# Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"



## Mercurius

*PREAMBLE*
The quote in my title is from the great John Boorman movie, _Excalibur, _and refers to an understanding that was lost to Arthur and Camelot, leading to Arthur's wounding and the poisoning of the land. But more on that in a moment.

This post was inspired by the thread, What Has Caused the Old School Revival? But being rather self-indulgent, I began to wander far afield from my original intention, so I decided to craft this into an essay, even a manifesto (of sorts).

Before getting into it, let me lay my own bias out on the table, just so that the suspicious veterans of the Edition Wars aren’t wondering as they read this, _what’s his *real* agenda? _I say “my bias” not because I’m an advocate of this or that edition, or new vs. old school, but because as a human being I am biased, I speak from subjectivity. I started playing D&D in the early 80s with 1st edition and updated to each new edition of our great game as they came out – 2e, 3e, and 4e. I’m excited to start a 5e campaign up early next year. It might sound facetious to say this, but my favorite edition of D&D is D&D. I love the game itself, in whatever version; I see the specific rules system as being more of a methodology for the game, rather than the game itself. In other words, “D&D” is music, and the edition and specific rules set, is the medium the music is recorded on – whether vinyl, eight-track, casette, CD, mp3, etc.

Like audio media, Dungeons & Dragons has followed a developmental trajectory. But development is not without its pitfalls, it isn’t always “better and better,” although that is how it _should _be, if we’re able to integrate each stage into the next – or at least the “baby” of each stage, while throwing out the “bathwater.” Unfortunately, as flawed human beings, we tend to do the opposite – we tend to leave behind the good things, while picking up all sorts of baggage along the way. As we develop psychologically, we pick up new pathologies and neuroses. An adult has certain neuroses that a child couldn’t have, partially because they have a more mature mind and self-sense. On the other hand, most children are far more imaginative and without the hang-ups of adults, because our culture “teaches imagination out” as young people are indoctrinated by an education system that is still based upon early 20th century industrialism. 

In a way I am saying that early D&D was akin to the childhood of the game, and recent games are the adult versions. But it isn’t so simple as that, and I am _not _saying that later/more mature = inherently better. If anything, I feel that something crucial has gone missing, the “secret that is lost” – and it is a secret that makes all the difference. But let me get to that later.

Aside from my “bias,” I do want to add a disclaimer – that what follows is not meant to be a strictly factual account, but more of an artistic rendering, an extended philosophical musing (and thus, in the end, meant to be a performance of the kind of approach that I’m advocating, which I’ll explain towards the end). I’m going to incorporate snapshots of the history of D&D and you might find I don’t represent things accurately - or at least not as you perceive them! All I can say is, bare with me – the point is the forest, not the trees.

So let’s get to it.

*PART ONE: OLD SCHOOL, NEW SCHOOL, WHO NEEDS SCHOOL?*

When talking about the Old School Renaissance (OSR), there seems to be a strange kind of bifurcation. Advocates of the OSR see it as harkening back to "real D&D" before it became obfuscated by excessive rules and filler. An analogy might be the gray box Forgotten Realms versus the later FR supplements, or the 3e white hardcovers. The gray box (or the Greyhawk box set) offered broad strokes of the world, _broad indications _more than _strict directions _on how to run a game set in the Realms. The later supplementation filled it all in, giving clearer guidelines, even rules, on How To Do It The Right Way. Of course I'm exaggerating in that the spirit of D&D—if not the resulting paradigm—has always been “Your Way is the Right Way,” but OneTrueWayism felt implied simply by virtue of the wealth of information presented; if something is published it feels like canon that a DM cannot, or should not, disagree with, while if it isn't published then there's tons of room to move.

In some sense this is unavoidable, at least if you want to publish books. The more books you published, or at least rule books, the less open-ended a game feels. Just there’s a huge difference between “You crest the hill and, after looking briefly back at the farmlands of your youth, you see the ruin-dotted northern wilds stretch out before you_…” _and “The King of Ysperath places the crown upon your head and declares your Overlord of the North.” The former is open-ended simply because its at the beginning, whereas the latter is right in the middle, or near the end, and feels less free.

(I think a good argument could be made that the biggest problem with editions of D&D after 1e is the sheer dumptruck-load of rules supplements, which I’ll touch on a bit more in a moment).

Detractors of the OSR say, in the extreme, that it is a nostalgia-driven attempt to recapture the Golden Age of the D&D we grew up on, which for most of us over the age of 30 was AD&D 1st or 2nd edition, BECMI, or for the true grognards, OD&D. As someone famously said, "the Golden Age of scifi is 12"; I think this applies to D&D as well; “old school” is, sans capitalization, a relative and subjective term that refers back to whatever version of the game we played in our youth, when we were (about) 12.  

Compared to more recent iterations of the game, Old School D&D is, these detractors say, a clunky, anachronistic museum piece that has no place in modern gaming. This is a bit of an extreme perspective that few probably actually hold, and I doubt there are any true "detractors" of the OSR, but at least there are those that find the slicker, more complex "new school" iterations of D&D more appealing, and the old school approaches problematic for various reasons.

Anyhow, there's a general view - especially among OSR advocates - that D&D "died," or at least went astray, sometime between the publication of Dragonlance _waaaay_ back in 1984, to the arrival of 3e in 2000. Dragonlance set the stage for the rich settings of the late 80s and 90s, and an approach to D&D that was more driven by setting and story than it was free exploration; gradually the metaplot took over the hexcrawl. With 3e, D&D reached unparalled heights in complexity and customization and the canonical supplementation of the 2e settings became transposed to the rules themselves. You could still modify 3e, but it was less about “making the rules your own” and more about adding feats, classes, and other options to the already established rules system. The OSR became the clarion call harkening back to a simpler, freer time in which D&D was more a game of imagination than of simulation, more about exploring wilderness and dungeons than about optimizing your character with kewl powerz.

Ironically enough, when 3e came out it was a kind of "revival" to a more "old school" style of play after a decade plus of 2e style campaign settings and meta-plots, which had likely been influenced by the story-based World of Darkness games. Think of, for instance, the advertising of Sword & Sorcery Studios/Necromancy Games, which I believe said something like "3rd edition rules, 1st edition style."

In the late 90s AD&D was floundering, partially because it _was_ a big, clunking anachronistic system - at least compared to the last decade or so of design innovation. 1987 saw the publication of two games which had, at first, a subtle but increasingly important influence on RPG design: Ars Magica and Talislanta. Both included variants of the dice roll + attribute vs. target number design paradigm that became the basis of the d20 system more than a decade later. One of the lead designers of Ars Magica, Mark Rein Hagen, went on to design the World of Darkness games, which for the first time provided a challenge to the dominance of D&D in the RPG world, emphasizing story over the game. The other designer of Ars Magica, Jonathan Tweet, not only updated Talislanta a few years later, but was a lead designer in D&D 3e. Tweet and Rein Hagen, along with other designers, led the RPG community into a brave new world of Indie design, while AD&D – even in its 2nd edition – hadn’t adopted this new paradigm.

With 3rd edition, Dungeons & Dragons wasn’t as much brought into the 2000s, but into the 90s. The flagship RPG had lagged behind the rest of the RPG world in terms of rules design. In the early Aughties, D&D experienced a revival in interest that, if not equalling—or even coming close to—the legendary “25 million” of the 1980s, at least saw D&D’s popularity jump from the declining 90s. With 3e, we had the first wave of lapsed players returning – people who hadn’t played since they were in high school or college in the 80s, but now had time and energy to spend on D&D in their 30s and 40s – as well as a new generation of gamers, Gen Y folks who found the modern sensibilities of the 3e game more appealing than “that old 80s game.”

I’m not exactly sure what happened that led Wizards of the Coast to design and publish 4e in the way they did, but I can imagine a few related factors. One, the glut of product of 2000-07, which included literally _one hundred hardcover books _(including settings)_ - _compare that to the mere _thirteen _AD&D 1e hardcovers produced from 1977-88 – not to mention _thousands _of third party products because of the OGL. 

Another factor is that ,despite the surge in popularity in the early Aughties, the player base seemed to gradually decline again (note: I don’t have facts to back this up; this is based upon impressions of others and my general observations). This seems inherent to any edition, that there’s an initial surge, then a rise as the game becomes established and even more popular, then a gradual decline. By 2007, while 3e might not have been significantly declining, it probably wasn’t growing – and for a company owned by a larger company, a steady state isn’t acceptable. What is needed is growth, growth, and more growth.

A third factor is more cultural and generational. Where the Gen X kids of the late 70s and 80s were growing up in a world in which Pac Man and Galaga were the state-of-the-art video games, in the Aughties you had a plethora of first-person games, and then the immersion of World of Warcraft, et al. If you’re a 10-year old boy and your options are D&D or Defender, then you might choose D&D; but if your options are D&D or Xbox, well, it’s a lot easier to dive into the latter than the former.

Wizards of the Coast had the idea, noble if perhaps misguided, to try to appeal to “Generation Xbox,” to tap into the milllions of Warcraft subscribers and offer something that they would find appealing. The result, though, is well known: 4th edition arrived and, whatever the initial sales were, was met with rather intense vitriol and quickly dwindled and led to a fracturing in the D&D community due to an Edition War that made its predecessors seem relatively tame. Whatever the merits of 4e were, the overall result was disastrous. Despite an attempt at reviving the edition with Essentials in 2010, it was clear that 4e was a failure, and 5e was announced in January of 2012, just three and a half years into 4e.

That said, part of the upshot of 4e is that perhaps _because _it was a failure, it led to two things: one, the creation and publication of Pathfinder, in which 3.5 not only “survived but thrived,” and the Old School Renaissance. Older players in particular fled 4e for either the more homey pastures of Paizo—which was a company clearly for the people _by _the people, with the humble goal of updating the legacy of the recent “golden age” of 3rd edition—or the classic realms of old school gaming, a simpler time and game.

I think the OSR has less to do with rules, though, than it does with a _feeling_ - which includes presentation and the basic assumptions of the game. One of the problems with 3e, in my opinion, is that there was no simple, basic game that could be played without the density of rules that edition (and now Pathfinder) became known for. Castles & Crusades was an attempt to create that, and in my mind combines the best of "old school flavor" and "new school design," although without the production values and support that jaded D&D players of the 21st century have become accustomed to (plus the name itself implies something more medieval than fantastical).

I know that advocates of the OSR see clunky mechanics like THAC0 and descending AC and Saving Throws as, to quote an oft-used phrase, “features and not flaws,” but this is not unlike saying that a typewriter's inability to correct and requirement of an ink ribbon is a feature and not a flaw, or a vinyl record's inability to be recorded over is a feature and not a flaw. Yes, it is true on some level – especially taken out of historical, technological context - but when you compare it with more modern technology, it ends up looking anachronistic (I, for one, don’t miss fastforwarding to the next song on a cassette tape, or having to “be kind and rewind” a VHS, even if I feel tinges of nostalgia for bygone technologies).


When I see “THAC0” or “Saving Throw vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic” I get a sense of nostalgia, but I don’t actually miss them on the game table. The game has, well, moved on, and I for one am happy with later developments…to an extent.

*PART TWO: THE SECRET THAT WAS LOST*

That said, there is something that was left behind with a vinyl record, the typewriter, or plain old pen and paper. A vinyl record has a naturalistic sound that, to the discerning ear, is quite appealing (its  also interesting to note that vinyl has become “classic” whereas eight-tracks have defunct). A typewriter has a clickity-clack to it that has a certain beauty to it and, dare I say, inspires nostalgia (a typewriter is also classic, compared to the early word processors, which are defunct). Writing with a pen on paper has an organic immediacy that is lacking with a laptop. Actually, just the other day Quentin Tarantino remarked on Jay Leno's show that he likes to write with pen and paper, that there's nothing like the blank page - which is different from the blank screen. Or we can think of Neal Stephenson’s evocative, if pretentious, claim that he wrote the entire _Baroque Cycle _by quill and ink jar, and, I believe, by lamp-light.

Another relevant analogy is that of animation. As a child of two daughters, I’ve watched my share of animated feature films over the last couple years and am well aware that Pixar has created some impressive movies, but I can't shake the feeling that something is lacking - that the faces of Pixar characters seem hollow and without life, compared to the "old school" Disney movies like _Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs _and even more recently, _Beauty and the Beast_. I think it has something to do with removing the human hand from the act of drawing, that as soon as that is done the art becomes...in-human.


Actually, in animated movies we can see the problem in a vivid nutshell: the more the technology develops, the less room there is for imagination to “inhabit” the images, and thus to bring them to life. What we’re left with is what is served to us; we cannot bring life to Pixar faces, they rely upon their own – and because they aren’t alive, aren’t analog if you will but digital, they come across as almost _undead._

I think the Holy Grail of D&D is to find some way to combine the "feel" of vinyl, or pen and paper, or classic animation, with the technology and utility of the mp3, or the laptop/tablet, of computer technology. I'm not sure if its possible--or rather, I think its very difficult, because there seems to be something about modern technologies that actually inhibits that vitality and life-force I’m pointing towards. Its why I'll preview an RPG on PDF, or a book on Amazon's "Look Inside," but always--_always--_buy the hard-copy if I like it. There’s just something about the feel of paper, of turning a page, and browsing that can’t be captured by a PDF.

In _Excalibur, _the Knights of the Round Table go on a quest to find the Grail; as Arthur put it, “We must find what was lost.” Over years the grail knights die or are ensorcelled by Morgana and her false grail, yet finally Parzival – after failing at first – is eventually successful. He discovers the secret, that “the King and the Land are One.” This resonates back to something Merlin said to Arthur early on: _“You will be the land, and the land will be you. If you fail, the land will perish; as you thrive, the land will blossom.”_

I first saw _Excalibur_ when I was a kid, shortly after it came out in 1981, and since then I’ve seen it perhaps two dozen times; it still is one of my favorite movies of all time and I enjoy re-watching it every couple years or so. _Excalibur _looks rather dated today; the acting is over the top in a Shakespearean way—Boorman cast British stage actors—and it is focused more on atmosphere and story than on action and effects. In a similar way that the great _Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan _seems slow to the generation whose first exposure to Star Trek are the JJ Abrams films, so too would _Excalibur _seem old fashioned and slow to those brought up on Peter Jackson’s _Lord of the Rings _films.

Yet I feel that there has been something lost in (most) modern cinema, something in _Excalibur _that is less present in _Lord of the Rings _(although Jackson did a good job of bringing some element of it in)_, _something in _Wrath of Khan _that is completely lacking in _Star Trek: Into Darkness. _It is atmosphere, but not only that. It is a kind of mysticism, but not only that. _Excalibur _is a deeply esoteric film, drenched in mystical symbolism, which those “without the eyes to see” miss. The “secret of the Grail” sounds prosaic, but is a profound spiritual/metaphysical truth, resonating on both the collective (and ecological) level, but also on an existential individual level: that the “King” (human being) and the “Land” (world, one’s life) are “One,” are interconnected – that to the degree that we, either individually or collectively, “fail,” the land “perishes,” and if we thrive, the land “blossoms.” 

How does this relate to Dungeons & Dragons? Well, I would argue that the “secret that was lost” is a quality that is natural to childhood, but that, in the Adult World of Wallstreet, taxes, and ulcers, and other Serious Things, we are taught out of. It is something that is becoming increasingly rarified in this age of smartphones and tech-at-will, in which every spare moment can be filled with a text message, a tweet, or an instagram.

What am I talking about? It is quite simple, something intrinsic to everything we do – especially roleplaying games like D&D. It is Imagination.

Of course it isn’t truly lost, especially to those few that might still be reading this. By and large, tabletop gamers are people that love the “theater of mind” at whatever level, from the relatively shallow waters of laughing at the game table, to the vast depths of wonderment.

As a child, imagination comes naturally. As we grow older, it is either taught out and/or applied to Serious Things, or filled to the brim with pre-packaged imagery. For those into science fiction and fantasy literature, there’s a clear trajectory from the more minimalistic and impressionistic fiction of the 60s and 70s, to the more detailed and simulationist works of the last couple decades. A Michael Moorcock novel of the New Wave 1960s might be 150 pages but packed to the brim with adventure and fantastical places, while a Robert Jordan novel of the 1990s might be 900 pages, most of which is excruciatingly (in my opinion) detailed description. The parallel to D&D is obvious: minimalist OD&D vs. complex 3e or 4e.

For imagination to thrive, we have to make room for it – we have to give it space to grow. The more detailed a description in a book, the less the reader creates – the more they passively receive. Some writer once said that a story is “written” by both the author and reader, to varying degrees. Over the last 30+ years, as our media technology has developed, the story has been written more and more by the author, and the reader has become more and more passive. A blatant example of this is the difference in experience between a simple tabletop RPG and a video game. In the latter, the participant just interacts with a pre-created environment. There is absolutely no imagination, no creation – just immersion into a simulated environment. In a classic tabletop RPG, the GM and players co-create a Theater of Mind; each creates their own imagery, yet in a shared context.

This is _not _nostalgia, at least not in the pejorative sense of the world as a kind of pointless sentimentality. It is not escapism, either, in the same light; or if it is, as Tolkien put it (in paraphrase), escapism is a healthy response to being in an unhealthy imprisonment, just as nostalgia is a heart-felt longing for something precious that is gone. What I am talking about, this urge that exists in all (or at least most) D&D players is a desire for something that we have lost, or at least is in danger of atrophy, yet that we deeply yearn for – and that no simulative experience can satisfy, no matter how advanced.

*PART THREE: BEYOND OLD & NEW*

Ultimately this isn’t about old or new school. Yet I do think that old school games better facilitate the imaginative experience, and that it is that which tabletop RPGs excel at more than any other game, more than video games, board games, poker or chess: the play of the imagination. This is why, or one of the (core) reasons why the classic hexcrawl is so appealing, why OSR folks disavow railroading metaplots: there is a sense of immense freedom, a shared mind-space in which—quite literally—anything can happen. This is also why I’ve never found CRPGs particularly drawing: I can’t lose the sense that I’m in a simulative environment crafted by algorithms and with limited possible outcomes, rather than the human mind and imagination, which is limitless.

In a CRPG, I might not know what is over that next hill, but I do know that it is based upon a programmed formula. In a tabletop RPG, I know that whatever is over that next hill is based upon the human imagination, and even if it isn’t particularly innovative, it is somehow _real._

If you made it through the last 4,000+ words, I applaud you for your attention span and thank you for your time. I feel strongly about this because it reaches far beyond gaming – it has to do with our very human existence, and what I’m interested in as both a teacher and counselor. I don’t want to be all doom-and-gloom about this, but I see this issue in RPGs as being microcosmic of a larger process, that has to do with human imagination – a quality so intrinsic, so unique to human beings (as far as we know), so important – yet also in danger of being lost, atrophied, or at least, as I said, filled to the brim with second-rate and comparatively paltry simulations of living, breathing imaginations. I actually think that tabletop RPGs can be a positive cultural influence, that a true revival – not simply of old school vs. new school – but _all schools, _can benefit human culture and society through inspiring the use of that most vital human capacity: imagination.

Imagination is the juice of life. Like sex without love, life without imagination can still be enjoyable, at least for a time. But eventually one gets the sense that something is lacking, something vital misplaced – and one cannot find it. The usual response is _More and better! _More and better sex and lovers, more and better experiences, technologies, stuff-to-fill-the-void. I’d even say that its an important part of development to go through this process, in whatever way. But it won’t satisfy. Why? Because _the void cannot be filled because it is endless. _If we realize that we have an amazing opportunity, to “turn around,” so to speak, and rather than trying to fill the void with _More and Better!_, we can instead _explore the possibilities of the void_, create within it (and _as _it, for it is us). _That _is the function of imagination – to envision, to dream up possibilities, and then to bring them into being via our creativity. And in so doing, the King will thrive and the Land will blossom.


----------



## Sunseeker

Save for a few lines where my poor vision decided to fail me, I read it all.  I'm not sure I have thoughts on it just yet, but I hate to see all this effort you placed here simply go un-responded to.

I think if I have to sum up my initial thoughts, what we need is less "must" and more "may".  Looking back through other games I play, be they video games or card games or board games, I find I often have the most fun and get the most creative when I am not specifically required to do something, but may make a choice between a few things, or between something and nothing.  That sort of gap for personal decision making I think really helps to bring life to an activity.  Games that simply run without that choice are boring and while they may be creative games, don't inspire my imagination.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Great essay, and excellent analysis.  Thanks for posting it.  I largely agree with you.



			
				Mercurius said:
			
		

> When I see “THAC0” or “Saving Throw vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic” I get a sense of nostalgia, but I don’t actually miss them on the game table. The game has, well, moved on, and I for one am happy with later developments…to an extent.




Right on target for me.

All variants of D&D have their good and bad points.  There are things I find positively frustrating about old rule design.  The funky arbitrariness is fun at times, but if I actually play a game I want some smooth consistency.  I also want more choices than we had with the original B/X approach, without the arbitrary limitations of 1E, but to maintain a sense of simplicity and flexibility that was lost with the rules-bloat in the late 3E era (which Pathfinder has not solved, though it certainly addressed other inconsistencies).

As I mentioned in the other thread, my solution is to assemble my own OSR/OGL hybrid and try to balance the two approaches.  I think the 5E development started down this road but I'm not sure whether it will end up there or not.


----------



## fjw70

I like all versions of D&D but one thing the later versions of D&D is missing is a tthe basic version of the game. DDN seems like it will fill this gap.


----------



## The Human Target

"Old school is better and more imaginative."

I just saved you a lot of typing.


----------



## Umbran

Mercurius said:


> Ultimately this isn’t about old or new school. Yet I do think that old school games better facilitate the imaginative experience...




..._for you_.  They better facilitate the imaginative experience for you, personally.

This is where, ultimately, you go off the rails.  You wander into the usual realm of, "This works best for me, so it works best for everybody."   I'm sorry that you spent so much effort, and so many words, to come back to the same old flawed place.  To use your own analogy - you forget that we don't all fall in love with the same kinds of people! Your bias gets the better of you in the final lines, I'm afraid.

We are humans.  We are varied.  We aren't all inspired or facilitated by the same things.


----------



## MoonSong

Umbran said:


> ..._for you_.  They better facilitate the imaginative experience for you, personally.
> 
> This is where, ultimately, you go off the rails.  You wander into the usual realm of, "This works best for me, so it works best for everybody."   I'm sorry that you spent so much effort, and so many words, to come back to the same old flawed place.  To use your own analogy - you forget that we don't all fall in love with the same kinds of people! Your bias gets the better of you in the final lines, I'm afraid.
> 
> We are humans.  We are varied.  We aren't all inspired or facilitated by the same things.




I don't entirely subscribe to Mercurious ideas, but I don't think this is a waste, or just another talky rant on defense of the OSR, what I read spoke to me of a very different thing, mostly that it doesn't matter if a game is old school or new school or non-school, as long as it sparks your imagination. For many folks less rules or more mysterious rules are more in therms of imagination (and up to a point I agree), in that way OSR resonates better with them. 

However up to that I agree, some people can use their imaginations better when they are fully unbound or only bound by little. ("I want to be the best musician in the world!!" "no rule say you can't, go ahead"), but not all of us are like that and that doesn't mean we are less creative (I would argue that in fact it could be the opposite, but have no actual evidence I can only suggest it) having a solid reference frame helps you get away with more stuff, in that regard we like those extra rules ("let's challenge the BBEG to a cooking contest with the fate of the world as the stakes!!" "ok, cooking is a proficiency and both you and the BBEG are proficient let's roll with it").


----------



## Minigiant

D&D never lost the secret...* it never had it*. D&D is just not realizing the secret.

D&D is a game based on human imagination therefore it must deal with hthe difference of human minds. Therefore the only way a big game like D&D can survive, the secret, is:

enforce one way to play (aka single setting games)
or 
embrace almost  every way the game is played (aka multiple playstyle game).


What D&D has been doing for 40 years is saying saying it's the latter but being a different version of the former depending on edition. This is why games like Pathfinder, 13th Age, and all those OSR game have their niches. And this is why D&D Next is being designed the way it is. Every table isn't the same. And every D&D gamer doesn't want the same thing. Every DM doesn't allow the same things. And every player didn't want to play playstyle pushed by a particular edition.


----------



## dd.stevenson

Mercurius said:


> Yet I do think that old school games better facilitate the imaginative experience, and that it is that which tabletop RPGs excel at more than any other game, more than video games, board games, poker or chess: the play of the imagination. This is why, or one of the (core) reasons why the classic hexcrawl is so appealing, why OSR folks disavow railroading metaplots: there is a sense of immense freedom, a shared mind-space in which—quite literally—anything can happen.



I think your statement is too broad: hexcrawls and non-metaplot games do not necessarily better stimulate every person's imagination. Not every person's mind is stimulated better by a sandbox, or by games where exploration is resolved by player skill.

I think it IS fair to say that this playstyle better stimulates A LOT of people's imaginations, and that the 2E-->3E changes stymied/outright killed this playstyle. But in the process, they better-enabled other playstyles, which--let me repeat--are not necessarily less conducive to the imagination.

Speaking personally, as a guy who enjoys DMing both metaplotty 3E (these days DDN + Paizo AP) games and anything-goes 2E sandbox games, a lot depends on my mood at the time I sit down to play. Sometimes I find that my imagination needs more structure, more fuel, to get fired up. Other times, it needs less.


----------



## Mercurius

shidaku said:


> Save for a few lines where my poor vision decided to fail me, I read it all.  I'm not sure I have thoughts on it just yet, but I hate to see all this effort you placed here simply go un-responded to.




Ha ha, thanks for caring. I like to write, so its OK if no one responds - I actually almost didn't post it as it started as a response to a different thread, then got out of hand. I like to work out ideas while writing, so the main thing is the process itself.



shidaku said:


> I think if I have to sum up my initial thoughts, what we need is less "must" and more "may".  Looking back through other games I play, be they video games or card games or board games, I find I often have the most fun and get the most creative when I am not specifically required to do something, but may make a choice between a few things, or between something and nothing.  That sort of gap for personal decision making I think really helps to bring life to an activity.  Games that simply run without that choice are boring and while they may be creative games, don't inspire my imagination.




Yeah, I can agree with that and think it is why OSR folks don't like "railroady" games.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Great essay, and excellent analysis.  Thanks for posting it.  I largely agree with you.




Thanks!



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> All variants of D&D have their good and bad points.  There are things I find positively frustrating about old rule design.  The funky arbitrariness is fun at times, but if I actually play a game I want some smooth consistency.  I also want more choices than we had with the original B/X approach, without the arbitrary limitations of 1E, but to maintain a sense of simplicity and flexibility that was lost with the rules-bloat in the late 3E era (which Pathfinder has not solved, though it certainly addressed other inconsistencies).




Yup. I grew up on AD&D 1E and while I didn't think this at the time, looking back it really seems like Gary's Game, with his idiosyncrasies (for better or worse). It would be interesting to design a form of D&D that encouraged individual DMs to "Gygaxify" the rules (or "Olgarify", "Mercurify", etc). In some ways early D&D did allow and encourage that, and I never played in a game that the DM didn't house rule to some degree, but the core rules were still quite specific to the Great Gygaxian Mind.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> As I mentioned in the other thread, my solution is to assemble my own OSR/OGL hybrid and try to balance the two approaches.  I think the 5E development started down this road but I'm not sure whether it will end up there or not.




We can hope!



fjw70 said:


> I like all versions of D&D but one thing the later versions of D&D is missing is a the basic version of the game.
> DDN seems like it will fill this gap.




I couldn't agree more. The holy grail of Next is still, for me at least, the basic core game with modular options. Its amazing to me how D&D has never managed to offer this.



The Human Target said:


> "Old school is better and more imaginative."
> 
> I just saved you a lot of typing.




That's about 1.87% of the meaning of my post....

The irony, though, is that I've never played an OSR game and haven't played AD&D since...I don't know, the mid-90s? And that was 2e. So if I think "Old school is better" than I'm a fool for playing 3e and 4e over the last 13 years!



Umbran said:


> ..._for you_.  They better facilitate the imaginative experience for you, personally.
> 
> This is where, ultimately, you go off the rails.  You wander into the usual realm of, "This works best for me, so it works best for everybody."   I'm sorry that you spent so much effort, and so many words, to come back to the same old flawed place.  To use your own analogy - you forget that we don't all fall in love with the same kinds of people! Your bias gets the better of you in the final lines, I'm afraid.
> 
> We are humans.  We are varied.  We aren't all inspired or facilitated by the same things.




Quite frankly, Umbran, I don't think you grokked the overall "forest" of my post and got hung up on some trees. Refer to KaiiLurker's response, who better understood what I was getting at.

I also take issue with your response not only as overly dismissive, but as relying upon the old "postmodern trump card," which is "everything is subjective," yada yada yada. I was an undergrad once too, Umbran, I get it  But what next? 

I mean, _of course _I'm talking about myself, what works best for me, and so on. But can't we say anything beyond that or are we stuck in early 90s undergrad pseudo-philosophy? When do we get to post-postmodernism? 



KaiiLurker said:


> I don't entirely subscribe to Mercurious ideas, but I don't think this is a waste, or just another talky rant on defense of the OSR, what I read spoke to me of a very different thing, mostly that* it doesn't matter if a game is old school or new school or non-school,* *as long as it sparks your imagination. *For many folks less rules or more mysterious rules are more in therms of imagination (and up to a point I agree), in that way OSR resonates better with them.




That's just it - the imagination is what is key, is what is _universal_ even - akin to a Platonic Form; but what inspires us, what evokes imagination and wonder within us, is individual.

That said, I _do _think that the trend over the last few decades of what could be called "greater descriptive density" - like in the Moorcock/Jordan example I gave - has led to a generally more passive imagination. To put it somewhat crudely, if I use 100 words to describe a flower, I give your mind less space to create its own image than if I use a more impressionistic 20 words. _As a general, but not absolute, rule. _

I think this is actually why OSR folks love their Erol Otus and Jeff Dee, even though they are technically (far) inferior to more recent artists like Todd Lockwood and Wayne Reynolds. Otus and Dee are simpler and, in a way, allow for more of the viewer's own imagination to take hold.

Of course many quite technically amazing artists can inspire wonder and evoke imagination, and I personally like Reynolds (not as much Lockwood), but neither of them evoke wonderment or stimulate (my) imagination in the way that some of the iconic (but often crude) art of AD&D did. I think its worth considering why the Otus-esque art is so evocative to old schoolers, that there's something in that which is important to this discussion (as an aside, oddly enough I feel that a lot of the more recent digital paintings offer a more impressionistic, atmospheric quality that the sharper and more technically crafted oil and acrylic painters don't facilitate as well; what is "odd" to me is that the digital medium seems to encourage a more impressionist and atmospheric style).

Another example, more specific to actual game play, is old school combat vs. 4e's tactical battlemat play. I actually quite enjoy 4e combat (at least until the Grind hits in), but I find that its structure - in particular the reliance on the battlemat - is inherently less imaginative, if only by virtue of the fact that the focus of attention is largely on the battlemat, rather than the "mental battlefield." 



KaiiLurker said:


> However up to that I agree, some people can use their imaginations better when they are fully unbound or only bound by little. ("I want to be the best musician in the world!!" "no rule say you can't, go ahead"), but not all of us are like that and that doesn't mean we are less creative (I would argue that in fact it could be the opposite, but have no actual evidence I can only suggest it) having a solid reference frame helps you get away with more stuff, in that regard we like those extra rules ("let's challenge the BBEG to a cooking contest with the fate of the world as the stakes!!" "ok, cooking is a proficiency and both you and the BBEG are proficient let's roll with it").




Art requires limitations - it may be as simple as that. 



Minigiant said:


> D&D never lost the secret...* it never had it*. D&D is just not realizing the secret.
> 
> D&D is a game based on human imagination therefore it must deal with hthe difference of human minds. Therefore the only way a big game like D&D can survive, the secret, is:
> 
> enforce one way to play (aka single setting games)
> or
> embrace almost way the game is play (aka multiple playstyle game).




It might be somewhere in-between. D&D Is not "just another generic fantasy game" - nor are most fantasy games truly generic, except for maybe GURPS Fantasy or d6 Fantasy, Fantasy Hero, etc. But even those have their own distinct feel to them. But D&D is less specific than a true single setting game like Tribe 8 or Tekumel or Talislanta. So it is somewhere between GURPS and Tekumel, but with its own body of ideas and tropes, which make it unique and distinctive.

I can only speak for myself in this regard, but even though I may appreciate the design of another game more than D&D - say Ars Magica or Savage Worlds or FATE - I always come back to D&D. It is home. It is similar to the fact that I'm a fan of the Angels baseball team. I don't particularly _want _to be - I'd rather be a Cardinals fan because they're much better run and with a more optimistic future, and a more interesting history, but I can't quit the Angels. They're my team. Just as if I'm going to play D&D, I don't want to use the Savage World rules set. I want my 20-sided die, goddammit!

In that sense, I think a lot of long-time D&D players will always come back to D&D, even if they try out other games, and even if they like other games more in terms of aesthetic appreciation. I really, really like Savage Worlds and if I was starting gaming all over again and could choose which game I became attached to, it might be Savage Worlds (or Ars Magica, or one or two others). But I love D&D. Its in my blood.


----------



## Mercurius

dd.stevenson said:


> I think your statement is too broad: hexcrawls and non-metaplot games do not necessarily better stimulate every person's imagination. Not every person's mind is stimulated better by a sandbox, or by games where exploration is resolved by player skill.
> 
> I think it IS fair to say that this playstyle better stimulates A LOT of people's imaginations, and that the 2E-->3E changes stymied/outright killed this playstyle. But in the process, they better-enabled other playstyles, which--let me repeat--are not necessarily less conducive to the imagination.
> 
> Speaking personally, as a guy who enjoys DMing both metaplotty 3E (these days DDN + Paizo AP) games and anything-goes 2E sandbox games, a lot depends on my mood at the time I sit down to play. Sometimes I find that my imagination needs more structure, more fuel, to get fired up. Other times, it needs less.




You make a good point here, and perhaps hexcrawl vs. metaplot doesn't fit with the "taxonomy of imagination" that I'm hinting at. 

That aid, I do think that certain factors are more or less conducive to imagination. In the last post I used the example of the battlemat, of 4e combat vs. 1e (or other old school style) combat. I think the rules of 3e and 4e are less conducive to imaginative combat. It doesn't mean that imagination cannot be evoked or inspired, or that this is true of all people at all times in all worlds, but as a general rule.

(Am I allowed to make generalities? ).

But that's not as much a play-style, like hexcrawling vs. metaplot, but the actual rules - the structure itself.


----------



## The Human Target

Oh I know people who've played 3e and 4e for years who I'd still say were old school.


----------



## Minigiant

Mercurius said:


> It might be somewhere in-between. D&D Is not "just another generic fantasy game" - nor are most fantasy games truly generic, except for maybe GURPS Fantasy or d6 Fantasy, Fantasy Hero, etc. But even those have their own distinct feel to them. But D&D is less specific than a true single setting game like Tribe 8 or Tekumel or Talislanta. So it is somewhere between GURPS and Tekumel, but with its own body of ideas and tropes, which make it unique and distinctive.
> 
> I can only speak for myself in this regard, but even though I may appreciate the design of another game more than D&D - say Ars Magica or Savage Worlds or FATE - I always come back to D&D. It is home. It is similar to the fact that I'm a fan of the Angels baseball team. I don't particularly _want _to be - I'd rather be a Cardinals fan because they're much better run and with a more optimistic future, and a more interesting history, but I can't quit the Angels. They're my team. Just as if I'm going to play D&D, I don't want to use the Savage World rules set. I want my 20-sided die, goddammit!
> 
> In that sense, I think a lot of long-time D&D players will always come back to D&D, even if they try out other games, and even if they like other games more in terms of aesthetic appreciation. I really, really like Savage Worlds and if I was starting gaming all over again and could choose which game I became attached to, it might be Savage Worlds (or Ars Magica, or one or two others). But I love D&D. Its in my blood.




It's less about "just another fantasy game" and more of "there's more than one way to play D&D".

There's:

 "Classic 4 races" vs the "6 race modern" vs "Everything from dragonborn to gnolls"

"Class 4 classes" vs "The 4 and their traditional subclasses" vs "From Barbarion to Sorcerer"  vs "Assassins and Artificers to Warlords and Warlocks"

"Race as Class" vs "Race/Class archetypes" to "Whatever combo you like"

Balance classes/races vs Classes/Races can do what they do

Thief gets skills vs Everyone gets skills but one specialist are any good at them vs Everyone gets skills, specialist are just better/reliable

Quick combat vs Long tactical battle to "Whatever happens"

Low magic vs High magic vs No magic

Sandbox vs Overall plot vs Pure Dungeoneering

DM makes the rules vs Book gives the rules

Settig A vs Setting B vs Setting C...



If you make a RPG and don't force a specific lore to it (like Star Wars, Middle Earth, Hyborian Age, Thedas, Westeros), you allow players to create their own worlds and ways to play. Then you choice is to embrace their imagination, ignore them, or throw them bones.

D&D has for 40 years picked a favorite style with an edition and threw bones to some of the rest, hoping DMs to pick up the slack.


----------



## Halivar

Well, we've certainly been round and round on these forums about whether or not rules and mechanics can truly enable or stymie imagination. I will say that for me, the hexcrawl, battlemat, etc, have nothing to do with it. For me, and mostly from a player's perspective, it's about how deeply the players can be immersed in their own characters.

For the sake of not boring everyone to tears, I'll just pick one mechanic out of a see of rules bloat: skills.

Consider that in 1E, characters can be made in 5 minutes and are mostly a blank canvas upon which imaginative stories can be drawn. Back story and character development have as much rules effect as the DM allows, and a good DM is generous in this area. Then we added NWP, and I think the whole thing just went to hell. Now you had to implement your imagination mechanically, or you couldn't do it. In 3E we had skill lists that pretty much enforced the you-are-your-class paradigm that produced cookie-cutter characters unless you sprang for some crunch bloat to justify the character in your head, or at the exorbitant cross-class skill cost. 4E let you loosen the strait-jacket a little more, but it usually cost you a feat to do it.

In this respect, I think the way is forward, not backward, though. There was a Forge-inspired game called "The Pool" where your character was a short paragraph on loose-leaf. Now _that's_ a game facilitative to imagination. If you can imagine it, you can play it. This philosophy is present in varying degrees in FATE, 13th Age, and Numenara. By far I think 13th Age's Background mechanic best exemplifies how this philosophy can be integrated into D&D without disrupting the core of what D&D is.



> That said, I do think that the trend over the last few decades of what could be called "greater descriptive density" - like in the Moorcock/Jordan example I gave - has led to a generally more passive imagination. To put it somewhat crudely, if I use 100 words to describe a flower, I give your mind less space to create its own image than if I use a more impressionistic 20 words. As a general, but not absolute, rule.



I agree with this and would suggest that the 4 page character sheet, and the half-page monster stat-block, and the 300 pages of rules are part and parcel of this. We have been replacing imagination with rules and mechanics.


----------



## Manbearcat

I see this surmise floated about a lot on here as if it is fundamental, self-evident, indisputable:

*Lack of structure leads to broader or richer imaginative experience and creation for many/most people.*

I can see how that might be intuitive for a lot of people, specifically for those people for which it truly is fundamental (those with that cognitive style).  

However, there is growing research in the area of cognitive style analysis right now that pushes against that presupposition.  Effectively that:

*Many people approach tasks of creation by retrieving exemplars from a known group, and that instructions and task constraints can lead to  greater use of broader knowledge frameworks.*

Rules, boundaries, exemplars and task constraints serve as animating factors for the creative reservoir for a cross-section of the populace (with a certain cognitive style) just as they might serve as paralyzing factors for another cross-section of the populace (with a different cognitive style).


----------



## Mercurius

Minigiant said:


> If you make a RPG and don't force a specific lore to it (like Star Wars, Middle Earth, Hyborian Age, Thedas, Westeros), you allow players to create their own worlds and ways to play. Then you choice is to embrace their imagination, ignore them, or throw them bones.
> 
> D&D has for 40 years picked a favorite style with an edition and threw bones to some of the rest, hoping DMs to pick up the slack.




It seemed that with 4e's "Points of Light" approach, they tried making a D&D without a specific setting, although there still was a "lore" in terms of cosmology, Nentir Vale stuff, etc. 

I see the optimal approach as being both: give guidelines to help players create their own worlds, but also provide examples of how it can be done.

Wait, isn't that what they've always done? I think they've always _tried _to do what you're talking about, but end up becoming overly enamored with their own creations.

I think this is why some among the OSR don't like Dragonlance - it wasn't modular, it wasn't something you could drop into your own campaign world (or at least not easily) and "make your own." I don't think Dragonlance itself was a problem, but that the increased emphasis on this style of play and feeling that the old school approach was largely neglected...at least until more recently.



Halivar said:


> Well, we've certainly been round and round on these forums about whether or not rules and mechanics can truly enable or stymie imagination. I will say that for me, the hexcrawl, battlemat, etc, have nothing to do with it. For me, and mostly from a player's perspective, it's about how deeply the players can be immersed in their own characters.




This is a good point, but don't you think that this is immersion is facilitated more or less depending upon the specific rules used? I actually think that excessive use of a battlemat reduces character immersion, makes it easier to say "My paladin does this" rather than "I do this" simply by virtue of having a little metal dude in front of you on the table, that is your character. It takes it out of the mind and onto the battlemat. 

Actually, you go on to say something similar...



Halivar said:


> Consider that in 1E, characters can be made in 5 minutes and are mostly a blank canvas upon which imaginative stories can be drawn. Back story and character development have as much rules effect as the DM allows, and a good DM is generous in this area. Then we added NWP, and I think the whole thing just went to hell. Now you had to implement your imagination mechanically, or you couldn't do it. In 3E we had skill lists that pretty much enforced the you-are-your-class paradigm that produced cookie-cutter characters unless you sprang for some crunch bloat to justify the character in your head, or at the exorbitant cross-class skill cost. 4E let you loosen the strait-jacket a little more, but it usually cost you a feat to do it.




You seem to be advocating for a "less is more" approach for deeper immersion. Yeah or nay?



Halivar said:


> In this respect, I think the way is forward, not backward, though. There was a Forge-inspired game called "The Pool" where your character was a short paragraph on loose-leaf. Now _that's_ a game facilitative to imagination. If you can imagine it, you can play it. This philosophy is present in varying degrees in FATE, 13th Age, and Numenara. By far I think 13th Age's Background mechanic best exemplifies *how this philosophy can be integrated into D&D without disrupting the core of what D&D is.*




I added bold-face, because I would never want to play a version of D&D in which the character sheet was a short paragraph. D&D is not a purely "story game." Part of its charm is that it is a _role _and _roll _playing game. I would guess that absolutely no, or at least very few, D&D players want to do away with crunch - all of us like crunch to some extent, and if some don't they are either fooling themselves, or they'll soon move on to the Indie world.



Halivar said:


> I agree with this and would suggest that the 4 page character sheet, and the half-page monster stat-block, and the 300 pages of rules are part and parcel of this. We have been replacing imagination with rules and mechanics.




Yes, exactly. To be honest, I feel like in your post you've agreed and disagree with this very point. 

I personally prefer a middle ground - maybe a two-page character sheet? A front with stats and a back with equipment and notes. Something like that. But I can see a place for a 1-4+ page character sheet, depending upon individual styles, and I hope that Next facilitates that. Less than a page and you start veering out of what D&D is (or has historically been, at least); more than 2-3 pages is fine, but not really my cup of tea.




Manbearcat said:


> I see this surmise floated about a lot on here as if it is fundamental, self-evident, indisputable:
> 
> *Lack of structure leads to broader or richer imaginative experience and creation for many/most people.*
> 
> I can see how that might be intuitive for a lot of people, specifically for those people for which it truly is fundamental (those with that cognitive style).
> 
> However, there is growing research in the area of cognitive style analysis right now that pushes against that presupposition.  Effectively that:
> 
> *Many people approach tasks of creation by retrieving exemplars from a known group, and that instructions and task constraints can lead to  greater use of broader knowledge frameworks.*
> 
> Rules, boundaries, exemplars and task constraints serve as animating factors for the creative reservoir for a cross-section of the populace (with a certain cognitive style) just as they might serve as paralyzing factors for another cross-section of the populace (with a different cognitive style).




Interesting point here. I agree with the gist of it, that a lot depends upon individual cognitive styles. But let me be clear about one thing: I wasn't as much saying that "lack of structure leads to a broader or richer imaginative experience..," but more along the lines of this:

*Lack of specific content leads to a more richly active imaginative experience*...

Here's a (hopefully) very clear example of what I'm getting at. Two statements:

A: "The cowled warrior drew a curved blade, which shimmered with an indigo hue, silver runic forms along the blade caressed by the light of the moon."

B: "The warrior, wearing a long black and grey robe with a sash around his face, covering all but his eyes, which were dark brown or black, pulled a weapon from a scabbard - a scimitar of approximately three feet in length, with a slight to moderate curve, more like a katana than a sickle - but with a smoother sweep than a katana, like a crescent moon. The scimitar was dark blue-black in color and glowed faintly. Along the length of the blade, from about six inches from the hilt--which was curved liked a stylized and angular S--were symbols of some unknown language; the runes extended to about three inches from the tip. Each symbol was about half the width of the blade. The moon was very bright, so the runes - which were probably made of some kind of silver or white metal or stone - glowed slightly."

I may be completely wrong, but I'm guessing that for most people, A is much more richly imaginative - it inspire more vivid imagery and, most importantly of all, it allows you, the reader, to generate your own imagery. The second paragraph, aside from being poorly and awkwardly written, gives so much detail that it leaves little to the imagination. Now you could say that for some people, they prefer (or need) those guides to create an image. Maybe that is so, but my point is that in the former you have more freedom, more opportunity, to activate your own imagination, wherein the latter I'm telling you what to imagine.

In other words, the purpose of sentence A above is to inspire _your _imaginative  to activate, whereas B lets you remain passive, so your attention is  more drawn to deciphering the words and putting them together than to  allowing your imagination to fly

I tend to agree with something Ursula Le Guin said, that a writer should use as many words as are needed to tell a story - no more or less. This is individual and varies greatly by writer, and of course trends oscillate back and forth. I do think, however, that the general trend in various contexts - fantasy and science fiction literature, cinema, and RPGs, for instance - is towards more filler, more details, more words. This, I think, is at least partially reflective of our technology use - smartphones, internet, etc - all the stuff that "fills the void" of our consciousness and, I think, inhibits our own imaginative activity.

In other words, the trend has been away from self-generated imagination and towards externally manufactured simulation, yet I feel that we all want a more imaginative experience because it comes from us. Its like the difference in satisfaction between reading a good book and writing your own good book. The former is a lot of fun and can be very inspiring, but it isn't nearly as richly satisfying as the latter.

_If _you're a writer, of course! But that's just an analogy .The experience of imagination and creativity is more universal, because we're all "imaginers," all creators.


----------



## Manbearcat

Manbearcat said:


> *Lack of structure leads to broader or richer imaginative experience and creation for many/most people.*
> 
> vs
> 
> *Many people approach tasks of creation by retrieving exemplars from a known group, and that instructions and task constraints can lead to  greater use of broader knowledge frameworks.*
> 
> Rules, boundaries, exemplars and task constraints serve as animating factors for the creative reservoir for a cross-section of the populace (with a certain cognitive style) just as they might serve as paralyzing factors for another cross-section of the populace (with a different cognitive style).






Mercurius said:


> Interesting point here. I agree with the gist of it, that a lot depends upon individual cognitive styles. But let me be clear about one thing: I wasn't as much saying that "lack of structure leads to a broader or richer imaginative experience..," but more along the lines of this:
> 
> *Lack of specific content leads to a more richly active imaginative experience*...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In other words, the purpose of sentence A above is to inspire _your _imaginative  to activate, whereas B lets you remain passive, so your attention is  more drawn to deciphering the words and putting them together than to  allowing your imagination to fly
> 
> I tend to agree with something Ursula Le Guin said, that a writer should use as many words as are needed to tell a story - no more or less.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In other words, the trend has been away from self-generated imagination and towards externally manufactured simulation, yet I feel that we all want a more imaginative experience because it comes from us. Its like the difference in satisfaction between reading a good book and writing your own good book. The former is a lot of fun and can be very inspiring, but it isn't nearly as richly satisfying as the latter.




I, in part, agree with what you have written here but it is slightly orthogonal to what I was depicting above.  You are postulating about _resolution_ rather than _structure_.  You can have structure of both high resolution and low resolution.  You can have the area between boundaries be opaque or transparent.  Your exemplars can be granular or they can be deeply abstract.  

The point I was trying to convey was that there really isn't a "breaking point" with respect to structure.  For a significant cross-section of the populace, if you asked them to imagine something or create something and you gave them little to no reference point, nothing to tether their cognitive style upon, they would be paralyzed into inaction.  The inverse is also true.  If you create well-defined boundaries, others may be partially, or wholly, inhibited.  There are also cognitive styles in between.  There are also people who have versatile cognitive styles

Generally speaking, one would think an engineer's cognitive style is different than an impressionist painter's cognitive style.  However, how different was Thomas Jefferson (as an engineer) from Vincent Van Gogh from Thomas Edison from the Ming era Chinese?

I look at this board (and many others...and the market at large) and I see people who prefer high resolution setting galore...in fact, they can't play without it.  Personally, I am not a fan of high resolution settings as I prefer setting to be very low resolution and have the details emerge as a product of live play at the table.  But this is certainly unorthodox (sometimes outright heresy) with many proponents of D&D's high res settings.

