steps, but rather a minor action. Halfway across the great chamber he yelled, and ran at the foul beast, brandishing his sword - but not in such a way as to be running or charging").

If you ever find a game with even mildly complex rules that is capable of modeling literature, let me know. As soon as you introduce rules you step out of story hour and into let's play. Personally I prefer to play a more traditional game, but there is at least one entire community devoted to games designed to tell stories. If you haven't been there, check it out. You might find something you like more than trad gaming.

I think Age of Fable already knows about Story Games/Forge/indie games, but in case he doesn't, I'll point out that those games, on average, don't do any better in terms of containing rules that require a lot of interpretation to get from the mechanical jargon to the fictional narration.

It might be more helpful for AoF to talk about some games he's played where he doesn't have this problem.

I didn't see AoF's example as being of the build-a-story variety.  Rather it seemed like he was saying he wants to have more engaging narration as part of the gameplay, rather than people talk in game mechanics and system jargon.

The answer to that is to play a system light game. 4e would require insane amounts of hand-holding and GM discretion to be played with few references to rules.

Perhaps Amber? Diceless and darn near rules-less means it's incredibly well suited to games that stay in character.

Quote from: Jackalope;224956This is the most absolutely idiotic thing I've ever read.

So basically, no matter how good a character gets, everything should remain an identical challenge?  Nobody gets better, the numbers just get bigger.

I just don't get it.

Its based on the absurd and utterly idiotic idea that the PCs have to be ABSOLUTELY AWESOME at all times or else the world ends.  So low level characters have to be AWESOME. High level characters have to be AWESOME.

FUN MUST BE HAD AT ALL TIMES! WORLD DOMINATION! UNLIMITED RICE PUDDING! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

They're idiots.  And 4e's domination of jargon has nothing to do with it being a rules-heavy game. There are plenty of rules-heavy games where the actions described are based on the situation in play; rather than being abstract super-maneuvers that have no connection to any sense of "immersion" in the fantasy world of the rpg.

No, the domination of Jargon in 4e is part of a conscious attempt to try to destroy (exterminate, if you will) the very possibility of experiencing "immersion" in D&D. Because immersion is evil. Because Ron Edwards said so.  You want a game that intentionally encourages people to be as disconnected from their character as possible, to think of him as a playing piece (a miniature?) on a board, and not as a personality that you assume while acting out adventures in an imaginary world. Imagination must be exterminated.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James McMurray;225132The answer to that is to play a system light game. 4e would require insane amounts of hand-holding and GM discretion to be played with few references to rules.

Perhaps Amber? Diceless and darn near rules-less means it's incredibly well suited to games that stay in character.

I think OD&D, Classic D&D, and even AD&D would all be good suggestions as well.  Anything without a battlemat really -- because you're forced to use descriptive language to articulate where in the game world your character is.  Systems with less detailed / more abstract combat system are also better in that regard.

Now, if you want to focus on the battle tactics instead of the quality of the narration and description - you'll pick a different game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;225134They're idiots. And 4e's domination of jargon has nothing to do with it being a rules-heavy game. There are plenty of rules-heavy games where the actions described are based on the situation in play; rather than being abstract super-maneuvers that have no connection to any sense of "immersion" in the fantasy world of the rpg.

No, the domination of Jargon in 4e is part of a conscious attempt to try to destroy (exterminate, if you will) the very possibility of experiencing "immersion" in D&D. Because immersion is evil. Because Ron Edwards said so. You want a game that intentionally encourages people to be as disconnected from their character as possible, to think of him as a playing piece (a miniature?) on a board, and not as a personality that you assume while acting out adventures in an imaginary world. Imagination must be exterminated.

I don't think that's it.

Read the comments on the GSL  / Kenzer post on your blog -- particularly the back and forth between myself and Ryan Dancey about copyright, rules systems, and complexity vs. ability to enforce copyright.

I think that's the specific reason the ruleset became more complex, and with 4e why there are so many very specific terms (eg. "Tide of Iron" instead of "Shield Bash" etc).

So I don't think they're idiots.  I think that their objectives aren't complimentary to the idea of "immersion" as a preferred aspect of the game.

If you want a game that uses adventure terms, you go rules lite with a group who agrees to minimize rules terms.  Please count yourself lucky to have a group who agrees to this style of gaming.   Such groups are uncommon.   I am very lucky and thankful to have such a group.

Quote from: Jackalope;224956So basically, no matter how good a character gets, everything should remain an identical challenge?  Nobody gets better, the numbers just get bigger.

I believe John Wick once referred to D20 as the game where you roll over 10.  Oddly, this aspect of identical challenges plays better than it reads and certainly makes it easier on the GM to design encounters.   Yes, it can become laughable that at 20th level, every firepit is Epic Fire and every slime is Epic Slime and every orc is Epic Orc, but its nothing that a sharp storyteller can't easily get past.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;225134FUN MUST BE HAD AT ALL TIMES! WORLD DOMINATION! UNLIMITED RICE PUDDING! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

Why is this a bad thing?  Last time I checked, real life is 90% suckass and if some people's idea of fun is to be UberElf during their playtime, why take that away from them?    CoC and Warhammer and a thousand other RPGs are still available for all of us who want more challenge and less munchkin in our playtime.

Also, look at the 4e decisions from a strict business viewpoint.  Immersive roleplaying is an elusive goal that depends on storytelling skills and cooperative group dynamics that are MUCH harder to teach than just rules for a tactical boardgame.   Rules are controllable and reliable.  Immersion depends on dozens of factors beyond the control of the publisher.

TV and video games combined with rote-learning and 24/7 bubble testing in American schools destroyed creativity a long time ago.  Today, creativity is a rare ability and not a smart basis for a mass market commercial product.  

Look at Legos in 1970 vs today.   They knows the tide has turned against unbridled creative play.  WotC had no choice but to do the same.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;225120I think Age of Fable already knows about Story Games/Forge/indie games, but in case he doesn't, I'll point out that those games, on average, don't do any better in terms of containing rules that require a lot of interpretation to get from the mechanical jargon to the fictional narration.

It might be more helpful for AoF to talk about some games he's played where he doesn't have this problem.

I played 3rd edition several times, and I tended to find that I did have this problem in the combats, but not at other times.

Except that trying to FORCE a game to be fun at all times means creating a situation (the Tyranny of Fun) where:

a) the very idea of "fun" loses all meaning, because its an artificial fun.

b) the game itself thus doesn't actually end up being very fun at all: it just turns into one pointless episode of false shallow artificial coolness after the next. If there is no real chance that you won't be "awesome" then there really is little point in playing. You might as well be wanking.

RPGPundit