Point being, by default, _structure _is not an inhibitor of creativity nor is it a facilitator.  I'm not sure that _resolution_ _with respect to exemplars_ _or the space between the boundaries_ is either.  Some people prefer Cormac McCarthy while others prefer Stephen King.


----------



## pemerton

I am a great fan of Boorman's Excalibur. But I don't think it tells us anything about the relationship between OSR RPGs, 4e and imagination.

It is virtually impossible to play a game with the feel of Excalibur using Moldvay Basic. I have complained about this frequently on these boards - the Foreword to Moldvay, with its example of the warrior dispatching the dragon tyrant with a sword gifted by a mysterious cleric, promises fantasy romance; but the only part of the mechanics not dedicated to exploration (and built-environment exploration at that, with all the stuff about doors and traps and light sources) is the Reaction Table, and even that is framed primarily in terms of encounters in dungeon between quasi-military units.

Conversely, it is rather easy to play a game with the feel of Excalibur using 4e, _provided that_ the players build the right sorts of PCs (more warlords, paladins and avengers; not too many halfing rogue worshippers of Avandra) and the GM frames the right sorts of encounters (avoid ankhegs, kruthiks and bulettes).

This is because 4e is obviously influenced by indie RPG design, or at least some strands thereof: there's not a lot of Over the Edge in 4e (contrast 13th Age, where Tweet reprises several elements of OtE for the pleasure of an audience mostly ignorant of that earlier game); but there's more than a little bit of HeroWars/Quest, and of Ron Edwards's design ideas. Perhaps the single most important part of indie design to which 4e aspires (whether or not it always achieves) is to get rid of GM-created illusions, and to makes the stakes (i) real and (ii) transparent to the players.



Mercurius said:


> The more books you published, or at least rule books, the less open-ended a game feels.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I’m not exactly sure what happened that led Wizards of the Coast to design and publish 4e in the way they did
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Wizards of the Coast had the idea, noble if perhaps misguided, to try to appeal to “Generation Xbox,” to tap into the milllions of Warcraft subscribers and offer something that they would find appealing. The result, though, is well known: 4th edition arrived and, whatever the initial sales were, was met with rather intense vitriol and quickly dwindled and led to a fracturing in the D&D community due to an Edition War that made its predecessors seem relatively tame. Whatever the merits of 4e were, the overall result was disastrous. Despite an attempt at reviving the edition with Essentials in 2010, it was clear that 4e was a failure
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For imagination to thrive, we have to make room for it – we have to give it space to grow. The more detailed a description in a book, the less the reader creates – the more they passively receive.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I do think that old school games better facilitate the imaginative experience



The reasons for WotC's commercial decisions in relation to 4e I leave for others to work out - though I think it must be obvious to anyone that Essentials was an incredibly poorly conceived set of products, even if some of the individual design elements (especially the MV monsters) are very nicely done.

But 4e is not populated by "detailed descriptions" - nearly all its books are either lists of potential player build elements, or lists of potential antagonists for the GM to introduce. The only new, large scale action resolution subsystems introduced outside of the PHB and DMG are vehicle rules in Adventurers' Vault, and Martial Practices in Martial Power 2. I think nearly eveyone ignores the latter system, and I'm guessing vehicle rules aren't used that often either.

4e's core resolution system is in fact incredibly simple (and indie): GM describes situation; player nominates method - skill and/or power - by which his/her PC will overcome challenge, based on the interaction between the mechanics of that skill/power and the fictional positioning of the PC in the GM-described situation; the GM sets a DC; the player rolls the di(c)e; if the check succeeds the player gets what s/he wanted, and if the check fails then the adverse consequence is narrated by the GM.

The main difference in resolution systems between 4e and a typical indie game is its mechanically incredibly heavy combat resolution system. (Though no heavier, I think, than some other systems like say Burning Wheel.) If you don't enjoy the detailed mechanical resolution of combat, 4e is probably not the game for you! But while admittedly my knowledge of WoW et al is 2nd hand, I don't see much similarity between 4e combat resolution and those systems. For instance, fictional positioning is key in 4e - and the whole of p 42 is built around that - but is not in a computer game.

The dissatisfaction with 4e that I read on these boards, at least, most often relates not to its excess of description but rather its lack thereof - eg what is happening when Come and Get It is used, or when an attack does damage on a miss? - and to its indie-style transparency ("player entitlement").

The sort of "imagination" that you seem to be talking about is that of a player "imagining" what the ingame situation of the PC is like. I prefer not to have that be _imagined_. I prefer to have that be _experienced_. Of course it can't be experienced immediately, but I believe a good RPG can be designed so that the player experiences the at-table situation in a way that is comparable to, though obviously not immediately identical with, the PC's experience of the ingame situation. I think 4e does as good a job of this as any version of D&D - in fact, in my personal opinion, a better job.



Mercurius said:


> “Saving Throw vs. Paralyzation, Poison, or Death Magic”



I pulled this out because I think the change in saving throws is perhaps the single biggest symbol of change between AD&D and 3E. Saving throws go from being a metagame device with fortune-in-the-middle resolution (ie roll the dice, then narrate something about how your guy shrugged off the dragon breath or sucked out the poison) to being a process-simulation model of a PC's Fort, Ref or Will. Apart from anything else, this killed fighters - and therefore Excalibur - stone-cold dead.

4e restores mechanical support for strong-willed fighters (because WIS is a secondary stat for many fighter builds, and the role of CON in hit point and surge numbers makes a high CON much less essential), and also restores FitM to many parts of the game, including its saving throw rules and also its rules for healing and for dying.

The only edition of D&D that permits scenes like that in Excalibur, where the arrival of Lancelot on the field of battle restores the fighting vigour of the troops, or that in Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, when the memory of Arwen restores Aragorn to consciousness, is 4e with its inspriational healing.

None of this post is meant to imply that 4e is an RPG in the same category as Prince Valiant. But as far as editions of D&D are concerned, it's the closest thing there is.


----------



## Zardnaar

pemerton said:


> I am a great fan of Boorman's Excalibur. But I don't think it tells us anything about the relationship between OSR RPGs, 4e and imagination.
> 
> It is virtually impossible to play a game with the feel of Excalibur using Moldvay Basic. I have complained about this frequently on these boards - the Foreword to Moldvay, with its example of the warrior dispatching the dragon tyrant with a sword gifted by a mysterious cleric, promises fantasy romance; but the only part of the mechanics not dedicated to exploration (and built-environment exploration at that, with all the stuff about doors and traps and light sources) is the Reaction Table, and even that is framed primarily in terms of encounters in dungeon between quasi-military units.
> 
> Conversely, it is rather easy to play a game with the feel of Excalibur using 4e, _provided that_ the players build the right sorts of PCs (more warlords, paladins and avengers; not too many halfing rogue worshippers of Avandra) and the GM frames the right sorts of encounters (avoid ankhegs, kruthiks and bulettes).
> 
> This is because 4e is obviously influenced by indie RPG design, or at least some strands thereof: there's not a lot of Over the Edge in 4e (contrast 13th Age, where Tweet reprises several elements of OtE for the pleasure of an audience mostly ignorant of that earlier game); but there's more than a little bit of HeroWars/Quest, and of Ron Edwards's design ideas. Perhaps the single most important part of indie design to which 4e aspires (whether or not it always achieves) is to get rid of GM-created illusions, and to makes the stakes (i) real and (ii) transparent to the players.
> 
> The reasons for WotC's commercial decisions in relation to 4e I leave for others to work out - though I think it must be obvious to anyone that Essentials was an incredibly poorly conceived set of products, even if some of the individual design elements (especially the MV monsters) are very nicely done.
> 
> But 4e is not populated by "detailed descriptions" - nearly all its books are either lists of potential player build elements, or lists of potential antagonists for the GM to introduce. The only new, large scale action resolution subsystems introduced outside of the PHB and DMG are vehicle rules in Adventurers' Vault, and Martial Practices in Martial Power 2. I think nearly eveyone ignores the latter system, and I'm guessing vehicle rules aren't used that often either.
> 
> 4e's core resolution system is in fact incredibly simple (and indie): GM describes situation; player nominates method - skill and/or power - by which his/her PC will overcome challenge, based on the interaction between the mechanics of that skill/power and the fictional positioning of the PC in the GM-described situation; the GM sets a DC; the player rolls the di(c)e; if the check succeeds the player gets what s/he wanted, and if the check fails then the adverse consequence is narrated by the GM.
> 
> The main difference in resolution systems between 4e and a typical indie game is its mechanically incredibly heavy combat resolution system. (Though no heavier, I think, than some other systems like say Burning Wheel.) If you don't enjoy the detailed mechanical resolution of combat, 4e is probably not the game for you! But while admittedly my knowledge of WoW et al is 2nd hand, I don't see much similarity between 4e combat resolution and those systems. For instance, fictional positioning is key in 4e - and the whole of p 42 is built around that - but is not in a computer game.
> 
> The dissatisfaction with 4e that I read on these boards, at least, most often relates not to its excess of description but rather its lack thereof - eg what is happening when Come and Get It is used, or when an attack does damage on a miss? - and to its indie-style transparency ("player entitlement").
> 
> The sort of "imagination" that you seem to be talking about is that of a player "imagining" what the ingame situation of the PC is like. I prefer not to have that be _imagined_. I prefer to have that be _experienced_. Of course it can't be experienced immediately, but I believe a good RPG can be designed so that the player experiences the at-table situation in a way that is comparable to, though obviously not immediately identical with, the PC's experience of the ingame situation. I think 4e does as good a job of this as any version of D&D - in fact, in my personal opinion, a better job.
> 
> I pulled this out because I think the change in saving throws is perhaps the single biggest symbol of change between AD&D and 3E. Saving throws go from being a metagame device with fortune-in-the-middle resolution (ie roll the dice, then narrate something about how your guy shrugged off the dragon breath or sucked out the poison) to being a process-simulation model of a PC's Fort, Ref or Will. Apart from anything else, this killed fighters - and therefore Excalibur - stone-cold dead.
> 
> 4e restores mechanical support for strong-willed fighters (because WIS is a secondary stat for many fighter builds, and the role of CON in hit point and surge numbers makes a high CON much less essential), and also restores FitM to many parts of the game, including its saving throw rules and also its rules for healing and for dying.
> 
> The only edition of D&D that permits scenes like that in Excalibur, where the arrival of Lancelot on the field of battle restores the fighting vigour of the troops, or that in Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, when the memory of Arwen restores Aragorn to consciousness, is 4e with its inspriational healing.
> 
> None of this post is meant to imply that 4e is an RPG in the same category as Prince Valiant. But as far as editions of D&D are concerned, it's the closest thing there is.




 So much wrong with this post. We couldn't make it past level 7 in 4E before we gave up at the sheer stupidity of the mechanics. Even in BECMI we managed better than that.


----------



## pemerton

Zardnaar said:


> So much wrong with this post. We couldn't make it past level 7 in 4E before we gave up at the sheer stupidity of the mechanics. Even in BECMI we managed better than that.





pemerton said:


> The dissatisfaction with 4e that I read on these boards, at least, most often relates not to its excess of description but rather its lack thereof - eg what is happening when Come and Get It is used, or when an attack does damage on a miss? - and to its indie-style transparency ("player entitlement").
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4e <snip> restores FitM to many parts of the game



I don't seem to have been wrong at least in the bits I've reposted.

Also, how does one play an Excalibur-like game using Moldvay Basic?


----------



## Minigiant

@_*pemerton*_ 
I more or less agree. I find many people play 4e because it is a high herioc game and/or if is very player informative, two traits with indie origins from the time that came before it.


  @_*Mercurius*_ 
That was the issue with D&D, period. The settings or the mechanics of any edition got in the way for a lot of gamers. Every edition was fixable with houserules but the amount of work varied and was discouraging after a point. Each edition has its own set of tropes, preferences, and D&Disms which favored some playstyles. Many splatbooks contain things created because the base systems don't let ideas invokes by the game don't work in the base system (such as the ranger or assassin). 

Like pemerton said, 4e was the edition best suited for Excalibur and LotR heroic play. If gave all the tools to play a certain play without relying on the DM to create a rule, making a subsystem, or judging your way. At the same time, it pushed out other styles of play.

@_*Zardnaar*_ 
I think you missed the point. The point was that the game gave access another playstyle, a more indie, heroic fantasy, player perspective style. The idea was they you roleplayed knowing almost everything your PC could do and were playing a very heroic game. It wasn't stupid, just different. Very different.

Just like for decade,  the rules for half elves, rangers, charisma, and other things were different than I would have like. When I first encounter them, I did call it "stupid" to purposely print a bad race, force an alignment on a class, or have ability scores that did almost nothing for most PCs.

But later I realized it was a different style of play.


----------



## LostSoul

I think that WotC-D&D asked players to make different choices than TSR-D&D did.  Obviously I think it's the system that did so.  

In my opinion it's the "build" that makes the difference.


----------



## Aenghus

Mercurius said:


> *Lack of specific content leads to a more richly active imaginative experience*...
> 
> Here's a (hopefully) very clear example of what I'm getting at. Two statements:
> 
> A: "The cowled warrior drew a curved blade, which shimmered with an indigo hue, silver runic forms along the blade caressed by the light of the moon."
> 
> B: "The warrior, wearing a long black and grey robe with a sash around his face, covering all but his eyes, which were dark brown or black, pulled a weapon from a scabbard - a scimitar of approximately three feet in length, with a slight to moderate curve, more like a katana than a sickle - but with a smoother sweep than a katana, like a crescent moon. The scimitar was dark blue-black in color and glowed faintly. Along the length of the blade, from about six inches from the hilt--which was curved liked a stylized and angular S--were symbols of some unknown language; the runes extended to about three inches from the tip. Each symbol was about half the width of the blade. The moon was very bright, so the runes - which were probably made of some kind of silver or white metal or stone - glowed slightly."
> 
> I may be completely wrong, but I'm guessing that for most people, A is much more richly imaginative - it inspire more vivid imagery and, most importantly of all, it allows you, the reader, to generate your own imagery. The second paragraph, aside from being poorly and awkwardly written, gives so much detail that it leaves little to the imagination. Now you could say that for some people, they prefer (or need) those guides to create an image. Maybe that is so, but my point is that in the former you have more freedom, more opportunity, to activate your own imagination, wherein the latter I'm telling you what to imagine.
> 
> In other words, the purpose of sentence A above is to inspire _your _imaginative  to activate, whereas B lets you remain passive, so your attention is  more drawn to deciphering the words and putting them together than to  allowing your imagination to fly.




The main problem I have with the above is that the lack of detail in the first example risks everyone imagining something different for the same scene, which is ok when passively reading a book, but not ok when using that information in a shared setting to decide on PC actions. For me overly minimalist descriptions can lead to lots of mutual incomprehension, cognitive dissonance and wasted or counterproductive actions on the part of players. I find it jarring when my imagined scene turns out to be totally incorrect due to the relevation of more detail that would have been immediately obvious to any witness.

For me the DM is the players window onto the gameworld, and starving the players of information, for any reason, risks robbing them of the opportunity to be effectively proactive. My primary motivation is not to just imagine the gameworld, but to take action within that gameworld, action that makes sense to the other players within that shared world.

Oh, and I think the OP shot the messenger in his original post, in that 4e made abundantly manifest that there are many differing tastes amongst D&D players, some not compatible. IMO this has been the case since the beginning of the hobby, but concealed by the lack of internet and popularity of houserules making every game individual.


----------



## pemerton

Minigiant said:


> I more or less agree.



Cool.



Minigiant said:


> Like pemerton said, 4e was the edition best suited for Excalibur and LotR heroic play. If gave all the tools to play a certain play without relying on the DM to create a rule, making a subsystem, or judging your way. At the same time, it pushed out other styles of play.



And I agree with this.



Aenghus said:


> 4e made abundantly manifest that there are many differing tastes amongst D&D players, some not compatible. IMO this has been the case since the beginning of the hobby, but concealed by the lack of internet and popularity of houserules making every game individual.



I think 4e did this particularly markedly because it is so transparent as a system.


----------



## ExploderWizard

pemerton said:


> 4e's core resolution system is in fact incredibly simple (and indie): GM describes situation; player nominates method - skill and/or power - by which his/her PC will overcome challenge, based on the interaction between the mechanics of that skill/power and the fictional positioning of the PC in the GM-described situation; the GM sets a DC; the player rolls the di(c)e; if the check succeeds the player gets what s/he wanted, and if the check fails then the adverse consequence is narrated by the GM.




This is exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for in a game of the imagination.  Lets take a look at whats happening here. The GM describes the situation; _player nominates method. 
_
Lets examine that bit for a moment. The player essentially chooses a programmed action from an available list. Its like a list of possible responses menu that the Terminator calls up. The player in this case is using an automated mechanical response and is interacting with the game mechanics instead  of the game world. 
The player selects a menu item and presses a button, presumably one that has been determined will have the greatest impact upon the present situation due to a variety of mitigating factors, all mechanical in nature. The button is pressed and the player watches the result to see if he/she will be rewarded with a success treat. 

The game world and what is happening is a distant secondary concern being overriden by the grinding mechanical gears deciding on the best choice based upon how "the engine" runs. 

This style of play is unsatisfying to me. Once the vehicle has been constructed (the character "build" is complete) the actual play of the game is largely an automated process. All that is needed to then play is a body to roll dice with some knowledge of rules interactions. The game world itself is a two-dimensional overlay "skin" draped over the mechanical engine. The biggest irritating thing about the whole process- _nothing of consequence takes place without a mechanical process. The byproduct of such play is a group interacting with the resolution mechanics almost exclusively. 

_Why bother listening to descriptions of world elements if you can't really interact with them? Does it really matter about the details if, at the end of everything, all will come down to "make skill check X"? Players pick up on that quickly and cut to the chase with the ubiquitous "what do I need to roll'? 

The end result of such a system is an automated process with little soul and no heart. The DM doesn't really need to adjudicate because the rules cover so much. The players don't need to interact with much because the resolution mechanics handle everything. The game practically runs and plays itself. I have better things to with my time than participate in games that don't really need me to function. 

The best analogy the OP dicussed that relates to this issue is the hand drawn vs computer drawn art. Old school games are like the hand drawn art. They have a warmth created by the increased required human element that is simply missing in the automated programmed response systems. 

All of this is of course, my subjective opinion based upon extensive personal experience. YMMV and all that.


----------



## Mercurius

Manbearcat said:


> I, in part, agree with what you have written here but it is slightly orthogonal to what I was depicting above.  You are postulating about _resolution_ rather than _structure_.  You can have structure of both high resolution and low resolution.  You can have the area between boundaries be opaque or transparent.  Your exemplars can be granular or they can be deeply abstract.
> 
> The point I was trying to convey was that there really isn't a "breaking point" with respect to structure.  For a significant cross-section of the populace, if you asked them to imagine something or create something and you gave them little to no reference point, nothing to tether their cognitive style upon, they would be paralyzed into inaction.  The inverse is also true.  If you create well-defined boundaries, others may be partially, or wholly, inhibited.  There are also cognitive styles in between.  There are also people who have versatile cognitive styles
> 
> Generally speaking, one would think an engineer's cognitive style is different than an impressionist painter's cognitive style.  However, how different was Thomas Jefferson (as an engineer) from Vincent Van Gogh from Thomas Edison from the Ming era Chinese?
> 
> I look at this board (and many others...and the market at large) and I see people who prefer high resolution setting galore...in fact, they can't play without it.  Personally, I am not a fan of high resolution settings as I prefer setting to be very low resolution and have the details emerge as a product of live play at the table.  But this is certainly unorthodox (sometimes outright heresy) with many proponents of D&D's high res settings.
> 
> Point being, by default, _structure _is not an inhibitor of creativity nor is it a facilitator.  I'm not sure that _resolution_ _with respect to exemplars_ _or the space between the boundaries_ is either.  Some people prefer Cormac McCarthy while others prefer Stephen King.




Manbearcat, I'm a bit confused by your word usage - cognitive styles, resolution, structure, granularity, boundaries, etc. Are you using them within a specific system of thinking or in an individualistic way? My main familiarity with cognitive styles is from psychology and education (I'm involved in both fields professionally). A cognitive style could be related to styles of learning, multiple intelligences, personality types, or something like Kirton's inventory (adaptive vs. innovative).

I generally agree with what you're saying, but am not willing to concede the idea that the "space between the boundaries" doesn't impact imagination. But it might not be a matter of how much or how little, but _to what degree.

_Your King and McCarthy analogy is interesting but, I think, a bit obfuscating because they're not quite apples vs. oranges, unless we're willing to to say that all art, all literature, music, etc is "equal" - and there's no degrees of quality or depth. I'm willing to say that we can't judge Miley Cyrus by the same criteria that we judge Miles Davis because they create(d) completely different types of music, but at the same I'm not willing to say that "some prefer Miley and some Miles" and just leave it at that. Miles Davis was a far _superior _musician than Miley Cyrus is, but more people "prefer" (your word) Miley Cyrus. Is this just a matter of cognitive style or is there something else at work? Dare we delve beyond the realm of "its all subjective" and look at words like "depth" and "quality"?

With regards to preference and quality, I think the old phrase "correlation does not imply causation" applies. The fact that more people love Harry Potter than Earthsea doesn't mean that they are equal artistic creations. More people love McDonald's hamburgers than Kobe beef, or Hershey's chocolate bar to Michel Gluizel Grand Lait.

(I realize you might think I'm going orthogonal again, but I see it as more _isomorphic _


----------



## Umbran

KaiiLurker said:


> I don't entirely subscribe to Mercurious ideas, but I don't think this is a waste, or just another talky rant on defense of the OSR, what I read spoke to me of a very different thing, mostly that it doesn't matter if a game is old school or new school or non-school, as long as it sparks your imagination. For many folks less rules or more mysterious rules are more in therms of imagination (and up to a point I agree), in that way OSR resonates better with them.




And if he had said that, I'd agree.  But the quote is there.  It becomes, "It doesn't matter if it is old or new, as long as it sparks imaginative play.  But this old stuff does it better!"  If the real point is what you say, then he sullied it with that judgement.



> However up to that I agree, some people can use their imaginations better when they are fully unbound or only bound by little. ("I want to be the best musician in the world!!" "no rule say you can't, go ahead"), but not all of us are like that and that doesn't mean we are less creative (I would argue that in fact it could be the opposite, but have no actual evidence I can only suggest it)




There's no need to try to measure it as more or less.  It isn't a competition.

But, I like to think of it in terms of poetry.  Specifically, sonnets. Shakespeare wrote what is recognized as some of the best poetry in the English language in a highly structured form.   If "loose rules" were the end-all, be-all of creativity, then free verse would have the best poetry in the world, hands down.  But, we still wind up with haiku and sonnets in the mix, with a lot of other forms, some free, some not.

Let the makers of games give us many different forms, and we can each find what suits us best.  No need to try to determine which is objectively best.


----------



## Henry

What D&D has lost is me being 17 years old, having no negative consequences to spending all day playing at my friend's backyard poolhouse for three months of summertime, us dreaming up new dungeons, exploring forgotten ruins, and figuring out new homebrew systems of customizing PCs because there was no such thing.

Sigh.


----------



## Mercurius

Umbran said:


> And if he had said that, I'd agree.  But the quote is there.  It becomes, "It doesn't matter if it is old or new, as long as it sparks imaginative play.  But this old stuff does it better!"  If the real point is what you say, then he sullied it with that judgement.




Umbran, as I wrote before, you're taking a single quote ("tree") and missing the total argument ("forest"), and then repeating that same mistake. No offense, but that's what politicians do when they're trying to smeer their opponents - they take quotes out of context to make them look bad. 

Here's a (hopefully humorous) example. Let's saying you hear me say the following:

_Black people are inherently better at basketball.

_You might think, "he's a racist!" But what if that sentence was part of a larger sentence?

_One might think that *black people are inherently better at basketball* because of the high percentage of African Americans playing in the NBA, which is much higher than the population; but that would be an over-simplification that we must better understand through looking at cultural and contextual factors._

I feel that you did something similar with my post, teasing out one sentence you disagreed with and missing the rest of it that framed it in a way that the meaning of the quote you pointed out wasn't as sharply defined or stated as you implied.

For instance, you seemingly missed the last part where I said it wasn't about what was old school or new school, but imagination itself.



Umbran said:


> There's no need to try to measure it as more or less.  It isn't a competition.
> 
> But, I like to think of it in terms of poetry.  Specifically, sonnets. Shakespeare wrote what is recognized as some of the best poetry in the English language in a highly structured form.   If "loose rules" were the end-all, be-all of creativity, then free verse would have the best poetry in the world, hands down.  But, we still wind up with haiku and sonnets in the mix, with a lot of other forms, some free, some not.
> 
> Let the makers of games give us many different forms, and we can each find what suits us best.  No need to try to determine which is objectively best.




Yeah, I agree with you - but that's not the point of my OP or his thread, to "determine which is objectively best." What I was doing was exploring different angles around, not trying to argue for which is best. As I said in the OP, I wasn't (and am not) trying to write a Definitive Statement about imagination, old and new school, but paint impressionistic pictures and explore the relationship between imagination and rules, etc. 

That said, I _do _think too many rules can obfuscate the flow of imagination and that there "better" and "worse" ways to facilitate imaginative flow. I'm not saying that there's a clear or definitive answer, but that its worth exploring.


----------



## Sunseeker

Mercurius said:


> Ha ha, thanks for caring. I like to write, so its OK if no one responds - I actually almost didn't post it as it started as a response to a different thread, then got out of hand. I like to work out ideas while writing, so the main thing is the process itself.
> 
> Yeah, I can agree with that and think it is why OSR folks don't like "railroady" games.




I'm actually not a OSR person and I often run more story-centric games, ones I'm sure people would consider pretty railroady.  I was speaking mostly in terms of the rules themselves.  The individual games are the domain of the DM, the companies can't do much about how railroady or not railroady they are, but the rules, that's where the company has power, and that's where the majority of the game-based choice needs to lay.  Take everyone's favorite but-shall-not-be-named feature of the new edition.  Instead of "must", use "may", and I feel it becomes both more flexible and less intrusive.


----------



## pemerton

ExploderWizard said:


> The player essentially chooses a programmed action from an available list.



That's not a correct account of 4e play, either as I described it or as (at least) I experience it.

The player has an avialable list of _resources_ - but speaking at this level of generality, that is not interestingly different from an AD&D player, who also has an available list of resources: stats, equipment, perhaps spells, perhaps thief abilities, etc.



ExploderWizard said:


> Once the vehicle has been constructed (the character "build" is complete) the actual play of the game is largely an automated process.



This is not correct either. Even something as simple as positioing in combat is not automated. But typical 4e play involves more decision-making than simply positioning in combat. 



ExploderWizard said:


> The game world itself is a two-dimensional overlay "skin" draped over the mechanical engine.



This may not be the thread to revisit the issue of fictional positioning in 4e, but again what you say is not correct. For instance, how does one know what to say to an NPC in order to be entitled to make a Diplomacy check to influence them? How does one know whether or not an object can be set alight with a fireball spell? This is determined by fictional positioning.



ExploderWizard said:


> The biggest irritating thing about the whole process- _nothing of consequence takes place without a mechanical process. _



_This is "say yes or roll the dice". It's pretty central to a core style of "indie" play. The alternative to mechanical processes is fiat. Indie play is generally hostile to GM fiat; and sceptical of player fiat when matters of consequence are at stake._


----------



## ExploderWizard

pemerton said:


> That's not a correct account of 4e play, either as I described it or as (at least) I experience it.
> 
> The player has an avialable list of _resources_ - but speaking at this level of generality, that is not interestingly different from an AD&D player, who also has an available list of resources: stats, equipment, perhaps spells, perhaps thief abilities, etc.




In your last 4E session how many player decisions that had a significant impact on the outcome of play didn't involve the use of a power, feat, skill, etc?


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> Umbran, as I wrote before, you're taking a single quote ("tree") and missing the total argument ("forest"), and then repeating that same mistake. No offense, but that's what politicians do when they're trying to smeer their opponents - they take quotes out of context to make them look bad.



 [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] is not misrepresenting your assertion, which was nothing like the example you gave.

In the OP you didn't simply use the following words in some larger context. You _asserted_ them:



Mercurius said:


> I do think that old school games better facilitate the imaginative experience




Are you now repudiating that assertion? If not, then I think Umbran is entitled to express his disagreement with it.

For what it's worth, I disagree also (though maybe from a perspective that differs from Umbran's). Perhaps you have had your most imaginative RPGing in old school games. But I certainly haven't.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> I am a great fan of Boorman's Excalibur. But I don't think it tells us anything about the relationship between OSR RPGs, 4e and imagination.
> 
> It is virtually impossible to play a game with the feel of Excalibur using Moldvay Basic....




This wasn't my intention for talking about _Excalibur _at all, or what edition is best for simulation the feel of it. Rather I was looking at the quotes around the "secret that was lost," which in the context of RPGs is the experience of imagination - and how to best inspire and evoke that, not the feel of the movie itself. 



pemerton said:


> The reasons for WotC's commercial decisions in relation to 4e I leave for others to work out - though I think it must be obvious to anyone that Essentials was an incredibly poorly conceived set of products, even if some of the individual design elements (especially the MV monsters) are very nicely done.




I very much agree.



pemerton said:


> But 4e is not populated by "detailed descriptions" - nearly all its books are either lists of potential player build elements, or lists of potential antagonists for the GM to introduce. The only new, large scale action resolution subsystems introduced outside of the PHB and DMG are vehicle rules in Adventurers' Vault, and Martial Practices in Martial Power 2. I think nearly eveyone ignores the latter system, and I'm guessing vehicle rules aren't used that often either.




Again, you're taking what I wrote too concretely, too literally. I'm using "detailed descriptions" as an isomorphic analogy - not as a one-to-one comparison. I am saying that the density of rules systems in 3e and 4e is _similar to _they detailed descriptions in more recent fiction, that it "fills the space" in a similar way.



pemerton said:


> 4e's core resolution system is in fact incredibly simple (and indie): GM describes situation; player nominates method - skill and/or power - by which his/her PC will overcome challenge, based on the interaction between the mechanics of that skill/power and the fictional positioning of the PC in the GM-described situation; the GM sets a DC; the player rolls the di(c)e; if the check succeeds the player gets what s/he wanted, and if the check fails then the adverse consequence is narrated by the GM.




Yes, but that's pretty similar to almost any edition of D&D, any RPG really. The question is, _how _is this process done, and that's where the specific rules come in. 

But the AEDU system is a good case in point, because it provides pre-made packets for the player to use without having to envision their own maneuver within the mindspace of the world. The focus is on the battlemat and the player looks at their list of powers and decides which one to use. It is a further abstraction away from the Theater of Mind in which the player envisions themselves as the character in the situation and then acts directly, which must then be translated into rules. I feel that 4e, by and large, has it the other way around - players chose which power to use, which then was translated into imagination. The problem, though, is that it was very easy to stay within the world of abstract rules and not enter "imaginative immersion." 

I'm not saying that it isn't possible to have a richly imaginative experience with 4e, but that it is more difficult than it could be because of the way that the rules guide the experience of imagination. As Marshall McLuhan said, _the medium is the message. _The form of the rules largely defines, or at least guides, the experience of the game. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people, on forums or in real life, talk about how 4e is like playing two games, the "old version" of D&D when you're in the Theater of Mind, and then combat, in which you switch to a battlemat game of tactics and 4e essentially becomes an augmented war game. I know that some have had success incorporating Theater of Mind into combat, but by and large the medium of 4e combat has made it very difficult for many/most to do so.



pemerton said:


> The main difference in resolution systems between 4e and a typical indie game is its mechanically incredibly heavy combat resolution system. (Though no heavier, I think, than some other systems like say Burning Wheel.) If you don't enjoy the detailed mechanical resolution of combat, 4e is probably not the game for you! But while admittedly my knowledge of WoW et al is 2nd hand, I don't see much similarity between 4e combat resolution and those systems. For instance, fictional positioning is key in 4e - and the whole of p 42 is built around that - but is not in a computer game.




I did enjoy it for awhile but, as I said above, I found that I missed the "old school" approach of Theater of Mind.

People often cite page 42 as if it somehow negates all of the other pages of 4e in which a very different paradigm is fostered. 

The problem detractors of 4e often have with the game is that they (and I, to a large extent) feel that it has it backwards, it has put the proverbial cart before the horse. The "cart" is the AEDU power system, which is a lot of fun for what it is, but is a very specific and tightly focused approach, and one that makes other approaches and styles difficult. The "horse" is the core resolution system coupled with page 42.

What I'm hoping to see with Next is that they put the cart back behind the horse, and then you can pick and choose which cart to attach to your horse. So we have:

_Horse - _simplified d20 core mechanic, page 42-esque free style play, classic D&D tropes and feel
_Cart(s) - _modular options and rules sub-systems for different game styles (e.g. skills, powers, advanced combat, etc), variant D&D tropes and feel



pemerton said:


> The dissatisfaction with 4e that I read on these boards, at least, most often relates not to its excess of description but rather its lack thereof - eg what is happening when Come and Get It is used, or when an attack does damage on a miss? - and to its indie-style transparency ("player entitlement").
> 
> The sort of "imagination" that you seem to be talking about is that of a player "imagining" what the ingame situation of the PC is like. I prefer not to have that be _imagined_. I prefer to have that be _experienced_. Of course it can't be experienced immediately, but I believe a good RPG can be designed so that the player experiences the at-table situation in a way that is comparable to, though obviously not immediately identical with, the PC's experience of the ingame situation. I think 4e does as good a job of this as any version of D&D - in fact, in my personal opinion, a better job.




I'm not sure what you mean by "experienced" or how you differentiate it form "imagined." I see imagination as a form of experience.



pemerton said:


> I pulled this out because I think the change in saving throws is perhaps the single biggest symbol of change between AD&D and 3E. Saving throws go from being a metagame device with fortune-in-the-middle resolution (ie roll the dice, then narrate something about how your guy shrugged off the dragon breath or sucked out the poison) to being a process-simulation model of a PC's Fort, Ref or Will. Apart from anything else, this killed fighters - and therefore Excalibur - stone-cold dead.




I'm not following you. Can you explicate this further?



pemerton said:


> 4e restores mechanical support for strong-willed fighters (because WIS is a secondary stat for many fighter builds, and the role of CON in hit point and surge numbers makes a high CON much less essential), and also restores FitM to many parts of the game, including its saving throw rules and also its rules for healing and for dying.
> 
> The only edition of D&D that permits scenes like that in Excalibur, where the arrival of Lancelot on the field of battle restores the fighting vigour of the troops, or that in Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, when the memory of Arwen restores Aragorn to consciousness, is 4e with its inspriational healing.
> 
> None of this post is meant to imply that 4e is an RPG in the same category as Prince Valiant. But as far as editions of D&D are concerned, it's the closest thing there is.




I actually really liked healing surges and felt that they "fixed" hit points because they clarifed that they are not "body points" but are more of an abstraction that combines stamina and the ability to avoid real (bodily) damage. I hope that 5e provides for them as a variant rule; if not, I might slot it in.


----------



## pemerton

ExploderWizard said:


> In your last 4E session how many player decisions that had a significant impact on the outcome of play didn't involve the use of a power, feat, skill, etc?



Not very many. But that is relevant to your complaint about "nothing of consequence without mechanical resolution". Which I agreed with (though for me it's not a complaint).

But it doesn't have any bearing on your claim that "players choose programmed actions from available lists". Skills, feats, powers etc are _resources_ - like equipment in AD&D. They are not actions. They are things that are used to perform actions.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> @_*Umbran*_  is not misrepresenting your assertion, which was nothing like the example you gave.
> 
> In the OP you didn't simply use the following words in some larger context. You _asserted_ them:
> 
> Are you now repudiating that assertion? If not, then I think Umbran is entitled to express his disagreement with it.
> 
> For what it's worth, I disagree also (though maybe from a perspective that differs from Umbran's). Perhaps you have had your most imaginative RPGing in old school games. But I certainly haven't.




I won't repudiate that statement because I think its _generally _true. Absolutely true? Of course not. 

Umbran's definitely entitled to express his disagreement, but he was/is - as you are now - taking one quote out of context - and I'm entitled to say that! There was a lot more to the OP than what he, and you, quoted. Its a tree/forest thing. That was the point of the basketball analogy.

That said, I will say that it would be a huge over-simplication  to simply say "old school D&D better facilitates imagination" and then stop there. There is much more subtlety at work, and numerous factors which have to be taken into account. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that 4e-style D&D (or any specific style) should be done away, but that as I said in the previous reply, 4e got the cart before the horse, and the cart of 4e is rather specific - _too _specific for a large number (most, I think) D&D players. Maybe some - like yourself - find it more conducive to evoking imagination. I won't disagree with what you say that you yourself experience. But I'm talking about generalities, which I'm basing off my own personal experience and what I've heard from others. 

Another way to put it is that I think the problem with 4e is that it is too flavor-specific for a wide number of D&D players. Even 3e was more open ended, not quite as specific in style. But 4e was like an ice cream shop that only carries Rum Raisin. If you love Rum Raisin, you're in luck; but the problem is, _most _people don't love Rum Raisin, and for those such as myself who _like _it, it has a shelf-date. In other words, I don't always want to have Rum Raisin every time I eat ice cream. I want different flavors, I want options.

This, again, brings me back to what I feel like is the "optimal" approach for 5e to take: a core simple "horse" with modular "cart" options. It remains to be seen whether they can really pull it off, but it seems the only way to please as many people as possible.


----------



## Manbearcat

Mercurius said:


> Manbearcat, I'm a bit confused by your word usage - cognitive styles, resolution, structure, granularity, boundaries, etc. Are you using them within a specific system of thinking or in an individualistic way? My main familiarity with cognitive styles is from psychology and education (I'm involved in both fields professionally). A cognitive style could be related to styles of learning, multiple intelligences, personality types, or something like Kirton's inventory (adaptive vs. innovative).




I was using cognitive styles and strategy as the orthodox usage within the field.  I'm specifically using it with respect to the burgeoning research on creativity and papers I have read.  

As far as structure, granularity, and boundaries, I'm using them within the general orthodox in their sentences.

Resolution has many meanings.  My usage here is "the quality and quantity of information conveyed within a defined parcel/space."

With respect to the latter portion of your rejoinder, I will just say that by no means to I believe that we inhabit a subjective world whereby the quality of Miles Davis versus the quality of Miley Cyrus is unknowable , specifically when parameters of judgement are well-defined and you can collate legitimate data (which you can with music, food, rules systems, et al).

However, I wasn't so much speaking to general preferences (this kobe hambuger is tastier than this ground beef hamburger) as I was focusing on how creativity bears itself out with respect to overarching structure, hard boundaries, and a continuum of resolution in the space between the boundaries.  This is why I brought in Cormac McCarthy versus Stephen King.  They diverge dramatically from one another with respect to the information overtly conveyed to the reader.  Stephen King saturates you.  Cormac McCarthy gives you little in the extreme (willfully obviously).  However, there is no default measurables with respect to the output of creativity and imagination by the readership by proxy of the authorial inputs.  You don't get "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" is conducive to a broad and rich imaginative experience while "The Shining" and "The Dark Tower" lead to a more narrow and less provacative imaginetive experience.  

I think that can be mapped to RPG theory easily enough.  Regarding imagination, some thrive with less, or opaque, ruleset structure and higher resolution settings while, conversely, others thrive with tighter, more overt, ruleset structure, lower resolution setting but thematic exemplars to anchor their imagination to.

In total, I'm certainly not disputing that quality of (anything) can be discerned using precise metrics.  I'm merely disputing the premise (at least what I think it is) that some systems (and their component parts; eg overt ovarching structure, information resolution, codified boundaries)universally provoke imagination and creativity better than others.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4e's core resolution system is in fact incredibly simple (and indie): GM describes situation; player nominates method - skill and/or power - by which his/her PC will overcome challenge, based on the interaction between the mechanics of that skill/power and the fictional positioning of the PC in the GM-described situation; the GM sets a DC; the player rolls the di(c)e; if the check succeeds the player gets what s/he wanted, and if the check fails then the adverse consequence is narrated by the GM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's pretty similar to almost any edition of D&D, any RPG really.
Click to expand...


I don't think so. In classic D&D, and in D&Dnext as currently written, the player cannot nominate the resource whereby a challenge will be tackled, unless either (i) the challenge is a very straight forward combat one, and the player is nominating an attack, or (ii) the resource the player is deploying is a spell. Otherwise the player has to specify an action that his/her PC might like to attempt, and wait for the GM to nominate a relevant resource (eg a stat check in Next, or a d% roll in classic D&D). I don't know what the 3E norms are in this respect.

Also, in versions of D&D other than 4e the only case in which success on the check results in the player achieving his/her declared goal is combat - a hit delivers damage. But otherwise non-4e versions of D&D use task resolution, not conflict resolution.

And yet furthermore, in most versions of D&D (including I think 3E, and Next at least as written), there is an expectation that a player can succeed at a check and yet fail overall due to secret fictional positioning known only to the GM (see the long discussion of the king and the chamberlain on the 1000+ post "Fighters vs Casters" thread). Whereas this is not a signficant feature of 4e.

The three points above were all elements of my characterisation of 4e resolution which do not differentiate it from the typical indie RPG but do differentiate it from many other RPGs, including various versions of Next.

I think these features of 4e are pretty central to the play experience it delivers.



Mercurius said:


> the AEDU system is a good case in point, because it provides pre-made packets for the player to use without having to envision their own maneuver within the mindspace of the world.



This tells me that 4e doesn't, in general, care about the details of combat manoeuvres as inputs into resolution (other than positioning, about which it cares a great deal). Which is true - much like AD&D doesn't care about the details of how one defends against dragon breath in resolving a saving throw. Which is to say, these are fortune-in-the-middle mechanics.



Mercurius said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the change in saving throws is perhaps the single biggest symbol of change between AD&D and 3E. Saving throws go from being a metagame device with fortune-in-the-middle resolution (ie roll the dice, then narrate something about how your guy shrugged off the dragon breath or sucked out the poison) to being a process-simulation model of a PC's Fort, Ref or Will. Apart from anything else, this killed fighters - and therefore Excalibur - stone-cold dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not following you. Can you explicate this further?
Click to expand...


While saving throws were fortune-in-the-middle, we could think of fighters as tough, and resilient, in the Conan or Aragorn model, and therefore give them appropriately robust saving throw numbers, without worrying, at the point of design, what that toughness correlates to in the fiction. Indeed, in his DMG Gygax offers as an example of a successful save vs dragon breath the possibility that the PC ducked into a narrow (and hitherto unnarated) crevice in the rock. That is, Gygax endorsed (i) Schroedinger's crevices, and (ii) that fighters are more likely to encounter and get the benefit of them than magic-users.

Once you decide to frame everything in process simulation terms - and with the exception of the core hp and action economy mechanics 3E tends strongly in this direction - then fortune-in-the-middle abilities are ruled out. And without those sorts of abilities, fighters start to look pretty weak, because their abilities will be modelledon real-world human physiological and psychological processes, which are not adequate to the task of fighting dragons or resisting mental domination by vampires.

That was part of my point: because without viable fighters who can stand up against dragon breath and vampires, Arthurian romance-style RPGing is impossible.

But I was also alluding to a broader point: that process simulation mechanics close of a range of narrative possibilities that we can very easily imagine, and that conversely FitM can open such possibilities up.



Mercurius said:


> The problem, though, is that it was very easy to stay within the world of abstract rules and not enter "imaginative immersion."
> 
> I'm not saying that it isn't possible to have a richly imaginative experience with 4e, but that it is more difficult than it could be because of the way that the rules guide the experience of imagination. As Marshall McLuhan said, _the medium is the message. _The form of the rules largely defines, or at least guides, the experience of the game.



I'm sure this is true. If the imaginative experience that people want in RPG combat is imagining the difference between a thrust and a slash, 4e will not deliver that. (Mind you, I'm not sure that classic D&D will either.)

4e shifts the focus elsewhere - to who the PC is, and how s/he is going to engage this situation (alone or in concert; boldly or cautiously; etc).

The rules don't _force_ this focus. That's why I said upthread that the players have to build certain sorts of PCs, and the GM frame certain sorts of encounters.



Mercurius said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "experienced" or how you differentiate it form "imagined." I see imagination as a form of experience.



It is. But not all experience is imagination.

When a character is low on hit points, and is in danger of being killed, and the players are wondering whether the player of the cleric can pull of a sequence of moves that will both (i) defeat the monsters, and (ii) save the dying PC, that is not _imagining_ fear, and tension, and hope, and the possibility of leadership. That is _experiencing_ those things. There is _real_ fear that the PC might die, real tension arising from the uncertainty of the situation, real hope in the capabilities of the cleric player, and the real possibility of that player displaying leadership, turning the situation around and bringing his/her friends back into the action.

A game needs a fairly tight design to produce these experiences. If outcomes are foregone, there will be no tension. If all the big deals depend on GM fiat, there is no hope and expecation in relation to one's fellow players. (If the GM lies, there might be hope and expetation based on the _illusion_ of possibility. But an illusion of possibility is not the same thing as actual possibility. Illusions are also prone to being dispelled.)

Playing Call of Cthulhu - which is the only really satisfying GM-driven RPG I'm familiar with - hope, and expectation, are all oriented towards the GM. And the situation itself is simply imagined. It is like being in the theatre.

At least in my experience, 4e does not play like that.



Mercurius said:


> I was looking at the quotes around the "secret that was lost," which in the context of RPGs is the experience of imagination - and how to best inspire and evoke that, not the feel of the movie itself.



In my view the problem with this is that Arthurian romance, and related literature like Tolkien, is essentially reactionary. But while this sort of reactionary fantasy can itself have great aesthetic appeal, I'm not sure it makes for a good theory of aesthetics.

In other words, just because a certain aesthetic experience is (or has become) unsatisfactory, I think we should be very cautious of inferring that this is because something has been lost.

The change may well have another cause, whether some new external factor or some change in us. Or perhaps both.

And flipping it around, from aesthetic dissatisfaction to aesthetic satisfaction - part of the point of my post was to make a case that if you want an aesthetic experience in RPGing that captures the feel of reactionary fantasy of the Excalibur sort, it may be that more avant garde techniques are what is required.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> 4e is rather specific - _too _specific for a large number (most, I think) D&D players.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Another way to put it is that I think the problem with 4e is that it is too flavor-specific for a wide number of D&D players.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This, again, brings me back to what I feel like is the "optimal" approach for 5e to take: a core simple "horse" with modular "cart" options. It remains to be seen whether they can really pull it off, but it seems the only way to please as many people as possible.



My own view is that classic D&D is also quite specific. And 3E/PF also. Something can be more popular without also being less specific. It's just that more people happen to like that other specific thing.

This has come up on the religion thread that's ongoing at the moment. Many posters, when they talk about "imagining religion in D&D play", are looking for details about rites, and holy days, and the like. For me that is quite secondary. When I'm playing a religious PC, I don't particularly care what his/her rites are - I'll make them up as we go along if I need them. What I want is mechanics + situation that will have me praying to my god, in character, in order to resolve some ingame crisis, and _feeling the urgent longing of prayer conjoined with the unshakeable hope of faith_. If a system can't give me that - for instance, because it's framing and resolution mechanics don't differentiate between a devotee seeking help from a god and a rogue hoping to get lucky while playing at dice - then it is not going to give me the sort of immersive experience I am looking for, now matter how much detail it provides about the wording of my prayers or the shape and colour of my dice.

Anyway, I'm yet to see much evidence that D&Dnext can be all things to all people. At this stage I haven't even seen much about how they intend to do that - the closest they've come, perhaps, is the interaction system. Plus a few rather tepid steps with things like damage on a miss.


----------



## Minigiant

Aenghus said:


> Oh, and I think the OP shot the messenger in his original post, in that 4e made abundantly manifest that there are many differing tastes amongst D&D players, some not compatible. IMO this has been the case since the beginning of the hobby, but concealed by the lack of internet and popularity of houserules making every game individual.





Two of the biggest things that happened to D&D was at the late 90s early aughts: Increased access to the internet and Advancement in Video Gaming. It opened everyone's eyes of new ways to play.


---

Every edition had their own restriction of imagination due to their mechanics.

In OD&D, my favorite character, a half elf ranger who was sneaky and casts mage spells, didn't exist. Rangers came in a magazine article which put spell casting high level and had no skills in the class. Half elves didn't exist, forcing me to ask the d&d for a house rule for the race. Still wasn't sneaky. In AD&D, many of the same issues. Oddly enough this was my starting point for D&D and the DM made no concessions for the "noob" in creation or roleplay. 3e had similar issue with complexity and useleessness but with creation restriction and DM reliance lowered. 4e was the first to make the half elf ranger/mage not dead weight or require 10 levels but it forced archetypes very hard. 

I played the same PC is multiple editions and the experience and playstyle drastically changed. This altered the way I thought about my character, how others saw him, and how he was imagined. Not bad, but different.


----------



## The Human Target

ExploderWizard said:


> This is exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for in a game of the imagination.  Lets take a look at whats happening here. The GM describes the situation; _player nominates method.
> _
> Lets examine that bit for a moment. The player essentially chooses a programmed action from an available list. Its like a list of possible responses menu that the Terminator calls up. The player in this case is using an automated mechanical response and is interacting with the game mechanics instead  of the game world.
> The player selects a menu item and presses a button, presumably one that has been determined will have the greatest impact upon the present situation due to a variety of mitigating factors, all mechanical in nature. The button is pressed and the player watches the result to see if he/she will be rewarded with a success treat.
> 
> The game world and what is happening is a distant secondary concern being overriden by the grinding mechanical gears deciding on the best choice based upon how "the engine" runs.
> 
> This style of play is unsatisfying to me. Once the vehicle has been constructed (the character "build" is complete) the actual play of the game is largely an automated process. All that is needed to then play is a body to roll dice with some knowledge of rules interactions. The game world itself is a two-dimensional overlay "skin" draped over the mechanical engine. The biggest irritating thing about the whole process- _nothing of consequence takes place without a mechanical process. The byproduct of such play is a group interacting with the resolution mechanics almost exclusively.
> 
> _Why bother listening to descriptions of world elements if you can't really interact with them? Does it really matter about the details if, at the end of everything, all will come down to "make skill check X"? Players pick up on that quickly and cut to the chase with the ubiquitous "what do I need to roll'?
> 
> The end result of such a system is an automated process with little soul and no heart. The DM doesn't really need to adjudicate because the rules cover so much. The players don't need to interact with much because the resolution mechanics handle everything. The game practically runs and plays itself. I have better things to with my time than participate in games that don't really need me to function.
> 
> The best analogy the OP dicussed that relates to this issue is the hand drawn vs computer drawn art. Old school games are like the hand drawn art. They have a warmth created by the increased required human element that is simply missing in the automated programmed response systems.
> 
> All of this is of course, my subjective opinion based upon extensive personal experience. YMMV and all that.



I don't see how you came to these conclusions.

This is the kind of old school rhetoric that just baffles me.


----------



## Balesir

Mercurius said:


> A: "The cowled warrior drew a curved blade, which shimmered with an indigo hue, silver runic forms along the blade caressed by the light of the moon."
> 
> B: "The warrior, wearing a long black and grey robe with a sash around his face, covering all but his eyes, which were dark brown or black, pulled a weapon from a scabbard - a scimitar of approximately three feet in length, with a slight to moderate curve, more like a katana than a sickle - but with a smoother sweep than a katana, like a crescent moon. The scimitar was dark blue-black in color and glowed faintly. Along the length of the blade, from about six inches from the hilt--which was curved liked a stylized and angular S--were symbols of some unknown language; the runes extended to about three inches from the tip. Each symbol was about half the width of the blade. The moon was very bright, so the runes - which were probably made of some kind of silver or white metal or stone - glowed slightly."





Aenghus said:


> The main problem I have with the above is that the lack of detail in the first example risks everyone imagining something different for the same scene, which is ok when passively reading a book, but not ok when using that information in a shared setting to decide on PC actions. For me overly minimalist descriptions can lead to lots of mutual incomprehension, cognitive dissonance and wasted or counterproductive actions on the part of players. I find it jarring when my imagined scene turns out to be totally incorrect due to the relevation of more detail that would have been immediately obvious to any witness.



I very much agree with    [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION], here. With A, I can see either the player surprised (shocked, even) when the "cowled warrior" throws the dagger into his back as he runs out the door, or the GM wondering wht the PC doesn't flee when the player sees that as suicidal with a throwing-dagger armed enemy behind. B leaves no such room for a crucially mismatched pair of pictures to emerge.



Halivar said:


> There was a Forge-inspired game called "The Pool" where your character was a short paragraph on loose-leaf. Now _that's_ a game facilitative to imagination. If you can imagine it, you can play it. This philosophy is present in varying degrees in FATE, 13th Age, and Numenara. By far I think 13th Age's Background mechanic best exemplifies how this philosophy can be integrated into D&D without disrupting the core of what D&D is.



The Pool is interesting; it has a simple and naturalistic character creation method, but the "paragraph" is used to create resources ("traits") that the player elects when to use. It has very much fortune-in-the-middle resolution of conflicts rather than actions and the player has the option of determining outcome ("monologue of victory") on a win. Those features are what allow the light touch on character definition to work, I think.



ExploderWizard said:


> Once the vehicle has been constructed (the character "build" is complete) the actual play of the game is largely an automated process. All that is needed to then play is a body to roll dice with some knowledge of rules interactions. The game world itself is a two-dimensional overlay "skin" draped over the mechanical engine. The biggest irritating thing about the whole process- _nothing of consequence takes place without a mechanical process. The byproduct of such play is a group interacting with the resolution mechanics almost exclusively._



This depends how you define "mechanical process". I would say this:

a) Player envisions what they want the character to do.

b) Player communicates what they want to do to the GM.

c) GM envisions what they think the character does, based on the description given by the player.

d) GM decides what they consider the range of plausible outcomes, given how they see their model of the game world playing out the attempted action by the character, and selects some means of choosing from among those plausible outcomes. GM selects an outcome.

e) GM communicates what they envision as the outcome to the players.

f) Players picture what they understand the outcome to be, given the GM's description.

...is a mechanical process. There may or may not be written codes for the communications and written guidelines regarding the selection of the essential features of the outcome, but these don't, in themselves, make the sequence any more or less a "mechanic"; it's a mechanic already.

Where the written rules can help seems to me to be in steps (b), (d) and (e). Having "codes" for the use of specific resources or for specifically defined and understood character techniques helps to ensure that the player's and the GM's understanding of what is expected in terms of outcome is congruent (steps b and e). Written rules regarding the selection of outcomes (stage d) gives players some view of the "physics" of the game world that their characters would have an instictive and natural understanding of. Without written (or at least well explained and understood) context for at least stage d, the players are making mere arbitrary selections based on no useful information.



Mercurius said:


> Your King and McCarthy analogy is interesting but, I think, a bit obfuscating because they're not quite apples vs. oranges, unless we're willing to to say that all art, all literature, music, etc is "equal" - and there's no degrees of quality or depth. I'm willing to say that we can't judge Miley Cyrus by the same criteria that we judge Miles Davis because they create(d) completely different types of music, but at the same I'm not willing to say that "some prefer Miley and some Miles" and just leave it at that. Miles Davis was a far _superior _musician than Miley Cyrus is, but more people "prefer" (your word) Miley Cyrus. Is this just a matter of cognitive style or is there something else at work? Dare we delve beyond the realm of "its all subjective" and look at words like "depth" and "quality"?



I see this as analogous to the difference between "motivation" and "values". "Motivation" is what makes you want to act - what you "like". "Values" are what you consider to be praiseworthy, admirable or virtuous. These two do not necessarily align for a single individual, never mind for a society or group. What is more, different people will almost assuredly have different sets for *both* of them. Motivation is an instinctive and natural thing; it is what it is and you generally can't fake it for any length of time even if you try. Values, on the other hand, are more intellectual things, and as such may be changed and/or faked with some effort. They are susceptible, also, to social pressure to have the "right" values and acceptance of particular values often denotes (or is used to simulate) membership of a specific culture or group.

Is any one set of motivations ("likes") somehow "correct"? Most would say "of course not"; you like what you like. But what about values? Most people would argue strongly that the values espoused by their culture are "correct", but I'm not really convinced. In cases where specific values have some consensus accross cultures maybe the argument could be made that the specific value concerned is "more virtuous" - and a scant few values are supported by rational argument - but I don't think any complete "set" of values can be claimed as "superior". A few might arguably be "universal", but that would have to be adjudged case-by-case.


----------



## Manbearcat

ExploderWizard said:


> In your last 4E session how many player decisions that had a significant impact on the outcome of play didn't involve the use of a power, feat, skill, etc?




"Decisions" and "resolution of intent" in RPGs may be completely decoupled things. For instance, [for a local bit of anecdote with a contemporary 4e PBP I'm running, I can think from the top of my head right quick:

1) @_*Campbell*_ and @_*LostSoul*_ "decided" to attempt to reform their primary antagonist (agenda and ethos) mid-climactic battle. The intent was mechanically resolved (rather than by my fiat or theirs) but the decision to reform the antagonist was autonomous and driven by player-authored backstory and the emergent properties of our gameplay.

2) @_*pemerton*_ and @_*sheadunne*_ decided to put themselves in grave peril to save their companions from almost assured death by jumping from a balcony, 7 stories up, which was overlooking a Royal Garden (where 1 was taking place). They could have instead tried a group Athletics check which would have saved them from the considerable damage they took but it would have made them arrive later in the fiction, putting their friends at peril. The leap was mechanically resolved (and it hurt immensely) as would have been the group Athletics check. However, the decision to take the leap was motivated by valour, bravery and Big-Damn-Herodom...certainly not the impetus of mechanical resolution.

Both of those examples are "fiction-first" and they are one of many.

Your, yet another, 4e hitpiece is just out there...totally off the reservation of my experience or the experience of so many other who post here. I know its difficult to bridle your contempt but it would be awesome if you could make a better effort.


----------



## Mercurius

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I apologize for dropping the ball yesterday - life intervened. But I really appreciate our conversation(s), which have been quite fruitful, I think.

I do want to try to pick up a couple threads. 



Manbearcat said:


> However, I wasn't so much speaking to general preferences (this kobe hambuger is tastier than this ground beef hamburger) as I was focusing on how creativity bears itself out with respect to overarching structure, hard boundaries, and a continuum of resolution in the space between the boundaries.  This is why I brought in Cormac McCarthy versus Stephen King.  They diverge dramatically from one another with respect to the information overtly conveyed to the reader.  Stephen King saturates you.  Cormac McCarthy gives you little in the extreme (willfully obviously).  However, there is no default measurables with respect to the output of creativity and imagination by the readership by proxy of the authorial inputs.  You don't get "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" is conducive to a broad and rich imaginative experience while "The Shining" and "The Dark Tower" lead to a more narrow and less provacative imaginetive experience.




I cannot disagree with you here insofar as I understand what you are saying, but perhaps I haven't been clear with what I'm trying to express. I think we may be using the word "imagination" slight, but importantly, differently - or at least have a different understanding of what it "is." I agree with you if imagination is relatively static and has to do with forming images within one's "mindscape." But I see imagination as having multiple aspects or types, with not only a more passive image-perceiving aspect, but also a more _dynamic activity, _one that is generative. 

What I am hypothesizing is that different kinds of "input" lead to different degrees, or quality even, of the _generative _or dynamic aspect of imagination. Or rather it could be that imagination runs a gamut from passive reception to active generation. On one extreme we have video games in which there is absolutely no generation of imagination, just reception of input. On the other we have an artist or writer facing the blank page, or a worldbuilder, and "creating something from nothing" (or, if we want to get metaphysically speculative, the primordial creator being generation the world from the causal void).

With Sephen King's prose, the reader's imagination can be more passive than with Cormac McCarthy's, where the reader's imagination is pushed more towards its generative mode.  But both are much closer along the spectrum than the example of a video game vs. a worldbuilder.



Manbearcat said:


> I think that can be mapped to RPG theory easily enough.  Regarding imagination, some thrive with less, or opaque, ruleset structure and higher resolution settings while, conversely, others thrive with tighter, more overt, ruleset structure, lower resolution setting but thematic exemplars to anchor their imagination to.




Yes, I agree. But this doesn't address what I'm calling the dynamic-generative aspect of imagination. 



Manbearcat said:


> In total, I'm certainly not disputing that quality of (anything) can be discerned using precise metrics.  I'm merely disputing the premise (at least what I think it is) that some systems (and their component parts; eg overt ovarching structure, information resolution, codified boundaries)universally provoke imagination and creativity better than others.




I agree with you when you use the word _universally. _I'm speaking in terms of generalities - which I find meaningful, especially when utilized flexibly and not subscribed to in a rigid manner.

My concern, as someone interested in human imagination and creativity, is that the cultural trend is towards more passivity, more of the receptive mode, and I feel that the trend of Dungeons & Dragons has loosely followed this, with and emphasis on more passive modes with "New School" editions, 3e and 4e. This isn't to say that rules are bad, or even that passive imagination is bad, but I'd prefer to turn it around and put the cart back behind the horse.


----------



## Mercurius

Aenghus said:


> The main problem I have with the above is that the lack of detail in the first example risks everyone imagining something different for the same scene, which is ok when passively reading a book, but not ok when using that information in a shared setting to decide on PC actions. For me overly minimalist descriptions can lead to lots of mutual incomprehension, cognitive dissonance and wasted or counterproductive actions on the part of players. I find it jarring when my imagined scene turns out to be totally incorrect due to the relevation of more detail that would have been immediately obvious to any witness.




I agree _if _it is just that - "detail that would have been immediately obvious to any witness." But the thing is, everyone experiences things differently. I feel that as long as the DM includes the relevant information, what is "immediately obvious to any witness," some flexibility and divergence of perception and resulting action isn't a bad thing, and is even more true to life.



Aenghus said:


> For me the DM is the players window onto the gameworld, and starving the players of information, for any reason, risks robbing them of the opportunity to be effectively proactive. My primary motivation is not to just imagine the gameworld, but to take action within that gameworld, action that makes sense to the other players within that shared world.




But at where do you draw the line between "information starvation" and "information overload?" This would obviously vary per DM and player, and I'm guessing most would be between my two examples somewhere. But the point of the first was not to starve players of information, but to not inundate them - and allow the words to be seeds in their minds, to generate their own images.



Aenghus said:


> Oh, and I think the OP shot the messenger in his original post, in that 4e made abundantly manifest that there are many differing tastes amongst D&D players, some not compatible. IMO this has been the case since the beginning of the hobby, but concealed by the lack of internet and popularity of houserules making every game individual.




I'm "he," by the way!

I think the point is that while 4e _said _this, they didn't support those different styles of play, or at least only in a vague sort of way, and instead offered and supported a rather specific style of play, especially combat, that was quite different than the lineage of D&D. 

I personally didn't mind and was willing to try it out, and enjoyed it for a few years. But at some point I started wanting a more "traditional" theater-of-mind approach.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> I don't think so. In classic D&D, and in D&Dnext as currently written, the player cannot nominate the resource whereby a challenge will be tackled, unless either (i) the challenge is a very straight forward combat one, and the player is nominating an attack, or (ii) the resource the player is deploying is a spell. Otherwise the player has to specify an action that his/her PC might like to attempt, and wait for the GM to nominate a relevant resource (eg a stat check in Next, or a d% roll in classic D&D). I don't know what the 3E norms are in this respect.




OK, I see what you mean - you're talking about a greater degree of _player _choice - choosing resources - rather than _character _choice, as the player acting as the character within the world of the story itself.

To me this is part of the "problem" with 4e - what you explain here, where a player is running their character like a game piece, rather than the player running their character like a character within a story.

This isn't about right or wrong, but the tone of the game changes.



pemerton said:


> While saving throws were fortune-in-the-middle, we could think of fighters as tough, and resilient, in the Conan or Aragorn model, and therefore give them appropriately robust saving throw numbers, without worrying, at the point of design, what that toughness correlates to in the fiction. Indeed, in his DMG Gygax offers as an example of a successful save vs dragon breath the possibility that the PC ducked into a narrow (and hitherto unnarated) crevice in the rock. That is, Gygax endorsed (i) Schroedinger's crevices, and (ii) that fighters are more likely to encounter and get the benefit of them than magic-users.
> 
> Once you decide to frame everything in process simulation terms - and with the exception of the core hp and action economy mechanics 3E tends strongly in this direction - then fortune-in-the-middle abilities are ruled out. And without those sorts of abilities, fighters start to look pretty weak, because their abilities will be modelledon real-world human physiological and psychological processes, which are not adequate to the task of fighting dragons or resisting mental domination by vampires.
> 
> That was part of my point: because without viable fighters who can stand up against dragon breath and vampires, Arthurian romance-style RPGing is impossible.
> 
> But I was also alluding to a broader point: that process simulation mechanics close of a range of narrative possibilities that we can very easily imagine, and that conversely FitM can open such possibilities up.




Very interesting - and on a level of critical analysis of the game that I generally don't do. Very impressive, actually!

I think my issue isn't with the "FitM" rules as they do allow for what could be called "heroic narrative possibilities". My issue is with the net result of 4e mechanics that separate the player into the operator of the character as game piece on a game board.

I think what you are saying, in a way, is that 3e was a bit confused in that it was trying to be too realistic (simulative) in some respects (e.g. fighters), but not in others (e.g. spellcasters) - which created the infamous lopsided class power comparisons, which spellcasters far out-pacing non-spellcasters in double-digit levels.

The other extreme, though, is fighters with "powers." I would have preferred if they were given something akin to maneuvers and combat styles, and think that Essentials was on the right track in this regard. 

In a more straightforward D&D game without powers and such, I can see incorporating some kind of luck or fate mechanic which non-spellcasters get because they don't consciously manipulate magical forces, and thus are "infused" with it subconsciously. So a fighter could spend "fate points" to empower an attack, sort of like an adrenaline rush, in modern vernacular - like when a mother lifts a car to save her child. This still involves a certain degree of player-character duality, but at least it gives players the opportunity to "power up" on occasion for a heroic deed.



pemerton said:


> When a character is low on hit points, and is in danger of being killed, and the players are wondering whether the player of the cleric can pull of a sequence of moves that will both (i) defeat the monsters, and (ii) save the dying PC, that is not _imagining_ fear, and tension, and hope, and the possibility of leadership. That is _experiencing_ those things. There is _real_ fear that the PC might die, real tension arising from the uncertainty of the situation, real hope in the capabilities of the cleric player, and the real possibility of that player displaying leadership, turning the situation around and bringing his/her friends back into the action.
> 
> A game needs a fairly tight design to produce these experiences. If outcomes are foregone, there will be no tension. If all the big deals depend on GM fiat, there is no hope and expectation in relation to one's fellow players. (If the GM lies, there might be hope and expectation based on the _illusion_ of possibility. But an illusion of possibility is not the same thing as actual possibility. Illusions are also prone to being dispelled.)




Again, this is will said. But again, my problem with 4e is that I found that players, at least in my game, would look at a bunch of cards and always decide their actions based upon those options written down in front of them, rather than what I experienced in older versions of the game where players would imagine themselves as the character and act accordingly. This opened the door to any number of possibilities, not just the printed out power cards.

Now 4e does, of course, have page 42. And at one point I found myself house ruling to try to encourage players to think outside of the powers box. But the result was that they rarely did. Maybe other games are different - I'm sure some players took page 42 seriously and ran with it. But I've hard enough similar anecdotes to mine to think that the very design of 4e discourages that sort of imaginative creativity - not overtly, but certainly through implication.



pemerton said:


> And flipping it around, from aesthetic dissatisfaction to aesthetic satisfaction - part of the point of my post was to make a case that if you want an aesthetic experience in RPGing that captures the feel of reactionary fantasy of the Excalibur sort, it may be that more avant garde techniques are what is required.




But that's never been the point of what I was talking about with regards to _Excalibur, _as I explained a couple times. I'm not talking about (nor opposed to) simulating _Excalibur. _I was talking only, or mainly, about the phrase "the secret that was lost," which I am relating to the experience of imaginative wonderment. The question - which I don't have a clear answer for, and am open to different views - is what role different rules and approaches have in relationship to imaginative generation. Among other things! I was riffing, improvising, not performing a pre-written symphony.



pemerton said:


> This has come up on the religion thread that's ongoing at the moment. Many posters, when they talk about "imagining religion in D&D play", are looking for details about rites, and holy days, and the like. For me that is quite secondary. When I'm playing a religious PC, I don't particularly care what his/her rites are - I'll make them up as we go along if I need them. What I want is mechanics + situation that will have me praying to my god, in character, in order to resolve some ingame crisis, and _feeling the urgent longing of prayer conjoined with the unshakeable hope of faith_. If a system can't give me that - for instance, because it's framing and resolution mechanics don't differentiate between a devotee seeking help from a god and a rogue hoping to get lucky while playing at dice - then it is not going to give me the sort of immersive experience I am looking for, now matter how much detail it provides about the wording of my prayers or the shape and colour of my dice.




So what is it, exactly, that gives you "the sort of immersie experience" you are looking for? Can you pin it down? You seem to imply that it is, in fact, dependent upon the resolution mechanics. But what exactly?


----------



## Mercurius

Balesir said:


> I see this as analogous to the difference between "motivation" and "values". "Motivation" is what makes you want to act - what you "like". "Values" are what you consider to be praiseworthy, admirable or virtuous. These two do not necessarily align for a single individual, never mind for a society or group. What is more, different people will almost assuredly have different sets for *both* of them. Motivation is an instinctive and natural thing; it is what it is and you generally can't fake it for any length of time even if you try. Values, on the other hand, are more intellectual things, and as such may be changed and/or faked with some effort. They are susceptible, also, to social pressure to have the "right" values and acceptance of particular values often denotes (or is used to simulate) membership of a specific culture or group.
> 
> Is any one set of motivations ("likes") somehow "correct"? Most would say "of course not"; you like what you like. But what about values? Most people would argue strongly that the values espoused by their culture are "correct", but I'm not really convinced. In cases where specific values have some consensus across cultures maybe the argument could be made that the specific value concerned is "more virtuous" - and a scant few values are supported by rational argument - but I don't think any complete "set" of values can be claimed as "superior". A few might arguably be "universal", but that would have to be adjudged case-by-case.




A bit off topic, but a nice bit here. The academic/postmodern party line is to default to subjectivity, but of course the problem here is that you end up with such insanity that "all values are equal," which of course enables Egyptian female castration or Taliban abuse of women as being "culturally appropriate."

I think there is a good body of literature that points to cross-cultural development with regards to things such as values (and perhaps motivation). Psychologist Jenny Wade found, in a study of women, that people develop from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric in terms of their "sphere of concern," which is sort of the moral or affective cousin to values. 

Or we could look at Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which is another kind of developmental scheme.

So whether or not there are universal values, they _do _seem to unfold in a somewhat sequential manner, if only loosely. A worldcentric value structure allows for a broader concern for others compared to an ethnocentric (or nationalistic) one.


----------



## Balesir

Mercurius said:


> Again, this is will said. But again, my problem with 4e is that I found that players, at least in my game, would look at a bunch of cards and always decide their actions based upon those options written down in front of them, rather than what I experienced in older versions of the game where players would imagine themselves as the character and act accordingly. This opened the door to any number of possibilities, not just the printed out power cards.
> 
> Now 4e does, of course, have page 42. And at one point I found myself house ruling to try to encourage players to think outside of the powers box. But the result was that they rarely did. Maybe other games are different - I'm sure some players took page 42 seriously and ran with it. But I've hard enough similar anecdotes to mine to think that the very design of 4e discourages that sort of imaginative creativity - not overtly, but certainly through implication.



A couple of things spring to my mind, here. The first is that this is not my experience with 4E. I think it must be for some people, and I'm not sure why, but I generally see the players engaged with the position of their character (both literal and figurative) in the fictional space and their objectives before ever they consider what powers they have available. The powers are tools and resources available to achieve the ends they set themselves, not the determinants of their objectives. I think, perhaps, this type of play does require at least moderate facility with the rules (the general framework, not the specific rules for every power), but the players I play with have achieved a sufficient level some time ago.

The second point is that I think the idea of constraints "stifling imagination/creativity" is to some extent a false one. The analogies to chess and so on have been overused, but look at art. While it might be true in principle that a wider range of expression is available with abstract art, it can hardly be said that representational art has ever lacked in variety or creativity! Limiting oneself to representations - even photorealistic ones - of real or imagined objects seems to leave ample space for flights of fancy. I think the same is true of RPG rules. The permutations and combinations that arise from rules that are hard and fast but designed to mix and combine in interesting ways has a value just as valid as - and to me more valuable than - totally unfettered free expression.



Mercurius said:


> But that's never been the point of what I was talking about with regards to _Excalibur, _as I explained a couple times. I'm not talking about (nor opposed to) simulating _Excalibur. _I was talking only, or mainly, about the phrase "the secret that was lost," which I am relating to the experience of imaginative wonderment. The question - which I don't have a clear answer for, and am open to different views - is what role different rules and approaches have in relationship to imaginative generation. Among other things! I was riffing, improvising, not performing a pre-written symphony.



I have a different secret to ponder. Original D&D opened up a wondrous universe of possibility to us all, but to me it had a "secret that was never found" until much later. That secret was the role of the rules in communicating among the players the nature and conceits of the game world. The rules give the players a firm understanding of what their characters can do and what to expect of the world in response; my experience is that this liberates them to act with confidence in the game world and to genuinely feel that they have "competence" when playing a badass hero.

I'm not   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], but I think this is part of what he is getting at with his "version" of immersion. If my character is supposed to be a competent and skilled operator, but I have no real clue how the game world works in respect of the character's abilities, I do not feel "immersed" in my character. I know I'm supposed to feel confident and capable - but how can I when any action I take is based merely on a guess of what results it may have?



Mercurius said:


> I think there is a good body of literature that points to cross-cultural development with regards to things such as values (and perhaps motivation). Psychologist Jenny Wade found, in a study of women, that people develop from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric in terms of their "sphere of concern," which is sort of the moral or affective cousin to values.



This is indeed a byway, but I actually think there are some values that are absolute - they just don't cover everything like a blanket. Instead of specifying what sort of icecream you should like, for example, they simply say you should be honest about what you like and allow others to like what they like. They don't even rule out disagreeing with others but still allowing them to follow their own preferences. I think Piers Benn put it well; I don't remember the exact words, but paraphrasing: "tolerance is a good thing, but it's important to realise that I tolerate things that I disagree with, because tolerating what I agree with would be stupid".


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius, I don't what range of RPGs you are familiar with, and so I do not know what other games you are intending to pick up in your critique. You _seem_ to be launching a salvo against a whole range of games, and not just contemporary ones either: you seem to be attacking any game in which the player's response, when the GM narrates a situation in which that player's PC finds him-/herself, is to consider what game mechanical resources s/he has to bring to bear.

This seems to pick up not only 4e but such "traditional" games as RQ, RM, Traveller and 3E. Indeed, it seems to pick up any game in which the player is expected to, and expecting to be able to impact the fiction via any technique other than "persuade the GM it's a good/fun idea".



Mercurius said:


> what you explain here, where a player is running their character like a game piece, rather than the player running their character like a character within a story.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My issue is with the net result of 4e mechanics that separate the player into the operator of the character as game piece on a game board.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> my problem with 4e is that I found that players, at least in my game, would look at a bunch of cards and always decide their actions based upon those options written down in front of them, rather than what I experienced in older versions of the game where players would imagine themselves as the character and act accordingly. This opened the door to any number of possibilities, not just the printed out power cards.



There is no contradiction between playing a game and imagining oneself as a character. The alternative to playing a game is to simply express desires for one's character, and have the GM tell you whether or not those desires are realised.

As soon as the igname fiction is changed in relation to a player's expression of a chara cter's desire_ without GM intermediation_, we have an instance of a player "operating his/her character as a game piece" - that is, narrating changes in the gameworld outside the PC's inner life in ways that are somehow related to the player's conception of what his/her PC wants.

The only game that I enjoy played in a way other than this is Call of Cthulhu, because that is a game about losing control. Otherwise, I am not interested in simply expressing my character's wants and having the GM decide what comes of that.

I would also add - there is a difference between "playing a character as a game piece" - ie having regard to the metagame - and "playing the character as a game piece on a game board" - which I take to imply what Ron Edwards calls "pawn stance". No doubt 4e can be played in pawn stance, but I don't think it's particular in that regard - the whole of Gygaxian play seems to have taken place in pawn stance, and I find it hard to imagine playing a module like Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain in any other mode.

But I have never played 4e in this mode.



Mercurius said:


> The other extreme, though, is fighters with "powers."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In a more straightforward D&D game without powers and such, I can see incorporating some kind of luck or fate mechanic which non-spellcasters get because they don't consciously manipulate magical forces, and thus are "infused" with it subconsciously. So a fighter could spend "fate points" to empower an attack, sort of like an adrenaline rush, in modern vernacular - like when a mother lifts a car to save her child. This still involves a certain degree of player-character duality, but at least it gives players the opportunity to "power up" on occasion for a heroic deed.



I personally don't understand why metagame via the AEDU structure is widely regarded as pernicious, and metagame via Fate Points is widely regarded as acceptable, but I do acknowledge that this view seems to be widely held, at least on ENworld.

Part of the attraction, for me, of the 4e approach is that it produces a more granular rationing, which in turn produces more diversity in play and also allows more sophisticated interaction with the action economy.



			
				Mercurius;6227548I think we may be using the word "imagination" slight said:
			
		

> dynamic activity, [/I]one that is generative.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My concern, as someone interested in human imagination and creativity, is that the cultural trend is towards more passivity, more of the receptive mode, and I feel that the trend of Dungeons & Dragons has loosely followed this, with and emphasis on more passive modes with "New School" editions, 3e and 4e.





Mercurius said:


> So what is it, exactly, that gives you "the sort of immersie experience" you are looking for? Can you pin it down? You seem to imply that it is, in fact, dependent upon the resolution mechanics. But what exactly?





Balesir said:


> I'm not pemerton, but I think this is part of what he is getting at with his "version" of immersion. If my character is supposed to be a competent and skilled operator, but I have no real clue how the game world works in respect of the character's abilities, I do not feel "immersed" in my character. I know I'm supposed to feel confident and capable - but how can I when any action I take is based merely on a guess of what results it may have?



What Balesir says here is certainly on the right track.

I don't find 4e remotely uncreative or "passive". In fact I find it puts intense demands on players, as it calls upon them to _play_ their PC - to get inside that character, as expressed as a suite of mechanical resources plus story elements and inclination, and not simply to sit back and let the GM do all the heavy lifting.

Besides having the mechanical resources to actually express my character, the other part of the "immersive experience", for me, is having the play of an ingame situation reflect, and evolve in a way that reflects, the stakes for my PC. This is related to mechanics - because these will dictate, to a large extent, how ingame situations unfold during play - and also to the story elements that the game has the capacity to express and make matter. 4e has a narrower range in this respect than, say, HeroWars/Quest; and a different range from Burning Wheel (less grit, more fantastic romance). But within that range I feel it does a reasonable job of bringing characters to life in play.


----------



## Minigiant

One of the core conflicts of an RPG is that you are trying to playas the character but using the character's attributes and feates. This is the role of rules. When you make John jump over the hole, you are using John's abilty to jump and imagining John jumping. The rules or rulings determine whether or not John makes the jump and by how much. Because John is not you, there needs to be a frame of reference for the player to think like John.

And that is the issue. Finding the sweetspot of having the player be as informed about the world as the character at the same time not pulling the player too far into the reference informations (Da Rules or the DM ruling) that they do not move away from the character.

"Why would I make John jump if I don't know how far he can usually jump." That is one of the core sliding scales of RPG.  How informed do you the players of their characters' abililty without giving them a feeling that you are locking all their actions down into the character sheet.


----------



## Mercurius

Balesir said:


> A couple of things spring to my mind, here. The first is that this is not my experience with 4E. I think it must be for some people, and I'm not sure why, but I generally see the players engaged with the position of their character (both literal and figurative) in the fictional space and their objectives before ever they consider what powers they have available. The powers are tools and resources available to achieve the ends they set themselves, not the determinants of their objectives. I think, perhaps, this type of play does require at least moderate facility with the rules (the general framework, not the specific rules for every power), but the players I play with have achieved a sufficient level some time ago.




This is an interesting point, because part of the problem with my 4e group is that despite playing for three years, we played on average once per months; sometimes it was twice a month, sometimes we missed two or three months. But the net result was that not all of the players mastered the rules, which slowed things down.

So it may be that while the rules have _something _to do with how imagination is enabled, and immersion within the game world, it is more to what degree they are mastered. In the same sense that a jazz musician can only truly improvise - at least with skill and total freedom - when they have mastered the "rules" of their instrument (anyone, from novice to master, can improvise with a musical instrument, but not with the degree of "immersive freedom" that a Charlie Parker could).



Balesir said:


> The second point is that I think the idea of constraints "stifling imagination/creativity" is to some extent a false one.




So do I! That's not what I'm meaning to stay. Constraints, or structure, don't stifle imagination, but "filler" does. A video game does, at least while you're playing it - because that's the nature of a video game; it is not meant to inspire you to generate your own images, but to "feed you" with pre-made ones. 

It is rarely either/or, however - but more of a spectrum. I am saying that the more "filler," the less one's imagination becomes dynamic and active. This isn't the same thing as constraints/guidelines, which are more like scaffolding.

Here's another analogy that I think might better try to get across what I'm trying to say. Imagine renting an apartment. It has limitations and structure (constraints) by virtue of the shape of the rooms, the square footage, etc. Imagine that apartment as empty - you can do anything with it, decorate it in any number of ways - within the limitations of the physical space that it allows, of course. You might think about different themes - Japanese or kitsch or arts & crafts. Now imagine that same apartment pre-furnished. You can move things around a bit, and add a piece here and there, but its pretty much pre-determined. A further extreme would be sub-leasing an apartment that you can't change at all.

I think 4e is sort of like a pre-furnished apartment. Now the thing is, the furniture is _better quality _than in messy eccentricity of 1e, but it is also more tightly filled, making it more difficult to move pieces around. It isn't a sub-leased apartment, so there is some freedom of movement, of re-arranging things.



Balesir said:


> The analogies to chess and so on have been overused, but look at art. While it might be true in principle that a wider range of expression is available with abstract art, it can hardly be said that representational art has ever lacked in variety or creativity! Limiting oneself to representations - even photorealistic ones - of real or imagined objects seems to leave ample space for flights of fancy. I think the same is true of RPG rules. The permutations and combinations that arise from rules that are hard and fast but designed to mix and combine in interesting ways has a value just as valid as - and to me more valuable than - totally unfettered free expression.




I agree. Actually, the interesting thing about abstract vs. representational art is that there's no correlation, as far as I can tell, with "imaginative richness." The degree of abstraction does _not _correlate with the degree of imaginative richness and has nothing to do with it.

Does this invalidate my hypothesis? Only if we equate abstraction-representation with the spectrum I am referring to, which I'd prefer not to. It really might be something else, a kind of transparency that some representational art has and some doesn't (or to what degree it has it). Compare Todd Lockwood, a technically proficient artist, but one whose art is rather "opaque" - it is a kind of simulative realism Now look at someone like Stephen Fabian, who I think is much more imaginatively rich; his art, still representational, is more transparent, it evokes imagination and wonder. At least for me!

Another angle is to look at a principle in the education system that I teach in, in which we use a phrase "from form to freedom." The idea is to start children with form and distinct guidelines and to gradually lead them towards freedom - to doing things themselves, from within themselves. Imagination, in its more receptive mode, is no more or less a part of the process anywhere along the way, but the degree to which it is _self-generated _should theoretically increase.



Balesir said:


> I have a different secret to ponder. Original D&D opened up a wondrous universe of possibility to us all, but to me it had a "secret that was never found" until much later. That secret was the role of the rules in communicating among the players the nature and conceits of the game world. The rules give the players a firm understanding of what their characters can do and what to expect of the world in response; my experience is that this liberates them to act with confidence in the game world and to genuinely feel that they have "competence" when playing a badass hero.
> 
> I'm not    @_*pemerton*_ , but I think this is part of what he is getting at with his "version" of immersion. If my character is supposed to be a competent and skilled operator, but I have no real clue how the game world works in respect of the character's abilities, I do not feel "immersed" in my character. I know I'm supposed to feel confident and capable - but how can I when any action I take is based merely on a guess of what results it may have?




This is where I believe [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] might be right, that we're talking about different cognitive styles. Some prefer more clear guidelines, some less. If you look at the KAI theory, you have two poles of _adaption _and _innovation; _one isn't better than the other, but they are very different. What you're talking about sounds more like the adaptive style, in which clear guidelines are preferred, and the individual prefers to master a pre-determined system; the innovative style prefers to think outside of the box, to create the rules themselves.



Balesir said:


> This is indeed a byway, but I actually think there are some values that are absolute - they just don't cover everything like a blanket.




Absolute value has some kind of "meta-assumption" or principle that veers into religion. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I'm merely saying that if there's absolute values to the universe, then they must be based on something; it seems illogical that they "just are."



Balesir said:


> Instead of specifying what sort of icecream you should like, for example, they simply say you should be honest about what you like and allow others to like what they like. They don't even rule out disagreeing with others but still allowing them to follow their own preferences. I think Piers Benn put it well; I don't remember the exact words, but paraphrasing: "tolerance is a good thing, but it's important to realise that I tolerate things that I disagree with, because tolerating what I agree with would be stupid".




I agree, of course. The tricky part, though, is that some equate disagreement with intolerance or expressing a perspective with telling others how they should think, or what the One True Way is.

Correlation does not equal causation. Saying, "this is how I think it is, whether you agree or not" is not the same thing as saying "how I think is how you should think, and I'm going to force you to do that." We are all, by and large, free to think the way we want to think - at least to the degree that we are free within our thinking, which most (all?) of us are not to varying degrees. When people cry fowl, "That's OneTrueWayism!" what they are _really _doing, in my view, is externalizing their own lack of freedom onto others, as if They Are Doing It To Me. The fallacy here is that anyone can actually force another to think as they think (of course they can and do - that's the game of advertising and politics - but not if one is conscious; subliminal messaging only works if you don't realize it is happening).

So while I agree with your advocacy of a kind of absolute tolerance, part of that includes tolerance for disagreement - from both sides, not only the side who is expressing a meta-theory on human existence, but those who feel fenced in by meta-theories and resort to settling into the ultimate philosophical dead-end of absolute relativism. Or, as the bard said, _there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your _[or my, or any]_ philosophy."_ And I mean _any_ philosophy, including any I spout up, and also including the philosophy of absolute relativism that has been the guiding light on college campuses for a few decades now, and was one of a few founding forces in the politically correct movement of the late 80s and early 90s.

I personally advocate an approach which one of my favorite philosophers, William Irwin Thompson, called "mind-jazz" or "knowledge-art" - which is based not on trying to find The One True Way, but a more expressionistic approach which arises out of the complex information age, or as Thompson describes it, "the play of knowledge in a world of serious data-processors."

In a way this is a radical or dynamic relativism, but rather than making a pancake out of everything and saying "everything is subjective and relative," it not only brings context back into the mix, and allows for degrees of truthfulness based upon context, but also allows us to play within meta-theories and uber-cosmologies without falling into the old absolute despotism. 

To put it another way, if we realize that any castle we make is made out of sand, we can be more free to make castles, because we know they're impermanent and relative - but they also become more meaningful because of it, partially because they're not trying to account for all things at all times, but instead are microcosmic expressions of the macrocosm.


----------



## Balesir

Mercurius said:


> So it may be that while the rules have _something _to do with how imagination is enabled, and immersion within the game world, it is more to what degree they are mastered. In the same sense that a jazz musician can only truly improvise - at least with skill and total freedom - when they have mastered the "rules" of their instrument (anyone, from novice to master, can improvise with a musical instrument, but not with the degree of "immersive freedom" that a Charlie Parker could).



That is quite a good analogy, too, I think. If you are thinking about what fingering you need to use or concentrating on the form of your mouth to get the right sound, anything you improvise will probably be a mess. It's when those "physical" parts of making the music become wholly instinctive that you can actually just make the sounds you want to hear.

It's similar with RPGs; you need to know how to make the character act in the environment instictively before you can really just "inhabit" them and focus on their wider aims. It's possible to assume that the rules are "just what you already imagine them to be", and that means the player has an instinctive grip of them from the start - great!... except that there's a problem. The problem is that the rules are actually what _*the GM*_ imagines them to be, and those won't always mesh with what the player(s) imagine(s) them to be. So you have learned to play a guitar with one specific tuning, and now you have been handed one with a different tuning - and you have no control over retuning it...



Mercurius said:


> Here's another analogy that I think might better try to get across what I'm trying to say. Imagine renting an apartment. It has limitations and structure (constraints) by virtue of the shape of the rooms, the square footage, etc. Imagine that apartment as empty - you can do anything with it, decorate it in any number of ways - within the limitations of the physical space that it allows, of course. You might think about different themes - Japanese or kitsch or arts & crafts. Now imagine that same apartment pre-furnished. You can move things around a bit, and add a piece here and there, but its pretty much pre-determined. A further extreme would be sub-leasing an apartment that you can't change at all.
> 
> I think 4e is sort of like a pre-furnished apartment. Now the thing is, the furniture is _better quality _than in messy eccentricity of 1e, but it is also more tightly filled, making it more difficult to move pieces around. It isn't a sub-leased apartment, so there is some freedom of movement, of re-arranging things.



Another interesting analogy - that I see in an utterly different light.

For me, the decoration and style of furnishings is simply "colour". You change it by refluffing. What system provides - at least what 4E provides - is the rooms and basic form of the furniture. What you use the rooms and furniture for is up to you. The chair is designed for sitting on, but using it to stand on to reach that top cupboard will work just fine. If you don't like the colour of the chair you can paint it, and so on.

An alternative is to say "here is some wood - build your own chair", but it's harder to do. What old editions of D&D do, in my mind, is say "if you want a chair, ask the DM for one - but be careful how you use it, because we encourage the DM to make your chair idiosyncratic in both form and architecture. Don't try standing on it, for instance - the DM may be assuming it has only three legs".



Mercurius said:


> Absolute value has some kind of "meta-assumption" or principle that veers into religion. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but I'm merely saying that if there's absolute values to the universe, then they must be based on something; it seems illogical that they "just are."



This is now well off topic and veering into areas verboten in this forum; if I say more it'll be via PM.


----------



## ExploderWizard

The Human Target said:


> I don't see how you came to these conclusions.
> 
> This is the kind of old school rhetoric that just baffles me.




How? 

Simply playing 3E/4E as written. 

" So whats in this room?" 

" Whatever it is I find it. Made a search roll DC 35. WooT!" 

Push button play. After all what exactly is the point of interacting with setting elements if nothing is really going to happen until a die roll is made? 


Play element> select menu item> activate menu item> get result <loop>


There is little actual "playing" for the players to do. Anything that moves the game meaningfully forward is a die mechanic.


----------



## Halivar

ExploderWizard said:


> " So whats in this room?"
> 
> " Whatever it is I find it. Made a search roll DC 35. WooT!"
> 
> Push button play. After all what exactly is the point of interacting with setting elements if nothing is really going to happen until a die roll is made?
> 
> 
> Play element> select menu item> activate menu item> get result <loop>
> 
> 
> There is little actual "playing" for the players to do. Anything that moves the game meaningfully forward is a die mechanic.



This is exactly how I feel about Diplomacy, as well. And also why I'd love to ditch the skill list in favor of just rolling against backgrounds.


----------



## Aenghus

ExploderWizard said:


> How?
> 
> Simply playing 3E/4E as written.
> 
> " So whats in this room?"
> 
> " Whatever it is I find it. Made a search roll DC 35. WooT!"
> 
> Push button play. After all what exactly is the point of interacting with setting elements if nothing is really going to happen until a die roll is made?
> 
> 
> Play element> select menu item> activate menu item> get result <loop>
> 
> 
> There is little actual "playing" for the players to do. Anything that moves the game meaningfully forward is a die mechanic.




Well, that's one of the major conundrums of RPGs, which is whether to emphasise player skill or character skill. 

The opposite and equal comparison to the above example  is a player dumping his PC's charisma and all social skills and still being an excellent diplomat and social animal in the game because his real life social skills are excellent. Or a DM demanding a level of precision that approaches pixelbitching to achieve any success.

I think these extremes are potentially objectionable to a fair segment of the RPG audience whose tastes lie elsewhere. 

But in practice, most games don't approach these  extremes. Games emphasising skill rolls still require players to clearly say what they are attempting, and typically provide too much activity for the players to attempt everything. Games emphasising player skill also pay at least some attention to PC resources. 

Personally I've been frustrated by too many pixelbitching DMs to tolerate that style of play any more, but YMMV.


----------



## Mercurius

ExploderWizard said:


> How?
> 
> Simply playing 3E/4E as written.
> 
> " So whats in this room?"
> 
> " Whatever it is I find it. Made a search roll DC 35. WooT!"
> 
> Push button play. After all what exactly is the point of interacting with setting elements if nothing is really going to happen until a die roll is made?
> 
> 
> Play element> select menu item> activate menu item> get result <loop>
> 
> 
> There is little actual "playing" for the players to do. Anything that moves the game meaningfully forward is a die mechanic.




I can feel your pain here and have similar feelings about 3e and 4e, especially the AEDU Paradigm where the player picks from pre-defined options rather than envisioning a cool and heroic action.

That said, at least with regards to your example, I think there are ways around it. For instance, the player has to get to the point where they even get to roll that check. It may be that the DM doesn't offer the opportunity to make the check until the player "asks the right question" - in the the case of your example, looks in the right spot.

But I agree with  @_*Halivar*_  that social skills like Diplomacy are quite irking. I'm not sure of an easy way around it, because you want to allow un-charismatic players to play charismatic characters (it might even have therapeutic value!), so maybe some kind of middle ground is optimal - role-playing it out, and then adding a check if and only if it is necessary.


----------



## Mercurius

Balesir said:


> It's similar with RPGs; you need to know how to make the character act in the environment instictively before you can really just "inhabit" them and focus on their wider aims. It's possible to assume that the rules are "just what you already imagine them to be", and that means the player has an instinctive grip of them from the start - great!... except that there's a problem. The problem is that the rules are actually what _*the GM*_ imagines them to be, and those won't always mesh with what the player(s) imagine(s) them to be. So you have learned to play a guitar with one specific tuning, and now you have been handed one with a different tuning - and you have no control over retuning it...




This makes me think that there's a different of underlying assumption as to the role of the DM and their power in the game world. I guess I'm relatively traditional and see the DM's power as absolute - I mean it ultimately is in the sense that they can throw whatever they want at the players, so even if a game is by the book, if they really want to kill a party of 3rd level characters they can always just through the Tarrasque at them. 

So while I agree that having shared agreements - namely, the rules - are important, the DM is not only a rules referee, but also the story teller. I find myself fudging things all the time _if _I think it improves the quality of the game experience. In 4e this often meant ending combats earlier than when they would have ended if played by-the-book. For instance, let's say the part of paragon characters fights a monster with a huge number of HP. Once its clear that the party was going to win with no character deaths, I might wait for the next massive blow against the monster to end the combat. So if the monster had, say, 158 HP left out of 500+, and the rogue hit it for 67 HP, if the combat felt like it was dragging then I might call that a killing blow.




Balesir said:


> Another interesting analogy - that I see in an utterly different light.
> 
> For me, the decoration and style of furnishings is simply "colour". You change it by refluffing. What system provides - at least what 4E provides - is the rooms and basic form of the furniture. What you use the rooms and furniture for is up to you. The chair is designed for sitting on, but using it to stand on to reach that top cupboard will work just fine. If you don't like the colour of the chair you can paint it, and so on.




That works as well. From that perspective, I agree with what you're saying, but it still touches upon one of the seemingly ongoing questions in RPG design theory: Do the rules dictate the imagination experience, and if so how and to what degree?

In some ways its similar to the question, does availability of firearms increase gun violence? Or would lowering the drinking age increase alcohol-related deaths and alcoholism? Etc. I can see arguments on both sides and tend to not take an either/or approach, but _both. 

_In the context of RPGs, I think _how _you use the rules (and _how well) _is more important than _what _rules you use, in terms of immersion and imagination. But I think _what _rules you use does have some impact. Part of this is individual - Manbearcat's cognitive styles - but I suppose the question is whether there is anything inherent, or any meaningful generalizations we can make (e.g. "4e is less conducive to imagination than 1e"). I think the jury is still out. I tend to think if that's the case, its better to take a step back and look at it from a different light, or at least try to integrate opposing perspectives in a Hegelian synthesis, for example: _guns don't kill people, people kill people _*and* _the nature of a gun is to kill, therefore its availability increased the likelihood that people will be killed by guns. _

In other words, the rules themselves don't "force" or create the play experience, but the nature of the rules - depending upon what they are - opens up _probable enactments._



Balesir said:


> An alternative is to say "here is some wood - build your own chair", but it's harder to do. What old editions of D&D do, in my mind, is say "if you want a chair, ask the DM for one - but be careful how you use it, because we encourage the DM to make your chair idiosyncratic in both form and architecture. Don't try standing on it, for instance - the DM may be assuming it has only three legs".




So here's the question, and maybe a rephrasing of the "Holy Grail" - and perhaps worth its own thread: *how to integrate the best of both old and new school D&D?

*I would suggest that to even approach that question we'd have to agree that there is something to integrate - meaning, that there is something in the old that is lacking (or de-emphasized) in the new, and something in the new that is lacking (or de-emphasized) in the old. I tend to take this approach. Now if you, or someone doesn't, then there really isn't anywhere to go with it. 

I think it comes down to whether we see a game as an ongoing, organic process of development, or something that has achieved (near-) perfection in one form (or edition) or another. I take the former approach, which is why I'm not an advocate of any particular edition.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Aenghus said:


> Well, that's one of the major conundrums of RPGs, which is whether to emphasise player skill or character skill.
> 
> The opposite and equal comparison to the above example is a player dumping his PC's charisma and all social skills and still being an excellent diplomat and social animal in the game because his real life social skills are excellent. Or a DM demanding a level of precision that approaches pixelbitching to achieve any success.
> 
> I think these extremes are potentially objectionable to a fair segment of the RPG audience whose tastes lie elsewhere.
> 
> But in practice, most games don't approach these extremes. Games emphasising skill rolls still require players to clearly say what they are attempting, and typically provide too much activity for the players to attempt everything. Games emphasising player skill also pay at least some attention to PC resources.
> 
> Personally I've been frustrated by too many pixelbitching DMs to tolerate that style of play any more, but YMMV.




For myself it is merely a matter of what I find fun. Interacting with the setting directly brings more enjoyment. Rattling off mechanical solution X gets tiresome quickly. My character doesn't really exist and so cannot appreciate being "tested". I OTOH, do exist and find myself having more fun dealing directly with the fictional environment. 

Formulaic mechanical resolution is just a tabletop stand-in for programmed code. The secret that was lost, the 'lightning in a bottle' of the original game cannot be reproduced with code. It is an organic thing that lives at the gaming table existing only as long as the participants sustain it. Such a thing cannot be contained in a codified procedure.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Mercurius said:


> But I agree with @_*Halivar*_ that social skills like Diplomacy are quite irking. I'm not sure of an easy way around it, because you want to allow un-charismatic players to play charismatic characters (it might even have therapeutic value!), so maybe some kind of middle ground is optimal - role-playing it out, and then adding a check if and only if it is necessary.




Social interaction is fun and one of the worst things to replace with a skill check. There is the basic message and then there is the delivery. If you gauge the reaction to a message largely by the content and let the CHA (or other relevant stat) of the character be the measure of the delivery, determination of reactions become simpler. 

If two PC's respond to an npc's offer in plainspeak: " I don't think that will work for us".

PC #1 has a CHA of 16 and/or a socially skilled background. 

PC #2 has a CHA of 6 and no such background. 

When PC #1 responds the npc will hear " not exactly what I had in mind, lets see what other arrangements we can make" as a sort of in between the lines message. 

When PC #2 responds the npc will hear " screw that. If thats the best ya got you can stick it" as a sort of in between the lines message. 

So it is very possible for normal conversation to take place HIGHLY influenced by the attributes of the character. The influence of such attributes will depend largely on the attitude and disposition of the recipient. 

What is absolutely poison to social influence checks is the instant confirmation of success when a high number is rolled. There should NEVER be a situation involving trying to influence someone (by social means alone) looking at the die and getting the "YOU DID IT!"  Why are mind reading magics needed if minds can be manipulated so certainly with regularity? It kills the entire " I hope they bought it" trope of not knowing if a scheme worked until its tested.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> Mercurius, I don't what range of RPGs you are familiar with, and so I do not know what other games you are intending to pick up in your critique. You _seem_ to be launching a salvo against a whole range of games, and not just contemporary ones either: you seem to be attacking any game in which the player's response, when the GM narrates a situation in which that player's PC finds him-/herself, is to consider what game mechanical resources s/he has to bring to bear.




Let's stop right there, my friend! I'm not "launching a salvo." I really like 4e, but I also see issues with it (at least for me, and many others with similar complaints).

To answer your question, I'm familiar with a wide number of games, most of which I haven't played. But I can at least keep pace with the names you mention and have at least a sense of what they're about.



pemerton said:


> This seems to pick up not only 4e but such "traditional" games as RQ, RM, Traveller and 3E. Indeed, it seems to pick up any game in which the player is expected to, and expecting to be able to impact the fiction via any technique other than "persuade the GM it's a good/fun idea".




See my comment to Balesir. It seems that there's a deeper issue here, which has to do with the basic assumptions about the nature of GM power. Is it absolute or not? Is the DM the opposition and the rule books the referee, or is the DM the "god narrator"? Etc. 

Part of the problem with the old school approach is DM abuse - that is, it relies upon the DM being able to be an impartial adjudicator. This is easier said than done. On the other hand, part of the problem of the new school approach is what some have called "player entitlement," although you might call it player _empowerment. _

The right question might not be whether or not the DM has absolute power because, as I said to Balesir, even if he doesn't technically, he does in all practical sense. But he also _doesn't_ in that if he abuses his power too much, he'll lose the trust of the players and perhaps even his gaming group. So I think the right question, or at least a _better _question, is what is the role and responsibility of th GM/DM - and, specifically, what is primary and what is secondary; what is the "hierarchy of roles," so to speak. 

Regarding "pawn stance," I think, again, it is a matter of degree and - to refer again to my response to Balesir - analogous to the question about guns, and what their role is in violence. 

One slight caveat. "Gygaxian" D&D certainly employed pawn stance, but it could be done in the theater of mind, while 4e requires (and 3e _almost _requires) some kind of externalization, a battle mat and miniatures, which I feel strengthen pawn stance.



pemerton said:


> I personally don't understand why metagame via the AEDU structure is widely regarded as pernicious, and metagame via Fate Points is widely regarded as acceptable, but I do acknowledge that this view seems to be widely held, at least on ENworld.
> 
> Part of the attraction, for me, of the 4e approach is that it produces a more granular rationing, which in turn produces more diversity in play and also allows more sophisticated interaction with the action economy.




I think its a both/and situation, where 4e's strength is also its weakness. I agree that AEDU _can _offer a diversity of play due to the sheer number of options and resources a player can draw on for their character to use. That's a strength; in my mind, its a strength that a fighter has more options than "I attack." But the weakness is that because there are so many options/resources, they tend to obfuscate the underlying "uber-option" - which is the player coming up with their own imagined maneuver, one that written down or official. Yes, there is page 42 - but that's essentially an after thought.

Now if page 42 was actually page 1 (proverbially speaking), the entire tone of 4e would have been different. Sort of like saying: "D&D is a game of imagination - you can do whatever you want, whatever makes sense in the moment; as examples, here are some options..."

Again, a cart and horse thing.



pemerton said:


> I don't find 4e remotely uncreative or "passive". In fact I find it puts intense demands on players, as it calls upon them to _play_ their PC - to get inside that character, as expressed as a suite of mechanical resources plus story elements and inclination, and not simply to sit back and let the GM do all the heavy lifting.




I think this can be the case, but unfortunately it seems that it usually isn't. Why? Because it offers a depth and detail of abstraction that, for most I think, obfuscates immersion, rather than augmenting it.

Its sort of like this: the internet is an amazing tool that can greatly en-rich life. Too much internet is "too much of a good thing," and actually obfuscates more important qualities of life - like human intimacy, creativity, etc. 



pemerton said:


> Besides having the mechanical resources to actually express my character, the other part of the "immersive experience", for me, is having the play of an ingame situation reflect, and evolve in a way that reflects, the stakes for my PC. This is related to mechanics - because these will dictate, to a large extent, how ingame situations unfold during play - and also to the story elements that the game has the capacity to express and make matter. 4e has a narrower range in this respect than, say, HeroWars/Quest; and a different range from Burning Wheel (less grit, more fantastic romance). But within that range I feel it does a reasonable job of bringing characters to life in play.




Pemerton, I see your take on 4e to be one of the most adept and profound - that you "really get it." But I think most don't, or can't, or don't want to. They want something more similar, or at least they want the depth and complexity to be optional or, that magical word, _modular. _

So we're back to the cart-and-horse thing. I like 4e, I even like powers to some extent; I also like 3e and its customization options. But I also long for a simpler core, and--more than anything--the ability to "telescope" (as a verb) in and out, to dial up or down in complexity.

As I said to Balesir, I feel that all editions have their strengths and weaknesses. I tend to prefer more recent editions to older ones, in the same way that I enjoy more recent technologies to older ones. But sometimes something is left behind. 

One final analogy. "New school" D&D (3e and 4e) is like an mp3 file, whereas "old school" is like vinyl or even a cassette. Obviously the mp3 is a superior _technology - _but its also lost something in the process, an organic quality to the sound. Old school advocates see the crackle and hiss of vinyl, or the limitations of its technology, as "features and not flaws." I see them as anachronistic and charming, but would prefer to have the flexibility of recording and clear sound..._but..._want that organic sound. So for me I'd like to see 5E combine the best of both worlds, _and - _this is where 5E can bring something new to the mix - provide options and pathways that every DM and game group can easily customize it to their preferred style of play.

To quote Arthur from _Excalibur, _in a wistful tone...

_It is a dream I have..._


----------



## Minigiant

I think the "lost of the secret" is mostly due to the sucess of D&D. As D&D gained fans, it gained their fan's imagination. And since D&D does not force a setting, all those fans were allowed new imaginations of the game. Unfortunately in the old days, all things ran through the DM. So if the DM and player where not in sync,a problem would occur. I've seen many a Boo! and dice showers to the DM because of this.

Eventually this set in the desire for rules so the player knew what they could do. Unfortunately, some lock into the rules. And if the rules are written a certain way, the rules are more optimal than that the allowed limit of DM judgement.

Sucess and Human imagination.


----------



## Manbearcat

Mercurius said:


> In the context of RPGs, I think _how _you use the rules (and _how well) _is more important than _what _rules you use, in terms of immersion and imagination. But I think _what _rules you use does have some impact.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In other words, the rules themselves don't "force" or create the play experience, but the nature of the rules - depending upon what they are - opens up _probable enactments._




I think out of the gate it is very difficult for varying perspectives on RPG design theory to achieve meaningful, productive communication.  The genesis of such conversations requires relative lockstep on the answer to the question of "does system matter?"  There are such deep disagreements on that primordial question that conversation past that point becomes unwieldy.  

Extended from the answer to that question is a myriad of loosely (or tightly) coupled positions on:

1) GM role and authority (over setting and situation, over backstory, over rules adjudication, over authenticity of action resolution)

2) Players' roles and PC build functionality (including stance fluctuation

3) Transparency/opacity/level of codification of the action resolution mechanics and their role in the fiction that emerges from actual play

4) Task resolution resolving the outcome of zoomed-in simulation of process or conflict resolution resolving the outcome of zoomed-out player intent.  

Then there are questions on how various GMing techniques provide or subvert players' ability to make meaningful thematic choices and impose their will on the fiction.  Further, there are questions about the passivity or proactivity of players; what aspects of system and GMing techniques promote one state versus another?  

Then immersion needs to be defined.  This, again, will vary from player to player and from GM to GM.  My idea of "immersion" is certainly very different than your own and I appreciate a wide variety of games.  I play 1e and 4e and I play them very, very differently from one another.  I was an old school Classic Traveller GM and, again, hugely different from running a game of Dogs in the Vineyard...both still hugely different from the brunt GM-forcing my players through a Call of Cthulu game; different with respect to my expectations (what "immersion" means and what typifies "fun" or "a successful session") and different with respect GM techniques deployed and the total output of play.



Mercurius said:


> So here's the question, and maybe a rephrasing of the "Holy Grail" - and perhaps worth its own thread: *how to integrate the best of both old and new school D&D?
> 
> *I would suggest that to even approach that question we'd have to agree that there is something to integrate - meaning, that there is something in the old that is lacking (or de-emphasized) in the new, and something in the new that is lacking (or de-emphasized) in the old. I tend to take this approach. Now if you, or someone doesn't, then there really isn't anywhere to go with it.




I am a "system matters" and "GMing is not a monolithic enterprise" guy.  You cannot produce an authentic, old school, _Step On Up_ 1e dungeon crawl experience with GM force superseding the authenticity of the resolution mechanics.  You cannot produce a functional _Story Now_ Dungeon World or 4e game if you're trying to interpret the micro and macro outcomes of their conflict resolution mechanics through a task resolution lens.  If the game is predicated upon focus on the scene or the encounter and the PC resource schemes exclusively (or even mostly) zoom out on the adventuring day (or further), you're going to have dysfunctional play.  If you want gritty play that assumes adventurers/heroes are fragile, bearing no plot protection, then ablation mechanics better agree with that paradigm or you're going to have some deeply dysfunctional aspects of play that grate/jar, potentially to the point of being untenable.  

In total; I do not think the 5e "big tent" approach will facilitate what they're looking for (One D&D to Rule Them All).  I've been extremely skeptical of the design theory from the beginning.  At its core is an ethos of (i) "Rulings Not Rules", (ii) its GM advice advocating hand-waved or fudged DCs and contests, and (iii) its embedded, somewhat opaque, task resolution mechanics that drive toward granular exploration of GM setting.  It is quite literally anathema to (i) my preferred ethos ("Drive Play Toward Conflict - Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes."), (ii) fidelity to the action resolution mechanics, and (iii) transparent, conflict resolution mechanics that focus on fiction (including setting) emerging from resolving player intent within a scene-based architecture.

I've said from the beginning that it looks like, feels like, plays like, and promotes 2e era play.  I think they will catch a very wide audience but it won't be the One D&D to Rule Them All that they are looking for.  The ethos, system, and technique issues at the core of these disputes make the realization of that ideal impossible.


----------



## The Human Target

ExploderWizard said:


> How?
> 
> Simply playing 3E/4E as written.
> 
> " So whats in this room?"
> 
> " Whatever it is I find it. Made a search roll DC 35. WooT!"
> 
> Push button play. After all what exactly is the point of interacting with setting elements if nothing is really going to happen until a die roll is made?
> 
> 
> Play element> select menu item> activate menu item> get result <loop>
> 
> 
> There is little actual "playing" for the players to do. Anything that moves the game meaningfully forward is a die mechanic.




Weirdly that's not what my 3e or 4e experiences are like at all.

What you are saying is the same as if I said "Why play OD&D, the DM just decides everything on a whim. Your character can't do anything, he can only be allowed to do something. Maybe."

Its a blatant exaggeration.


----------



## ExploderWizard

The Human Target said:


> Weirdly that's not what my 3e or 4e experiences are like at all.
> 
> What you are saying is the same as if I said "Why play OD&D, the DM just decides everything on a whim. Your character can't do anything, he can only be allowed to do something. Maybe."
> 
> Its a blatant exaggeration.




Touche! Fair enough I suppose.


----------



## Skyscraper

I like the OP's essay. Very interesting read. I generally agree on the question of imagination, or degradation thereof, as being a result of a game (or the world) leaving less open space for the mind to expand into.

Has something "been lost" in RPGs? If so, is it imagination? 

Shove an OD&D game onto many modern gamer's table and he might not be interested in it. No disrespect meant to those who still love it - but lets face it, most people don't play it, and it's probably simply because it doesn't appeal to most people.

When OD&D first appeared, there was essentially nothing out there that existed similar to it. It opened up possibilities, allowed imagination to wander, in ways that had not existed before.

But now, people's minds have evolved in another way. They have experienced old school gaming, or not; and have witnessed, played, newer games, including newer versions of D&D. They have seen and played computer games. They have seen a bunch of high-tech movies.

I think that people simply want something else. In what form? In varying shapes and forms, that's my answer. Trying to pin down one game that will appeal to everyone, is as futile as hoping to make one movie or one book that will be to everyone's taste. OD&D used to be the only existing game, so of course it had tremendous success. Now we have many to compare it to.

Some game systems put more on the math and the technical parts - the crunch. Others more on the setting, the "feeling" or the role-playing aspects - the fluff. There is no one way to go about this. The original feel of OD&D will never again exist simply because there is no turning back the wheel to the coming out of the first RPG ever. What was lost is quite simply: novelty. OD&D was new. Now it isnt.

Myself, after 35 years of playing RPGs, I'm discovering new RPGs and I love it. Bring it on!


----------



## GrahamWills

*What makes a difference?*

Interesting thread; and a polite discussion, to boot! Congrats to all.

Here's a though experiment. You have a character in some game system who has a background of "sailor", a "good skill with archery" and is "very strong, but not very dextrous". Which of these statements make sense to you?



I would be automatically able to sail a small boat without needing to roll dice
I would know how to tie common knots
I would be better at tying knots than someone who is not a sailor
I would be less good at tying knots than someone who has high dexterity
I would be able to shoot and hit an unaware person at 50' with a bow without needing a roll
I would need to make a roll to shoot someone who was aware of me
I would be more effective with my bow than a weaker person because I can pull more weight
I would be less effective with my bow than a more dexterous person
I would be better at shooting my bow on a ship than a non-sailor
I would be better at shooting my bow on a ship in a storm than a weaker sailor
I would be worse at shooting my bow than a "soldier" with "good skill at archery"
I would be awesome at repairing bows because not only am I good at archery, but I know how to tie knots and handle rope
I would never need to roll to repair a basic bowstring, given the materials I need
I would always beat someone at archery if they were "bad at archery" without needing a roll
I would always get a better rate of pay for sailing a boat as a "sailor" than someone who was "highly charismatic" but not a "sailor"
I will always beat someone in a tug-of-war game if they are less strong than me
Since sailors are very used to playing tug-of-war, I'd expect to beat someone equally strong as me if they were not a "sailor"
I do not need to roll dice to tell if someone else is a sailor.
I do not need to roll dice to assess someone's skill as an archer
I do not need to roll dice to assess how strong someone is

I'm guessing that if we did try and answer these, we'd not all have the same results; further, I'd not be surprised to find little correlation between predilection for OSR games and the results.


----------



## Umbran

Skyscraper said:


> Has something "been lost" in RPGs? If so, is it imagination?




Related question: If we accept that certain realms of imaginative exploration have been closed off in newer rulesets, does that necessarily imply an *overall* lost of space for imagination?  Can the new rules not help support imaginative play in realms the older designs don't?


----------



## Balesir

Mercurius said:


> This makes me think that there's a different of underlying assumption as to the role of the DM and their power in the game world. I guess I'm relatively traditional and see the DM's power as absolute - I mean it ultimately is in the sense that they can throw whatever they want at the players, so even if a game is by the book, if they really want to kill a party of 3rd level characters they can always just through the Tarrasque at them.



This is probably true. I certainly don't take the view that the GM is any sort of "ultimate power" or "god figure" over the game. In D&D, as we play it, the GM still has the role of scene framing (so the Tarrasque is still an option - but one generally at odds with the GM's aims in the game), but not generally that of rules arbiter or modifier.

The reason for this has nothing to do with "bad GMing" or "player empowerment" in the sense of social dominance and so on, however. It is simply because different folks have different views about how "worlds" (and the usual "default" - the real world) work, in general. I don't believe many GMs set out to bork players or to concoct mean "gotchas" - but people just naturally have different models of how reality operates. And they sincerely believe in their own model.

If a GM has a model of world physics that is purely Newtonian, but I have an understanding of quantum mechanics, there will be points (although, admittedly, few of them) where what the GM says happens simply disagrees with my model of reality. If we were talking about the real world, the GM would simply be wrong. But this isn't because the GM is being a "jerk" or trying to be mean or contradictory - it's because they sincerely believe in a model that differs from mine.

Melee combat is another common example. In another thread, someone claimed that a greatsword wielder would do better if they had "room to make a good swing". My understanding of medieval combat techniques suggests strongly to me that any greatswordsman swinging the thing in big arcs would likely be dead in under 10 seconds against someone who really knew what they were doing. The combination of telegraphing the blow with a massive opening in the defences as the swing is wound up would just be lethal. But in the other poster's "realistic" world, obviously swinging a greatsword like a scythe would work just fine - not because they are trying to be a dick, but because their honestly believed model of how melee combat works is at odds with what I believe it to be.

The advantage of rules, here, is that they define what the outcome of certain character choices in the game world are in a way that the GM and the player agree on (because they read the rules and agreed to play by them). Whether or not the rules are really "realistic" is immaterial; they provide a shared model that allows both "sides" to understand how interaction between the character and the environment will work. In this sense it is "player empowering", because it gives the player a knowledge of the game world that lets them see the game world more like their character would see it - with comprehension rather than ignorance - and make in-character choices that are informed rather than wild-assed guesses, at least in the areas that their character is supposed to be good at.



Mercurius said:


> In other words, the rules themselves don't "force" or create the play experience, but the nature of the rules - depending upon what they are - opens up _probable enactments._



Yep - I agree with this. This is why the folks on the Forge talked in terms of systems *supporting* specific styles of play rather than enforcing them. The difference is not that a style of play is possible with one ruleset but impossible with another - it's that a style of play is easy with one ruleset and hampered with another.



Mercurius said:


> I would suggest that to even approach that question we'd have to agree that there is something to integrate - meaning, that there is something in the old that is lacking (or de-emphasized) in the new, and something in the new that is lacking (or de-emphasized) in the old. I tend to take this approach. Now if you, or someone doesn't, then there really isn't anywhere to go with it.



Absolutely I think there are things that some styles of play have that others do not; the very point of playing by a different style is to emphasise some aspects of play while de-emphasising others.

As an aside to this, I don't see "immersion" as necessarily the primary aim of roleplaying. It's _AN_ aim - and a perfectly valid one - but not _THE_ aim of roleplaying. In some styles it is emphasised, in others it's not.



Mercurius said:


> I think it comes down to whether we see a game as an ongoing, organic process of development, or something that has achieved (near-) perfection in one form (or edition) or another. I take the former approach, which is why I'm not an advocate of any particular edition.



Well, I don't fundamentally accept that there is any such thing as (near-)perfection in roleplaying, so I guess I can't possibly hold the second view!

All I can say is this: for the aspects of RPG that it is good at, I find 4E to be the best system on the market. For what older editions of D&D are particularly good at, I find that there are other systems that do the job in a way that I prefer.

That's not to say that others won't prefer earlier D&D editions for the styles for which I prefer another system, or that they might prefer older editions for styles that I haven't even considered playing. Both of those are possible. But it does mean that I currently have a use for 4E D&D, whereas I don't really have a use for older editions (any more).



ExploderWizard said:


> If two PC's respond to an npc's offer in plainspeak: " I don't think that will work for us".
> 
> PC #1 has a CHA of 16 and/or a socially skilled background.
> 
> PC #2 has a CHA of 6 and no such background.
> 
> When PC #1 responds the npc will hear " not exactly what I had in mind, lets see what other arrangements we can make" as a sort of in between the lines message.
> 
> When PC #2 responds the npc will hear " screw that. If thats the best ya got you can stick it" as a sort of in between the lines message.
> 
> So it is very possible for normal conversation to take place HIGHLY influenced by the attributes of the character. The influence of such attributes will depend largely on the attitude and disposition of the recipient.



That sounds like a perfectly sensible system. The GM determines what "success" and "failure" are likely to lead to - which is constrained by the situation in play - and the skill roll (or, better, skill challenge - to take account of the several tasks required to get to a resolution) determines which path is open.

Better would be a set of rules (or at least guidelines) for "framing the scene" in social encounters in terms of what is possible and what is not, and what opposition must be overcome to get to the possible. I found this a disappointment with 4E; it had extensive (and very good) advice on framing combat encounters, but almost nothing on framing social or exploration encounters. This omission was never really rectified, I'm sad to say. The only "excuse" I can see is that previous editions of D&D didn't grasp this nettle, either - but I don't really think that excuse flies very far.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Balesir said:


> That sounds like a perfectly sensible system. The GM determines what "success" and "failure" are likely to lead to - which is constrained by the situation in play - and the skill roll (or, better, skill challenge - to take account of the several tasks required to get to a resolution) determines which path is open.
> 
> Better would be a set of rules (or at least guidelines) for "framing the scene" in social encounters in terms of what is possible and what is not, and what opposition must be overcome to get to the possible. I found this a disappointment with 4E; it had extensive (and very good) advice on framing combat encounters, but almost nothing on framing social or exploration encounters. This omission was never really rectified, I'm sad to say. The only "excuse" I can see is that previous editions of D&D didn't grasp this nettle, either - but I don't really think that excuse flies very far.




In actual play its very open ended. What is possible and what is not isn't a known quantity. There might be what I _Think _is possible as a starting point, but since the content of the player's actual contribution drives what is possible, a given interaction could theoretically go anywhere. Likewise the amount or even _nature _of the opposition isn't always a known quantity. I might know what an npc or group has in the way of resources available, and their primary motivations. What I don't know is what kind of crazy the players are going to throw into the situation. That uncertainty and the poosibilities therein are one of the primary reasons I enjoy playing.


----------



## dd.stevenson

Mercurius said:


> You make a good point here, and perhaps hexcrawl vs. metaplot doesn't fit with the "taxonomy of imagination" that I'm hinting at.
> 
> That aid, I do think that certain factors are more or less conducive to imagination. In the last post I used the example of the battlemat, of 4e combat vs. 1e (or other old school style) combat. I think the rules of 3e and 4e are less conducive to imaginative combat. It doesn't mean that imagination cannot be evoked or inspired, or that this is true of all people at all times in all worlds, but as a general rule.
> 
> (Am I allowed to make generalities? ).
> 
> But that's not as much a play-style, like hexcrawling vs. metaplot, but the actual rules - the structure itself.



I sort of backed off from responding to this post, since I've never played 4E, and I haven't really got the darndest idea what kind of play it actually supports. (As opposed to what kind of play its ENWorld advocates support.) 

Also I have never seen D&D combat as terribly imaginative, with the occasional _memorable _exception. Generally, especially IME with old school play, the imagination goes into pre-fight exploration, whereas the actual combat resolution is a fast and brutal hackfest. 

RE: Grids... True, counting squares degrades immersion (for me) but it opens up other opportunities and I can't say for certain that the net result is a hit to the imaginativeness of the whole enterprise. (That said, I greatly prefer non-grid play because it's so much quicker to set up and resolve, which means that we can move the game ahead so much further in a session than if we were gridding it. Also it feels so... empowering to just be able to just call a fight into existence by describing it.)


----------



## dd.stevenson

Manbearcat said:


> I've said from the beginning that it [DDN] looks like, feels like, plays like, and promotes 2e era play.



Counterpoint: right now I'm running DDN and 2E alternate weeks, and both my players and I agree that DDN feels more like 3E than it does like 2E. The big thing is skills--in the trenches, skills are the big (IMO intrusive) thing that made 3E feel different than 2E, and as long as they're present, I suspect they'll continue to make the game feel like 3E.

The other big difference is harder for me to define, but it comes down to a feeling of empowerment: with 2E rules being such an utter CF, there's a huge amount of creative pleasure to be had in cutting through the tangled mess and making an incisive ruling that moves the game forward. For whatever reasons, this is a huge stimulant for my imagination, and it is something that DDN, with its clear, specific rules, denies me.


----------



## The Human Target

In basically every other facet of our lives we strive to make things more user friendly and clear.

Its interesting that some people don't want that in D&D.


----------



## dd.stevenson

The Human Target said:


> In basically every other facet of our lives we strive to make things more user friendly and clear.
> 
> Its interesting that some people don't want that in D&D.



If you think I said I didn't want it in D&D, then you're mistaken. I was explaining why 2E feels different than DDN.


----------



## Minigiant

This is why I always go back to Player-DM-Game-Playstyle synchronization.

My favorite, funniest, most imaginative game at a table was 2e. But my worst, most boring, most argumentative, heaviest "This sucks, I aint coming back next session" game at a table was 2e as well. Because of player synchronizing.

If you buy into the game, the supported playstyle chosen, and the DM's interpretation of it, old school gaming was awesome. But if you didn't, it was a mess. Your imaginization gains no anchor and is pushed off to lets you flow away.

The modern editions sort of pulls game, playstyle, and DM thought closer together. So a player can see if they sync up before sitting down. Unfortunately if you don't naturally sync up, it takes a lot more work to get you to. Too much for some.


----------



## The Human Target

dd.stevenson said:


> If you think I said I didn't want it in D&D, then you're mistaken. I was explaining why 2E feels different than DDN.




So you like how 2e's tangle inspires you but don't want too see it in Next?


----------



## dd.stevenson

The Human Target said:


> So you like how 2e's tangle inspires you but don't want too see it in Next?



 Ayup. One tangle's enough for me, thanks; as long as they're doing reprints I see no reason why D&D should go down _that _road again.


----------



## The Human Target

dd.stevenson said:


> Ayup. One tangle's enough for me, thanks; as long as they're doing reprints I see no reason why D&D should go down _that _road again.




I like your style.


----------



## Lanefan

*Q*

OK, I'll play. 


GrahamWills said:


> Interesting thread; and a polite discussion, to boot! Congrats to all.
> 
> Here's a though experiment. You have a character in some game system who has a background of "sailor", a "good skill with archery" and is "very strong, but not very dextrous". Which of these statements make sense to you?



Many of these are situationally dependent, I'll note such as I go through...



> I would be automatically able to sail a small boat without needing to roll dice



Unless weather conditions were extreme, yes.


> I would know how to tie common knots



Usually; and were a roll required you'd have a big bonus


> I would be better at tying knots than someone who is not a sailor



Maybe.  Completely depends on what the "someone who is not a sailor" has going for her.


> I would be less good at tying knots than someone who has high dexterity



The higher-dex person would probably be faster at tying knots but the end result would be just as good a knot.


> I would be able to shoot and hit an unaware person at 50' with a bow without needing a roll



Never.  Anything requiring aim always needs a roll to hit.  And you can always fumble, too.


> I would need to make a roll to shoot someone who was aware of me



Yes.


> I would be more effective with my bow than a weaker person because I can pull more weight



If you had a bow matched to your strength your shots would do more damage on a hit, but your aim to hit would be no better than the next guy.


> I would be less effective with my bow than a more dexterous person



When aiming to hit, yes.


> I would be better at shooting my bow on a ship than a non-sailor



Yes. (assuming a moving ship at sea; a ship tied to a dock is the same as being on land)


> I would be better at shooting my bow on a ship in a storm than a weaker sailor



If "weaker" is defined as "less strong" then see response above re pulling more weight.  If "weaker" is defined as "less competent as a sailor" it might make a slight difference but not much.


> I would be worse at shooting my bow than a "soldier" with "good skill at archery"



Too many other variables to give a clear answer, but it would probably come down to fighter-equivalent-level.  If all other things were exactly equal except the sceondary skill of sailor/soldier then you'd be the same on land and the sailor would be better at sea.


> I would be awesome at repairing bows because not only am I good at archery, but I know how to tie knots and handle rope



No, your secondary skill is "sailor" not "bowyer".


> I would never need to roll to repair a basic bowstring, given the materials I need



You'd never repair a bowstring anyway, you'd just restring the whole thing, which any competent archer should be able to do.  You'd only have to roll if you were under pressure e.g. in mid-combat.


> I would always beat someone at archery if they were "bad at archery" without needing a roll



No.  You'd have a bonus and-or your opponent would have a penalty, but you'd still have to roll - anyone can have a bad day.


> I would always get a better rate of pay for sailing a boat as a "sailor" than someone who was "highly charismatic" but not a "sailor"



Not necessarily.


> I will always beat someone in a tug-of-war game if they are less strong than me



This is the same as two clauses back re auto-beating a poor archer - you'd still have to roll, with bonus/penalty applied.


> Since sailors are very used to playing tug-of-war, I'd expect to beat someone equally strong as me if they were not a "sailor"



This is a bit of a stretch, you *might* get a tiny bonus on a roll, if that.  Sailors are very used to drinking rum too, but it doesn't mean they can hold their liquor any better than a landlubber.


> I do not need to roll dice to tell if someone else is a sailor.



Yes you do.


> I do not need to roll dice to assess someone's skill at archery.



Yes you do.


> I do not need to roll dice to assess how strong someone is.



Yes you do.

Lan-"what do we do with a drunken archer"-efan


----------



## Mercurius

I'm starting to lose a little steam, but have enjoyed the go-arounds - some really good stuff in this thread. A couple final thoughts/responses:



Manbearcat said:


> In total; I do not think the 5e "big tent" approach will facilitate what they're looking for (One D&D to Rule Them All).  I've been extremely skeptical of the design theory from the beginning.  At its core is an ethos of (i) "Rulings Not Rules", (ii) its GM advice advocating hand-waved or fudged DCs and contests, and (iii) its embedded, somewhat opaque, task resolution mechanics that drive toward granular exploration of GM setting.  It is quite literally anathema to (i) my preferred ethos ("Drive Play Toward Conflict - Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes."), (ii) fidelity to the action resolution mechanics, and (iii) transparent, conflict resolution mechanics that focus on fiction (including setting) emerging from resolving player intent within a scene-based architecture.




I find myself both fascinated and confused with this paragraph - the latter because I don't fully understand it and feel like I need a rosetta stone, because you're using a lot of lingo and conceptual models that some Forge-esque or at least designerspeak, but the former because what I _do _understand is quite interesting!

Can you re-phase the difference between the two ethos ("ethi"?)? What I hear you saying is that the Next approach harkens back to the old school, which in turn is somewhat in line with the "myth of the pre-given world" - characters exploring a pre-made setting, and that the rules are general guidelines and flexible. Whereas what I hear you saying about your preferred ethos is that the setting arises out of the actions of the PCs, and that the rules are set in stone, providing a solid foundation for the agreement between players and DM. Is that basically it or am I off base?



Manbearcat said:


> I've said from the beginning that it looks like, feels like, plays like, and promotes 2e era play.  I think they will catch a very wide audience but it won't be the One D&D to Rule Them All that they are looking for.  The ethos, system, and technique issues at the core of these disputes make the realization of that ideal impossible.




While I started in the early 80s with 1e, I probably played more D&D during 2e era than any other era, although mainly before "2.5" of Player's Options. If what you say is true, I don't mind it in terms of the _feel _- but I'm rather attached to a clearly defined core mechanic ala 3e and 4e. 

As for the One D&D to Rule Them All, I still don't see whi it isn't possible if: a) the maintain a very simple core system, and b) offer modular options that can be layered on as desired by DMs, even players. I suppose the problem is that by doing that they might not do any particular style (or modular theme) better than specific editions; in other words, they won't "out-4e 4e." But they will be able to, at least, provide some of the dynamic quality of the AEDU power structure, if there's a modular option for it.



Umbran said:


> Related question: If we accept that certain realms of imaginative exploration have been closed off in newer rulesets, does that necessarily imply an *overall* lost of space for imagination?  Can the new rules not help support imaginative play in realms the older designs don't?




Interesting question. My answer is: why not? Its not about new or old, but what the new and old rules are, and what sort of paradigm they enact. 

I also wouldn't say that "certain realms of imaginative exploration have been closed off in newer rulesets" as much as they have been de-emphasized or obfuscated, or perhaps the focus has changed towards other domains. But, as far as I can tell, any "imaginative realm" that was possible in 1983 is possible in 2013, but the medium has changed.



Balesir said:


> If a GM has a model of world physics that is purely Newtonian, but I have an understanding of quantum mechanics, there will be points (although, admittedly, few of them) where what the GM says happens simply disagrees with my model of reality. If we were talking about the real world, the GM would simply be wrong. But this isn't because the GM is being a "jerk" or trying to be mean or contradictory - it's because they sincerely believe in a model that differs from mine.




Yes, this is so true - and applies to every avenue of life.



Balesir said:


> The advantage of rules, here, is that they define what the outcome of certain character choices in the game world are in a way that the GM and the player agree on (because they read the rules and agreed to play by them). Whether or not the rules are really "realistic" is immaterial; they provide a shared model that allows both "sides" to understand how interaction between the character and the environment will work. In this sense it is "player empowering", because it gives the player a knowledge of the game world that lets them see the game world more like their character would see it - with comprehension rather than ignorance - and make in-character choices that are informed rather than wild-assed guesses, at least in the areas that their character is supposed to be good at.




Yes, I agree here - well said. Its similar to a reader suspending disbelief when entering the world of a fantasy novel. If the author is skilled and clear about the 'rules of the world" - magic, etc - then the reader will follow along willingly. But they must be internally consistent.




Balesir said:


> Yep - I agree with this. This is why the folks on the Forge talked in terms of systems *supporting* specific styles of play rather than enforcing them. The difference is not that a style of play is possible with one ruleset but impossible with another - it's that a style of play is easy with one ruleset and hampered with another.




Yes, exactly. This has been my point with 4e - the "old school" theater of mind combat is "hampered" by the 4e AEDU paradigm, which requires focused attention the battlemat and relatively pre-determined outcomes. It opens up other possibilities, and certainly the old approach is still possible, just hampered.



Balesir said:


> As an aside to this, I don't see "immersion" as necessarily the primary aim of roleplaying. It's _AN_ aim - and a perfectly valid one - but not _THE_ aim of roleplaying. In some styles it is emphasised, in others it's not.




This is probably true. I realize that one error in my original post and some of the later discussion is that I was subconsciously talking about a lot more than RPGs, even RPGs secondarily. I can't even say that I play RPGs for "imaginative immersion" which, for me, pays off with the sense of wonderment.  I _write _for that reason, or I read, setting books or novels, but I _play _to have fun with friends, at least first and foremost.



Balesir said:


> All I can say is this: for the aspects of RPG that it is good at, I find 4E to be the best system on the market. For what older editions of D&D are particularly good at, I find that there are other systems that do the job in a way that I prefer.




Yup. In my mind, there is no beating 4e's battlemat combat, perhaps among other things. I just found that, over time, its flavor was too specific (for me); game sessions were too repetitive. Part of this was due to my own fault, or not having enough time to design and run the type of game I really wanted to, but a lot of it was the nature of the game itself. Again, 4e's strengths are shadowed by corresponding weaknesses; the balance among classes is shadowed by the homogeneity of powers. And so on.


----------



## Manbearcat

Mercurius said:


> What I hear you saying is that the Next approach harkens back to the old school, which in turn is somewhat in line with the "myth of the pre-given world" - characters exploring a pre-made setting, and that the rules are general guidelines and flexible. Whereas what I hear you saying about your preferred ethos is that the setting arises out of the actions of the PCs, and that the rules are set in stone, providing a solid foundation for the agreement between players and DM. Is that basically it or am I off base?




Its zoomed-out (there is a bit more nuance that would require further unpacking system components, GMing techniques, et al), but your abstract is pretty close to the mark.



Mercurius said:


> As for the One D&D to Rule Them All, I still don't see whi it isn't possible if: a) the maintain a very simple core system, and b) offer modular options that can be layered on as desired by DMs, even players. I suppose the problem is that by doing that they might not do any particular style (or modular theme) better than specific editions; in other words, they won't "out-4e 4e." But they will be able to, at least, provide some of the dynamic quality of the AEDU power structure, if there's a modular option for it.




As an overview, this is the main problem, as I see it.  There are too many component parts that are all but (or near to at the very least) mutually exclusive of one another with respect to facilitating disparate agendas; outcome-based design versus process-based design...granular, task resolution to resolve a character's singular action during world exploration (eg climbing a tree to get to the top of it to then make a check to perceive) versus abstract conflict resolution to resolve player intent while paying heed to the conflict's stakes (eg navigating the course of a harrowing, narrow switchback mountain path, replete with icy snowdrifts, during pursuit evasion) .  Or, you end up with a truly watered down component that doesn't remotely carry the mechanical heft or narrative malleability (eg 5e's Hit Die are not remotely a proper analogue for the mufti-faceted mechanical impact of 4e's Healing Surges and their free-descriptor nature which provides a malleable, fungible narrative device for GMs to tax PCs and/or make offers).

Bolting on an elegant non-combat, conflict resolution framework in a task resolution based system is not as easy as devising a _x _successes before _n _failures and subjective, of-level DCs.  There are PC build scheme considerations, mechanical means for attrition/ablation on failures (micro and macro), resource refresh rates, that must be in lockstep.  And, of course, the math needs to be coherent.  The same applies for doing the inverse (going from conflict resolution at the closed-scene level to task resolution at the open-world level).  Making the two paradigms compatible requires an extraordinary amount of work or the deft hand of Errol Flynn.


----------



## pemerton

ExploderWizard said:


> Simply playing 3E/4E as written.
> 
> " So whats in this room?"
> 
> " Whatever it is I find it. Made a search roll DC 35. WooT!"
> 
> Push button play.





Halivar said:


> This is exactly how I feel about Diplomacy, as well.



In my view the fundamental issue with these 3E skills is that the system isn't clear on what their mechanical functions is: action resolution? or scene re-framiong?

As scene-reframing they work well enough - the player, with a good roll, can now reframe the scene into one in which s/he knows what the hidden items in the room are; or in which she is confronted by a helpful rather than a hostile NPC. Of course, this takes a degree of scene framing authority away from the GM, which for some playstyles at least (eg mine) is not a desired thing.

As action resolution I think they are rathouse, especially Diplomacy, because they do not contain within their own systems for mechanical resolution provision for the GM to narrate complications and conseqeunces short of scene-framing. 4e's solution to this issue is the skill challenge. I don't know of any other solution which both (i) maintains these skills, and (ii) makes them relevant to action resolution rather than scene-reframing.

A further problem for 3E is that it has no discussion in the rulebooks of these issues, and hence offers no solution to players and GMs who find themselves colliding over how they understand and implement these skills.


----------



## pemerton

Minigiant said:


> One of the core conflicts of an RPG is that you are trying to playas the character but using the character's attributes and feates. This is the role of rules. When you make John jump over the hole, you are using John's abilty to jump and imagining John jumping. The rules or rulings determine whether or not John makes the jump and by how much. Because John is not you, there needs to be a frame of reference for the player to think like John.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> "Why would I make John jump if I don't know how far he can usually jump." That is one of the core sliding scales of RPG.  How informed do you the players of their characters' abililty without giving them a feeling that you are locking all their actions down into the character sheet.



A related problem is this:

* Both in real life and in adventure fiction, people do all sorts of crazy, suboptimal things;

* While in real life this sort of stuff can get you hurt, in adventure fiction those crazy and sub-optimal things tend to lead to success, or at least excitement, rather than disaster - in a certain sense they are not _really_ sub-optimal at all;

* Why would I have John do a crazy or suboptimal thing if I know this is likely to lead to me "losing" the game (eg by having John die)?​
D&D has always solved this problem, at least as far as physical combat is concerned, via hit points. I like a system that is able to extend a solution into other parts of the game. And for my personal purposes "the GM decides" is not a solution.



Mercurius said:


> This makes me think that there's a different of underlying assumption as to the role of the DM and their power in the game world. I guess I'm relatively traditional and see the DM's power as absolute
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the DM is not only a rules referee, but also the story teller. I find myself fudging things all the time _if _I think it improves the quality of the game experience.





Mercurius said:


> It seems that there's a deeper issue here, which has to do with the basic assumptions about the nature of GM power. Is it absolute or not? Is the DM the opposition and the rule books the referee, or is the DM the "god narrator"? Etc.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The right question might not be whether or not the DM has absolute power because, as I said to Balesir, even if he doesn't technically, he does in all practical sense.



I don't understand why you say that the GM has absolute power in a practical sense. The rules constrain the GM's power the same as they do anyone else's - for instance, the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster, the GM has to knock off those hit points.

The rules of an RPG _might_ say that the GM can feel free whether or not to have regard to the players' dice rolls in adjudicating the consequences of PC actions but they don't have to, and I very strongly prefer a game that does _not_ say that.

I personally prefer a game where the GM has strong authority over scene-framing but that is not essential to RPGing. And Marvel Heroic RP has an interesting device - the Doom Pool - which does not limit the way in which a GM can frame a scene but does constrain the extent to which the GM can escalate it (eg via reinforcements) as it unfolds.

Of course the GM can just ignore the rules and cheat, but then so can the players. That doesn't tell us about what limits on authority it is practical for the rules of an RPG to impose.

On the bigger question, as I posted earlier, the only RPG I am interested in playing in accordance with the concpetion of GM that you describe is CoC.

Your description of the GM's role also tends, in my mind, to reinforce my sense that by "imaginative experience of the PC" you mean something like "forming a mental image of the events in the game fiction that are occurring to and surrounding my PC" as opposed to "emotionally inhabiting my PC and working his/her will on the world via the resources I have at my disposal." The latter approach to RPGing - which again is my strong preference, CoC excepted - more-or-less requires that the system give the players _some_ resources whereby they can produce outcomes on the fiction that are binding on all other participants, including the GM.

4e is a particularly rules heavy way to do this, of course. And there are things to be said - both from the "objective" viewpoint of design and the "subjective" viewpoint of personal taste - about the merits of rules heavy vs rules light systems. But I think there is no direct pathway from these things to a particular conception of either imagination in RPGs, or the role of the GM.



Mercurius said:


> Imagine renting an apartment. It has limitations and structure (constraints) by virtue of the shape of the rooms, the square footage, etc. Imagine that apartment as empty - you can do anything with it, decorate it in any number of ways - within the limitations of the physical space that it allows, of course. You might think about different themes - Japanese or kitsch or arts & crafts. Now imagine that same apartment pre-furnished. You can move things around a bit, and add a piece here and there, but its pretty much pre-determined. A further extreme would be sub-leasing an apartment that you can't change at all.
> 
> I think 4e is sort of like a pre-furnished apartment.





Balesir said:


> What old editions of D&D do, in my mind, is say "if you want a chair, ask the DM for one - but be careful how you use it, because we encourage the DM to make your chair idiosyncratic in both form and architecture. Don't try standing on it, for instance - the DM may be assuming it has only three legs".



Balesir's remark certainly captrues, for me, some of the reasons I don't like "unlimited authority" GMing. As a player, if I want to read a story or watch a film I'll do that. As a GM if I want to write a story or a screenplay I'll do that. When I'm RPGing I want to do what is distinctively pleasurable, to me, about RPGing - namely, frame scenes in which my players' PCs are engaged and then see what the players do. In order for me to genuinely "see what the players do" they have to be able to do things independently of my will. This is what player resources are for. Even p 42 involves player resources - skill bonuses, healing surges etc. Once I tell a player the DC and the outcome on success or failure, they get to roll the die and I'm as bound by that outcome as the players are.

As for "4e is a pre-furnished apartment" I don't really have a strong grasp on the analogy: "furnishings" seem like world-building, but (i) 4e has a very light emphasis on world-building compared to traditional D&D, and (ii) worldbuilding may be creative for the GM but is nothing but a source of limitation for the players.

To the extent that I have some grasp on your analogy - that what is "pre-furnished" is the range of options that players can take for their PCs - then I don't think I agree. Here's one example that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] often gives: how often in classic D&D did a battle captain PC lead an attack while making a rousing cry to his companions, brining it about that not only does the battle captain get to attack the enemy, but so do all his/her companions? This is an utter staple from the more romantic end of the fantasy genre (Excalibur again) but is possible only in 4e.

Multiple times you have suggested that I am misconstruing the significance of your reference to Excalibur, but I think you may not have fully appreciated the point I was making: that there is a fundamental contradiction between (i) the claim that 4e is in some way limited or "pre-furnished" compared to classic D&D, and (ii) the fact that for a whole range of utterly staple genre elements of fantasy literature, from the battle captain to the heroic comeback to the warrior who imposes his/her will on the mooks as they swarm him or her, only 4e can deliver them - and furthermore does so primarily at the behest of the players without needing to detour via the will of the GM.

For me, that is a game that is serving, not subordinating, the end of imagination.


----------



## howandwhy99

What D&D lost is open ended player actions, while still retaining rigorously taut game play. There is no longer a game board behind the screen. No rules for its generation. No pattern for the players to engage in mastering through play. At best we have design philosophies aimed at either player innovation or player strategy rather than early D&D's never copied design supporting both. 

[sblock]The wonderful thing about games is that they are not stories. Living amongst a gaming culture currently trapped in narrative absolutism can cause one to lose gaming for storytelling, but you shouldn't blur life into featureless monochrome, if you can help it. Reject ideologues when you run across them.  There is no framing of a scene in games. No expression of narratives. No creation of shared stories. No resolution mechanics. No conflicts. No collaboration. No metagaming rules. No fictional character performances. No fictional settings. No fictional personas. No immersion. No fluff. No referee fiat. None of those things are relevant to games and RPGs in particular.[/sblock]


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> D&D has always solved this problem, at least as far as physical combat is concerned, via hit points. I like a system that is able to extend a solution into other parts of the game. And for my personal purposes "the GM decides" is not a solution.




You speak of Fiat like its an approach taken in all situations; I see it as more of being when needed to improve or augment the game. As I said before, let's say the big bad monster is on its last legs with 76 HP and the rogue scores a critical hit for 67 HP of damage; I'm going to "fudge" that and offer a kill - and not tell the players that the monster "really" had 76 HP, because in my view it didn't "really" have 76 HP - it had 67.



pemerton said:


> I don't understand why you say that the GM has absolute power in a practical sense. The rules constrain the GM's power the same as they do anyone else's - for instance, the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster, the GM has to knock off those hit points.




Yes, of course. But what I mean by "in a practical sense" is that the GM can always find his way around something if he really wants. Thus my Tarrasque example. A GM, in my view, can also create a reason for something happening or not happening and not have to explain to the players via the rules - citing page numbers and such. That's the GM's prerogative. I would add...as long as he has a good reason to do what he chooses to do, a GM can do _anything. _Of course this opens the door for GM abuse, but if the GM is a reasonably mature human being that shouldn't be a problem.



pemerton said:


> The rules of an RPG _might_ say that the GM can feel free whether or not to have regard to the players' dice rolls in adjudicating the consequences of PC actions but they don't have to, and I very strongly prefer a game that does _not_ say that.




As far as I can tell, _all _editions of D&D have said that, that "Rule Zero" is in effect (DM Fiat).

What you describe, to me, places the GM as more of another player, the player who plays "everyone else," and less as the story-teller.



pemerton said:


> *Of course the GM can just ignore the rules and cheat*, but then so can the players. That doesn't tell us about what limits on authority it is practical for the rules of an RPG to impose.




I think this is the heart of the matter, of our disagreement, and where (I think) you veer from traditional D&D - in every edition. The GM cannot "cheat." Or at least, they can emply Rule Zero to alter a situation as they deem necessary. 

This doesn't mean that a GM should do whatever they damn well please whenever they damn well want to, especially when a player is being annoying. It is their job to remain impartial, to be a fair judge (referee), and to be willing to engage in discussion with players, even disagreements, about rulings. A good GM, in my view, is willing to change their mind - but _not _because "the rules say so" but because the player presents a good argument as to why the ruling should be changed that out-weighs whatever reason the GM had for making the ruling in the first place.

So I don't think a GM can cheat as much as break the "contract of trust," so to speak, but being biased or unfair. 

So I think the difference here as to do with both the nature of GM power, and whether rules are scene as absolute laws or guidelines - or to what degree. I've never played in a game of D&D in which the rules were absolute laws, or the DM didn't employ Rule Zero (Fiat) to some extent (the trick, though, is doing so without the player's realizing it).



pemerton said:


> On the bigger question, as I posted earlier, the only RPG I am interested in playing in accordance with the concpetion of GM that you describe is CoC.
> 
> Your description of the GM's role also tends, in my mind, to reinforce my sense that by "imaginative experience of the PC" you mean something like "forming a mental image of the events in the game fiction that are occurring to and surrounding my PC" as opposed to "emotionally inhabiting my PC and working his/her will on the world via the resources I have at my disposal." The latter approach to RPGing - which again is my strong preference, CoC excepted - more-or-less requires that the system give the players _some_ resources whereby they can produce outcomes on the fiction that are binding on all other participants, including the GM.




First of all, I don't see how the two definitions you offer are contradictory. But the latter part is perhaps where we disagree, and where I say that even if these resources lead to "binding" outcomes, the GM can still find a way around that if he really wants to, thus has absolute power in a practical sense.

This is why I'm putting emphasis not on rules-as-absolute, but on what could be called the social covenant, the "contract of trust." The players are deciding to trust the judgment and fairness of the GM, and the GM is in turn pledging to be fair and just.



pemerton said:


> 4e is a particularly rules heavy way to do this, of course. And there are things to be said - both from the "objective" viewpoint of design and the "subjective" viewpoint of personal taste - about the merits of rules heavy vs rules light systems. But I think there is no direct pathway from these things to a particular conception of either imagination in RPGs, or the role of the GM.




I'm open either way, but I still think there is _some _relationship between "rules weight" and imagination, at least in some facets of the game.



pemerton said:


> Balesir's remark certainly captrues, for me, some of the reasons I don't like "unlimited authority" GMing. As a player, if I want to read a story or watch a film I'll do that. As a GM if I want to write a story or a screenplay I'll do that. When I'm RPGing I want to do what is distinctively pleasurable, to me, about RPGing - namely, frame scenes in which my players' PCs are engaged and then see what the players do. In order for me to genuinely "see what the players do" they have to be able to do things independently of my will. This is what player resources are for. Even p 42 involves player resources - skill bonuses, healing surges etc. Once I tell a player the DC and the outcome on success or failure, they get to roll the die and I'm as bound by that outcome as the players are.




None of which is antithetical to what I was saying above...the difference being that I reserve the right (as GM) to use Fiat if I deem it necessary to the improvement of the game, and the overall enjoyment of the players.



pemerton said:


> As for "4e is a pre-furnished apartment" I don't really have a strong grasp on the analogy: "furnishings" seem like world-building, but (i) 4e has a very light emphasis on world-building compared to traditional D&D, and (ii) worldbuilding may be creative for the GM but is nothing but a source of limitation for the players.
> 
> To the extent that I have some grasp on your analogy - that what is "pre-furnished" is the range of options that players can take for their PCs - then I don't think I agree. Here's one example that  @_*Hussar*_  often gives: how often in classic D&D did a battle captain PC lead an attack while making a rousing cry to his companions, brining it about that not only does the battle captain get to attack the enemy, but so do all his/her companions? This is an utter staple from the more romantic end of the fantasy genre (Excalibur again) but is possible only in 4e.




I disagree. Its just that it requires the players to think imaginatively, the GM to think on the fly, to provide some kind of target number for the player to roll against.

You can still do this in 4e, but the problem is that page 42 is in the background, and behind the "density" of the AEDU system.



pemerton said:


> Multiple times you have suggested that I am misconstruing the significance of your reference to Excalibur, but I think you may not have fully appreciated the point I was making: that there is a fundamental contradiction between (i) the claim that 4e is in some way limited or "pre-furnished" compared to classic D&D, and (ii) the fact that for a whole range of utterly staple genre elements of fantasy literature, from the battle captain to the heroic comeback to the warrior who imposes his/her will on the mooks as they swarm him or her, only 4e can deliver them - and furthermore does so primarily at the behest of the players without needing to detour via the will of the GM.




(i) Is not entirely true in that I'm not saying it is as much "limited" as it employs a system of options that effectively lead to a de-emphasis on improvisation.

(ii) As I said above, I disagree with this. PCs can do anything in every edition of D&D_. _A good DM/GM will allow a PC to try anything they can imagine. Just like a good teacher will never say, "Bad question," a good GM will never say "You can't do that." They might say, "That will be very, very difficult, but go ahead and try..."



pemerton said:


> For me, that is a game that is serving, not subordinating, the end of imagination.




It may boil down to what degree you and I prefer to have resources defined. I prefer less definition, which I feel allows for (or encourages) more improvisation.


----------



## Herschel

Zardnaar said:


> So much wrong with this post. We couldn't make it past level 7 in 4E before we gave up at the sheer stupidity of the mechanics. Even in BECMI we managed better than that.




Maybe the mechanics were not where the problem exists. A whole lot of people seemed to like and use them just fine.


----------



## Herschel

pemerton said:


> I am a great fan of Boorman's Excalibur. But I don't think it tells us anything about the relationship between OSR RPGs, 4e and imagination.
> 
> It is virtually impossible to play a game with the feel of Excalibur using Moldvay Basic. I have complained about this frequently on these boards - the Foreword to Moldvay, with its example of the warrior dispatching the dragon tyrant with a sword gifted by a mysterious cleric, promises fantasy romance; but the only part of the mechanics not dedicated to exploration (and built-environment exploration at that, with all the stuff about doors and traps and light sources) is the Reaction Table, and even that is framed primarily in terms of encounters in dungeon between quasi-military units.
> 
> Conversely, it is rather easy to play a game with the feel of Excalibur using 4e, _provided that_ the players build the right sorts of PCs (more warlords, paladins and avengers; not too many halfing rogue worshippers of Avandra) and the GM frames the right sorts of encounters (avoid ankhegs, kruthiks and bulettes).
> 
> This is because 4e is obviously influenced by indie RPG design, or at least some strands thereof: there's not a lot of Over the Edge in 4e (contrast 13th Age, where Tweet reprises several elements of OtE for the pleasure of an audience mostly ignorant of that earlier game); but there's more than a little bit of HeroWars/Quest, and of Ron Edwards's design ideas. Perhaps the single most important part of indie design to which 4e aspires (whether or not it always achieves) is to get rid of GM-created illusions, and to makes the stakes (i) real and (ii) transparent to the players.
> 
> The reasons for WotC's commercial decisions in relation to 4e I leave for others to work out - though I think it must be obvious to anyone that Essentials was an incredibly poorly conceived set of products, even if some of the individual design elements (especially the MV monsters) are very nicely done.
> 
> But 4e is not populated by "detailed descriptions" - nearly all its books are either lists of potential player build elements, or lists of potential antagonists for the GM to introduce. The only new, large scale action resolution subsystems introduced outside of the PHB and DMG are vehicle rules in Adventurers' Vault, and Martial Practices in Martial Power 2. I think nearly eveyone ignores the latter system, and I'm guessing vehicle rules aren't used that often either.
> 
> 4e's core resolution system is in fact incredibly simple (and indie): GM describes situation; player nominates method - skill and/or power - by which his/her PC will overcome challenge, based on the interaction between the mechanics of that skill/power and the fictional positioning of the PC in the GM-described situation; the GM sets a DC; the player rolls the di(c)e; if the check succeeds the player gets what s/he wanted, and if the check fails then the adverse consequence is narrated by the GM.
> 
> The main difference in resolution systems between 4e and a typical indie game is its mechanically incredibly heavy combat resolution system. (Though no heavier, I think, than some other systems like say Burning Wheel.) If you don't enjoy the detailed mechanical resolution of combat, 4e is probably not the game for you! But while admittedly my knowledge of WoW et al is 2nd hand, I don't see much similarity between 4e combat resolution and those systems. For instance, fictional positioning is key in 4e - and the whole of p 42 is built around that - but is not in a computer game.
> 
> The dissatisfaction with 4e that I read on these boards, at least, most often relates not to its excess of description but rather its lack thereof - eg what is happening when Come and Get It is used, or when an attack does damage on a miss? - and to its indie-style transparency ("player entitlement").
> 
> The sort of "imagination" that you seem to be talking about is that of a player "imagining" what the ingame situation of the PC is like. I prefer not to have that be _imagined_. I prefer to have that be _experienced_. Of course it can't be experienced immediately, but I believe a good RPG can be designed so that the player experiences the at-table situation in a way that is comparable to, though obviously not immediately identical with, the PC's experience of the ingame situation. I think 4e does as good a job of this as any version of D&D - in fact, in my personal opinion, a better job.
> 
> I pulled this out because I think the change in saving throws is perhaps the single biggest symbol of change between AD&D and 3E. Saving throws go from being a metagame device with fortune-in-the-middle resolution (ie roll the dice, then narrate something about how your guy shrugged off the dragon breath or sucked out the poison) to being a process-simulation model of a PC's Fort, Ref or Will. Apart from anything else, this killed fighters - and therefore Excalibur - stone-cold dead.
> 
> 4e restores mechanical support for strong-willed fighters (because WIS is a secondary stat for many fighter builds, and the role of CON in hit point and surge numbers makes a high CON much less essential), and also restores FitM to many parts of the game, including its saving throw rules and also its rules for healing and for dying.
> 
> The only edition of D&D that permits scenes like that in Excalibur, where the arrival of Lancelot on the field of battle restores the fighting vigour of the troops, or that in Peter Jackson's The Two Towers, when the memory of Arwen restores Aragorn to consciousness, is 4e with its inspriational healing.
> 
> None of this post is meant to imply that 4e is an RPG in the same category as Prince Valiant. But as far as editions of D&D are concerned, it's the closest thing there is.





This bears repeating.


----------



## Herschel

pemerton said:


> In my view the fundamental issue with these 3E skills is that the system isn't clear on what their mechanical functions is: action resolution? or scene re-framiong?
> 
> As scene-reframing they work well enough - the player, with a good roll, can now reframe the scene into one in which s/he knows what the hidden items in the room are; or in which she is confronted by a helpful rather than a hostile NPC. Of course, this takes a degree of scene framing authority away from the GM, which for some playstyles at least (eg mine) is not a desired thing.
> 
> As action resolution I think they are rathouse, especially Diplomacy, because they do not contain within their own systems for mechanical resolution provision for the GM to narrate complications and conseqeunces short of scene-framing. 4e's solution to this issue is the skill challenge. I don't know of any other solution which both (i) maintains these skills, and (ii) makes them relevant to action resolution rather than scene-reframing.
> 
> A further problem for 3E is that it has no discussion in the rulebooks of these issues, and hence offers no solution to players and GMs who find themselves colliding over how they understand and implement these skills.





I mostly agree here, but as action resolution they can work to move the story past more mundane scenarios also. If a group is on a dungeon crawl, taking time to describe teh actual search of every, single room can get rather tedious so using Search/Perception as a short cut can be good also. Narate after the roll not before.


----------



## Aenghus

Mercurius said:


> This doesn't mean that a GM should do whatever they damn well please whenever they damn well want to, especially when a player is being annoying. It is their job to remain impartial, to be a fair judge (referee), and to be willing to engage in discussion with players, even disagreements, about rulings. A good GM, in my view, is willing to change their mind - but _not _because "the rules say so" but because the player *presents a good argument* as to why the ruling should be changed that out-weighs whatever reason the GM had for making the ruling in the first place.




My main personal objection to the style you advocating is that I am bad at arguing, I know I'm bad at arguing, and don't like doing so in the first place, and I'm not alone in this. So making my entire RPG experience depend on ability to argue with the DM is a good way to to make my play experience less enjoyable, or ruin it. 

(My way of coping in earlier editions was playing spellcasters, as spells were less likely to be arbitrarily vetoed than improvised actions being a limited resource. For me a blank page kills my imagination, I need contraints to provide structure and work within). 

Noone wants to be excluded from the game they love. I think its the reason why threads like this draw so much energy, especially when preferences are in opposition.

My own experience running D&D is that the tastes of new players vary. A few players dislike mechanics in general and prefer to ignore them as much as possible. Most, though, appreciate at least some structure to inform their decision making.


----------



## steeldragons

pemerton said:


> A related problem is this:
> * Both in real life and in adventure fiction, people do all sorts of crazy, suboptimal things;
> 
> * While in real life this sort of stuff can get you hurt, in adventure fiction those crazy and sub-optimal things tend to lead to success, or at least excitement, rather than disaster - in a certain sense they are not _really_ sub-optimal at all;
> 
> * Why would I have John do a crazy or suboptimal thing if I know this is likely to lead to me "losing" the game (eg by having John die)?​
> D&D has always solved this problem, at least as far as physical combat is concerned, via hit points. I like a system that is able to extend a solution into other parts of the game. And for my personal purposes "the GM decides" is not a solution.



 Fair enough...as you say "for [you]."

"...the GM decides..." has_ always_ been *a* solution of D&D...as you state, "for [your] personal purposes" is not a concern of D&D...just as for _my_ personal purposes is not a concern. 

But  and is a perfectly acceptable one. If that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of systems where the GM is simply "the guy running the monsters/adversities/encounters" and has no province or authority to change what's happening in the game world. That is not...and I know this is inflammatory but I really see no other way to say it...D&D. It has always been part of the game...in my limited understanding of 4e, even 4e has, apparently, "page 42" [?].



pemerton said:


> I don't understand why you say that the GM has absolute power in a practical sense.




Because in D&D, quite simply, they do [the DM does].



pemerton said:


> The rules constrain the GM's power the same as they do anyone else's - for instance, the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster, the GM has to knock off those hit points.




Yes...and no. The DM _can_ adhere to "the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster." Maybe the party has more weapons or magic or whatever and the encounter is going badly, alternately, "the GM ignores that and/or gives the monster more hit points" is just as legitimate a way to play than "follow the rules." D&D has never been a "follow the rules to the letter." Even with the exactly endless rules of certain editions, it has not been this. Before an edition war breaks out about old school and whatever, 1e...ok?...1e I played for years and years...there are "rules" for weapons' reach...for initiative/weapon "speed"...never used them. Never saw them used in play. We played 1e...and then 2e...to the letter...but weapon reach/speed? Nope. Initiative took care of this. You go first or they go first. That was all. Were we playing "wrong"? I sincerely don't believe so...Everyone knew the "rules" everyone had a good time. That is all that matters...not "the rules say, the rules say, the rules say."



pemerton said:


> The rules of an RPG _might_ say that the GM can feel free whether or not to have regard to the players' dice rolls in adjudicating the consequences of PC actions but they don't have to, and I very strongly prefer a game that does _not_ say that.




See above...and enjoy! That is perfectly fine. That is your reference. No problem, eh? But do not say "this is what D&D should be!" It's not what D&D _is._ [I know, I know..."OneTueWayism"...but well, there it is.]



pemerton said:


> I personally prefer a game where the GM has strong authority over scene-framing but that is not essential to RPGing.




No one says that it is.



pemerton said:


> And Marvel Heroic RP has an interesting device - the Doom Pool - snip stuff




Thanks for, I suppose, making my point. That is Marvel Heroic...not D&D. No harm. No foul. 



pemerton said:


> Of course the GM can just ignore the rules and cheat, but then so can the players. That doesn't tell us about what limits on authority it is practical for the rules of an RPG to impose.




Ok...lemme try... the DM has no limits...the players do. they can certainly try to think "outside the [rules] box"...and I would assert a "good" [subjective] DM will allow things as makes sense. Now, an /dick/rat bastard DM can take advantage...on purpose!...But that is not necessarily a "good" [subjective] thing.



pemerton said:


> On the bigger question, as I posted earlier, the only RPG I am interested in playing in accordance with the concpetion of GM that you describe is CoC.




Then...I...um...???



pemerton said:


> there is a fundamental contradiction between (i) the claim that 4e is in some way limited or "pre-furnished" compared to classic D&D, and (ii) the fact that for a whole range of utterly staple genre elements of fantasy literature, from the battle captain to the heroic comeback to the warrior who imposes his/her will on the mooks as they swarm him or her, only 4e can deliver them - and furthermore does so primarily at the behest of the players without needing to detour via the will of the GM.
> 
> For me, that is a game that is serving, not subordinating, the end of imagination.




AND, my final word here, is that _that_ is the primordial difference in [the D&D game's] playstyles...or at least two very significant ones. One says that is "serving/improving/"bettering" and one says that is "subordinating/negating/destroying" the game. That makes the ideal of 5e, however appealing,  of "One game to rule them all" completely impossible.


----------



## Zardnaar

Herschel said:


> Maybe the mechanics were not where the problem exists. A whole lot of people seemed to like and use them just fine.




 No it was the mechanics. And I am not alone with the mass exodus to Pathfinder. Some 4E fans seem to have trouble accepting 4E was rejected because of the mechanics and most of that was the class mechanics in the PHB and the absurdities of healing surges and that is before one gets to combat length due to he hit point bloat and easy mode healing which slowed the game to a crawl. Kind of fun for one off type games but once the novelty value wears off you are in trouble. In 10 years or 20 years time I suspect 4E will be long forgotten. There will be no OSR type revival or successful 4E clone and I suspect 13th Age will be gone in a few years time as well.


----------



## MichaelSomething

Herschel said:


> Maybe the mechanics were not where the problem exists. A whole lot of people seemed to like and use them just fine.




Everybody's a Genius but If You Judge a Fish By Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing It Is Stupid


----------



## Cyberen

Very nice thread !
Thank you, [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION], for opening it. Paying hommage to Boorman's Excalibur and Moorcock style was just icing on top of the cake 

If I read well the excellent contributions of [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and, especially, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I feel there is very little difference between "old" and "new" school. I am more worried with what's in between...
Let's dive into it : I fully endorse the claim that there is a very special imaginative process at work at the heart of "Fortune in the Middle" mechanics. Particularly, you have strong constraints on where you are coming from, and where you are getting to, and a lot of freedom concerning the journey from A to B. This architecture provides many features, as it provides some room between gamining mechanics (which can focus on fun, balance, ease of use, whatever) from narrative license, and empower each player with his own vision of "what happens" while guaranteeing everybody's on the same page concerning the final state. Of course, I have seen many people, on this board and elsewhere, disliking this kind of mechanics, and putting the blame on 4E for using them so casually... I feel they are misrepresenting the issue, as the most blatant supporter of FitM was, IMHO, Gygax himself, especially in 1E DMG. When you think about it, with his random tables, the old man invented the Schrödinger dungeon ! The room behind the door doesn't have to exist before you open the door ! This is the ultimate scene framing device, not in the sense of creating meaningful scenes, but in the sense that only the present "encounter" matters. So, no, I wouldn't oppose Old and New schools on the way they use and support imagination, on both a microscopic (rolls are FitM) and macroscopic ("scene framing") level.
I am under the impression Next is pretty neutral concerning FitM mechanics : it uses them quite a lot (in fact, once again, HP are going to be a real source of headaches for those who don't embrace the FitM paradigm), but not as overtly as 1E (I would say 4E is not blatant enough on this subject, and this is one of the many reasons of its demise). Next also promotes a time framework compatible with scene framing, with short and long rests recharging PC resources. Where Next does an excellent design job is when it tries to enable this protagonistic time management device while preserving the naturalistic flow of time. This philosophy shows at many places, where the design tries to make room for "kool powarz" without the (IMO) obnoxious power formatting (I hope Next Fighters will be able to lure foes into battle, spending some metagame resource, but not in the cold and tokenized manner of "Come and Get it !" encounter power). I also feel that the design team believes (like me, and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I guess ;-), and I am sure the class has a special meaning to [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION], if I remember Iron Heroes well enough) that the game vanquishes or perishes with its implementation of the Fighter, and they are definitely aiming at giving it back its "Old school" resiliency.
For those afraid to lose 4E "story now" features with Next, I would say I think there is more to gain than to lose with the relaxing of the hygienic regimenting of time, resources, roles, and threats. (For instance, I don't feel able to DM a Song of Ice and Fire style campaign, with a naturalistic take on the world and the idea that every character can be a protagonist, using the 4E framework. Having to rebuild NPC when the PC level up, or when they acquire PC status, seem very cumbersome to me). A less tokenized system, besides being less alienating to a LOT of players, would open up nice possibilities such as the Doom Pool : my real concern, regarding DM force, has always been restraint : why shouldn't I Buff, Scry and Teleport to get rid of these nasty PCs in their sleep ?
I definitely think 4E "tight math" and p42 are overrated : math is surely better than in 3E, thanks to the enforcement of a "bounded accuracy" policy, but the ubiquitous use of a single die (a d20, for instance) as a randomizer yields to a very strange world indeed (take a closer look at the distance jumped, for instance...). Actually, "math" was tighter in 1E, because Gygax understood the use of a bell curve, and used one (or more !) new table for each and every case he encountered. I can see the appeal of a unified mechanic, but 4E is really : you have 30% / 55 % / 80 % to succeed at a Hard/Moderate/Easy task appropriate to your level. Adjust by 5% for every 2 level difference. Even Fate (which is not what I would call a crunch heavy game !) has a richer base system, as it starts from a bell curve... Also, all those minigames contained inside D&D have always fired my imagination : how many armies built with the War Machine ? Castle features carefully paid for ? Decks of many things and Wands of wonder and Spheres of annihilation and Vorpal swords ? Psi using BBEG ? A clean system is serviceable, but it sometimes comes to the detriment of accuracy (jump length), effect (fighters resilience), fun & imagination... 
(by the way, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think you are overrating/overselling 4E a bit too much with the support of inspirational healing. In Tolkien and Arthurian Romance, both (master)pieces of reactionary literature, healing IS divine : both Arthur and Aragorn are king by divine right, and I would argue their ability to *channel* heroism and bravery in their followers, or to be themselves inspired by an icon of love, is divine by nature. So, IMO, these characters ARE paladins, and divine healing is inspirational by nature. To be continued  )


----------



## Balesir

steeldragons said:


> Ok...lemme try... the DM has no limits...the players do. they can certainly try to think "outside the [rules] box"...and I would assert a "good" [subjective] DM will allow things as makes sense. Now, an /dick/rat bastard DM can take advantage...on purpose!...But that is not necessarily a "good" [subjective] thing.



Question: if the GM has all the power, and players (therefore) have none, what are the players doing? Before you say "having fun", I mean something that they are actively, not passively doing. If I go to watch a film (movie), I might or might not have fun, but if I do it will be a consequence of the active action that I take - which is to watch a movie. So, if the things that happen are just what the GM wills to happen, what are the players doing? What role are they playing? The only one I can think of is to add suggestions that the GM can include or not as s/he sees fit. So the players are essentially playing a "guess what the GM thinks is cool" game. If that is what I'm going to do, there are places and ways to do it that I would much rather be/do than playing a roleplaying game. If I'm playing an RPG I want to have some solid actual role in making the emergent story happen - and I want the people I'm playing with to do so, too. Otherwise I'll just go and do something interesting, instead.



steeldragons said:


> AND, my final word here, is that _that_ is the primordial difference in [the D&D game's] playstyles...or at least two very significant ones. One says that is "serving/improving/"bettering" and one says that is "subordinating/negating/destroying" the game. That makes the ideal of 5e, however appealing,  of "One game to rule them all" completely impossible.



Well, yeah - I was saying that several months ago (and, to be fair, I think you were, too).



MichaelSomething said:


> Everybody's a Genius but If You Judge a Fish By Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing It Is Stupid



OK, but, if you judge trees impossible to climb because you are a fish, you may not be using your genius to best advantage...



Cyberen said:


> the most blatant supporter of FitM was, IMHO, Gygax himself, especially in 1E DMG. When you think about it, with his random tables, the old man invented the Schrödinger dungeon ! The room behind the door doesn't have to exist before you open the door ! This is the ultimate scene framing device, not in the sense of creating meaningful scenes, but in the sense that only the present "encounter" matters. So, no, I wouldn't oppose Old and New schools on the way they use and support imagination, on both a microscopic (rolls are FitM) and macroscopic ("scene framing") level.



First of all, this was a fine post all round - I enjoyed reading it!

This specific paragraph prompted a thought for me: I am used to thinking of saving throws in AD&D as FitM, and you bring up the encounter/dungeon builder tables, here - but I think that the "one minute combat round" was another example. If you think purely in terms of the combat round starting out with both combatants in a guard position about to strike, full minute rounds makes little sense; combats from that point take seconds, not minutes. But, if you think of the combat round as including manoeuvre, intimidation, name calling/taunting, feints and testing the opponent's resolve and so on, it makes more sense. So the outcome of a round becomes much more malleable and varied - the resolution system just giving an abstracted version of the outcome.



Cyberen said:


> This philosophy shows at many places, where the design tries to make room for "kool powarz" without the (IMO) obnoxious power formatting (I hope Next Fighters will be able to lure foes into battle, spending some metagame resource, but not in the cold and tokenized manner of "Come and Get it !" encounter power).



This is a matter of taste, I think. I actually prefer the "tokenised" system because of its clarity and simplicity. One minor issue I have with 13th Age is with the "manoeuvre choice depending on to hit roll" mechanism for fighters and a few others. The need to think about this, possibly at several stages, during the mechanical resolution of the attack I find more prone to pull me out of game engagement than a simple token choice. Others' mileage will very likely vary, but I like to have clear, simple resources to use as a player, and to have difficult/tense choices to make with them.



Cyberen said:


> (by the way, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think you are overrating/overselling 4E a bit too much with the support of inspirational healing. In Tolkien and Arthurian Romance, both (master)pieces of reactionary literature, healing IS divine : both Arthur and Aragorn are king by divine right, and I would argue their ability to *channel* heroism and bravery in their followers, or to be themselves inspired by an icon of love, is divine by nature. So, IMO, these characters ARE paladins, and divine healing is inspirational by nature. To be continued  )



Surely, one advantage of the "choose your own way to imagine the route from A to B" nature of 4E powers, you can envisage Warlord healing as "divine" in nature, if you want to? The point being that neither Arthur nor Aragorn routinely cast Cleric spells the rest of the time, but 4E allows such a character to be played with the "healing" happening by whatever agency you want to imagine it happening by. In earlier editions, by contrast, you can't (as written) get inspirational or any other healing _without_ divine agency.


----------



## steeldragons

Balesir said:


> Question: if the GM has all the power, and players (therefore) have none, what are the players doing?




Um, no. I didn't say "the GM has all of the power (therefore) the players have none." I said the GM has no limits. The players, somewhat obviously, do. They control their characters and nothing else...but by virtue of their control of the characters, they are really the ones in the driver's seat of the story/game/adventure. So, you could say, the players are the ones with "all the power."

The players can not say "I go into this room, there's no monsters and its filled with treasure." or when they run into a dragon they can not just say, "I kill it. It's dead. We find the macguffin." The GM...can [though in the latter example I couldn't imagine why they would! haha]. The player of the Fighter can not say "I cast Sleep" or the Thief heal the dwarf with her Cure Light Wounds spell while the Cleric is Hiding in Shadows.* The GM could have an NPC do so [with some kind of backstory/reason/way for it to make sense, I would hope]. There are constrains to their influence over the game world...that the GM does not have.

Limits/no limits =/= no power/all power.

*Simplistically speaking. I know there are certain editions of D&D, other storytelling type games, playstyles that allow or enjoy a degree of narrative control by players, and feats/skills/prestige classes/etc... that allow this kinda stuff to occur. No one has to explain for me how any of that is possible. Please and thank you.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Balesir said:


> Question: if the GM has all the power, and players (therefore) have none, what are the players doing?



The same thing that we're all doing in real life I imagine. The universe is a big place. We have either no or virtually no ability to influence even the tiny part of it that we care about. The same is carried through in our fiction, including the idea of fate in fantasy and the idea of cosmicism in horror and sci-fi. It does, however, befit us to try and focus on the things we can control.

I don't see why the same logic doesn't apply to rpgs.

(Not that [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] didn't address this point capably as well).


----------



## Cyberen

Balesir said:


> First of all, this was a fine post all round - I enjoyed reading it!




Thank you very much, good Balesir !



Balesir said:


> This specific paragraph prompted a thought for me: I am used to thinking of saving throws in AD&D as FitM, and you bring up the encounter/dungeon builder tables, here - but I think that the "one minute combat round" was another example. If you think purely in terms of the combat round starting out with both combatants in a guard position about to strike, full minute rounds makes little sense; combats from that point take seconds, not minutes. But, if you think of the combat round as including manoeuvre, intimidation, name calling/taunting, feints and testing the opponent's resolve and so on, it makes more sense. So the outcome of a round becomes much more malleable and varied - the resolution system just giving an abstracted version of the outcome.




Definitely, the "1 minute combat round" what part of what I was alluding to when I was claiming 1e was very transparent concerning FitM, and clearly, it offers a blank slate for narration, while at the same time guaranteeing game system integrity (you can narrate/imagine whatever you want... as long as it doesn't change the rolled outcome). 4E is very ambivalent on this subject, as the combat roll is closer to task resolution, and with the (almost) mandatory use of the battlemat, which doesn't give a lot of room to the so-called Schrödinger  crevice in the collective theatre of the mind where the battle takes place.



Balesir said:


> This is a matter of taste, I think. I actually prefer the "tokenised" system because of its clarity and simplicity. One minor issue I have with 13th Age is with the "manoeuvre choice depending on to hit roll" mechanism for fighters and a few others. The need to think about this, possibly at several stages, during the mechanical resolution of the attack I find more prone to pull me out of game engagement than a simple token choice. Others' mileage will very likely vary, but I like to have clear, simple resources to use as a player, and to have difficult/tense choices to make with them.




Clarity, simplicity, and a good dose of player fiat (not being bound too much by the vagaries of the die), I can get behind. What I dislike with the AEDU Powers, besides its dry formatting, is : 1) the way a power is hard coded in the PC repertoire : you are "building" a deck of powers 2) its weird attrition scheme : a CaGI fighter will lure its foes exactly once per fight, no more, no less (unless he choses not to). I have the feeling 4E PCs are 6-tricks ponies (3E and 3D powers), which could seem better than "I attack, again and again", but is in fact more of the same. I am longing for something more organic and open-ended, while relying on a robust resource management system. I find  @_*mearls*_  did a good job in this direction, in Iron Heroes, with the various classes building and spending their own token pools for SFX.



Balesir said:


> Surely, one advantage of the "choose your own way to imagine the route from A to B" nature of 4E powers, you can envisage Warlord healing as "divine" in nature, if you want to? The point being that neither Arthur nor Aragorn routinely cast Cleric spells the rest of the time, but 4E allows such a character to be played with the "healing" happening by whatever agency you want to imagine it happening by. In earlier editions, by contrast, you can't (as written) get inspirational or any other healing _without_ divine agency.



You are right, of course. The trick with earlier editions, that is lost with 4E, is that DMs are expected to tinker with the rules to make them suit their needs. Gygax pulled the Cleric out of thin air to suit one of his needs, and so can you do if the proposed cast doesn't match your objectives. In other words, if you want a Warlord in 1E, it's not a big deal to create one. 4E is too complex for this scope of creative freedom, but compensates by offering extended refluffing capabilities.
I think this is the kind of players empowerment ("The rules are guidelines ! Feel free to invent more !"), shared between both sides of the screen (the rules are a very concrete part of the social contract of the game), that has been lost with the later, cleaner, more integrated versions of the game. I am happy Next seems very hackable by design !


----------



## TwoSix

Ahnehnois said:


> The same thing that we're all doing in real life I imagine. The universe is a big place. We have either no or virtually no ability to influence even the tiny part of it that we care about. The same is carried through in our fiction, including the idea of fate in fantasy and the idea of cosmicism in horror and sci-fi. It does, however, befit us to try and focus on the things we can control.
> 
> I don't see why the same logic doesn't apply to rpgs.



That's fine, but why can't the concept that our lives may have some greater meaning and purpose also apply to RPGs, and even D&D in particular?

Man, it's like we're using our system choices to play out our version of the Planescape faction war.


----------



## TwoSix

Cyberen said:


> You are right, of course. The trick with earlier editions, that is lost with 4E, is that DMs are expected to tinker with the rules to make them suit their needs. Gygax pulled the Cleric out of thin air to suit one of his needs, and so can you do if the proposed cast doesn't match your objectives. In other words, if you want a Warlord in 1E, it's not a big deal to create one. 4E is too complex for this scope of creative freedom, but compensates by offering extended refluffing capabilities.
> I think this is the kind of players empowerment ("The rules are guidelines ! Feel free to invent more !"), shared between both sides of the screen (the rules are a very concrete part of the social contract of the game), that has been lost with the later, cleaner, more integrated versions of the game. I am happy Next seems very hackable by design !



To be fair, I tinker with 4e all the time.  My players got bored with our OSR game and begged to go back to 4e, but they liked their current characters a lot and wanted to continue with them.  So I developed versions of their characters by taking and adapting the 4e system and making powers and class features as I saw fit.  The wizard has only 1 at-will, and can memorize 3 daily powers a day out of the 6 in his spellbook, for example.  Another character is a Dex-based fighter with several ranger-style bow powers.


----------



## The Human Target

Zardnaar said:


> No it was the mechanics. And I am not alone with the mass exodus to Pathfinder. Some 4E fans seem to have trouble accepting 4E was rejected because of the mechanics and most of that was the class mechanics in the PHB and the absurdities of healing surges and that is before one gets to combat length due to he hit point bloat and easy mode healing which slowed the game to a crawl. Kind of fun for one off type games but once the novelty value wears off you are in trouble. In 10 years or 20 years time I suspect 4E will be long forgotten. There will be no OSR type revival or successful 4E clone and I suspect 13th Age will be gone in a few years time as well.



Awwwwww you are adorable.

Thanks for being you!


----------



## The Human Target

Ahnehnois said:


> The same thing that we're all doing in real life I imagine. The universe is a big place. We have either no or virtually no ability to influence even the tiny part of it that we care about. The same is carried through in our fiction, including the idea of fate in fantasy and the idea of cosmicism in horror and sci-fi. It does, however, befit us to try and focus on the things we can control.
> 
> I don't see why the same logic doesn't apply to rpgs.
> 
> (Not that [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] didn't address this point capably as well).




Imnot saying this is wrong, but it makes no sense to me and is the polar opposite of what I want out of a game.


----------



## Balesir

steeldragons said:


> Limits/no limits =/= no power/all power.



I'm afraid it does. The thing that might limit a GM is some alternative source of power in the sphere under consideration (a roleplaying game). The reason the GM has no limit must be that no such alternate source of power exists, ergo the players have none. Nothing they (try to) do cannot be overridden by the GM; in oether words, they have no power. They act merely on the sufferance of another, however benign that other may be.



Ahnehnois said:


> The same thing that we're all doing in real life I imagine. The universe is a big place. We have either no or virtually no ability to influence even the tiny part of it that we care about. The same is carried through in our fiction, including the idea of fate in fantasy and the idea of cosmicism in horror and sci-fi. It does, however, befit us to try and focus on the things we can control.



We cannot influence all that we care about, that is of course true, but to the extent that we are able to act we do not do so in the hope that what we do will work based on the approval or otherwise of some third party - or rather, I should say, I don't. I act based on my knowledge of the consequences that my actions might have. Were I to lack entirely such knowledge, I think suicide would be something I would seriously consider (except that my ability to carry even that out might be circumscribed by the will of the mysterious other - the very definition of a living hell, I would think.).



Cyberen said:


> Clarity, simplicity, and a good dose of player fiat (not being bound too much by the vagaries of the die), I can get behind. What I dislike with the AEDU Powers, besides its dry formatting, is : 1) the way a power is hard coded in the PC repertoire : you are "building" a deck of powers 2) its weird attrition scheme : a CaGI fighter will lure its foes exactly once per fight, no more, no less (unless he choses not to). I have the feeling 4E PCs are 6-tricks ponies (3E and 3D powers), which could seem better than "I attack, again and again", but is in fact more of the same. I am longing for something more organic and open-ended, while relying on a robust resource management system.



*Shrug*. Some rationing scheme is required, and this one is simple and clear and provides for interesting choices. If some other system offers an alternative rationing system that is as appealing I'll be interested; the materials shown so far for DDN don't, as far as I'm concerned, but I'll look at the final product and see how that stacks up.



Cyberen said:


> You are right, of course. The trick with earlier editions, that is lost with 4E, is that DMs are expected to tinker with the rules to make them suit their needs.



Actually I am increasingly finding 4E very easy to tinker with. It divides the rules neatly into sections that are universal underpinnings and those that are "components" (powers, monsters, classes, magic items and so on), to begin with, which makes understanding the scope of any change comprehensible. I now routinely generate new "components" to suit what I want to use (monsters and magic items, at least).

It also makes the underlying assumptions and "math" quite clear these days; that makes rules tinkering a much more informed activity.

The underlying structures of the rules I find, almost without exception, to be suitable enough to my purposes that I have no need to change them. If I did I would probably feel the need to seek a different system for heroic fantasy games. But I do feel the need to add to them, for various cases (social, realm and exploration spheres, in particular), and I am beginning to feel that I could do so to a standard of quality that I would find satisfying.


----------



## howandwhy99

D&D doesn't include competing narratives. Nor are the mechanics of the game (or most all games actually) about resolving people's narrations into a "shared fiction". The DM is in no way a player in D&D. All the Big Model is is a highly prejudiced philosophy created to stamp out any ideas not agreeable to its own. It wasn't even given credence to until the last years of 3.x and then in the design of 4e by Mike Mearls who is one of the three founders of The Forge. I believe he has some good will to D&D given the failure of his last design, but D&DN is still rife with "narrative resolution mechanics". They can't or won't let themselves out of the horribly conceived check system originally put forth in the DSG. The idea that the OSR and old school game design are "essentially the same as the new school" is just more inability to think outside contemporary biases. In order to understand D&D and game design in general at any level we need to completely scrub our minds clean of narrative theory and the bigotry of narrative absolutists.


----------



## pemerton

steeldragons said:


> "...the GM decides..." has_ always_ been *a* solution of D&D
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If that doesn't work for you, there are plenty of systems where the GM is simply "the guy running the monsters/adversities/encounters" and has no province or authority to change what's happening in the game world.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 1e I played for years and years...there are "rules" for weapons' reach...for initiative/weapon "speed"...never used them. Never saw them used in play. We played 1e...and then 2e...to the letter...but weapon reach/speed? Nope. Initiative took care of this. You go first or they go first. That was all. Were we playing "wrong"? I sincerely don't believe so...Everyone knew the "rules" everyone had a good time. That is all that matters...not "the rules say, the rules say, the rules say."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the DM has no limits...the players do.



It's not clear to me who decided in your AD&D game not to use weapon speed and reach mechanics - you say "we", but then you go on to imply that it's the GM who makes these sorts of decisions.

Anyway, I'm glad you had fun playing your D&D game. I'm sorry you think I'm playing D&D wrong.



Mercurius said:


> the GM can always find his way around something if he really wants.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> as long as he has a good reason to do what he chooses to do, a GM can do _anything. _Of course this opens the door for GM abuse, but if the GM is a reasonably mature human being that shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is their job to remain impartial, to be a fair judge (referee), and to be willing to engage in discussion with players, even disagreements, about rulings. A good GM, in my view, is willing to change their mind - but _not _because "the rules say so" but because the player presents a good argument as to why the ruling should be changed that out-weighs whatever reason the GM had for making the ruling in the first place.



This strikes me as underanalysed. Are you talking about world creation? Framing of scenes/encounters? Adjudication of action resolution? Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories? To rewrite character sheets? To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources? If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)

Depending on how authority is allocated across these (and other) aspects of play, the game comes out very differently. It's not at all clear to me that all editions of D&D all give the GM final authority over all these things. For instance, just to give one example, in AD&D the GM has authority over a MU PC's starting spells, but not over a fighter PC's starting weapon proficiencies.



Mercurius said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how often in classic D&D did a battle captain PC lead an attack while making a rousing cry to his companions, brining it about that not only does the battle captain get to attack the enemy, but so do all his/her companions? This is an utter staple from the more romantic end of the fantasy genre (Excalibur again) but is possible only in 4e.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. Its just that it requires the players to think imaginatively, the GM to think on the fly, to provide some kind of target number for the player to roll against.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> PCs can do anything in every edition of D&D_. _A good DM/GM will allow a PC to try anything they can imagine. Just like a good teacher will never say, "Bad question," a good GM will never say "You can't do that." They might say, "That will be very, very difficult, but go ahead and try..."
Click to expand...


Can you actually explain to me how you would adjudicate this in Moldvay Basic? Or AD&D? Or D&Dnext?

Also, how does the game better support imagination by making it "very, very difficult" to play an inspirational battle captain? In effect, you are reducing your rationing mechanisms to one dimension - random allocation of success - rather than the multiple dimensions that 4e uses to ensure that these sorts of abilities are widely available but nevertheless do not break the overall action economy of the game.



Mercurius said:


> You speak of Fiat like its an approach taken in all situations; I see it as more of being when needed to improve or augment the game. As I said before, let's say the big bad monster is on its last legs with 76 HP and the rogue scores a critical hit for 67 HP of damage; I'm going to "fudge" that and offer a kill - and not tell the players that the monster "really" had 76 HP, because in my view it didn't "really" have 76 HP - it had 67.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I've never played in a game of D&D in which the rules were absolute laws, or the DM didn't employ Rule Zero (Fiat) to some extent (the trick, though, is doing so without the player's realizing it).



That sounds like "say yes or roll the dice" - namely, saying yes. And why wouldn't you tell the players? What is the point of maintaining an illusion that dice rolls matter if in fact they don't?



Mercurius said:


> What you describe, to me, places the GM as more of another player, the player who plays "everyone else," and less as the story-teller.



I have zero interest in "GM as story teller". That doesn't mean the GM simply plays "everyone else". As I play the game, the GM has a special role in relation to backstory and sceneframing. The GM also has a distinctive role in relation to action resolution, but it is very far from unconstrained.



Mercurius said:


> I reserve the right (as GM) to use Fiat if I deem it necessary to the improvement of the game, and the overall enjoyment of the players.



Why don't the players have comparable power? Why can't _they_ exercise fiat to improve the game and the overall enjoyment of the game participants?


----------



## Mercurius

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I think we're slipping a bit here into territory I'd rather not venture into - endless nitpicking blow-by-blows, and all that jazz that just ends up in an impasse or, worse, accusations of Edition Thuggery. 

Rather than address each and every point and disagreement you make, let me re-frame our discussion a bit in the hopes of illuminating the underlying elements at work.

I think we operate under a different paradigm of what a DM's role is with regards to D&D and, I imagine, this goes back a long way. I've always taken the approach that the DM is a combination of many roles: storyteller, referee, worldbuilder, scene-setter, moderator, conflict resolver, and yes, "overlord" of the game and campaign.

In that sense, the DM's role is fundamentally different than the players, who play characters in the DM's campaign world. To use an analogy that you have made clear is not your preferred style of play, if D&D is akin to an interactive and open-ended fantasy movie, the DM is the film-maker and writer of all characters other than the PCs, whereas the players are the protagonists. The DM creates scenarios, plot hooks, and even story-lines for the PCs to interact with. They co-create the story and action of the game, but the whole affair is run (and often created) by the DM.

Now obviously this isn't the only way to do it, nor is it necessarily the "best" way, but it works for me and is, I think, basically the traditional, default approach to D&D - across all editions. There might be slight variations among editions, but I think this is the most common paradigm.

What you describe seems to involve a lot more player empowerment - that they are not as much characters within the DM's creation, and protagonists in the story, but co-creators of the game itself. That sounds like a lot of fun and I'd love to try it, but that's not how I've ever played D&D, whether as a DM or a player in many different campaigns and with many different games. Some DMs have had players create parts of the world, say the village they came from, or even the religion that they're part of, but its still _within _the DM's creation. 

The paradigm you describe is something that I can see employing in different RPGs, from _Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth _to _Mythic _to _Reign. _In fact, it could probably be employed in all, or least most, RPGs - but it is not something that I've ever experienced in a game of D&D.

I've often wanted to co-create a world with a group of people and each of us take turns DMing. I haven't found the group of people to do it, whether because of time commitments, interest, or just plain creativity. In the group I've been a part of for a few years now I'm the lone "serious+" gamer, with everyone else being casual. Anyhow, the point being that this is another paradigm from the two I described above, and that I'm open to trying different approaches to D&D, even if I enjoy and usually fall back on the "traditional" one.

One final note. As a DM, I always allow and encourage players to think outside of the box, to do whatever it is they want, and I've found that 99% of the time my players trust my judgment and sense of fairness. I would never make it "very, very difficult to play an inspirational battle captain" - that is a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of what I was trying to express; I'm honestly not sure how you came up with that interpretation! My point was simply that players can doanything, even if it isn't on the character sheet or defined by the rules, even if it seems nearly impossible.

You might think I'm more against 4e-style play than I actually am. As I've said a few times, I really enjoy 4e, but also feel that something is lacking, or has been lacking for me (and many others who express similar feelings). What this is is not so simple as to be easily narrowed down, but is a combination of factors, only some of which we've discussed in this thread. But I do want to (re-)emphasize that I don't even dislike AEDU in and of itself, I just feel that it has a kind of totalizing effect that obfuscates the approach to game play that page 42 seeks to address but is, in the end, de-emphasized. 

I want both: clear and definable resources, but also a free-wheeling, improvisational play style that isn't relegated to a single page in one book, but is firmly part of the game ethos. I want to imagine myself in the game world, and determine my action as the character that is there, _and then_ pick a power or skill _if _I need to. Actually, _all _versions of D&D allow for this, but some emphasize different components more than others, and to varying degrees. 

I'll leave it there, instead of re-circling back around again as is my tendency!


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> What is the point of maintaining an illusion that dice rolls matter if in fact they don't?




The thought that the rolls matter, matters to the players.  And the rolls do matter the vast majority of the time.  (Is it kind of like trying to have a cutscene in a video game without the players realizing it was one?)




pemerton said:


> Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories? To rewrite character sheets? To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources?






pemerton said:


> As I play the game, the GM has a special role in relation to backstory and sceneframing.




If the DM has a world design that that the player's choices clashes with, shouldn't the player change what they were going to do?   ("But the king doesn't have any neices or nephews for you to be... how about duke so and so" or "there actually isn't anyone in you home village who could have taught you that... there aren't any fire sorcerers within a 1,000 miles of there" or "its bronze age tech... where would you get that Katana?").  

On the other hand, I think I've always played with groups where the DM would incorporate any ideas the players had that didn't strongly clash with the world design (like @_*Mercurius*_ talks about in the post just above this one).



pemerton said:


> Why don't the players have comparable power? Why can't _they_ exercise fiat to improve the game and the overall enjoyment of the game participants?




EDIT: Removed a few things because @_*Mercurius*_ said them more succinctly above.

Semi-related, who does the tie-breaking when there is a disagreement because fiat attempts clash?    Does the DM have greater knowledge of where things are going in general?  If so, should that give them the tie-breaking vote when its otherwise split?   Or should they just get it simply because the role of DM is different from that of the player and all of the players have agreed to make that person the DM?


----------



## Sunseeker

Cadence said:


> If the DM has a world design that that the player's choices clashes with, shouldn't the player change what they were going to do?   ("But the king doesn't have any neices or nephews for you to be... how about duke so and so" or "there actually isn't anyone in you home village who could have taught you that... there aren't any fire sorcerers within a 1,000 miles of there" or "its bronze age tech... where would you get that Katana?").
> 
> On the other hand, I think I've always played with groups where the DM would incorporate any ideas the players had that didn't strongly clash with the world design (like @_*Mercurius*_ talks about in the post just above this one).




I think it's one thing to ask a player to revise their background, work with them to integrate their desires into the gameworld, but I don't believe anyone would argue that the DM has the right to change a players background without their consent.  That's a pretty clear violation of the player-DM consent.  It's like your government repainting the room because it clashes with the carpets in the oval office.


----------



## Cadence

shidaku said:


> I think it's one thing to ask a player to revise their background, work with them to integrate their desires into the gameworld, but I don't believe anyone would argue that the DM has the right to change a players background without their consent.




Changing it without discussion and consent seems bad to me too.
Should the DM be able to veto a portion of it if some compromise can't be worked out (say in regards to the three hypotheticals I give)?


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> This strikes me as underanalysed. Are you talking about world creation? Framing of scenes/encounters? Adjudication of action resolution?



These are all part of a DM's bailiwick.


> Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories?



If I'm in a game where the DM wants to just tell me my backstory I'm cool with it.  Then again, backstory isn't that important to me until the character has lasted long enough to become relevant, and by that time it's writing its own story within the game anyway.


> To rewrite character sheets? To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources?



Usually no.


> If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)



Absolutely the DM can say this; you-as-character have no way of knowing the Orc had _Stoneskin_ cast on him before he came out of the cave.  The point of having the player roll the die is in part to show there's more to things than meet the eye.


> It's not at all clear to me that all editions of D&D all give the GM final authority over all these things. For instance, just to give one example, in AD&D the GM has authority over a MU PC's starting spells, but not over a fighter PC's starting weapon proficiencies.



Well, the "authority over spells" consists of a few random rolls...


> I have zero interest in "GM as story teller".



Where I want the DM to at least have a vague background plot and-or history and-or storyboard for the campaign to run on, that the players via their characters can then interact with and change, tweak, whatever through their actions.  Before my current campaign started, for example, I drew up a storyboard of what adventures I'd expect to be running as it went along and how they fit in with an overall story I'd halfway dreamed up.  I've re-done it about 8 times since as things change, major hooks get ignored while trivialities get followed to the end, etc.; and while elements of the original overall story are still there it's going to all end up pretty different than what I originally thought.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if the DM gets stuck running a story/adventure/scene that she doesn't really want to run it's going to show, and make for a lesser game.

Lanefan


----------



## Balesir

Mercurius said:


> I think we operate under a different paradigm of what a DM's role is with regards to D&D and, I imagine, this goes back a long way. I've always taken the approach that the DM is a combination of many roles: storyteller, referee, worldbuilder, scene-setter, moderator, conflict resolver, and yes, "overlord" of the game and campaign.



I think the difference may be rather smaller than you imagine. Of that list, the only one I would definitely exclude is "storyteller". As GM I don't know what the story will be, nor do I want to. It will emerge from play. "Worldbuilder" may also be a bit dubious for D&D (specifically). I "build" sufficient of a "world" for play to proceed, but no more; the rest is mutable to suit all the players' requirements (including mine). The rest - referee (of the rules as written), scene-setter and so on are all fine. "Overlord" is a bit overblown, but the GM's role is certainly wider than the other players'.



Mercurius said:


> In that sense, the DM's role is fundamentally different than the players, who play characters in the DM's campaign world. To use an analogy that you have made clear is not your preferred style of play, if D&D is akin to an interactive and open-ended fantasy movie, the DM is the film-maker and writer of all characters other than the PCs, whereas the players are the protagonists. The DM creates scenarios, plot hooks, and even story-lines for the PCs to interact with. They co-create the story and action of the game, but the whole affair is run (and often created) by the DM.



If the player characters are protagonists, they must have agency - i.e. they must have power to act without veto. Otherwise they are not really protagonists, they are just puppets.

The GM creates scenarios, yes, and plot hooks and necessary background - but not the storyline. The story is formed from a synthesis of the GM's framed situation and the actions of the protagonists; without the latter it does not exist - cannot exist.



Mercurius said:


> What you describe seems to involve a lot more player empowerment - that they are not as much characters within the DM's creation, and protagonists in the story, but co-creators of the game itself.



They are co-creators of the story, which to an extent you might call "the game itself", but in D&D they are not usually the co-creators of the world outside their characters. The actions of their characters might change the world, for sure - that is the very essence of being a protagonist! But the players don't generally decide the system or setting detail as such.

As an addendum, I lost the quote, but you said you were the lone serious gamer while your players were "casual". I think this might partly explain why you feel that 4E powers "stifle creativity". I said above that, once the players get to know both the rules and their characters they tend to use their powers as resources rather than a checklist of "what to do". If your players don't/can't learn the basics of the rules thoroughly, then I'm guessing that a really rules light system would suit them better. Rules in any game really only work well if the players all know what they are.



Cadence said:


> Semi-related, who does the tie-breaking when there is a disagreement because fiat attempts clash?    Does the DM have greater knowledge of where things are going in general?  If so, should that give them the tie-breaking vote when its otherwise split?   Or should they just get it simply because the role of DM is different from that of the player and all of the players have agreed to make that person the DM?



In well designed rules there will be no clash because the places where each player (including the GM) has the power to dictate will be defined. This is one area where a lot of Indie games are really good, actually; their split of responsibility/power may be very non-traditional, but it is well defined. The rules say - as their primary function, in fact - who gets to decide what.

The idea that the GM "has greater knowledge of where things are going in general" is somewhat alien to me. Greater knowledge of the monster/NPC/setting details? Sure. Greater knowledge of where the story is heading? Nope.



Lanefan said:


> Well, the "authority over spells" consists of a few random rolls...



Assuming that the GM is constrained by the rules, yes - some seem to be saying that rules do not constrain a GM, however...



Lanefan said:


> Where I want the DM to at least have a vague background plot and-or history and-or storyboard for the campaign to run on, that the players via their characters can then interact with and change, tweak, whatever through their actions.  Before my current campaign started, for example, I drew up a storyboard of what adventures I'd expect to be running as it went along and how they fit in with an overall story I'd halfway dreamed up.  I've re-done it about 8 times since as things change, major hooks get ignored while trivialities get followed to the end, etc.; and while elements of the original overall story are still there it's going to all end up pretty different than what I originally thought.



Background, yes. History, yes - as far as is required for play. Story board or predetermined plot - no. To have such a thing is, at a minimum, to limit the influence of the players' decisions and thus to render their characters other than protagonists - which is what they are supposed to be.

Now, there might be exceptions to this with the agreement and connivance of the players - when running through a sequence of published scenarios, for example - but in general no future plot should be assumed or planned by the GM. The players should make clear their intentions, and the GM should plan around that.



Lanefan said:


> Another thing to keep in mind is that if the DM gets stuck running a story/adventure/scene that she doesn't really want to run it's going to show, and make for a lesser game.



That may be true (I don't remember ever experiencing it), but it would be an occasion for communication with the players, not for unilaterally strong-arming things into a direction I liked.


----------



## steeldragons

pemerton said:


> It's not clear to me who decided in your AD&D game not to use weapon speed and reach mechanics - you say "we", but then you go on to imply that it's the GM who makes these sorts of decisions.




I don't really know/remember a "decision" by anyone. It was some time ago. As I recall, it was just the way we played...one of the DMs must have decided it at some point, which was more likely a "I don't like this [and/or know how to use it] so I'm just going to ignore it." and everyone shrugged and said "ok." Then when we traded off DMing (including myself) we just did the same.



pemerton said:


> Anyway, I'm glad you had fun playing your D&D game. I'm sorry you think I'm playing D&D wrong.




Yes, yes. Everyone is out to attack _your_ style preferences. Play D&D however you want! Noone's stopping you or saying it is "wrong" [or in the bottom line, care if you are, really].

The point is, that does not somehow translate to telling us all how _D&D has it _(and apparently, as in many of your discussions, _always_ has had it) _ wrong _and should do/include/change xyz.



pemerton said:


> This strikes me as underanalysed.




Perish the thought!



pemerton said:


> Are you talking about world creation? Framing of scenes/encounters? Adjudication of action resolution?




Yes. All of these things are part of the DM's responsibilities and areas of influence.

Again, the players play their characters.

Through that _role-playing,_ they interact with the world, create and shape the plots...that actually get played, at least. If I had a nickel for all of the unused plot hooks *longing sigh* but I digress...and, in general "control" the story through their character's actions. The DM controls everything else. _That's _the game we call D&D. That's not edition warring or anything...that_ is_ the construct...the framework...the paradigm of how the game we call D&D is played. Players play their characters. GM controls the rest.



pemerton said:


> Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories?




I wouldn't, but suppose some could. Given the GM's knowledge of the areas, politics, regions, etc...I would say they can offer guidelines or suggestions that would be accurate and in the spirit of the setting/game. That is, I am not inclined to reqrite backstories for people...but that does not equal "I'm not going to tell you to change _any_thing" when you write whatever you want.

If, for example, a player comes to me and says, "I want to be the crown prince of the wealthiest kingdom. All of my equipment is magical and paid for/inheritance of my ancient family line...and I have a loyal gryphon named Harvey as my mount that I grew up with." 

9 times out of 10, they're getting a big fat, "Try again."

That 10th time, maybe we're playing a "high level/high powered" game. So, sure you're rich and have magical stuff. Why not?...Maybe the game setting is particularly "high magic/fantasy" and gryphon mounts are as common as stray cats...Maybe we want some courtly intrigue kind of story, so all of the PCs are nobility or royalty of some [social] level and backstabbin' begins in game 1. Sure, you can be crown prince...good luck makin' it to game session #2 mwahaha.

As with many things DM-related (and this would be a whole nuther ball o' waxy thread) it's a case-by-case basis.



pemerton said:


> To rewrite character sheets?




Why would anyone want to rewrite someone else's character sheet? 



pemerton said:


> To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources?




Of course not. Suggest/offer guides to an inexperienced player looking for assistance/direction, sure. But as a matter of course, no.



pemerton said:


> If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)




I wouldn't do this, no. For me the natural 20 is sacrosanct. I imagine, in other games/other gms might not find it so impenetrable, and be ok with letting outside things (or extremely rare/powerful situations) influence the natural 20.



pemerton said:


> Depending on how authority is allocated across these (and other) aspects of play, the game comes out very differently. It's not at all clear to me that all editions of D&D all give the GM final authority over all these things.




Then I suppose the only reasonable thing to suggest is go back and re-read all editions. There are, I suspect, some variations/levels of variation...suggestions for inserting variations?

It should be obvious to everyone here that no amount of discourse, no matter how civilized and informed, can _make it_ "clear" for you.



pemerton said:


> For instance, just to give one example, in AD&D the GM has authority over a MU PC's starting spells, but not over a fighter PC's starting weapon proficiencies.




Yeh. So?



pemerton said:


> Can you actually explain to me how you would adjudicate this in Moldvay Basic? Or AD&D? Or D&Dnext?




Moldvay Basic and AD&D are fairly crystalline on this (unless I'm thinking Mentzer, but some Basic for sure). The GM supplies the MU pc with their starting spells...those spells learned during their apprenticeship (as there were no such things as cantrips until UA) from their mentor (or however that was fluffed/storied).

Because, as the default D&D world (for those editions) supposes, magic spells aren't growing on trees. A tutor/mentor is only going ot have certain spells in their repetoire...and/or only be willing to teach certain ones to their pupil...Wizard guilds/communal towers are similarly going to be limited in their options and what options they will permit low level wizards...going the "Harry Potter motif", a 1st level MU coming out of a "wizarding academy" is only going to have access to those spells they have been taught/classes they've taken.

If you want to throw out all of the asusmptions of the game world, that is more than fine...even encouraged sometimes...but you can't simultaneously throw out all of the assumptions and then say "but it's not working right." ... think I unintentionally cast Tangential Tirade (an at will cantrip for interwebists, of course). 

In _5e _we will have to see. 

As far as "adjudicating it", like everything else in the book...Do what it says or change it if you don't like it/it doesn't fit your expectations of the world/cuz Johnny blesses you whenever you say "svirfneblin"...whatever. In this nonsensical case, either let the players choose their own  starting spells - a fairly common, if not universal, houserule, I think -  or dictate the fighter wpn prof's if that's what you and/or your players want.



pemerton said:


> Also, how does the game better support imagination by making it "very, very difficult" to play an inspirational battle captain? In effect, you are reducing your rationing mechanisms to one dimension - random allocation of success - rather than the multiple dimensions that 4e uses to ensure that these sorts of abilities are widely available but nevertheless do not break the overall action economy of the game.




Most of this doesn't even read like english to me...but the gist is there...pemerton likes 4e. News to us all, I'm sure. How did we ever survive, and in only one dimension apparently, before that breath [or raging hurricane?] of fresh air? 



pemerton said:


> I have zero interest in "GM as story teller". That doesn't mean the GM simply plays "everyone else".




Exceeeeeeept... That's exactly what it they do/it means.



pemerton said:


> *As I play the game*, the GM has a special role in relation to backstory and sceneframing. The GM also has a distinctive role in relation to action resolution, but it is very far from unconstrained.
> 
> Why don't the players have comparable power? Why can't _they_ exercise fiat to improve the game and the overall enjoyment of the game participants?



(emphasis mine)
 I just don't know how else...without... No further comment.

Good luck all.


----------



## Cyberen

am glad the "secret" of rules tinkering is not lost to everyone 
I was afraid the cult of RAW had taken control of the whole country...
Concerning DM force, it is VERY CLEAR in the editions of old that the DM has unlimited power on every aspect of the game, as the presence of domination, possession, charm, illusion effects, and other niceties such as dopplegangers, intelligent swords, cursed items and corrupt artifacts make mandatory. Dark or gonzo Fantasy contains tropes mandating loss of control by the players, no less than Lovecraftian Horror. Of course, anyone can opt out of these types of game, for many reasons.
As for me, I would frame the "DM force problem" in less absolute terms. My concern is often deciding how strongly the opposition is going to react. I've found 4e answer ("in a level appropriate fashion, add up to 5 levels") eye-opening, if not satisfactory : I have a naturalistic take on the subject, where the outside force should be determined by an economy which doesn't take the PC protagonism into account, but I am open to some kind of paradigm shift. What I would love is the introduction of some "karmic currency", similar to the Doom Pool, used by DM and players alike as a special effects budget (and where durable magic puts you in debt).


----------



## Ahnehnois

steeldragons said:


> Through that _role-playing,_ they interact with the world, create and shape the plots...that actually get played, at least. If I had a nickel for all of the unused plot hooks *longing sigh* but I digress...and, in general "control" the story through their character's actions. The DM controls everything else. _That's _the game we call D&D. That's not edition warring or anything...that_ is_ the construct...the framework...the paradigm of how the game we call D&D is played. Players play their characters. GM controls the rest.



This bears repeating. Do whatever you want at home, but D&D, the game itself, has players who play their characters and a DM who controls evertyhing.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories?





			
				steeldragons said:
			
		

> I wouldn't, but suppose some could.





			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> To rewrite character sheets?





			
				steeldragons said:
			
		

> Why would anyone want to rewrite someone else's character sheet?



These kind of go hand in hand to me. One obvious reason that I've used is if the DM gives the PC some secret bloodline or emergent magical ability the player didn't know he had. This is both a revision of background and potentially a new set of abilities that pops up on the character sheet, and the player may have no say in any of it. If the DM wants the player to go on a voyage of self-discovery, it's hard to do that with things the player already knows. If one were to play the Baldur's Gate games as an rpg campaign, wherein the protagonist discovers that he is a demigod, this is exactly what would happen.

Another simpler reason might be if the PC is unbalanced and the DM decides to "fix" it by simply changing something. Not ideal, but certainly something that can happen, and that I've seen talked about in at least one of the DMGs.

Could a DM simply tell the player "move five skill ranks from Climb to Knowledge (Arcana)" simply because he feels like it? Yes, but no one is saying that every exercise of discretion is equally wise.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources?





			
				steeldragons said:
			
		

> Of course not. Suggest/offer guides to an inexperienced player looking for assistance/direction, sure. But as a matter of course, no.



I actually think there are a fair number of examples where this happens. For one, the scenario where a DM says to a player that certain options are inaccessible, either banned or things that you need training to do. But even giving specific instructions is entirely reasonable.

For example, in a maritime game, the DM might require that all the PCs be sailors and direct them to spend a certain number of ranks of Prof (Sailor) or Swim. In an urban game, the DM might tell everyone to take Knowledge (Local). Simply for thematic reasons, a DM might direct a player to play a particular race or class. These kinds of things come up all the time. Any time you tell the players anything other than "build whatever you want withing the books", you're telling them how to spend their resources to some extent.

And what is a pregen, if not the DM directing how the entire character is built?

The idea that players control their character's development is already a reach outside of playing the character. After all, the character doesn't control what race he is, and probably has very little control of what his ability scores are. Even his learned abilities are a mix of choices he made and external factors.

After all that, I find that giving some specific instructions to players on how to build their characters often helps create a more cohesive campaign. I do it all the time.



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)





			
				steeldragons said:
			
		

> I wouldn't do this, no. For me the natural 20 is sacrosanct. I imagine, in other games/other gms might not find it so impenetrable, and be ok with letting outside things (or extremely rare/powerful situations) influence the natural 20.



Again, there is a distinction between what can be done and what is wise to do.

However, turn it around and say a player rolls a 1 on a save against a death effect. Is the DM entitled to dictate that the character survives? Sure. People do that all the time.

But even taking the orc example. What if the orc is a major NPC and the DM wants him to survive. Maybe he was expecting a brief battle first, but seeing the die result, the DM suddenly says that the orc lays down his arms and gives the players a chance to talk, effectively stepping outside the mechanics. Deus ex machina? Sure. But it is allowable. Say instead that the players have without their knowledge been transported to a demiplane where attacks are impossible (which does exist in a book somewhere IIRC). This roll of 20, nothing happens scenario might be how that is revealed.

Just saying that the attack does nothing without any reason is probably not a wise exercise of discretion, nor is doing anything without a good reason, but there are possible reasons for doing this.



> Exceeeeeeept... That's exactly what it they do/it means.



Yeah.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Balesir said:


> If the player characters are protagonists, they must have agency - i.e. they must have power to act without veto. Otherwise they are not really protagonists, they are just puppets.



I don't know where this idea comes from. Agency doesn't preclude the idea of a veto. Just because the players aren't the final arbiter of any of their actions doesn't mean that they aren't influencing the game at all.

The same is true in real life. When you apply for a job, you have little or no control over whether you will get an interview, let alone an offer, but that doesn't make the choice to apply or the choices made during the application meaningless. When you walk out the door in the morning, you might get hit by a bus, which again you may or may not have any real control over, but that doesn't mean that sitting in bed all day and going outside aren't meaningful choices.

Nor is agency defined this way, nor is it in the literary definition of a protagonist. The protagonist is the main character; the conceit is that the narrative focuses on him or her. A protagonist may or may not have _any_ influence on his own story.

Nor does any of that preclude the idea of an emergent play experience. It's entirely possible that the behavior of the players or the vagaries of the mechanics influence the DM's choices, even though he is not bound by either of those things. That can happen in all kinds of ways that are not expressed through rules-driven cause and effect.


----------



## Mercurius

Balesir said:


> I think the difference may be rather smaller than you imagine.




I was speaking directly to pemerton; unless you are pemerton and/or your view is identical to his, then yeah, sure, why not? 



Balesir said:


> Of that list, the only one I would definitely exclude is "storyteller". As GM I don't know what the story will be, nor do I want to. It will emerge from play. "Worldbuilder" may also be a bit dubious for D&D (specifically). I "build" sufficient of a "world" for play to proceed, but no more; the rest is mutable to suit all the players' requirements (including mine). The rest - referee (of the rules as written), scene-setter and so on are all fine. "Overlord" is a bit overblown, but the GM's role is certainly wider than the other players'.




This is where we can see that there is some flexibility in what a DM "is." I _love _worldbuilding, including (and perhaps especially) big picture stuff like cosmology, world maps, etc. I often find myself fretting over the look of this or that coastline, even though I know my players will likely never even go to 90% of the places on the world map, but that doesn't stop me, for two basic reasons: One, as I said, I love worldbuilding - I do it for my own enjoyment; and two, the more work I do beyond the "edges" of game play ("ludus incognita"), the more it enriches the area of play ("ludus cognita").

I find the worldbuilding approach of stopping at what is "sufficient for play to proceed" unsatisfying both as a DM (worldbuilder) and player, because the props, so to speak, end up feeling paper thin - like the western town in _Blazing Saddles. _This doesn't mean I think you or anyone that takes this approach is a bad DM, by the way - there are many aspects that go into good DMing, and a great worldbuilder and otherwise poor DM still makes for a shoddy game experience (just as an excellent DM can make up for paper-thin worldbuilding and still provide an enjoyable game). It is just that this is an important aspect of D&D for me.




Balesir said:


> If the player characters are protagonists, they must have agency - i.e. they must have power to act without veto. Otherwise they are not really protagonists, they are just puppets.




I think [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] spoke to this better than I could have. My view is similar to his.



Balesir said:


> The GM creates scenarios, yes, and plot hooks and necessary background - but not the storyline. The story is formed from a synthesis of the GM's framed situation and the actions of the protagonists; without the latter it does not exist - cannot exist.
> 
> They are co-creators of the story, which to an extent you might call "the game itself", but in D&D they are not usually the co-creators of the world outside their characters. The actions of their characters might change the world, for sure - that is the very essence of being a protagonist! But the players don't generally decide the system or setting detail as such.




Yes, I agree with this. But its really a spectrum, really, from utter free form and co-created, ala the "sandbox" approach, and what is pejoratively described as "railroading." I find myself enjoying the spectrum, but preferring an approach that incorporates elements from both extremes. I like a sandbox-style basic set-up, especially at the beginning, with plot-hooks and locations and encounters, and then I like weaving together these plot-hooks, perhaps guided by some underlying (or over-arching) story ideas that I want to instigate. But it isn't about me corralling the PCs in a direction they don't want to go; its about creating a symphony in which they can improvise within - "jazz-classical."

So the DM is also the _conductor _- but not of a pre-written orchestral piece, but a "jazz symphony" in which improvisation is not only possible but encouraged, and which no one is absolutely sure where things will end up. Some DMs want to know and _do _corral the PCs, I prefer not to - although there are always plot ideas that I'll find a way in if I really like them.



Balesir said:


> As an addendum, I lost the quote, but you said you were the lone serious gamer while your players were "casual". I think this might partly explain why you feel that 4E powers "stifle creativity". I said above that, once the players get to know both the rules and their characters they tend to use their powers as resources rather than a checklist of "what to do". If your players don't/can't learn the basics of the rules thoroughly, then I'm guessing that a really rules light system would suit them better. Rules in any game really only work well if the players all know what they are.




I meant "casual" mainly in their overall interest in RPGs. I'm the only one that buys more than a book or two, that thinks about D&D beyond the session, at least significantly, or that posts on forums. But there's a range in terms of how well the players know the rules; some "get it," and some don't. And I can agree with you that for those who get it there's a lot more freedom, _but..._they still look at their character sheets as a menu of options (resources) and rarely improvise out of it. Or rather, they might come up with a description of what the character does and then they, the player, chooses which power fits that description (or usually vice versa). The problem being that there's a kind of artificial separation between character action and player choice (of resource).



Balesir said:


> In well designed rules there will be no clash because the places where each player (including the GM) has the power to dictate will be defined. This is one area where a lot of Indie games are really good, actually; their split of responsibility/power may be very non-traditional, but it is well defined. The rules say - as their primary function, in fact - who gets to decide what.




Well again, we disagree on the absoluteness of DM power here.



Balesir said:


> The idea that the GM "has greater knowledge of where things are going in general" is somewhat alien to me. Greater knowledge of the monster/NPC/setting details? Sure. Greater knowledge of where the story is heading? Nope.




_Of course _the DM has greater knowledge of where the story is heading, at least in the approach I take, because the DM likely has plot hooks that they want to introduce. 



Balesir said:


> Assuming that the GM is constrained by the rules, yes - some seem to be saying that rules do not constrain a GM, however...




I'd say guide, not constrain. But the DM _always _can over-rule the rules.



Balesir said:


> Background, yes. History, yes - as far as is required for play. Story board or predetermined plot - no. To have such a thing is, at a minimum, to limit the influence of the players' decisions and thus to render their characters other than protagonists - which is what they are supposed to be.
> 
> Now, there might be exceptions to this with the agreement and connivance of the players - when running through a sequence of published scenarios, for example - but in general no future plot should be assumed or planned by the GM. The players should make clear their intentions, and the GM should plan around that.




Assumed? No; I agree with you. Planned? Why not? Plans are flexible and can be changed.


----------



## Cadence

Thanks to @_*Cyberen*_ in #111 - "karmic currency" is giving me something to think about.

And thanks to @_*Ahnehnois*_ (#113) and @_*Mercurius*_ (#114) for doing a nice job of commenting on agency and world building & story knowledge respectively (and making it so I didn't have to figure out how I wanted to say it!).




Balesir said:


> In well designed rules there will be no clash because the places where each player (including the GM) has the power to dictate will be defined. This is one area where a lot of Indie games are really good, actually; their split of responsibility/power may be very non-traditional, but it is well defined. The rules say - as their primary function, in fact - who gets to decide what.




Is this a fair extrapolation?

When playing a game where RAW reserves ultimate authority to the DM as they see fit, the participants in a well run campaign that chooses to divide the power among the players and DM in a different way should explicitly agree on the division of power before the campaign begins [in order to avoid later difficulties].


----------



## TwoSix

steeldragons said:


> It should be obvious to everyone here that no amount of discourse, no matter how civilized and informed, can _make it_ "clear" for you.



I'm fairly sure that not being "clear" is a politer way of saying he thinks you're wrong.

Quite simply, not all of us accept that the trad way of roleplaying is the only way to play D&D, that trad style defines D&D, or that it is even the only textually supported way.  You can feel free to disagree, of course, but we're pretty much in two different camps that are starting from two different base points.


----------



## Cadence

RE: DM/Player Power Split

So, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on in regards to the division of ultimate authority... how do you deal with situations like the one over at: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...orlds-Combat&p=6229433&viewfull=1#post6229433

The DM is sick of playing the game because of two broken spells...  and the player doesn't want them nerfed because it would destroy all the hard system mastery work they put in to developing the character.  

It seems somewhat sad, but does each group need to agree on how they will deal with  mid-game-discovered-brokenness before they start to play?


----------



## Aenghus

One old school picture of D&D groups was an all-powerful DM running a game like his own personal fiefdom, fiercely guarding his authority, and expecting his players to be acolytes. A lot of players didn't know much about the game and trusted the referee to do everything for them.

In the old days there was little or no discussion of game style and individual preferences. Games tended to be much more anarchic as a consequence IMO (and because players were younger).

There is an awful lot more variety nowadays, methinks. Many players have decades of playing and DMing experience and some game groups consist entirely of such players. Such players are much less likely to tolerate being treated like mushrooms than in the (for some) bad old days.

Modifying character sheets of established PCs can be a complex proposition. The possibility exists that proposed modifications may lead to the player being unhappy with the resulting PC and/or retiring him and introducing a new pc, or leaving the game. While I've seen players being browbeaten into running PCs they aren't happy with, they don't do so for long and the experience can sour them on the group concerned or the game itself.


----------



## ExploderWizard

howandwhy99 said:


> D&D doesn't include competing narratives. Nor are the mechanics of the game (or most all games actually) about resolving people's narrations into a "shared fiction". The DM is in no way a player in D&D. All the Big Model is is a highly prejudiced philosophy created to stamp out any ideas not agreeable to its own. It wasn't even given credence to until the last years of 3.x and then in the design of 4e by Mike Mearls who is one of the three founders of The Forge. I believe he has some good will to D&D given the failure of his last design, but D&DN is still rife with "narrative resolution mechanics". They can't or won't let themselves out of the horribly conceived check system originally put forth in the DSG. The idea that the OSR and old school game design are "essentially the same as the new school" is just more inability to think outside contemporary biases. In order to understand D&D and game design in general at any level we need to completely scrub our minds clean of narrative theory and the bigotry of narrative absolutists.




Very well said. I need to spread some XP around but this is oh so worthy. 



pemerton said:


> This strikes me as underanalysed. Are you talking about world creation? Framing of scenes/encounters? Adjudication of action resolution? Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories? To rewrite character sheets? To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources? If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)




PC backstories are inconsequential to the starting realities of a fledgling adventurer. The player can make up whatever amuses them in that respect. Resource expenditure is strictly player territory. 
They may spend their starting money however they see fit. If a player rolls a natural 20 against an ordinary orc it will be a hit barring something extraordinary. Was that orc in fact wearing a _cloak of displacement? _If so and this was the first attack against the orc I would announce a miss. I would not announce a miss for no reason. 



pemerton said:


> Also, how does the game better support imagination by making it "very, very difficult" to play an inspirational battle captain? In effect, you are reducing your rationing mechanisms to one dimension - random allocation of success - rather than the multiple dimensions that 4e uses to ensure that these sorts of abilities are widely available but nevertheless do not break the overall action economy of the game.




In my game if someone wants to be an inspirational battle captain then they play a character with a high CHA, and/or say or do something inspiring during a battle. Such acts will have a direct impact on the morale of allied npcs. Other PCs will get no tangible benefit from such an act because each player has free will and is not subject to the morale rules. This is easy to implement and does not break the overall action economy of the game. 



pemerton said:


> I have zero interest in "GM as story teller".




Hey me either! We agree on something. As player, I'm there to play a game via exploring a world. I can read a book and get told a story. 



pemerton said:


> That doesn't mean the GM simply plays "everyone else".




Well, thats part of it but not all. 



pemerton said:


> As I play the game, the GM has a special role in relation to backstory and sceneframing. The GM also has a distinctive role in relation to action resolution, but it is very far from unconstrained.




Yes the GM does provide some backstory and color commentary on the world at large. Scene framing is for stories and has nothing whatsoever to do with D&D. Action resolution in conjuction with agreed upon rules of play are a large part of the job of the referee as well. 



pemerton said:


> Why don't the players have comparable power? Why can't _they_ exercise fiat to improve the game and the overall enjoyment of the game participants?




Because they are roleplaying adventurers exploring a fantasy world? Why can't YOU just wave your hand and improve things in your own life for your overall better enjoyment? Probably because the world is what it is and we just have live in it. Its no different for the roleplayed character. Why don't I use fiat to make traffic dissappear so I can have a faster commute home which would contribute to my overall enjoyment of the evening? 

It all boils down to the objectives of play. D&D is a roleplaying game designed with two distinct roles defined. Player, and Dungeon master. The DM IS just another person at the table but he/she is NOT just another player. The two roles were different for a reason. 

If your play objectives do not mesh with those that D&D was designed for, there will of course be problems. The system, indeed the whole structure of the game was never intended to support co-authored fiction creation as an objective of play. D&D will be subobtimal for doing that. Other systems support that playstyle better and were indeed designed for it, such as Fate or D&D 4E.


----------



## Cyberen

Gentlemen. Please.
Instead of uttering outré or pedantic statements such as "I tolerate GM Force in CoC but not in my D&D !" or "go and play 4e instead of D&D !" and indulge in barren edition-warring, would you consider addressing the (imho)underlying issue :
Can GM force be a modular part of D&D ?
I hope it is, but I am really unsure : in order to contain it, and to guarantee player agenda, 4e :
1) empowered every PC with fiat effects
2) removed FX requiring massive GM Force, such as possession, from the game (my experience with 4e being essentially theoretical, please correct me)
My opinion on this topic is 4e went a bit too far. When dimension door is available at 1st level (Eladrin's Fey Step) but Magic Jar is no longer on the table, the game stops supporting too many genres/tropes/playstyles to my taste.
I think item #1 is not such a big deal. Next power curve, with 1st level characters being little more than average Joes, should accomodate many playstyles.
I have trouble finding a solution that would put#2 on a switch (or a dial ?). Would that solve the issue of DM force ? Is it feasible ?


----------



## Aenghus

Cyberen said:


> Can GM force be a modular part of D&D ?
> I hope it is, but I am really unsure : in order to contain it, and to guarantee player agenda, 4e :
> 1) empowered every PC with fiat effects
> 2) removed FX requiring massive GM Force, such as possession, from the game (my experience with 4e being essentially theoretical, please correct me)
> My opinion on this topic is 4e went a bit too far. When dimension door is available at 1st level (Eladrin's Fey Step) but Magic Jar is no longer on the table, the game stops supporting too many genres/tropes/playstyles to my taste.
> I think item #1 is not such a big deal. Next power curve, with 1st level characters being little more than average Joes, should accomodate many playstyles.
> I have trouble finding a solution that would put#2 on a switch (or a dial ?). Would that solve the issue of DM force ? Is it feasible ?




Please compare fairly. Eladrin Fey step is a short range teleport limited to line of sight and more akin to a 2nd level spell in previous editions (_Dimension Hop_ or _Dimension Leap_) . _Dimension Door _i s a 4th level mid range teleport not requiring line of sight.

Magic Jar is primarily a bad guy plot device spell, and often banned for PCs in previous editions (as a houserule). It has the horrible effect of making the caster's body helpless if found, making it difficult for PCs without faithful minions or lackies to use. It's easier to use as a setpiece defence with the caster's body locked in a secret room, not typically a setup accessible to PCs.

 You are missing the whole point of the 4e "npcs aren't statted as PCs" ethos, in that 4e NPCs can have possession type effects if desired. I used one In my 4e game recently, a disempowered devil who had posssesed an orc and was slowly  burning him up from the inside. I've seen 4e ghosts with possession powers, I'm sure. 

4e PC effects in this area tend to be a lot more constrained, true, but that's  the price of them not being plot device spells and thus ban-fodder.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> I think we're slipping a bit here into territory I'd rather not venture into
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You might think I'm more against 4e-style play than I actually am. As I've said a few times, I really enjoy 4e, but also feel that something is lacking, or has been lacking for me (and many others who express similar feelings). What this is is not so simple as to be easily narrowed down, but is a combination of factors, only some of which we've discussed in this thread. But I do want to (re-)emphasize that I don't even dislike AEDU in and of itself, I just feel that it has a kind of totalizing effect that obfuscates the approach to game play that page 42 seeks to address but is, in the end, de-emphasized.



As best I can tell, the approach to game play that you are advocating is one based on freeform descriptions by players that are then adjudicated by the GM without reference to any general framework of the 4e style.

Whatever the merits or demerits of such an approach, I don't accept that it has some special or privileged relationship to imaginative RPGing.



Mercurius said:


> I want to imagine myself in the game world, and determine my action as the character that is there, _and then_ pick a power or skill _if _I need to. Actually, _all _versions of D&D allow for this, but some emphasize different components more than others, and to varying degrees.



I don't entirely see how you can imagine yourself in the gameworld without having some conception of what resources are available to you as a player (correlating, at least in part, to capabilities of the character). For example, how can you imagine yourself as an inspirational battle captain without knowing something about your capacity to inspire? Or as a happy-go-lucky daredevil without knowing something about how lucky you are likely to be?

This relates back to a point [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] made upthread.



Mercurius said:


> I want both: clear and definable resources, but also a free-wheeling, improvisational play style that isn't relegated to a single page in one book, but is firmly part of the game ethos.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> As a DM, I always allow and encourage players to think outside of the box, to do whatever it is they want, and I've found that 99% of the time my players trust my judgment and sense of fairness. I would never make it "very, very difficult to play an inspirational battle captain" - that is a misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of what I was trying to express; I'm honestly not sure how you came up with that interpretation! My point was simply that players can doanything, even if it isn't on the character sheet or defined by the rules, even if it seems nearly impossible.



The reason I thought it might be hard to be an "improvisational" battle captain was because you said the GM's response should be "That will be very, very difficult, but you can try . . ."

I'm still curious as to how you would adjudicate the inspirational battle captain leading the charge in Moldvay Basic, or AD&D, or Next.

I'm also curious as to the metric on which "near impossibility" is determined. For instance, for magic-users the test obviously is not real-world possibility. Suppose a MU wants to use Charm Person to persuade a sleeping guard to talk in his sleep and reveal the password - how hard is this? And how is it adjudicated?

Or suppose a PC who is conceived as a happy-go-lucky daredevil wants to jump from the castle tower into the moat 80' below. How is that adjudicated? By reference to real world criteria of difficulty? (And how do we compare the PC to the capabilities of real world acrobats and divers?)

There are different ways of answering these questions, and different versions of D&D seem to support different answers. For instance, my take on Moldvay Basic is that Charm Person can't be used to persuade a sleeping guard to reveal a password in his sleep - spells are confined to their descriptions. And the jump into the moat is to be adjudicated by the GM assinging a % chance of success - with no real mechanism for factoring in level, or thief class, or anything else.

My take on 4e is that the use of a Charm spell to persuade the sleeping guard to reveal a password is to be adjudicated as an Arcana check - everything else being equal, a Hard check. And the jump into the moat would be an Acrobatics check, with the difficulty also probably at Hard - and making it to Medium probably interpreted as a successful jump but damage at the appropriate level for a bad landing.

4e handles the Battle Captain via class-specific powers, and to confer bonus actions through improvisation would at a minimum have to cost an encounter power. I don't think in Moldvay Basic it is possible to confer bonus actions through improvisation. But I'm interested in other opinions on how this might be handled.



ExploderWizard said:


> In my game if someone wants to be an inspirational battle captain then they play a character with a high CHA, and/or say or do something inspiring during a battle. Such acts will have a direct impact on the morale of allied npcs. Other PCs will get no tangible benefit from such an act because each player has free will and is not subject to the morale rules. This is easy to implement and does not break the overall action economy of the game.



This fits with my sense of how classic D&D handles the archetype. It means that, in a game in which NPCs will have little or no practical signficance in resolving challenges, it is impossible to play a battle captain as anything other than colour. Which isn't per se objectionable, but does bring out a distinctive feature of 4e.



Cadence said:


> The thought that the rolls matter, matters to the players.



OK, but if they don't then why lie? The fact that it matters to the players seems, if anything, a reason to be truthful.



Cyberen said:


> Concerning DM force, it is VERY CLEAR in the editions of old that the DM has unlimited power on every aspect of the game, as the presence of domination, possession, charm, illusion effects, and other niceties such as dopplegangers, intelligent swords, cursed items and corrupt artifacts make mandatory.





TwoSix said:


> Quite simply, not all of us accept that the trad way of roleplaying is the only way to play D&D, that trad style defines D&D, or that it is even the only textually supported way.



I agree with TwoSix. This came up in the long Fighters vs Spellcasters thread. [MENTION=6701124]Cadence[/MENTION] had some quotes from Gygax's DMG. My reading of those quotes was that Gygax advocated strong GM authority over, and adjudication of, fictional positioning - which is a particularly important contributor to action resolution in classic D&D, given the comparative lack of mechanical systems outside of combat and dealing with dungeon doors and traps. But I don't think Gygax advocated that the GM could suspend action resolution at will - or should call for (say) an attack roll or a saving throw and then ignore its results, or roll an attack roll for a monster while disregarding a PC's AC in declaring a hit or a miss.

And you don't need to do those things to adjudicate (say) doppelgangers, or cursed items, or illusions.



Mercurius said:


> I think we operate under a different paradigm of what a DM's role is with regards to D&D and, I imagine, this goes back a long way. I've always taken the approach that the DM is a combination of many roles: storyteller, referee, worldbuilder, scene-setter, moderator, conflict resolver, and yes, "overlord" of the game and campaign.
> 
> In that sense, the DM's role is fundamentally different than the players, who play characters in the DM's campaign world.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> What you describe seems to involve a lot more player empowerment - that they are not as much characters within the DM's creation, and protagonists in the story, but co-creators of the game itself.



The most natural reading, for me, of "the game" is _the events and experiences of play_. And I take it for granted that the players are co-creators of that.

I take it for granted that world-building is also shared - for instance, players have primary authority for creating backstory around their PCs', their PCs' families and homelands, their PCs' mentors and organisaitons, etc. But the GM has responsibility for more of it, and also for backstory around the antagonists.

Scene-framing I prefer as a GM role, because I think it is hard to ask players to set their PCs' own challenges. Refereeing and adjudication is a GM function, within the scope of the action resolution mechanics.

I don't find it helpful to run these different things together, because it then becomes hard to draw distinctions that I think are pretty crucial across different approaches and different play experiences.



Cadence said:


> If the DM has a world design that that the player's choices clashes with, shouldn't the player change what they were going to do?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> who does the tie-breaking when there is a disagreement because fiat attempts clash?



This can be handled different ways. GM authority is only one approach. Negotiation and compromise/consensus is another. GM deference to players in matters that affect their PCs directly (eg race, family, mentor, organisation) is another. I personally like Luke Crane's advice in the Burning Wheel books - by which I mean I think it leads to satisfying play that engages everyone at the table.



Cadence said:


> I think I've always played with groups where the DM would incorporate any ideas the players had that didn't strongly clash with the world design



That sounds like one viable approach. It doesn't make me think we need GM authority to be stated as any sort of default or presupposition.



Cadence said:


> Does the DM have greater knowledge of where things are going in general? If so, should that give them the tie-breaking vote when its otherwise split? Or should they just get it simply because the role of DM is different from that of the player and all of the players have agreed to make that person the DM?



I'm not sure about the "greater knowledge of where things are going". I don't see that the GM has to, or even should, have such knowledge. If the players are playing the protagonists, why don't _they_ know where things are going?



Cadence said:


> how do you deal with situations like the one over at: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...orlds-Combat&p=6229433&viewfull=1#post6229433
> 
> The DM is sick of playing the game because of two broken spells...  and the player doesn't want them nerfed because it would destroy all the hard system mastery work they put in to developing the character.
> 
> It seems somewhat sad, but does each group need to agree on how they will deal with  mid-game-discovered-brokenness before they start to play?



I haven't read that thread, and so have no advice to offer for these particular players. But I'd be surprised if a rulebook statement that the GM has absolute authority would make the problem go away.

I have had this sort of problem playing Rolemaster. It was always solved via group discussion and consensus, not unilateral exercise of authority.


----------



## pemerton

Cyberen said:


> My concern is often deciding how strongly the opposition is going to react. I've found 4e answer ("in a level appropriate fashion, add up to 5 levels") eye-opening, if not satisfactory : I have a naturalistic take on the subject, where the outside force should be determined by an economy which doesn't take the PC protagonism into account, but I am open to some kind of paradigm shift. What I would love is the introduction of some "karmic currency", similar to the Doom Pool, used by DM and players alike as a special effects budget (and where durable magic puts you in debt).



When you combine the 4e approach you describe with its XP rules you get "karmic currency" on the GM side, as encounters produce level gains open the possibility to higher level encounters - this is how the game escalates from PCs vs kobolds to PCs vs Orcus, which is pretty key to default 4e.

You also get a type of consequent karmic currency on the player side, as hit points are added and new powers gained.

But there interconnection between the various currencies is nowhere near as tight as in MHRP. I haven't seen that done for D&D. The place to start might be healing surges (and you would look to substitute them for action points in some way, and for advantages in skill challenges).



Cyberen said:


> Can GM force be a modular part of D&D ?



Well, there are many RPGs which have essentially process sim PC build and action resolution with fate points layered over the top to support player protagonism (even Burning Wheel somewhat fits this description, though that is to ignore its advancement mechanics). Switching the fate ponts on/off gives you modularity here.

Perhaps GM force can be similarly modular - ie the game has resolution mechanics, and the module involves substituting GM fiat for resolution.

But if mechanics are written with GM fiat built in, I think it is going to be hard to modulate them to non-fiat mechanics.


----------



## pemerton

Aenghus said:


> 4e NPCs can have possession type effects if desired. I used one In my 4e game recently, a disempowered devil who had posssesed an orc and was slowly  burning him up from the inside. I've seen 4e ghosts with possession powers, I'm sure.



I've had plenty of ghosts and devils with possession abilities. Not to mention the altar of zealotry.

And on the PC side, the invoker/wizard in my game briefly had the 15th level possession daily from Heroes of the Feywild - he used it to try and read a password from a guard's mind, though the attempt failed and (naturally) hilarity ensued!


----------



## Lanefan

pemerton said:


> I don't entirely see how you can imagine yourself in the gameworld without having some conception of what resources are available to you as a player (correlating, at least in part, to capabilities of the character). For example, how can you imagine yourself as an inspirational battle captain without knowing something about your capacity to inspire?



Easy.  I just do it.  Maybe the mechanics of my character happen to agree, maybe they don't - just like in real life. 


> Or as a happy-go-lucky daredevil without knowing something about how lucky you are likely to be?



Er...isn't the whole point of "luck" imbued in the lack of knowledge of the future?  You've got away with cheating death once or twice so you think you're lucky...maybe you are, maybe you're not, and dice and the fates will decide.  This in particular is one place where a character might very well *not* know its own mechanics - it has a hidden lucky (or unlucky) streak that secretly affect an occasional die roll...

Lan-"and in a few hours I get to watch as my players either wake up a sleeping god or kill it"-efan


----------



## ExploderWizard

pemerton said:


> This fits with my sense of how classic D&D handles the archetype. It means that, in a game in which NPCs will have little or no practical signficance in resolving challenges, it is impossible to play a battle captain as anything other than colour. Which isn't per se objectionable, but does bring out a distinctive feature of 4e.




As far as providing tangible benefits in the form of bonuses and such beyond morale it really depends on the type of game world you want to emulate. Classic D&D has magical effects such as _bless_ for such things and duplicating their effects with inspirational shouting kind of devalues them. The kind of world in which magical and non-magical effects are indistinguishable is HUGE change that not everyone wants to make in their games. It is good that there are games for those that want these changes and games for those who do not.


----------



## Ratskinner

ExploderWizard said:


> As far as providing tangible benefits in the form of bonuses and such beyond morale it really depends on the type of game world you want to emulate. Classic D&D has magical effects such as _bless_ for such things and duplicating their effects with inspirational shouting kind of devalues them. The kind of world in which magical and non-magical effects are indistinguishable is HUGE change that not everyone wants to make in their games. It is good that there are games for those that want these changes and games for those who do not.




I must say that I can't see how this is a "HUGE change". Certainly an old-school fighter has no inherent magical prowess, and yet will often gain benefits that exceed the effects of a Bless spell as he levels up. I've never found that that devalues magic. Plus, you don't seem to feel the same way in reverse. That is, if we are in the business of keeping magic and mundane distinct, does it not devalue the Fighter's damage-dealing when the wizard unleashes a _Fireball_? Doesn't a magic missile devalue a sword strike?

 I mean, _any_ change in the numbers is basically indistiguishable from another, the source of the "+1" doesn't matter. The world where magical and non-magical effects are indistiguishable is D&D, because all you can do is raise or lower numbers. I'm not fond of trotting out the line, but your claim here seems a pretty strong endorsement of the "non-casters can't have nice things" argument.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> As best I can tell, the approach to game play that you are advocating is one based on freeform descriptions by players that are then adjudicated by the GM without reference to any general framework of the 4e style.
> 
> Whatever the merits or demerits of such an approach, I don't accept that it has some special or privileged relationship to imaginative RPGing.




Fair enough. Although, again, I am not advocating an approach that is _only _"freeform descriptions by players" but rather *re-emphasizes* that _in addition to _and perhaps primary to defined resources. As I see it, this is an aspect of game play that has been de-emphasized in the AEDU paradigm.

I think AEDU limits imagination only insofar as it channels player action into pre-described and defined actions, which are in turn abstractions of actual "in play" action. In other words, a power is an abstract game term which is a step removed from the character's action itself within the campaign world.



pemerton said:


> I don't entirely see how you can imagine yourself in the gameworld without having some conception of what resources are available to you as a player (correlating, at least in part, to capabilities of the character). For example, how can you imagine yourself as an inspirational battle captain without knowing something about your capacity to inspire? Or as a happy-go-lucky daredevil without knowing something about how lucky you are likely to be?




You seem to be implying that I think PCs should haven't any statistics, and defined traits or skills or powers. That is not the case at all. I'm just interested in an approach in which the resources of a character and are pre-described as AEDU, which (for me) furthers the separation between player and character, with the player "operating" the character by determining which resources they use in a given situation, rather than the player imagining him or herself as the character _within _the situation, and acting accordingly. If a pre-described resource fits that action, then all the better. 



pemerton said:


> The reason I thought it might be hard to be an "improvisational" battle captain was because you said the GM's response should be "That will be very, very difficult, but you can try . . ."




You misunderstood what I said, and I've already re-explained this. I did *not *say that being an improvisational battle captain should be met by that response from the GM; what I _did _say was that a GM should never say "no," even in a near-impossible situation, but at least give the option to try, even if it is "very, very difficult." 



pemerton said:


> I'm still curious as to how you would adjudicate the inspirational battle captain leading the charge in Moldvay Basic, or AD&D, or Next.




As with any PC action. The player describes what he or she wants to do and the DM offers a target number to accomplish it. There might be discussion as to which character stats are employed - whether it is a straight up ability check, or if there is a skill involved, an attack, etc. In most cases it is clearly obvious, and a player will usually play to their character's strengths (e.g. a low Charisma PC won't usually try to be an inspirational battle captain, but they _can _- even if they don't have the power or feat for it).



pemerton said:


> I'm also curious as to the metric on which "near impossibility" is determined. For instance, for magic-users the test obviously is not real-world possibility. Suppose a MU wants to use Charm Person to persuade a sleeping guard to talk in his sleep and reveal the password - how hard is this? And how is it adjudicated?
> 
> Or suppose a PC who is conceived as a happy-go-lucky daredevil wants to jump from the castle tower into the moat 80' below. How is that adjudicated? By reference to real world criteria of difficulty? (And how do we compare the PC to the capabilities of real world acrobats and divers?)
> 
> There are different ways of answering these questions, and different versions of D&D seem to support different answers. For instance, my take on Moldvay Basic is that Charm Person can't be used to persuade a sleeping guard to reveal a password in his sleep - spells are confined to their descriptions. And the jump into the moat is to be adjudicated by the GM assinging a % chance of success - with no real mechanism for factoring in level, or thief class, or anything else.
> 
> My take on 4e is that the use of a Charm spell to persuade the sleeping guard to reveal a password is to be adjudicated as an Arcana check - everything else being equal, a Hard check. And the jump into the moat would be an Acrobatics check, with the difficulty also probably at Hard - and making it to Medium probably interpreted as a successful jump but damage at the appropriate level for a bad landing.
> 
> 4e handles the Battle Captain via class-specific powers, and to confer bonus actions through improvisation would at a minimum have to cost an encounter power. I don't think in Moldvay Basic it is possible to confer bonus actions through improvisation. But I'm interested in other opinions on how this might be handled.




I haven't played older editions of D&D (pre-3e) in _decades, _so I think someone who has would be better suited to answer specifics. But the "modern" versions of the game based upon the d20 mechanic--3e, 4e, and 5e--all have a clear core resolution that can used: d20 roll + ability + relevant modifiers vs. target number. Within that framework _any _action can be resolved. It requires that a player comes up with an action--whether pre-defined or not--and the DM adjudicates by defining a target number.

It seems to me that you struggle with the idea of the DM somewhat arbitrarily coming up with a target number? Remember also that the target number is usually easy to define - it could be the Armor Class or, in 5e, a Difficulty Class which ranges from 5 ("Easy") to 35 ("Nearly Impossible").

The key here is that there's a kind of unspoken agreement of trust, that the player's will trust the judgment and fairness of the DM, but also that the DM is willing to be flexible.



pemerton said:


> The most natural reading, for me, of "the game" is _the events and experiences of play_. And I take it for granted that the players are co-creators of that.
> 
> I take it for granted that world-building is also shared - for instance, players have primary authority for creating backstory around their PCs', their PCs' families and homelands, their PCs' mentors and organisaitons, etc. But the GM has responsibility for more of it, and also for backstory around the antagonists.




I agree with all of that, with the caveat that the DM - at least in my game and the games I've played - has veto power and can adjust things as he or she sees fit. Not arbitrarily or petulantly, but because only the DM knows what is "really" going on in the game world...for me this is a necessary aspect of player sense of mystery. The player comes up with a back-story, even a homeland etc, but the DM can take that and modify it to fit the game world, and to perhaps produce plot threads that can be employed later on. 

For example, let's say a player says that he was an orphan who was taken in by a duke and raised as a household squire and later became a knight. The DM might know something about that orphan that the player doesn't - that he's actually the son of the deposed king, the duke's dead brother. That sort of thing.

As I've said, it seems that where we differ is the degree to which the DM is "omnipotent" and "omniscient." I see it as being essentially complete. It doesn't mean that a DM will ignore the desires of a player, but that they have the freedom to re-frame them or re-contextualize them within the greater whole of the game and world.

Actually, in my mind this is a necessary component of immersion and player enjoyment - not knowing what's off the edge of the map, new surprises being introduced, "Wait, I'm the heir to the throne?!" For me there's something lost when the player says, "I want to secretly be the heir to the throne but not know it." 

Its sort of like Christmas presents. I like there to be some degree of surprise, not simply a list of wished for gifts. In some ways, the AEDU paradigm is like having a list of gifts and only things on that list can be purchased. Obviously in the 4e game this isn't true, but simply having the list implies that it is true. If nothing else, the list should begin and end with "Or just ignore this and follow your inspiration - surprise me!" I suppose the best-of-both-worlds is to get some items on your wish list and a surprise or two.

Of course with surprises you never know what you're going to get--but that's the spice of life!


----------



## Cyberen

A few remarks :
* sorry if my comparison (Fey Step / Magic Jar) didn't seem fair. I can assure you Magic Jar has been thoroughly played (and abused) ime, and Fey Step at 1st level is problematic for my group at least. And I don't try to misrepresent 4e : my worst experience with DM Force was considering if a NPC was going to attempt to assassinate a PC. Even bound by the rules, it would have been an auto kill : magical stealth ensuring surprise, Polymorph Any Object automatically turning the PC into a salt statue, and final dispersion). I couldn't stomach to "frame this scene", and I have been really wary of high level play since. At least, 4e addressed this situation (but in a very heavy handed way imo - banning equipment damage in the name of fun and simplicity is not to my taste !)
* ok, I get that 4e implement possession effects. Are they permanent ? However, the situation I had in mind with my list of effects (possession, duplication...) is the following : one of the PC secretly becomes the puppet of another NPC entity in the middle of a session. How do you handle it ? It occured to me (as the player of the possessed character, another PC, or the DM) several times, and our method was having the player acting as a puppet of the DM (via secret instructions) without the rest of the players knowing it. I don't know if it qualifies as "DM force" by all accounts, as player agency is suspended for quite a while. Also, think about DL10 situation where PCs enter the dream of King Lorac. In the last stage, their capabilities are radically transformed (for instance, fighters use the magic users to-hit tables). Is it acceptable DM force ? It surely IS classical !
* judging the possible implementation of a warlord using a *Basic* set of rules is not very appropriate, don't you think ? Basic provides a very robust resolution engine, but "exception based design" is the undisputed province of the Advanced ruleset. And indeed, a Inspirational Warlord would be one exceptionnal subsystem among many others. "Inspiration" could be a subset of magic, or its own "power source" (like psionics), according to taste.


----------



## Cyberen

... and some others  :
The "Christmas present model" (in reference to [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] post) is the secret here, that enables our monadic imaginations to share the same space (as a world spanning community or at the same table). Concerning worldbuilding, scene framing, adjucation, or whatever, the trick of rolling some dice behind a screen make all possible resolution methods indistinguishable from a player point of view. Consider, for instance, the iconic dungeon door (tm), the ultimate scene framing device, marking the boudary between the known and unknown. What lies beyond ?
If [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] is the DM, he would have a look at his carefully prepared notes and detailed map, before reading a carefully prepared description of an orc with a pie (playing riddles).
If [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is the DM, he would consider your character backstory, handwave you through some corridors of little significance, and lead you to an encounter with an orc and a pie (baked by your ex girlfriend).
If <insert 2e fan here> is the DM, you would be entering the food producing complex necessary to sustain the considerable population of goblins you previously decimated. It produces pies and is ran by an orc.
If I am the DM, I would roll dice on various tables, and introduce you to an orc and his pie, because I am lazy and traditionalist. Maybe the orc is a PC.
Picking a method is the undisputed province of the DM. The player doesn't need to know, shouldn't know, AS LONG AS HE IS HOLDING HIS BREATH WHILE HIS CHARACTER OPENS THE DOOR.
It is the exact same thing with adjudication : as long as there is a DM, dice, ascreen, and a rule zero, the DM can afford to fudge, make up rules on the fly, or be bound by a system of rules. If you remove one of those basic components, you are needlessly excluding some playstyles.
Abstract HP and combat mechanics enable everybody to be at the same page, gamewise, while picturing different scenes.
As long as Fortune in the Middle is on the table, differing imaginations can happily coexist.


----------



## jeffh

This looks fun, even though it seems only tangentially related to the thread. (As an aside, it seems to me this is a more useful exercise if you're planning on running 13th Age or The Pool than any flavour of D&D, though it might be somewhat useful for Next or for 1E with secondary skills.)



GrahamWills said:


> [*]I would be automatically able to sail a small boat without needing to roll dice



In good sailing conditions, yes.


> [*]I would know how to tie common knots



Yes


> [*]I would be better at tying knots than someone who is not a sailor



All else being equal, yes.


> [*]I would be less good at tying knots than someone who has high dexterity



All else being equal, no.


> [*]I would be able to shoot and hit an unaware person at 50' with a bow without needing a roll



No.


> [*]I would need to make a roll to shoot someone who was aware of me



Yes.


> [*]I would be more effective with my bow than a weaker person because I can pull more weight



Virtually all game systems, even "one-roll" ones, differentiate between accuracy and damage in some way. I'd lean toward giving you more of the latter, but not necessarily any more of the former.


> [*]I would be less effective with my bow than a more dexterous person



Depends what you mean by "dexterous". In D&D this is a very broad category that runs together a lot of things - manual dexterity, general grace and agility, and accuracy - that are quite different. In a system that defines dexterity less broadly, it might not help your archery at all. In D&D, it does so almost by definition, with the mirror image of the above caveat.


> [*]I would be better at shooting my bow on a ship than a non-sailor



Yes.


> [*]I would be better at shooting my bow on a ship in a storm than a weaker sailor



Yes, though whatever benefit you're getting from your strength probably accounts for this already without attempting to handle it explicitly.


> [*]I would be worse at shooting my bow than a "soldier" with "good skill at archery"



Maybe.


> [*]I would be awesome at repairing bows because not only am I good at archery, but I know how to tie knots and handle rope



No, since that's only a very, very small part of being a bowyer.


> [*]I would never need to roll to repair a basic bowstring, given the materials I need



You don't generally repair those, you replace them. Almost any attempted repair will just snap the next time you try to use it. But you'd be pretty good at stringing a bow since you have the most important thing you need - strength - and certainly know enough about bows not to damage it in the process. (Again, the sailor aspect is contributing almost nothing here.) Stringing a bow is non-trivial - consider how big a deal being able to string Odysseus' bow was.


> [*]I would always beat someone at archery if they were "bad at archery" without needing a roll



Not without needing a roll, but that roll should be very heavily in your favour.


> [*]I would always get a better rate of pay for sailing a boat as a "sailor" than someone who was "highly charismatic" but not a "sailor"



Only if they had some way (e.g. a past history with you) of knowing that, or the setting was such that this is legally enforced in some way.


> [*]I will always beat someone in a tug-of-war game if they are less strong than me



If the difference is large, sure. Even if it's close, the mechanics used should be such that you're heavily favoured (d20 is really bad at this).


> [*]Since sailors are very used to playing tug-of-war, I'd expect to beat someone equally strong as me if they were not a "sailor"



No. Tug of war doesn't require that much skill.


> [*]I do not need to roll dice to tell if someone else is a sailor.



If you mean on sight, no (no I don't agree with the statement, not no you wouldn't need to roll). You might pick it up from enough or the right kind of interaction with them, though not necessarily if they were actively trying to hide the fact.


> [*]I do not need to roll dice to assess someone's skill as an archer



Again, it depends what you've seen of them. You certainly can't tell this just from a casual glance at someone doing something non-archery-related.


> [*]I do not need to roll dice to assess how strong someone is



Same as above.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Ratskinner said:


> I must say that I can't see how this is a "HUGE change". Certainly an old-school fighter has no inherent magical prowess, and yet will often gain benefits that exceed the effects of a Bless spell as he levels up. I've never found that that devalues magic. Plus, you don't seem to feel the same way in reverse. That is, if we are in the business of keeping magic and mundane distinct, does it not devalue the Fighter's damage-dealing when the wizard unleashes a _Fireball_? Doesn't a magic missile devalue a sword strike?
> 
> I mean, _any_ change in the numbers is basically indistiguishable from another, the source of the "+1" doesn't matter. The world where magical and non-magical effects are indistiguishable is D&D, because all you can do is raise or lower numbers. I'm not fond of trotting out the line, but your claim here seems a pretty strong endorsement of the "non-casters can't have nice things" argument.




A high level fighter will fight with strength and deadliness of many men. That is a very nice thing. It may not be flashy but it is steady and effective. 

Magic may produce effects beyond the mundane thats why its......wait for it...... "magic". An important property of magic that got tossed away was that magical power was of a _finite_ quantity. Once you have the utter nonsense of a magic user pew-pewing unlimited magic all day of course you need to give the fighter a pony. Once you have gone down the rabbit hole of ubiquitous magic then yeah the mundane starts looking a little sad. 

Magic that never runs out and is utterly reliable isn't very magical anymore, its rather common. Thats when you run into the problem of all abilities being nothing more than sources of numbers. What is magical and what isn't just blurs together into a slurry of "stuff". That feels alright in the supers genre where everyone just has powers "from somewhere " but it doesn't fit the feel of D&D.


----------



## Cadence

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure about the "greater knowledge of where things are going". I don't see that the GM has to, or even should, have such knowledge. If the players are playing the protagonists, why don't _they_ know where things are going?




I usually picture the DM having scattered plot hooks around, knowing where the local "dungeon" is, knowing who some people with villainous intent are, etc...   The players don't have to go for any of the hooks or obvious villains, although it seems like it would take a fairly odd DM-player synergy if the players were never interested in anything the DM had prepared in advance.   Even if the players come up with what they're interested in ("Nah, we'd rather go explore the far north"... or whatever) isn't it the DM who comes up with the challenges that await them their?




pemerton said:


> I haven't read that thread, and so have no advice to offer for these particular players. But I'd be surprised if a rulebook statement that the GM has absolute authority would make the problem go away.
> 
> I have had this sort of problem playing Rolemaster. It was always solved via group discussion and consensus, not unilateral exercise of authority.




Right.  I couldn't see an obvious solution for either side of the the GM-authority debate here.  In the example the player and DM involved couldn't come to a consensus.   In a case like that, what's the tie-breaker?  Should one be agreed on in advance? Or does one side just need to be the bigger person and cave?

---



Lanefan said:


> Easy. I just do it. Maybe the mechanics of my character happen to agree, maybe they don't - just like in real life.




Huh.  I'd never thought about it that way.   I'm trying to think of any examples of people I've played with where the character acted like they were competent at something but actually weren't.   The closest I can think of is one where the party (players and thus characters) had a mistaken idea of how tough the standard background NPCs were.  Made that attempt at participating in the local fight-club surprisingly unpleasant.   That party didn't repeat that error though.

---

A nod of agreement with [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] for the post right above this one for magic vs. mundane.  Couldn't XP it.


----------



## pemerton

Cadence said:


> I usually picture the DM having scattered plot hooks around, knowing where the local "dungeon" is, knowing who some people with villainous intent are, etc...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Even if the players come up with what they're interested in ("Nah, we'd rather go explore the far north"... or whatever) isn't it the DM who comes up with the challenges that await them their?



I think this is actually the space in which a lot of playstyle differences are located, even though it can seem quite small when we are discussing it in abstract terms.

At least for me, the difference in play experience between "GM chooses mission/enemies" (and, say, feeds it to players via a patron or a classic dangling "plot hook") and "players choose mission/enemies" is extremely vast - even though, as you say, in the latter case it is still the GM who has to actually frame the challenge in mechanical and detailed story terms.



Cadence said:


> I couldn't see an obvious solution for either side of the the GM-authority debate here.  In the example the player and DM involved couldn't come to a consensus.   In a case like that, what's the tie-breaker?  Should one be agreed on in advance? Or does one side just need to be the bigger person and cave?



I feel a bit bad commenting without reading the thread, but at least as you describe it it really seems to me to be a basic social problem and not a particularly game-related one. The solution is to be found in all the standard techniques of resolving human conflict. Which means - especially as the stakes are fairly low - that it might _not_ be solved, and people might just walk away instead.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> The player describes what he or she wants to do and the DM offers a target number to accomplish it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> the "modern" versions of the game based upon the d20 mechanic--3e, 4e, and 5e--all have a clear core resolution that can used: d20 roll + ability + relevant modifiers vs. target number. Within that framework _any _action can be resolved. It requires that a player comes up with an action--whether pre-defined or not--and the DM adjudicates by defining a target number.
> 
> It seems to me that you struggle with the idea of the DM somewhat arbitrarily coming up with a target number?



I don't struggle with the idea. I just think it's one of many possible mechanics, and if that's all you'll have you'll get a narrow game.

I think this is in fact shown by the fact that you still haven't actually told me how to resolve the battle captain in a non-4e game.

Here is the action the player wants to accomplish: I will charge the enemy, yelling a rousing war-cry, and when I hit it my allies, inspired by my example, will likewise charge the enemy without costing them an action in the action economy.

4e has a robust way to adjudicate such actions, via the allocation of daily powers. (Or encounter powers if it is a single ally who charges.)

I think [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] is correct that this is just impossible in classic D&D - to permit it would break the action economy. My feeling in relation to 3E is much the same, though my intuitive grasp of 3E is pretty limited.

The explanation is pretty clear: if your only rationing mechanic is roll vs target number then all you can trade off is likelihood vs effect, settling overall expected utilities. Whereas AEDU (or fate points, or Marvel Heroic SFX, etc) introduce other rationing devices which allow other ways of preventing breakage whilst still permitting reliable access to dramatic effects.

D&D uses this too, for spell users: would the game really be better if a magic-user (from 1st level?) had in principle unlimited access to Time Stop but had to make an inordinately hard d20 roll in order to perform that particular feat of magic? I think the answer to this is "obviously not". So if I'm to be persuaded that roll vs target number should be the only mechanism for allocating effects to non-casters, some argument is going to have to be given that actually addresses these issues.

(Even 3E actually has other rationing mechanics than roll vs target number: BAB also grants bonus attacks, rogues have reliable access to bonus damage plus daily abilities like defensive roll, etc.)



Mercurius said:


> Actually, in my mind this is a necessary component of immersion and player enjoyment - not knowing what's off the edge of the map, new surprises being introduced, "Wait, I'm the heir to the throne?!" For me there's something lost when the player says, "I want to secretly be the heir to the throne but not know it."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In some ways, the AEDU paradigm is like having a list of gifts and only things on that list can be purchased.



I don't really follow this: I don't see the comparison you're drawing between allocation of backstory authority ("Is my PC the heir to the throne?") and allocation of action resolution resources, which is what AEDU is about.


----------



## Campbell

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I run a game I don't want to have a better idea of where the game is headed than my players. The ideal situation for me is for one conflict to lead to another with complications arising naturally out of play. I don't frame scenes with an end goal in mind - the entire point is to see what will happen. I think our Chamberlain Experiment is a pretty good example of this play style at work. I don't think anyone could have anticipated that a skill challenge to persuade a chamberlain to let us see the king would result in a tale of conflicting faiths, redemption of a creature lost to the shadows, and obligations vs. friendship.

Right now I'm preparing to run a game of Demon: The Descent once my books from the Kickstarter arrive. One of the central conflicts of Demon is that the protagonists (PCs) possess a great deal of power, but more flagrant displays capture the attention of their enemies. The game has a tiered power structure where more powerful abilities not only have a resource cost, but expose players to Compromise rolls of varying difficulties. It's a mechanic with real teeth - when you fail a Compromise roll you select from a menu of narrative conditions that are then invoked in play which when resolved result in experience for the PC. I don't think I could have a clear handle on where the game is going, and I love that about the game. Players make choices that will have direct implications on the fiction - that's the point.

Compare this to the experience of playing a Solar in Exalted where careful use of Charms is encouraged, but there is no teeth in the rules of the game to reflect that. As a player it can be difficult to see the correlation between action and consequence. As a GM I must take a more active hand in deciding the appropriate result of flashy displays of power. I have to decide what happens - not see.

In general I operate on a few key principles when I run games:

Anything worth doing can be done better with practice. If I can step into a scene during resolution and have a direct hand in how it will turn out then I don't have to be disciplined in scene framing, encounter design, etc. I'll never learn to run a game better if I do not have to deal with the consequences.
As much as possible the link between player decisions and consequences of their actions should be visible to the players.
Push hard on both sides of the screen and see what happens.
If a result is unacceptable don't allow situations where it can happen. If it is unacceptable for a PC or NPC to die anticlimatically the rules / framed scenes should not allow for that possibility.

The reason why I like RPGs is precisely because of unexpected results. Even when I'm running a game it should feel more like improvisational jazz than a conducted orchestra. Yes, sometimes one of us hits a wrong note, but it can only get better the more we play together.


----------



## Ratskinner

ExploderWizard said:


> A high level fighter will fight with strength and deadliness of many men. That is a very nice thing. It may not be flashy but it is steady and effective.
> 
> Magic may produce effects beyond the mundane thats why its......wait for it...... "magic". An important property of magic that got tossed away was that magical power was of a _finite_ quantity. Once you have the utter nonsense of a magic user pew-pewing unlimited magic all day of course you need to give the fighter a pony. Once you have gone down the rabbit hole of ubiquitous magic then yeah the mundane starts looking a little sad.




While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment that perhaps magic is too reliable in the WotC editions...I don't see how that relates to the point I was addressing. Specifically, that there are only so many numbers to affect, and through that, magic and the mundane are basically indistinguishable. A high-level fighter's ability to survive falls from orbit is certainly a _finite_ quantity as well (or any similar fantastic trauma that only ablates HP in older editions). I certainly can't see how any amount of mundane toughness allows a person to survive immersion in molten rock. By simply adding to that HP number, the fighter gains abilities that, IMO anyway, are extremely difficult to justify or narrate without bringing in the supernatural. IIRC, this actually begins to happen at some some of the mid levels (especially if one pays careful attention to some early-edition spell descriptions). If the distinguishing feature of magic is that it is unreliable, then why can the fighter so reliably preform obviously fantastic feats?



ExploderWizard said:


> Magic that never runs out and is utterly reliable isn't very magical anymore, its rather common. Thats when you run into the problem of all abilities being nothing more than sources of numbers. What is magical and what isn't just blurs together into a slurry of "stuff". That feels alright in the supers genre where everyone just has powers "from somewhere " but it doesn't fit the feel of D&D.




That may be your experience, but I've never felt that way. Which is to say, even in old-school D&D, its just a slurry of numbers, to me (and I'm in an OSR group now). I don't personally connect that with the reliability of magic in the recent editions (although I think that brings about other problems.)


----------



## Ahnehnois

Campbell said:


> The reason why I like RPGs is precisely because of unexpected results. Even when I'm running a game it should feel more like improvisational jazz than a conducted orchestra. Yes, sometimes one of us hits a wrong note, but it can only get better the more we play together.



As somebody who's done quite a bit of both, I do think D&D is more jazzy. I also, however, look at the DM as a conductor/band leader. He knows the charts and he knows where things are heading. He knows the players and what they're inclined to do. He can direct anyone to do something different, unquestioningly. But because the ensemble is complex and because it can run without his direction, the performance still has a certain emergent quality.



Ratskinner said:


> If the distinguishing feature of magic is that it is unreliable, then why can the fighter so reliably preform obviously fantastic feats?



To me, the obvious answer is that the fighter's abilities are his own. A magical character is counting on an external source to provide his effects, while the fighter is doing everything himself. I don't know about you, but went I want to be sure something gets done, I feel I have to do it myself.

As to why those feats can be so fantastical, it seems to me that this is simply where D&D breaks down. The hp model is designed to handle slow blow-by-blow combat and to reward advancement, and that doesn't interact well with representing other hazards.


----------



## Cadence

Campbell said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but when I run a game I don't want to have a better idea of where the game is headed than my players. The ideal situation for me is for one conflict to lead to another with complications arising naturally out of play. I don't frame scenes with an end goal in mind - the entire point is to see what will happen.




I'm guessing I've fallen into a semantic quagmire and we actually don't disagree on this as much as it seems.

I don't take "a better idea of where something is going" as locking things in or not being subject to change in unexpected ways... Take a fantasy sports league for example.  Doesn't the player who has looked over the schedule for the season, when the bye weeks are, which players have injuries, and has examined the past performances have a better chance on average of predicting the outcomes across the weeks of the season than someone who doesn't have that knowledge?  (Even though there are shocking upsets each week that the novice might have gotten lucky about and selected?)

Within a scene you're running, do the player's always exactly know the power levels of the opposition and all of the details about those capabilities?   If not, doesn't that give you more knowledge about the scene?  If there are any surprises/traps at all, isn't that extra knowledge the DM has?  Ditto for the DC targets on skill challenges. Beyond a particular scene, as DM do you already have at least a sketched out idea about what the NPCs and challenges are around for the next scene? 



pemerton said:


> At least for me, the difference in play experience between "GM chooses mission/enemies" (and, say, feeds it to players via a patron or a classic dangling "plot hook") and "players choose mission/enemies" is extremely vast -




That sounds totally correct to me.

But don't you still dangle some plot hooks before the players that there's a decent chance they might find attractive, even if its just describing the part of the world that you think they might be interested in and even though it doesn't put a limit on their possible choices?  

How specific are the players at choosing the missions/enemies?  Is it "we want to go find some local bandits and take them on", in which case you would have lots of knowledge they didn't have access to once you stat them up. 

Of course the players can always decide unexpected things, but don't the better ones have some stability in their character conceptions that allow you to at least hazard guesses about what will interest them?   Do your players ever let you know what their character's long term goals currently are to let you plan ahead?  

If the DM doesn't have a rough idea of where things are heading, wouldn't that make it futile to stat up any future challenges or scenes?  (How does a completely mutually created sandbox work?)


----------



## Brock Landers

Ahnehnois said:


> As somebody who's done quite a bit of both, I do think D&D is more jazzy. I also, however, look at the DM as a conductor/band leader. He knows the charts and he knows where things are heading. He knows the players and what they're inclined to do. He can direct anyone to do something different, unquestioningly. But because the ensemble is complex and because it can run without his direction, the performance still has a certain emergent quality.





Nice, as a jazz bass/guitar player (as best I can!), dig the analogy.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> I think this is in fact shown by the fact that you still haven't actually told me how to resolve the battle captain in a non-4e game.




Hmm. Pemerton, I told you that I haven't played pre-3e for almost two decades and 3e in like a decade, so I'm a bit rusty on the specifics. But I _did _tell you that the battle captain can be accomplished in _any _iteration of D&D, _if - _and it is a big if - you see the rules as guidelines rather than Absolute Laws That Must Not Be Broken.

Reading the rest of your response, and from your previous replies, I take it that you're a RAW guy. I think this goes back to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s mention of cognitive styles. Some like to use the RAW and optimize them as much as possible without "breaking" them, while others see them as guidelines, touch-stones that give form and structure to the game narrative. Check out KAI Theory which posits two extremes on a spectrum, Adaptive and Innovative. Adaptors prefer to work within the system, to master it even, to do better and better, while Innovators like to work outside the system, to do things differently. 

In that sense, you could say that there's an Adaptive and an Innovative style to approach D&D - and neither is inherently superior to the other, although both have their strengths (and weaknesses).



pemerton said:


> Here is the action the player wants to accomplish: I will charge the  enemy, yelling a rousing war-cry, and when I hit it my allies, inspired  by my example, will likewise charge the enemy without costing them an  action in the action economy.
> 
> 4e has a robust way to adjudicate such actions, via the allocation of  daily powers. (Or encounter powers if it is a single ally who charges.)




The battle captain can be resolved in any number of ways. As I already said, you figure out target numbers and relevant modifiers for what the player wants to do and then you role for it. The tricky part is the second aspect - allowing your allies to charge without costing them an action. Here I'd say flexibility is required; as I said, if a player can come up with an idea they should be given a shot. 



pemerton said:


> I think  @_*ExploderWizard*_  is correct that this is just impossible in classic D&D - to permit it would break the action economy. My feeling in relation to 3E is much the same, though my intuitive grasp of 3E is pretty limited.




I think what you're pointing at here is that 4e combat is more detailed, more granular (if I'm using the term correctly), than other forms of D&D. It isn't as much that you can do things in 4e that you can't do in other editions, its that 4e is more detailed - it gives actual rules for it, rather than guidelines.

Its like a microscope - if you look at a needle with the naked eye it looks smooth and sharp, but if you look at it under a high-powered microscope, the rough edges start showing. 4e allows for a more "scoped in" combat - with greater detail, which in turn requires more specific rules. 

The problem I have with it, though, is that - like 3e, but in a different way - it puts too much emphasis on system mastery. That's fine for some, but not others. This is one of the (few) major reasons 4e lost a lot of folks, in my opinion.



pemerton said:


> The explanation is pretty clear: if your only rationing mechanic is roll vs target number then all you can trade off is likelihood vs effect, settling overall expected utilities. Whereas AEDU (or fate points, or Marvel Heroic SFX, etc) introduce other rationing devices which allow other ways of preventing breakage whilst still permitting reliable access to dramatic effects.




Yes, and I introduced a fate point system for my 4e game which gave players an undefined ("non-earmarked") resource pool that they could apply to rolls for self-generated dramatic effects. I don't have a problem with that, but the problem is the pre-determined "drop-down menu" approach that AEDU takes which ends up obfuscating more open-ended theater of mind actions.



pemerton said:


> D&D uses this too, for spell users: would the game really be better if a magic-user (from 1st level?) had in principle unlimited access to Time Stop but had to make an inordinately hard d20 roll in order to perform that particular feat of magic? I think the answer to this is "obviously not". So if I'm to be persuaded that roll vs target number should be the only mechanism for allocating effects to non-casters, some argument is going to have to be given that actually addresses these issues.




You keep on twisting what I'm saying, pemerton, and seemingly missing a lot of what I actually _am _saying. I am not saying "roll vs. target number should be the only mechanism for allocating effects to non-casters." I just don't like "AEDU-only." This is why I introduced the "fate pool" which allowed players to allocate resources in the form of modifiers to a dramatic action.



pemerton said:


> I don't really follow this: I don't see the comparison you're drawing between allocation of backstory authority ("Is my PC the heir to the throne?") and allocation of action resolution resources, which is what AEDU is about.




Those are two separate issues, both of which you've brought up. The backstory bit was an example of how a player doesn't (at least in my approach) have full authority over their character's backstory - in a similar sense to how you and I don't have full authority over our own biographies. We might think we know our own personal histories but might not realize what was going on "behind the scenes" or certain underlying factors, or simply not remember things correctly.

But the Christmas tree analogy was specifically about AEDU and 4e's approach in general. As I said, you have two extremes:

1) Don't ask for anything at all and be surprised by what you get (or don't get)
2) Ask for specific items and specific items only, and/or buy your own presents

It isn't black or white and few games take one or the other approach but are somewhere along the spectrum. But the point is that the first extreme has a lot of freedom, but also more room for "error" (either buying something someone doesn't want or getting something you don't want), while the second extreme is more fail-proof, but also without the element of surprise and mystery.

Let me put it this way: in the AEDU paradigm you begin every combat encounter with a list of things you can do, namely your powers. That list is more expansive, more detailed and granular in terms of rules effect, than any previous edition to D&D - including 3e (although I can't speak for Pathfinder, but I'm fairly certain that's the case)...with the possible exception of spell-casters.

When combat begins you begin allocating your resources (powers). I found that there was a basic formula: use your encounter powers first, then, if the opponent was almost defeated, finish them off with at-wills. If they're still going strong and the party is starting to lose, bring out the dailies. It was very strategic, very tactical, and generally quite fun (at least until the Grind began). But there was a certain predictability; each player had their pre-determined list of powers, which had pre-determined effects.

In my idea world, 5e would still have something akin to "powers" - or at least maneuvers - for non-spellcasters, but that there would be more emphasis placed on improvisation. Sort of like how the game _Ars Magica _has both formulaic spells and spontaneous casting. 

_All _editions have both, but 4e places the emphasis on the formula in a way unlike any previous edition, and I found that - at least for my tastes - went too far and actually obfuscated spontaneity and improvisation.

Let me put it one more way. Let's say a PC wants to sprint around the opponent, climb and jump off a boulder, and attack the opponent from behind and above. This action can occur in any form of D&D. But in 4e, the default approach is to look at the list of powers and try to meld the two. Actually, I found that more often then not, players wouldn't even think about their own actions; they would look at their list of powers and pick one to use.

Now we've ranged far from the original topic, which I'm fine with, but I will relate this back to imagination and immersion. In 4e, let's say a ranger PC is fighting a group of orcs. He looks at his list of powers and says "I'll use Split the Tree." For me this approach detracts from immersion and imagination. One or two of my players found their way around this, at least when they described what they were doing - they came up with a narrative _inspired _by the power, and then said "using X power."

I prefer taking the approach of the player imagining themselves as the character (the ranger) and then deciding what to do based upon the mindspace. "I draw two arrows and fire them at the two orcs in front of me." If there's a power that applies, fine, but it is back to the cart-and-horse thing.

I should re-emphasize that I am not telling you which way is best for you. That would not only be arrogant but outright foolish. What I _am _saying beyond "what is best for me," is trying to understand what is best for _most - _what works as a default to the D&D game that will bring as much enjoyment to as many as possible, and especially with regards to inspiring imagination. In that regard, I think 4e missed the mark.

That said, I really hope that 5e has a "tactical combat module" that does something similar to 4e with specific resources ala powers. Even better would be if some players could play 4e-style characters at the same table as 3e-style and AD&D-style. That was the initial intention of Mearls & Co, but I don't know if they've backed off. 

In other words, the absolute best case scenario is not X _or _Y, but *both - *as fits the campaign, DM, and players. I just don't think that 4e offered both, or at least the other side of the spectrum was obfuscated by AEDU.

Now I've got to re-join the family for house-cleaning! I need to re-allocate my resources


----------



## pemerton

Campbell said:


> As much as possible the link between player decisions and consequences of their actions should be visible to the players.



I think this is an interesting point.

In D&D I think establishing the link between choices and consequences relies to a significant extent on clear narration by the GM - there are no mechanics for this, beyond the resource ablation mechanics.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> I told you that I haven't played pre-3e for almost two decades and 3e in like a decade, so I'm a bit rusty on the specifics.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The battle captain can be resolved in any number of ways. As I already said, you figure out target numbers and relevant modifiers for what the player wants to do and then you role for it. The tricky part is the second aspect - allowing your allies to charge without costing them an action. Here I'd say flexibility is required; as I said, if a player can come up with an idea they should be given a shot.



I hope you can see that, from my point of view, you haven't really told me how this might be resolved in 3E.



Mercurius said:


> I introduced the "fate pool" which allowed players to allocate resources in the form of modifiers to a dramatic action.



If, by "modifiers", you mean bonuses to a d20 roll, then these fate points are not really increasing the dimensions of resolution.

The distinctive feature of action points in 4e is that they operate in a different dimension of resolution: namely, the action economy. And encounter and daily powers operate in multiple dimensions: sometimes they involve bonuses to rolls, or rerolls; sometimes they allow multi-targetting or multi-attacks, which is comparable to additional actions; sometimes they increase effectiveness; sometimes, as in the case of the battle captain, they grant additional actions.



Mercurius said:


> the problem is the pre-determined "drop-down menu" approach that AEDU takes which ends up obfuscating more open-ended theater of mind actions.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> in the AEDU paradigm you begin every combat encounter with a list of things you can do, namely your powers.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In my idea world, 5e would still have something akin to "powers" - or at least maneuvers - for non-spellcasters, but that there would be more emphasis placed on improvisation. Sort of like how the game _Ars Magica _has both formulaic spells and spontaneous casting.



It has always been the case that D&D spell casters begin every combat encounter with a list of things they can do, namely, their memorised spells.

Likewise, fighter and thieves have always had (different) resource lists too, such as in the case of fighters, the number of attacks per round; or in the case of thieves, the conditional set-up for a backstab.

AEDU doesn't change this basic paradigm for casters; it does tend to bring the fighters and thieves closer to the caster paradigm. Does your critique apply to casters also? (As is perhaps implied by your reference to Ars Magica.)



Mercurius said:


> I prefer taking the approach of the player imagining themselves as the character (the ranger) and then deciding what to do based upon the mindspace. "I draw two arrows and fire them at the two orcs in front of me."



In 3E, wouldn't that be resolved via Manyshot (or some similar feat)? And in Moldvay Basic, how would it be resolved?

I don't think this is a particularly viable way to run a game without some broader framework around it, that relates action economy to effectiveness. Otherwise it's just an invitation to bad maths on the part of GM and/or player.

For instance, what should be the penalty for getting off two shots rather than one (given that the potential is there for double effectiveness)? Make it too low, and the player has simply upped the output of their PC. Make it too high, and the player has simply nerfed their PC. (3E two-weapon fighting is riddled with this problem.)

Marvel Heroic has a nice way of handling this, via its general rules for spending plot points to allocate additional dice to generate additional effects, plus its rules about effect stacking, plus its Area Attack SFX which allows extra dice to be allocated for free, but adds d6s to the pool - which are not very powerfule effects, and increase the likelihood of rolling 1s.



Mercurius said:


> The key here is that there's a kind of unspoken agreement of trust, that the player's will trust the judgment and fairness of the DM, but also that the DM is willing to be flexible.



This particular issue - of how you resolve the battle captain in non-4e D&D, or even of how you resolve the archer wanting to shoot two arrows while spending only a single action - seems to me to have little to do with trust. Or with flexibiity. It's about the scope of the game mechanics, and the dimensions that there are to work with.

Whether or not I trust my GM, or as a GM whether or not I am willing to be flexible, Moldvay Basic simply lacks the resources to permit two arrows with a single shop as a routine option. I guess an alternative is then to allow it sometimes, but not always: but that then gets into the territory of GM authority over outcomes which is of no interest to me. At that point, why both to roll the dice at all? The GM can just narrate what happens as s/he thinks is best for the story s/he is 



Mercurius said:


> I take it that you're a RAW guy.



If you mean "I don't change or adapt the rules" then that's not so. A very simple recent example: when the invoker/wizard in my 4e game implanted the Eye of Vecna into his imp familiar I had to work out how to adjust the Eye's abilities to reflect that unusual situation. (They are written on the (reasonable) default assumption that the Eye's wielder has the Eye in his/her own eyesocket, and not that of a familiar.) Other simple examples include reworking themes and epic destinies to fit various players' conceptions of their PC.

If you mean "Nothing can be accomplished in the game unless there is a power on a PC sheet that specifies that as an outcome" then that's not so. To take that line would be to completely ignore p 42, plus the role of keywords in 4e powers which is brought out particularly in the DMG discussion of damaging objects, plus the skill challenge rules; and would be ridiculous in and of itself. A simple example already mentioned upthread was the invoker/wizard's use of a possession attack power to try to read the mind of a guard to extract a password (the attack succeeded; the Hard Arcana check to extract the password failed). More complex examples can be seen in these actual play posts: an Arcana check to suck chaotic energy out of bottled pure elemental fire in order to accelerate a flying carpet in an aerial chase (failed; the carpet went crashing to the ground with an explosion); a fire-resistant paladin who had been set on fire by an allies flaming arrow burst using the fire to deal additional damage to the hobgoblins he was fighting; summoning chaotic energies from a dying dragon to imbue a silvered horn with magic and turn it into a Fire Horn; using the Sceptre of Law to redirect the destination of an unstable portal to old imperial ruins (successful Religion check); not to mention the fact that 15th level PCs have a flying carpet, which is a 20th level item (and by default, treasure in 4e caps at level +4, or 19th level for 15th level characters).

If you mean "Wants the mechanics to support the game by giving solid guidelines on mechanical difficulty and mechanical effect that, when followed, will deliver satisfying play", then absolutely. In a well-designed game system I should be able to set DCs and mechanical consequences simply by reference to my charts; and the players engaging those challenges via their PCs should then produce fun play; with no need to fudge or tweak anything as the resolution unfolds. (I take this to be part of what  [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] was referring to in his most recent post upthread.)

I've run systems that don't satisfy this constraint (classic D&D, particularly below level 5 or so; Traveller; RuneQuest; Rolemaster, particularly below level 7 or so), but wouldn't anymore.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> I hope you can see that, from my point of view, you haven't really told me how this might be resolved in 3E.




Pemerton, I've already told you that I haven't played 3E in ten years. If you really want to know the specifics as per the RAW, ask someone who plays it now or look it up.

I probably can't satisfy your point of view because we're operating from differing paradigms about how to play D&D and how situations might be resolved. You seem to want very clear, very defined rules, while I'm happy to come up with rulings on the fly - target numbers, etc. To use Mearls' term, "rulings not rules."



pemerton said:


> If, by "modifiers", you mean bonuses to a d20 roll, then these fate points are not really increasing the dimensions of resolution.




I don't now what you mean by "dimensions of resolution." If you mean stepping out of the action economy, that's not the point of the fate pool. The purpose of the fate pool is that it gives the player a resource whereby they can apply bonuses to "heroic actions." So it both encourages players to improvise and gives them a means, a resource, whereby they can increase their chances of success.

That said, I think there's a problem with stepping out of the action economy - getting free actions and with some of the effects of certain powers - to the degree that the "gamist" element supercedes the "simulationist-narrativist" immersion. If we go back to good old GNS Theory, 4e is far more gamist than past editions, and I think therein lies the beef many more "traditional" folks have with it. As I understand it, one of the main differences between the three categories is what is views as primary in importance. Gamism holds the rules and logic of the game system itself as primary - what makes sense within the rules of the game is what is "true." Simulationism tries to be realistic to a specific genre, venue or context. Narrativism seeks to stay true to the narrative or story.

While I'm not a huge advocate of GNS Theory, mainly because I think all three are "true but partial," our difference could be defined by me being a bit more narrativist than you, and you being a bit more gamist than me. But neither of us are probably extreme advocates of one or the other. If we have 7 parts to divvy up, I'm probably 3 parts N, and 2 parts each of G and S.



pemerton said:


> AEDU doesn't change this basic paradigm for casters; it does tend to bring the fighters and thieves closer to the caster paradigm. Does your critique apply to casters also? (As is perhaps implied by your reference to Ars Magica.)




I've never liked the fact that there's no real spontaneous casting in D&D, but that criticism applies to all editions.

But if anything, I find that 4e _reduces _the options for casters, both by teasing out rituals and by reducing and homogenizing spell choices. The problem I see--and we haven't even discussed this part--is that in 4e it feels that the classes are just fluffed versions of the four "real" underlying classes, which 4e calls roles. All strikers, for instance, start feeling rather similar - just with different fluff. 

One of the things I like about Next, from what I can tell so far at least, is that it has re-differentiated classes, so that their distinctiveness goes beyond the surface.



pemerton said:


> I don't think this is a particularly viable way to run a game without some broader framework around it, that relates action economy to effectiveness. Otherwise it's just an invitation to bad maths on the part of GM and/or player.




Well it was viable for 34 years until 4e came along! Bad math(s) were a feature and not a flaw in the D&D game. 

But to be serious, I think this highlights the difference between the two paradigms that you and I roughly adhere to. It has a lot to do with the microscope I mentioned in the previous post; you prefer more detail, more granularity - the little things (in terms of rules) really matter to you. They don't matter (as much) to me. They _do _matter, but are just secondary and meant to be _in the service of _the narrative, the story.

This is *not *an advocacy for a railroading story game, but that the rules (crunch) "serves" the narrative (fluff). This takes the pressure off the rules needing to be perfect.



pemerton said:


> For instance, what should be the penalty for getting off two shots rather than one (given that the potential is there for double effectiveness)? Make it too low, and the player has simply upped the output of their PC. Make it too high, and the player has simply nerfed their PC. (3E two-weapon fighting is riddled with this problem.)




The penalty depends upon numerous factors: the context, DM, PC, etc etc etc. There is no absolute law that must be adhered to. Yes, this makes it subjective. It is the DM's call. Rulings rather than rules.



pemerton said:


> Marvel Heroic has a nice way of handling this, via its general rules for spending plot points to allocate additional dice to generate additional effects, plus its rules about effect stacking, plus its Area Attack SFX which allows extra dice to be allocated for free, but adds d6s to the pool - which are not very powerfule effects, and increase the likelihood of rolling 1s.




This is the same basic idea as the fate pool, if different in details. The fate pool allows players to compensate a very difficult ("heroic") action by "tapping into fate," so to speak.



pemerton said:


> This particular issue - of how you resolve the battle captain in non-4e D&D, or even of how you resolve the archer wanting to shoot two arrows while spending only a single action - seems to me to have little to do with trust. Or with flexibiity. It's about the scope of the game mechanics, and the dimensions that there are to work with.
> 
> Whether or not I trust my GM, or as a GM whether or not I am willing to be flexible, Moldvay Basic simply lacks the resources to permit two arrows with a single shop as a routine option. I guess an alternative is then to allow it sometimes, but not always: but that then gets into the territory of GM authority over outcomes which is of no interest to me. At that point, why both to roll the dice at all? The GM can just narrate what happens as s/he thinks is best for the story s/he is




You start falling into either/or thinking here, as if either the rules offer options for every possible contingency _or _the GM is just telling a story.

You are right - Moldvay Basic lacks the specific rules for a two-arrow shot. But if a player wants to give it a shot, a flexible DM can give the option. The tricky part is coming up with a number that makes it worthwhile to do at times, not so much at others....that would be realistic, no? 



pemerton said:


> If you mean "Wants the mechanics to support the game by giving solid guidelines on mechanical difficulty and mechanical effect that, when followed, will deliver satisfying play", then absolutely. In a well-designed game system I should be able to set DCs and mechanical consequences simply by reference to my charts; and the players engaging those challenges via their PCs should then produce fun play; with no need to fudge or tweak anything as the resolution unfolds. (I take this to be part of what   @_*Campbell*_  was referring to in his most recent post upthread.)




Sounds good to me! I'm not sure how what you wrote above differs from what I've been saying. I generally don't "fudge" DM die rolls unless I feel that it will improve the drama of a situation, and then I'll have no qualms about it. I'm not sure what you mean by "tweak," but I will modify DCs as I see fit, depending upon the situation.

But if we both agree on that paragraph, the difference, then, may be in what you and I see as "solid guidelines" and, perhaps, to what degree we adhere to those guidelines.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> I don't now what you mean by "dimensions of resolution."



I mean having more considerations relevant to action resolution than simply the roll of a die.

Examples of mono-dimensional action resolution system: 3E skill checks or classic D&D ability checks; or saving throws in any edition. Resolution depends upon nothing but the result of a modified die roll.

Examples of multi-dimensional action resolution in any edition of D&D: an attack, which invovles both an attack roll and, on a hit, a damage roll, the effect of which is itself depend upon another factor, namely, the enemy's remaining hit points.

And in most D&D combats a single attack does not resolve the overall challenge, either because there are multiple enemies or enemies whose hit points cannot all be ablated with a single attack. So as well as to hit roll and damage roll we also have the action economy in play, which is basically a mechanical system for determining the relative frequency of attack rolls. And the outcome of the combat is a result of the interaction of all these rolls. Debuffs, forced movement and the like introduce further dimensions into action resolution, particulary (in 4e, at least) combat resolution.

The reason I am focusing on the battle captain who grants his/her allies free attacks is because this is an example which doesn't deal with modifying a particular die roll - which is a fairly straightforward matter - but rather with the action economy - which all editions of D&D intend (whether or not they succeed) to balance fairly tightly. This is as true of D&Dnext as it is of any other version of D&D - look at the design around multiple attacks, and the care with which these are treated in the multi-class rules. (The analogue for spellcasters is spell damage scaling - which increases output by increasing effectiveness rather than granting multiple actions - which is also treated carefully in the spell descriptions and then in the spells by level charts for various classes and multi-classes.)

When you look at 4e you can see that it has multiple dimensions of player resource interacting with the multiple dimensions of combat resolution: for example, some encounter powers increase effectiveness (damage rolls and/or debuffs). Others confer benefits in the action economy (eg a warlord power that, on a hit, lets an ally make an attack). If the whole resolution of the game is reduced to making d20 attack rolls with modifiers all this mechanical space is collapsed, and certain archetypes can no longer be expressed (the battle captain among them).

D&Dnext uses differing degrees of rationing for casters - with its cantrips, its daily-use spells, its short-rest recovery options for certain spells, etc.

The notion that a D&Dnext GM will allow the battle captain archetype simply by requiring (say) a CHA check against a certain DC I find bizarre: "Make a DC 17 CHA check as you attack, and if you succeed all your friends can attack too, for free." Wouldn't that break the game, and make something of a mockery of the Haste spell? But if this sort of ability isn't allowed, then we have no battle captain. The problem is the lack of other rationing schemes for this sort of messing with the action economy.



Mercurius said:


> If you mean stepping out of the action economy, that's not the point of the fate pool. The purpose of the fate pool is that it gives the player a resource whereby they can apply bonuses to "heroic actions." So it both encourages players to improvise and gives them a means, a resource, whereby they can increase their chances of success.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This is the same basic idea as the fate pool, if different in details.



As you describe it, your fate pool seems to grant a bonus to dice rolls made for certain sorts of actions, and is rationed in some way. (Presumably the fate pool recharges at some rate, either per session or per heroic victory or something similar.) I don't see any resemblance between that sort of mechanic and Marvel Heroic RPs rules for affecting multiple targets, which depend entirely on the fact that resolution in MHRP is not based on a simple die roll, but on relatively complex dice pool manipulation. (And that certain characters have abilities - rules, not rulings - that permit their players to change the composition of their dice pools in ways that open up certain opportunities but also increase certain risks.)



Mercurius said:


> I probably can't satisfy your point of view because we're operating from differing paradigms about how to play D&D and how situations might be resolved. You seem to want very clear, very defined rules, while I'm happy to come up with rulings on the fly - target numbers, etc.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The penalty depends upon numerous factors: the context, DM, PC, etc etc etc. There is no absolute law that must be adhered to. Yes, this makes it subjective. It is the DM's call. Rulings rather than rules.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> You are right - Moldvay Basic lacks the specific rules for a two-arrow shot. But if a player wants to give it a shot, a flexible DM can give the option. The tricky part is coming up with a number that makes it worthwhile to do at times, not so much at others



What I am asking for has nothing in particular to do with very clear, very defined rules. It is to do with the scope of particular mechanics.

Allowing a player to make two attack rolls rather than one (whether by wielding two weapons, or shooting two arrows at two oncoming orcs) is - everything else being equal - doubling that player's effective output. It is like letting them take two turns. Every edition of D&D since AD&D has treated this as a matter to be addressed in a careful fashion - AD&D fighters get multiple attacks, 3E PCs get multiple attacks based on BAB and feats, 4e PCs get multiple attacks based on powers used.

If you allow this sort of change to the action economy to be introduced simply via a penalty to a die roll - eg take -2 to hit in order to make two attacks - you are inviting the game to break, either by setting the penalty so high that the player is nerfed, or by setting the penalty so low that the option becomes overpowered. It's a bit like the "take a -4 penalty to chop of the enemy's head" option: against a foe who would require more than two hits to kill, this option is just superior to making a normal attack, as in two attack rolls at -4 you are more likely to land your killing blow than you are to kill the enemy by making two unmodified attacks for normal damage.

The fact that many RPG players aren't particularly good at mental arithmetic around probabilities just increases the issues here. What you call "the tricky part" is, from my point of view, the _only_ part, and in a system where the only dimension of resolution in play is bonuses and penalties to dice rolls then there is no solution. (As I already mentioned, 3E's two weapon combat rules provide ample evidence for this, were it needed.)

To say that the option is switched on or off at the will of the GM - which some parts of your post seem to imply - is simply to add GM control over outcomes to broken mechanics, which - for me at least - is the worst of the 2nd ed AD&D experience. Why bother to have mechanics at all, as opposed to free narration of outcomes negotiated between players and GM?



Mercurius said:


> This is *not *an advocacy for a railroading story game



I'm not really seeing how it's not. If options that significantly change the players' mechanical effectiveness are to be toggled on or off at the will of the GM rather than by reference to "objective" conditions  - either metagame conditions or PC fictional positioning - then I don't see how it's not a railroad.



Mercurius said:


> If we go back to good old GNS Theory, 4e is far more gamist than past editions, and I think therein lies the beef many more "traditional" folks have with it. As I understand it, one of the main differences between the three categories is what is views as primary in importance. Gamism holds the rules and logic of the game system itself as primary - what makes sense within the rules of the game is what is "true." Simulationism tries to be realistic to a specific genre, venue or context. Narrativism seeks to stay true to the narrative or story.
> 
> While I'm not a huge advocate of GNS Theory, mainly because I think all three are "true but partial," our difference could be defined by me being a bit more narrativist than you, and you being a bit more gamist than me.



It's something of a tangent, but what you describe here is not a very apt summary of Ron Edwards's analysis of RPGing agendas.

The most gamist version of D&D is classic D&D. Re-read the last few pages (before the appendices) of Gygax's PHB, and reread his many references to "skilled play" in his DMG: the whole point of Gygaxian D&D is for the players to "step on up" and show that they have what it takes to beat the GM's dungeon. Earning treasure and XP is not an inherent part of playing the game, but an _accomplishment_ to which skilled players aspire. Hence, character level is something of a proxy for player skill.

4e is not at all well-suited for Gyaxian gamism, because it takes for granted that treasure and XP will be "earned" simply for turning up and playing the game. The whole of the XP system in 4e is simply a pacing mechanism for escalating the story scope of the campaign: gaining levels doesn't make the PC more mechanically effective in play, as enemies also scale up, but does make the PC more narratively significant within the fiction (as s/he develops from a heroic character beating up kobolds to an epic character beating up archdevils). And treasure is accrued, in accordance with the parcel system, simply as a side effect of collecting XP by engaging encounters.

4e can be played in a very different gamist style, which is all about showing off your mastery of your PC's moves to your fellow players (@Balesir on these boards is the main proponent I know of for this style of 4e play). Played in this mode, level gain in 4e does support gamist play to this extent: higher level PCs have more intricate ability suites, and therefore have greater scope for showing off clever (or bumbling) play.

4e obviously is not a process simulation game (but no version of D&D is, although 3E has a thin veneer of this). But it can be played in a high concept sim style. Played in this fashion, I don't think 4e play would differ very much from mainstream PF adventure path play, except that the resolution mechanics being used are a little bit different. But in either style all the real authority is with the GM, and the only contribution the players make is to determine some of the micro-details of combat outcomes, or to determine whether certain NPCs like them or dislike them based on playing out some social encounters (all the really important social relations, like who betrays whom and who is whose nemesis will have been specified in advance by the adventure path writer).

Narrativist play, in Edwards's sense, is also called "story now". The whole point of Forge-ist narrativist play is to avoid the sort of GM force that you are advocating for in this thread. Of all versions of D&D, 4e is I think best suited to narrativist play (though 13th Age is now offering another option along somewhat similar lines). This is not a coincidence - as Rob Heinsoo said before it was released, 4e was influenced in its design by indie RPGs, which is where most of the narrativist action is to be found.

The features of 4e that support narrativist play are many. Perhaps the single most important two are (i) its focus on the encounter as the locus of play, in everything from action resolution to resource recovery, which means that play doesn't get distracted by or bogged down into exploratory details that are irrelevant to the dramatic stakes of conflict, and (ii) its provision of a suite of tools to the GM that allow challenges to be mechanically framed by reference to metagame concerns like pacing and challenge rather than ingame fictional terms. For a fuller discussion of playing narrativist D&D, this thread is helpful - in post 21 I spell out some of my own ideas. Given that the OP in that thread found my presentation of GMing techniques to be a more accessible version (for D&D, at least) of Ron Edwards's techniques (not a coincidence - I've read Edwards pretty closely and have been influenced by him in developing my approach to GMing, although I started on my current path much earlier, GMing Oriental Adventures in 1986/87), and given that you seem comfortable with GM force whereas I am highly averse to it except in certain very well-confined pockets (like scene-framing and certain elements of backstory) I suspect that I am more narrativistically inclined then you are.



Mercurius said:


> Well it was viable for 34 years until 4e came along
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not sure how what you wrote above differs from what I've been saying. I generally don't "fudge" DM die rolls unless I feel that it will improve the drama of a situation, and then I'll have no qualms about it.



I think the difference can be seen in the other extracts from your post that I quote here. What I described - _mechanics to support the game by giving solid guidelines on mechanical difficulty and mechanical effect that, when followed, will deliver satisfying play_ - differs from what we had for 34 years prior, as soon as "satisfactory play" is allowed to range over preferences other than Gygaxian play in dungeon environments. You seem to concede this when you talk about "fudging" die rolls to improve the drama of a situation - this is a flat-out acknowledgement that the mechanics, when followed, don't deliver satisfying play. If they did, the fudging in the interest of drama would be unnecessary, because followig the mechanics would in and of itself produce drama!

4e is certainly not perfect - for instance, it skill challenge rules, in part because they lack mechanically active opposition, rely heavily upon the GM's narration in order to maintain pressure and ensure good dramatic pacing. But for non-Gygaxian play that is, in its fictional content, recognisably D&D, it offers a pretty robust mechanical framework. And at least in my experience it encourages and rewards imaginative play.

My personal experience is that reducing mechanical robustness (which needn't equate to mechanical "weight" - MHRP is mechanically robust, but it's rules can fit onto a single A4 page) does not increase imaginative play. If the players don't have a good sense of what their PCs can accomplish in the gameworld, and also have a sense that the GM is running a Gygaxian-style game or an even higher degree of adversarial GMing, then in my experience "rulings not rulse" tends to foster player turtling. If the players don't have a good sense of what their PCs can accomplish in the gameworld, but know that the GM has a clear conception of "the story", then rather than turtling the result in my experience tends to be a type of solipsistic play: the players leave all the "big picture" stuff to the GM, and focus on a type of self-cultivation of their PCs, both in "roleplaying" terms (what sort of hat does my guy wear, what is the name of his fencing style, etc) and in manoevre terms (various sorts of improvised flourishes and actions, like the two-arrow short agaist the orc, which express the personality of the character). But because the GM is ultimately determining how things unfold, these manoeuvres, even if resolved in mechanical terms, ultimately have little bearing on the unfolding of the game. 

The second style of play that I have described is the "illusionist" play that I associate with the heyday of AD&D 2nd ed, and which I see hints of in D&Dnext. It is basically the antithesis of what makes RPGing appealling to me as a leisure activity.


----------



## ExploderWizard

pemerton said:


> I mean having more considerations relevant to action resolution than simply the roll of a die.




There is plenty of that available in classic D&D. In some cases, the dice only get rolled when there is some significant level of doubt. Some plans of action simply succeed based on their own merits, and some are so full of fail there would be no point in rolling. 

It is both 3E and 4E which feature little in the way of meaningful resolution without making a roll. Are there other dimensions besides a _single_ die roll with modifiers? Absolutely yes. Is there a way to _ultimately_ accomplish anything when all is said and done without a die roll factoring in? No.




pemerton said:


> Allowing a player to make two attack rolls rather than one (whether by wielding two weapons, or shooting two arrows at two oncoming orcs) is - everything else being equal - doubling that player's effective output. It is like letting them take two turns. Every edition of D&D since AD&D has treated this as a matter to be addressed in a careful fashion - AD&D fighters get multiple attacks, 3E PCs get multiple attacks based on BAB and feats, 4e PCs get multiple attacks based on powers used.
> 
> If you allow this sort of change to the action economy to be introduced simply via a penalty to a die roll - eg take -2 to hit in order to make two attacks - you are inviting the game to break, either by setting the penalty so high that the player is nerfed, or by setting the penalty so low that the option becomes overpowered. It's a bit like the "take a -4 penalty to chop of the enemy's head" option: against a foe who would require more than two hits to kill, this option is just superior to making a normal attack, as in two attack rolls at -4 you are more likely to land your killing blow than you are to kill the enemy by making two unmodified attacks for normal damage.
> 
> The fact that many RPG players aren't particularly good at mental arithmetic around probabilities just increases the issues here. What you call "the tricky part" is, from my point of view, the _only_ part, and in a system where the only dimension of resolution in play is bonuses and penalties to dice rolls then there is no solution. (As I already mentioned, 3E's two weapon combat rules provide ample evidence for this, were it needed.)




The action economy doesn't need to be so tricky ( its not like rockin a rhyme after all). The "trick" so to speak is to examine the abstraction level of the game you are playing and scale everything appropriately. When you realize that D&D combat was developed as an abstract exercise and an "attack roll" doesn't map to a single sword thrust and that a "damage roll" represents not a wound delivered in a single hit but the amount of wear and tear inflicted over the course of a round its easy to rule on action economy matters. If your attack roll represents a "best effort" for the round, then doubling that because you are holding a second weapon is a bit silly. 

Therefore in my OD&D campaign, any fighting man or cleric with a 13 or greater DEX can choose to use a second weapon instead of a shield or two-handed weapon. This grants a +1 on the "to hit" roll for the round, increasing the chance of inflicting damage. This provides a tangible benefit while maintaining the abstraction of the action economy. Likewise, monsters with multiple attacks (against higher than 1HD opponents) are fairly rare. Everything moves fast and is quickly resolved as intended.


----------



## pemerton

ExploderWizard said:


> The action economy doesn't need to be so tricky ( its not like rockin a rhyme after all). The "trick" so to speak is to examine the abstraction level of the game you are playing and scale everything appropriately. When you realize that D&D combat was developed as an abstract exercise and an "attack roll" doesn't map to a single sword thrust and that a "damage roll" represents not a wound delivered in a single hit but the amount of wear and tear inflicted over the course of a round its easy to rule on action economy matters. If your attack roll represents a "best effort" for the round, then doubling that because you are holding a second weapon is a bit silly.



I agree, although I think there is a degree of tension between this abstract approach to the combat round, and the existence (in AD&D) of multiple attacks for fighters. 



ExploderWizard said:


> Therefore in my OD&D campaign, any fighting man or cleric with a 13 or greater DEX can choose to use a second weapon instead of a shield or two-handed weapon. This grants a +1 on the "to hit" roll for the round, increasing the chance of inflicting damage. This provides a tangible benefit while maintaining the abstraction of the action economy. Likewise, monsters with multiple attacks (against higher than 1HD opponents) are fairly rare.



I think your approach to 2 weapon fighting here is much better than the approach in Gygax's DMG. And reducing the number of multiple attack monsters (especially the ubiquitous claw/claw/bite) also strikes me as an improvement.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, do you use the AD&D rates of fire for ranged attacks, or the Moldvay Basic-style of one attack per round for all weapons.


----------



## ExploderWizard

pemerton said:


> I agree, although I think there is a degree of tension between this abstract approach to the combat round, and the existence (in AD&D) of multiple attacks for fighters.
> 
> I think your approach to 2 weapon fighting here is much better than the approach in Gygax's DMG. And reducing the number of multiple attack monsters (especially the ubiquitous claw/claw/bite) also strikes me as an improvement.
> 
> EDIT: Out of curiosity, do you use the AD&D rates of fire for ranged attacks, or the Moldvay Basic-style of one attack per round for all weapons.




I still use multiple attacks for fighters (and monsters) vs 1 HD or less creatures to reflect their deadliness against regular folk (which includes 1st level adventurers other than fighting men). For example , a hill giant fighting a heroic fighter would attack once for 2 dice of damage. Against normal men it would get 8 attacks at 1 die each. Thus the deadliness of "monsters" against normal troops without needing such a huge pile of hit points. A hill giant will have 28 hit points on average, which is plenty scary to a normal man who needs a 15+ to hit and do only 1d6 damage on a hit. 

Ranged attacks fire once per round indoors. Bows may fire twice outdoors if encounter distance permits. It pays to be aware of your enemy at great distances and armed with bows.


----------



## pemerton

ExploderWizard said:


> I still use multiple attacks for fighters (and monsters) vs 1 HD or less creatures to reflect their deadliness against regular folk



In AD&D this benefit is for fighters, paladins and rangers but not monsters. Is applying it to monsters part of the OD&D rules, or your own innovation?


----------



## Ratskinner

pemerton said:


> The notion that a D&Dnext GM will allow the battle captain archetype simply by requiring (say) a CHA check against a certain DC I find bizarre: "Make a DC 17 CHA check as you attack, and if you succeed all your friends can attack too, for free." Wouldn't that break the game, and make something of a mockery of the Haste spell? But if this sort of ability isn't allowed, then we have no battle captain. The problem is the lack of other rationing schemes for this sort of messing with the action economy.




I tend to agree with you here, but I don't think the action economy is necessarily the best place to attack the problem. Having Fate as a reference point, I see the problem not in terms of action economy, but as a lack of any tangible mechanical effect whatever. That is, most checks in traditional D&D only affect fictional positioning, but unless that happens to feed into the relevant list of combat modifiers for the edition played, it has no mechanical impact other than the DM's whim. I think it would be acceptable if (as in Fate) the battle captain (or anyone, really) could create an _Emboldened by the Battle Captain _aspect that could be used by anyone to yield a bonus. (detailed rules governing how much and how many times could be hashed out.) Fate and MHRP both demonstrate that this can be handled effectively in a freeform manner which, IMO, would greatly enhance the "squishy" side of play. Of course, the systems I know of that successfully handle such things also have a "metagame" economy (Fate points or something) that would have some folks screaming.

One fairly common criticism of 4e's combat is that it bogs down, and I have often seen 4e's experts indicate that this is due to things like interrupts and extra actions. IME, systems that muck with action economies tend to either bog down or get very imbalanced in terms of player participation (as 2e and 3e's multiple attacks often did, IME.) Simple, stable, quick action economies seem to be necessary for fast play, AFAICT. 



pemerton said:


> My personal experience is that reducing mechanical robustness (which needn't equate to mechanical "weight" - MHRP is mechanically robust, but it's rules can fit onto a single A4 page) does not increase imaginative play.




To quibble, the player's rules for MHRP fit easily onto a page. The GM needs two.   Otherwise, I must wholeheartedly sound agreement. In my personal experiences with introducing Fate, MHRP, and D&D to new players, robust-but-simple mechanics really help people get involved in the creative aspect of the game. Recently I've even had the opportunity to show my OSR friends how that can work, and it met with a (surprising to me) very good response. D&DNext marks the third time that I've been disappointed that D&D will not take any sort of similar tack.


----------



## ExploderWizard

pemerton said:


> In AD&D this benefit is for fighters, paladins and rangers but not monsters. Is applying it to monsters part of the OD&D rules, or your own innovation?




It is one interpretation of OD&D rules for monsters of 1+1 HD or greater. Due to the fact that many of these monsters don't have an exceedingly high AC or a lot of hit points, the granting of additional attacks ( the original meaning for " hit dice") helps maintain their terrifying reputation to normal folks. 

An ogre is a tough challenge for a low level party but truly horrific against normal men as it slaughters maybe a dozen of them before it can be brought down.


----------



## Mercurius

Pemerton, for the sake of time, I'm going to make a valiant attempt to condense this to a few key points....we'll see if this works!



pemerton said:


> I mean having more considerations relevant to action resolution than simply the roll of a die.
> _
> ...snip_...
> 
> The notion that a D&Dnext GM will allow the battle captain archetype simply by requiring (say) a CHA check against a certain DC I find bizarre: "Make a DC 17 CHA check as you attack, and if you succeed all your friends can attack too, for free." Wouldn't that break the game, and make something of a mockery of the Haste spell? But if this sort of ability isn't allowed, then we have no battle captain. The problem is the lack of other rationing schemes for this sort of messing with the action economy.




Again, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be specific resources for players to draw upon - whether feats or powers or skills - but that all possible resolutions should not always, inherently, or by default be funneled into a "pick-your-power-paradigm," which is what 4e is. This works for some, but not others. Some prefer very simple action resolution: Describe action, DM assigns DC, player rolls d20 + relevant modifier. Voila.

I think the best of both worlds is to have, well, _both. _This is what is so intriguing about the _idea _of 5e, is having a simple core system with different avenues of further complexity through modules. 

To give a specific example, in my 4e game I had one player, who played a rogue, who made strong use of the tactical nature of combat and knew how to optimize his powers for each encounter. Then I had another player, who played a fighter, who just couldn't do the same and found himself struggling with powers. I came to the conclusion that 4e is a good game for tactically-minded players who like complex combat, but not so much for those that don't care as much about such things. The problem is that the rules strongly benefit those who care to master them. This is the case with all editions, but is particularly so with 3e and 4e. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be to some degree, but in 4e the gap was just too large, too noticeable in each session.



pemerton said:


> As you describe it, your fate pool seems to grant a bonus to dice rolls made for certain sorts of actions, and is rationed in some way. (Presumably the fate pool recharges at some rate, either per session or per heroic victory or something similar.) I don't see any resemblance between that sort of mechanic and Marvel Heroic RPs rules for affecting multiple targets, which depend entirely on the fact that resolution in MHRP is not based on a simple die roll, but on relatively complex dice pool manipulation. (And that certain characters have abilities - rules, not rulings - that permit their players to change the composition of their dice pools in ways that open up certain opportunities but also increase certain risks.)




OK, so what you're saying here is that you prefer "relatively complex dice pool manipulation" over "simple die rolls." Cool. Can you see how that's not the case for many D&D players? Furthermore, can you see how its easier to "dial up" in complexity than "dial down?" The point with 5e is to start simple, then dial up if desired. 4e starts rather complex, making it difficult to dial down, even if page 42 exists.



pemerton said:


> What I am asking for has nothing in particular to do with very clear, very defined rules. It is to do with the scope of particular mechanics.




Yes, I hear that. You want the mechanics to be adequate to the job. I appreciate that. But understand that "adequacy" is relative to those involved.



pemerton said:


> Allowing a player to make two attack rolls rather than one....Every edition of D&D since AD&D has treated this as a matter to be addressed in a careful fashion...
> If you allow this sort of change to the action economy to be introduced simply via a penalty to a die roll ...you are inviting the game to break....What you call "the tricky part" is, from my point of view, the _only_ part, and in a system where the only dimension of resolution in play is bonuses and penalties to dice rolls then there is no solution.




Again, I hear this and I'm all for having rules as optional modules for this level of granularity. But think of the old "complexity dial" that Mearls was talking about early on in 5e. What I hear you asking is that the complexity dial starts at "medium plus"; this works fine for folks who want a medium plus or more complex game. But what about those folks who just want to charge into combat and attack? In 4e they get screwed, in a similar way that in 3e players who don't read Char-Op threads get screwed because rules mastery is an important part of both editions. Or what about those who don't want to use pre-determined powers but improvise their actions, not in primary reference to the rules of the game but to the narrative of the action? 

How does a 4e DM handle that in a way that's any different than other editions? Page 42 ends up being pale in comparison to the powers because its impossible (in terms of what you view as adequate) to provide ad hoc guidelines, or rulings, on improvised actions that are commensurate with the frills of powers. 

It also may be that certain game groups don't want to even worry about "gonzo" powers like free attacks and some of the other effects of powers that make more sense within the context of the rules, and less sense in the theater of mind (a lot of 4e powers have to be really stretched to make sense in theater of mind without turning the game into a Hong Kong action movie). That is, again, a level of tactical complexity that is already "dialed up" to a medium plus level.



pemerton said:


> To say that the option is switched on or off at the will of the GM - which some parts of your post seem to imply - is simply to add GM control over outcomes to broken mechanics, which - for me at least - is the worst of the 2nd ed AD&D experience. Why bother to have mechanics at all, as opposed to free narration of outcomes negotiated between players and GM?




Why must it be black or white, either everything is covered by the rules or the GM just tells a story? There are so many possibilities in-between; if anything, I'm advocating for a wide range of approaches - while you are painting me as advocating a heavily narrative-focused approach (which it is, but only relative to your approach!). 

Yes, there are rules that guide play, but the DM's rulings are what actually happens, at least as I see it. 



pemerton said:


> I'm not really seeing how it's not. If options that significantly change the players' mechanical effectiveness are to be toggled on or off at the will of the GM rather than by reference to "objective" conditions  - either metagame conditions or PC fictional positioning - then I don't see how it's not a railroad.




A good GM, in my mind, won't arbitrarily "toggle" on or off. In most cases, the actual rules will adequately resolve situations. But I think the key difference is that I see GM interpretation and adjudication as a larger part of game play than you do, and that the GM reserves the right to supersede a rule with a ruling.



pemerton said:


> It's something of a tangent, but what you describe here is not a very apt summary of Ron Edwards's analysis of RPGing agendas.




I'm not surprised, because it wasn't meant to be an "apt summary" or comprehensive in any way, but merely to sketch some relevant qualities of the tonal differences between various editions. Of course I could be using GNS theory incorrectly, but that's not the point. Let me step away from those terms to re-phrase what I was trying to get at.

I see 4e as being a game in which the activity of game play itself is more primary than the story or setting, because of two reasons: One, it is built around the encounter, which is a challenge to be overcome. Two, and perhaps more importantly, the verisimilitude of the rules seems to be internal - that is, within the rules themselves - rather than relative to the story or setting/context. Couple these with a reliance upon the battlemat and you have game play experience that is more externalized, more "in the game" than "in the campaign world." This goes back to my early point about reduction in theater of mind.



pemerton said:


> I think the difference can be seen in the other extracts from your post that I quote here. What I described - _mechanics to support the game by giving solid guidelines on mechanical difficulty and mechanical effect that, when followed, will deliver satisfying play_ - differs from what we had for 34 years prior, as soon as "satisfactory play" is allowed to range over preferences other than Gygaxian play in dungeon environments. You seem to concede this when you talk about "fudging" die rolls to improve the drama of a situation - this is a flat-out acknowledgement that the mechanics, when followed, don't deliver satisfying play. If they did, the fudging in the interest of drama would be unnecessary, because followig the mechanics would in and of itself produce drama!




I disagree here. In some ways what you're saying reminds me of the problem some folks have with defined skills. Take Diplomacy, for instance. In your logic, not having a Diplomacy skill for a social interaction in the game world would be insufficient mechanically; for me its an opportunity for role-play. 

Again, I just don't think every thing a PC does requires complex, robust, or specific mechanical guidelines. The lack of rules outside of dungeon environments went too far, in my view, in that it created a rule for every possible situation and de-emphasized rulings. 



pemerton said:


> My personal experience is that reducing mechanical robustness (which needn't equate to mechanical "weight" - MHRP is mechanically robust, but it's rules can fit onto a single A4 page) does not increase imaginative play. If the players don't have a good sense of what their PCs can accomplish in the gameworld, and also have a sense that the GM is running a Gygaxian-style game or an even higher degree of adversarial GMing, then in my experience "rulings not rulse" tends to foster player turtling. If the players don't have a good sense of what their PCs can accomplish in the gameworld, but know that the GM has a clear conception of "the story", then rather than turtling the result in my experience tends to be a type of solipsistic play: the players leave all the "big picture" stuff to the GM, and focus on a type of self-cultivation of their PCs, both in "roleplaying" terms (what sort of hat does my guy wear, what is the name of his fencing style, etc) and in manoevre terms (various sorts of improvised flourishes and actions, like the two-arrow short agaist the orc, which express the personality of the character). But because the GM is ultimately determining how things unfold, these manoeuvres, even if resolved in mechanical terms, ultimately have little bearing on the unfolding of the game.




I find it odd that you associate Gygaxian gaming (whatever that is, I assume you mean DM's power as absolute) with adversarial GMing. I don't see this as the case at all, or at least it isn't inherent to it. If anything, I find the approach of rules superseding GM rulings to be more adversarial because it encourages a GM vs. players field.

Furthermore, I think you continually make what I see as an erroneous assumption, that the traditional DM approach inherently leads to railroading. This is just false, imo, and is only true in a game that is either intentionally railroading (which some players like), and/or in which the DM is domineering. But those aren't the default modes of traditional D&D.



pemerton said:


> The second style of play that I have described is the "illusionist" play that I associate with the heyday of AD&D 2nd ed, and which I see hints of in D&Dnext. It is basically the antithesis of what makes RPGing appealling to me as a leisure activity.




My sense is that you like a game of full disclosure, in which all rulings are transparent mainly because there are no rulings, partially because the rules provide satisfactory guidelines. Again, that's totally fine. Viva la difference! 

In a way we could say that I don't find the rules of 4e to be satisfactory for the type of game that I want to play, while you find the rules to be satisfactory for the type of game that you want to play. Maybe that's a cop-out, but at least its a civil one!

EDIT: p.s....lol at my attempt to keep it short. Damn.


----------



## pemerton

Ratskinner said:


> I don't think the action economy is necessarily the best place to attack the problem. Having Fate as a reference point, I see the problem not in terms of action economy, but as a lack of any tangible mechanical effect whatever. That is, most checks in traditional D&D only affect fictional positioning, but unless that happens to feed into the relevant list of combat modifiers for the edition played, it has no mechanical impact other than the DM's whim. I think it would be acceptable if (as in Fate) the battle captain (or anyone, really) could create an _Emboldened by the Battle Captain _aspect that could be used by anyone to yield a bonus. (detailed rules governing how much and how many times could be hashed out.) Fate and MHRP both demonstrate that this can be handled effectively in a freeform manner which, IMO, would greatly enhance the "squishy" side of play.



I think part of what makes "aspects" (FATE) or "assets" (MHRP) work in such a flexible way - so they can cover everything from _Emboldened by the Battle Captain_ to _Standing on High Ground_ to _My Blade Has Been Sharpened Really Sharply_ - is the overall abstractness of resolution systems.

D&D has always had non-abstract positioning, and hence non-abstract movement, and hence has always had limits on the abstraction of its action economy, including the idea of "turns" which correspond not just to metagame-level opportunities to do stuff, but to the actual passage of time in the fiction, and which reflect the capability of the character to move around and do stuff during that time frame.

The 4e warlord is really all about exploiting this less-than-fully-abstract element of the combat mechanics: characters led by a warlord exercise more control over the battlefield, and in the non-abstract positioning systems and turn system this means they get _more_ movement (ie move as free action), _more_ attack rolls (ie attack as free action), etc. And it is because of the potential of these free actions to break the game that the rationing - via encounter and daily powers - becomes key.

Given this, reducing "battle captain inspiration" to something like a +1 to hit or a +5' of movement - and even this would require some rationing device - would be to really etiolate the warlord concept. There would no longer be that sense of dominating the battlefield. Whereas in MHRP, at least, the bonus can be big - being rationed by way of being an augment generated in place of an action for direct effect - and can be narrated in a way that incorporates both positioning and actual attack effectiveness. (And I am assuming that FATE would work similarly.)



Mercurius said:


> I'm not saying that there shouldn't be specific resources for players to draw upon - whether feats or powers or skills - but that all possible resolutions should not always, inherently, or by default be funneled into a "pick-your-power-paradigm," which is what 4e is. This works for some, but not others. Some prefer very simple action resolution: Describe action, DM assigns DC, player rolls d20 + relevant modifier.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But what about those folks who just want to charge into combat and attack?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It also may be that certain game groups don't want to even worry about "gonzo" powers like free attacks and some of the other effects of powers that make more sense within the context of the rules, and less sense in the theater of mind



I think there are different, orthogonal issues at play here.

Rules light vs rules heavy is one. Games like MHRP (and FATE) show that rules light games can still be comprehensive and robust.

In D&Dnext, it could be a simple as a token that every player gets when they roll initiative - and each player can spend their token to let a single player (oneself or another) take an out-of-turn action provided that the spending player makes a successful check that reflects some appropriate action in the fiction. So the player of the thief makes a DEX check and then spends their token for a bonus attack as they distract their foe with sand in the eyes. The player of the fighter makes a CHA check and then spends their token to grant an ally a bonus attack for being inspired by the battle captain. Etc.

Given that I came up with this idea off the top of my head while typing this post, I'm happy to concede that it could use some refinement. But I think it shows that it is possible to have simple rules, that are no obstacle to immersion, that in fact _encourage_ imaginative play, but that allow a lot more breadth of play than simply bonuses or penalties to d20 rolls. And this possibility is completely independent of whether characters are built via power selections in the 4e model.

You could also use this sort of approach to eliminate a whole lot of spells, especially if you also allow the token to be spent to deprive an enemy of an action. You then replace spells like Slow, Haste, Power Word:Stun etc with a check by the caster and the expenditure of a token.



Mercurius said:


> Why must it be black or white, either everything is covered by the rules or the GM just tells a story? There are so many possibilities in-between
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I just don't think every thing a PC does requires complex, robust, or specific mechanical guidelines.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think you continually make what I see as an erroneous assumption, that the traditional DM approach inherently leads to railroading.



In the absence of mechanics, it seems to me that we have only GM fiat. To put it by reference to the slogan "say yes or roll the dice", if there are no dice to be rolled then either the GM "says yes" - ie the players get what they want - or the GM "says no" - ie the GM decides that the players don't get what they want.

For all sorts of reasons I don't find that very satisfying. I recognise that my view is not universal. But I don't see how this is easily described as anything but the GM deciding what story will be told. If the players would like the story to go differently, _where is their opportunity to bring that about other than by persuading the GM_?



Mercurius said:


> I find it odd that you associate Gygaxian gaming (whatever that is, I assume you mean DM's power as absolute) with adversarial GMing. I don't see this as the case at all, or at least it isn't inherent to it. If anything, I find the approach of rules superseding GM rulings to be more adversarial because it encourages a GM vs. players field.



By "Gygaxian gaming" I mean the sort of RPGing advocated by Gygax in his PHB and DMG. It is (in Forge terminology) gamist, or "step on up", RPGing. The players show their mettle by beating the referee's dungeon. Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain and the like are classics of this genre.

Railroading is not a threat in this sort of play, because the GM has no story agenda that s/he is pushing. And story is not an important focus of play - the fantasy aspects of the game provide colour (as they also do in Talisman and Magic:the Gathering) but also provide fictional positioning which matters to action resolution (quite unlike a board game or a collectable card game). But there is nothing of _thematic_ relevance in the fantasy elements. For instance, playing a paladin in this style of game isn't about playing through the moral challenge of being a knight templar. It's about playing a character who is (i) powerful but (ii) under a handicap because certain moves that are open to others are off-limits to you.

It would be wrong to say that in this style of game the DM's power is absolute. For instance, the DM does not have unlimited power over backstory - thsu, a DM who simply redraws dungeon corridors, or adjust dungeon inhabitants, so as to undermine the strategy and tactics the players have formulated in reliance upon their scouting, detection magic and the like is (in this style of play) flat out cheating. Of course, if those changes have an in-fiction explanation - say, a teleporter device - then the DM is _not_ cheating. But this shows it is not railroading but overly adversarial GMing which is the threat to the functionality of this sort of play. You can see it lurking beneath the surface, but not very far beneath the surface, in Gygax's DMG (with the advice on earseekers), in his MM (lurkers above, trappers, mimics, earseekers, rot grubs, gas spores, etc) and in Dragon and White Dwarf magazines of that period. Not to mention the Tomb of Horrors.

Unlimited DM power, even to the extent of fudging monster hit points so as to keep them alive, or fiating player attacks so as to stop them killing "special" NPCs, is a product of AD&D 2nd ed rules texts (and similar era rules text in White Wolf books - the so-called "golden rule").

I'm not very good at GMing Gyagaxian D&D, and not all that keen on playing it either. But I would prefer it to 2nd ed style based on unlimited GM power in the interests of "the story".



Mercurius said:


> I find the approach of rules superseding GM rulings to be more adversarial because it encourages a GM vs. players field.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My sense is that you like a game of full disclosure, in which all rulings are transparent mainly because there are no rulings, partially because the rules provide satisfactory guidelines.



I prefer a game in which the players can make meaningful choices as to how their PCs engage the gameworld without relying upon the GM as the sole mediator of whether or not those choices have an effect - and if so, what effect - on the ingame fictional situation. I have two main reasons for this preference: (i) I want the players to play a major role in shaping the outcome of ingame events; (ii) I do not want the conflict of interset, as GM, of having to both establish the adversity that confronts the PCs, _and_ deciding whether or not they are able to overcome it. For me, systems which do not satisfy constraint (ii) - ie systems in which the GM decides to "allow" things or not based on whether or not they are "good for the story" - are insipid and uninspiring. Whether or not they involve roleplaying, they all fall under the broad notion of _the GM deciding what story will be told_.



Mercurius said:


> In a way we could say that I don't find the rules of 4e to be satisfactory for the type of game that I want to play, while you find the rules to be satisfactory for the type of game that you want to play. Maybe that's a cop-out, but at least its a civil one!



That's not in disupte. I'm not saying that you should like 4e. I'm just denying that it's a game which is a threat to imagine, or has caused imaginative play to become "a secret that was lost". By empowering players in the ways I have described in the previous paragraph, I find it produces more imaginative play than any other fantasy RPG I have GMed.


----------



## Sadras

pemerton said:


> Unlimited DM power, even to the extent of fudging monster hit points so as to keep them alive, or fiating player attacks so as to stop them killing "special" NPCs, is a product of AD&D 2nd ed rules texts
> ...snip...
> I prefer a game in which the players can make meaningful choices as to how their PCs engage the gameworld without relying upon the GM as the sole mediator of whether or not those choices have an effect
> ... snip...
> - ie systems in which the GM decides to "allow" things or not based on whether or not they are "good for the story" - are insipid and uninspiring. Whether or not they involve roleplaying, they all fall under the broad notion of _the GM deciding what story will be told_.




To be fair DMing styles have changed over the years, hopefully for the better (hopefully). Just because one adopts an old mechanics system does not mean that DMs automatically railroad the story as they want it.
I'm not a huge fan of that, not that I have not been guilty of it in the past but through experience I would like to think that I have improved on this line of DM thinking. 

Just as you surmise that old style mechanics can promote (perhaps its best to say are easier to manipulate) a style of play which allows the DM too much room to push HIS story, which I can concede - since the system allows for that DM flaw to come through - more so than in a 4E game - in the same light one can see that 4E does to some degree stifle PC creativity especially during combat with its "drop down menu of powers" mind-set as opposed to PCs thinking off the top of their head how they would engage in the encounter.



> By empowering players in the ways I have described in the previous paragraph, I find it produces more imaginative play than any other fantasy RPG I have GMed.




Powerful statement.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> In the absence of mechanics, it seems to me that we have only GM fiat. To put it by reference to the slogan "say yes or roll the dice", if there are no dice to be rolled then either the GM "says yes" - ie the players get what they want - or the GM "says no" - ie the GM decides that the players don't get what they want.
> 
> For all sorts of reasons I don't find that very satisfying. I recognise that my view is not universal. But I don't see how this is easily described as anything but the GM deciding what story will be told. If the players would like the story to go differently, _where is their opportunity to bring that about other than by persuading the GM_?




I'm just not seeing how 4e's mechanics in any way enforce this?  If I as DM of a 4e game don't want you to hit my monster... I create an armor class you can't hit.  If I don't want you to find a trap I create a Perception DC that your passive perception won't beat.  I don't want your push to work on a monster, I give him a power to negate it...  So even if I am using the "system",  at the end of the day, IMO... it's still for the most part the DM's story if he/she wants it to be.  This seems more related to how a DM choses to run his game as opposed to anything inherent in the rules of any version of D&D.  They are still persuading the DM to give them the opportunity to shape the "story" in either case.  It seems, and I've said this before you like the mechanics of 4e which i understand but nothing inherent in 4e stops the DM from controlling everything, IMO it just puts up this facade of "system" to cloak it in.



pemerton said:


> I prefer a game in which the players can make meaningful choices as to how their PCs engage the gameworld without relying upon the GM as the sole mediator of whether or not those choices have an effect - and if so, what effect - on the ingame fictional situation. I have two main reasons for this preference: (i) I want the players to play a major role in shaping the outcome of ingame events; (ii) I do not want the conflict of interset, as GM, of having to both establish the adversity that confronts the PCs, _and_ deciding whether or not they are able to overcome it. For me, systems which do not satisfy constraint (ii) - ie systems in which the GM decides to "allow" things or not based on whether or not they are "good for the story" - are insipid and uninspiring. Whether or not they involve roleplaying, they all fall under the broad notion of _the GM deciding what story will be told_.




How are you as DM of a 4e game not establishing the adversity that confronts the PC's and deciding whether or not they can overcome it?  Aren't you picking what the adversity is?  Aren't you also deciding the level/DC/AC/Def/etc. of the adversity as well?  Unless you run only pre-packaged modules (which I don't think you do from some of the play reports you've posted)  how do you not do this?  

As to your second statement... aren't you flat out deciding to allow things based on whether or not they are "good for the story" whenever you use page 42 in 4e?  I'm just not seeing how (if a GM desires to) any D&D system so far can stop him from deciding what the story is?



pemerton said:


> That's not in disupte. I'm not saying that you should like 4e. I'm just denying that it's a game which is a threat to imagine, or has caused imaginative play to become "a secret that was lost". By empowering players in the ways I have described in the previous paragraph, I find it produces more imaginative play than any other fantasy RPG I have GMed.




Well personally I've seen the drop down list play happen with 4e, so I'm not entirely convinced it doesn't have an uninspiring effect upon certain types of players.  IMO, when you are playing a game in which your imagination is supposed to be the limit, you will by necessity have to give the GM way more power that the players due to the very nature of the game and trying to allow an near infinite number of possibilities of actions. Now, IMO, a DM who wants to control the story is going to control the story in any edition of D&D and this seems more like a DM advice or playstyle thing than a mechanics thing.


----------



## Ratskinner

pemerton said:


> I think part of what makes "aspects" (FATE) or "assets" (MHRP) work in such a flexible way - so they can cover everything from _Emboldened by the Battle Captain_ to _Standing on High Ground_ to _My Blade Has Been Sharpened Really Sharply_ - is the overall abstractness of resolution systems.




This is one of those areas where I'm not really sure that the word "abstract" really applies. I find that such systems are actually more tightly bound to the fiction than systems like D&D. On the other hand, I totally know what you mean. I think the word we're looking for is "predefined". D&D is, IMO, much much more abstract than Fate or MHRP. However, Fate and MHRP don't come with the details ready-to-go and all set up for you. The mechanics deal with the flow of the story/fiction, rather than attempt to define the details of that fiction. So, in D&D you might have a table of Combat Modifiers that lists a dozen or more (usually fairly common) situations and their attendant bonuses and penalties. In Fate and MHRP, that table, and all similar tables, are just one mechanic (with a flat bonus mechanism in Fate and a variable one in MHRP), but instantiations of that mechanism in play can and often are very specific to the fiction. In D&D, a PC might Grapple an opponent, while in Fate you might _Ride him like a hog_ or _Got him 'round the legs._

Although to the specific point that that is what allows them to work that way, I agree. I consider it a huge asset for those systems.



pemerton said:


> D&D has always had non-abstract positioning, and hence non-abstract movement, and hence has always had limits on the abstraction of its action economy, including the idea of "turns" which correspond not just to metagame-level opportunities to do stuff, but to the actual passage of time in the fiction, and which reflect the capability of the character to move around and do stuff during that time frame.




I will disagree with you here. Later 1e and a lot of 2e was often played with abstract positioning and distancing...I believe "Theatre of the Mind" is the term often slung around for such play. At least, IME. With one-minute combat rounds, keeping track of every 5' step was often viewed as rather silly. I remember running 2e for a long time in college and using a precursor to Fate's "zone" system (not that I viewed it that way or formalized it at the time.)



pemerton said:


> The 4e warlord is really all about exploiting this less-than-fully-abstract element of the combat mechanics: characters led by a warlord exercise more control over the battlefield, and in the non-abstract positioning systems and turn system this means they get _more_ movement (ie move as free action), _more_ attack rolls (ie attack as free action), etc. And it is because of the potential of these free actions to break the game that the rationing - via encounter and daily powers - becomes key.
> 
> Given this, reducing "battle captain inspiration" to something like a +1 to hit or a +5' of movement - and even this would require some rationing device - would be to really etiolate the warlord concept. There would no longer be that sense of dominating the battlefield. Whereas in MHRP, at least, the bonus can be big - being rationed by way of being an augment generated in place of an action for direct effect - and can be narrated in a way that incorporates both positioning and actual attack effectiveness. (And I am assuming that FATE would work similarly.)




Why yes, the only way to fully replicate the 4e Warlord Concept is to play 4e...But no, that doesn't imply that you can't effectively play or realize leader-of-men-in-battle under other systems. I do agree with you, that beyond post-hoc narration, there is no such way to mechanically do so in pre-WotC editions of D&D. Although, for some folks, that post-hoc narration is enough.

You are correct about the bonuses being significant in Fate and MHRP. I would presume that if such mechanics were added to the D&D base that they would provide similarly large impact. Many groups have tried to add Fate's aspects to D&D. One of the problems they run into is that the rest of the system doesn't respond as well. Without the ability to create temporary aspects or an economy to control their usages of the same...it loses a lot of the punch.


----------



## Brock Landers

Ratskinner said:


> I will disagree with you here. Later 1e and a lot of 2e was often played with abstract positioning and distancing...I believe "Theatre of the Mind" is the term often slung around for such play. At least, IME. With one-minute combat rounds, keeping track of every 5' step was often viewed as rather silly. I remember running 2e for a long time in college and using a precursor to Fate's "zone" system (not that I viewed it that way or formalized it at the time.)





Yep, in the late 80s/early 90s I was never involved in a group (or those that I heard of) that used minis/grid/measuring, etc, in particular (maybe the odd minis/tokens for marching order or what-have-you).

I also used a Zone-type deal back in the day.

4th Ed was very much based on the plastic crack game that was DDM (both fun games).


----------



## pemerton

Ratskinner said:


> I will disagree with you here. Later 1e and a lot of 2e was often played with abstract positioning and distancing...I believe "Theatre of the Mind" is the term often slung around for such play. At least, IME. With one-minute combat rounds, keeping track of every 5' step was often viewed as rather silly. I remember running 2e for a long time in college and using a precursor to Fate's "zone" system (not that I viewed it that way or formalized it at the time.)





Brock Landers said:


> Yep, in the late 80s/early 90s I was never involved in a group (or those that I heard of) that used minis/grid/measuring, etc, in particular (maybe the odd minis/tokens for marching order or what-have-you).



I know a lot of people played AD&D without miniatures. I was one of them. But the rules aren't based around abstract positioning. Movements rates are specified in feet/yards per unit of time, not in terms of mechanical augmentation to effects (which is how they would be expressed in MHRP, or HeroWars/Quest, or (I assume) FATE).

Ranges, likewise, are specified in feet/yards. And locations are typically mapped out with non-abstract positioning. (I'm thinking of the classic white-on-blue dungeon maps inside the TSR modules.)

I think this non-abstract use of distance and time is - for better or words - a big part of the D&D play experience. To get rid of it would be a big deal. But while we have it, it puts limitations on how abstract resolution can become, and also puts constraints on how the action economy can work (eg the action economy must have a "movement" phase or element).

4e does get rid of this part of D&D resolution as far as skill challenges are concerned, but that causes its own headaches - for instance, in effect you have two sets of climbing rules, the abstract ones that are applicable in skill challenges (and work like Maelstrom Storytelling or HeroWars/Quest) and the non-abstract ones that are applicable in combat, and work just like climbing has always done in D&D. The same is true of jumping and swimming.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> I'm just not seeing how 4e's mechanics in any way enforce this?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> a DM who wants to control the story is going to control the story in any edition of D&D and this seems more like a DM advice or playstyle thing than a mechanics thing.



I don't think they "enforce" this, in so far as a GM might ignore them or not use them.

But they _permit_ resolution without GM fiat. That is the respect in which they resemble FATE or MHRP and differ from (say) 2nd ed AD&D, which does not have a mechanic for (say) finding your way through the wilderness to the temple, or persuading the guard to open the gate, other than GM fiat.



Imaro said:


> How are you as DM of a 4e game not establishing the adversity that confronts the PC's and deciding whether or not they can overcome it?



The GM of a 4e games establishes the adversity the confronts the PCs. S/he does not decide whether or not they can overcome it (assuming s/he is following the rules of the game). That is determined via the action resolution mechanics.



Imaro said:


> If I as DM of a 4e game don't want you to hit my monster... I create an armor class you can't hit. If I don't want you to find a trap I create a Perception DC that your passive perception won't beat.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Aren't you picking what the adversity is?  Aren't you also deciding the level/DC/AC/Def/etc. of the adversity as well?



The game has a lot of advice on building encounters. If you follow that advice, and if the players have followed the PC building rules, then you will not get situations in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Although it is more likely than not that the PCs will, in the end, overcome the challenge set - this _is_ a default assumption of the game, and contrasts with (say) Burning Wheel - the pathway to that results, and the costs that will be borne along the way, will be determined via application of the action resolution rules.



Imaro said:


> aren't you flat out deciding to allow things based on whether or not they are "good for the story" whenever you use page 42 in 4e?



That is not how p 42 is intended to be used, at least as I read it. The GM is meant to judge fictional positioning and genre applicability: it is analogous to the "credibility test" in HeroWars/Quest or MHRP.

The example given in the DMG is of a rogue swining on a rope (? chandelier?) and knocking an ogre into a brazier of coals. The GM adjudicates fictional positioning (yes, there is a rope and a brazier and an ogre in between them), and adjudicates credibility in genre terms (yes, in the gonzo fantasy genre rogues can kick ogres into braziers - contrast a hard physics genre, where the rogue will just crash into the ogre like a brick wall).

But the GM is not expected to consider whether or not s/he thinks it would be good or bad for "the story" for the ogre to be kicked, or burned, or killed, or whether or not s/he wants the brazier to be knocked down or remain upright.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> I don't think they "enforce" this, in so far as a GM might ignore them or not use them.
> 
> But they _permit_ resolution without GM fiat. That is the respect in which they resemble FATE or MHRP and differ from (say) 2nd ed AD&D, which does not have a mechanic for (say) finding your way through the wilderness to the temple, or persuading the guard to open the gate, other than GM fiat.




Yes but almost all rpg's (since there may be some which totally buck this standard that I am not familiar with) permit resolution without GM fiat... to a point.  I mean even 4e has things which are not covered by it's rules which must be handled by GM fiat.  So I'm not understanding is there some imaginary line which sets the standard where 4e is judged to "_permit_ resolution without GM fiat" but AD&D 2e doesn't?  They both have gaps which must be filled by GM fiat.  



pemerton said:


> The GM of a 4e games establishes the adversity the confronts the PCs. S/he does not decide whether or not they can overcome it (assuming s/he is following the rules of the game). That is determined via the action resolution mechanics.




Not if the adversary chosen for a combat is a Level 30 kobold and the party is level one.  They will loose and it's not the resolution mechanics deciding that, it is the DM.  I have seen numerous proponents argue that the encounter guidelines in 4e were just that... guidelines, are you now saying that following them are part of the actual rules of the game?  if not, then tell me what are the actual rules in 4e that constrain the DM from deciding the outcome of a combat in this way?



pemerton said:


> The game has a lot of advice on building encounters. If you follow that advice, and if the players have followed the PC building rules, then you will not get situations in which the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Although it is more likely than not that the PCs will, in the end, overcome the challenge set - this _is_ a default assumption of the game, and contrasts with (say) Burning Wheel - the pathway to that results, and the costs that will be borne along the way, will be determined via application of the action resolution rules.




So it's not the rules of the game... it's the advice given.  Couldn't a DM in OD&D, 1e, 2e, BECMI, 3e, etc. who had learned through advice from others, experimented (running mock combats), run enough games, etc. do the exact same thing.  Again you haven't shown me how the rules facilitate this... it still seems like a playstyle issue.  I even find this slightly ironic because you even admit it is guidelines and not the actual rules that you are speaking to. 



pemerton said:


> That is not how p 42 is intended to be used, at least as I read it. The GM is meant to judge fictional positioning and genre applicability: it is analogous to the "credibility test" in HeroWars/Quest or MHRP.




I don't remember reading about a "credibility test" in 4e... is this another instance where you are bringing things from other games in to supplement the way you are reading the rules of 4e?  because what i saw was that the DM decides whether an action is possible and then also how hard or easy it is. 



pemerton said:


> The example given in the DMG is of a rogue swining on a rope (? chandelier?) and knocking an ogre into a brazier of coals. The GM adjudicates fictional positioning (yes, there is a rope and a brazier and an ogre in between them), and adjudicates credibility in genre terms (yes, in the gonzo fantasy genre rogues can kick ogres into braziers - contrast a hard physics genre, where the rogue will just crash into the ogre like a brick wall).
> 
> But the GM is not expected to consider whether or not s/he thinks it would be good or bad for "the story" for the ogre to be kicked, or burned, or killed, or whether or not s/he wants the brazier to be knocked down or remain upright.




Just in deciding the credibility test the DM is in fact deciding it is good for a gonzo fantasy story.  I feel like you're splitting hairs here, if you are judging genre appropriateness then you are deciding whether an action is good or bad for the type of story you want to tell.  If I want a gritty down to earth story then I will rule that action won't work, or I'll make it harder how is that not still the DM shaping the story... especially since not everyone necessarily has the same concepts of genre appropriateness and it is the DM's idea taking precedence...


----------



## Ratskinner

pemerton said:


> I think this non-abstract use of distance and time is - for better or words - a big part of the D&D play experience. To get rid of it would be a big deal.




You mean a big change like dividing the world up into "squares" which are only nominally 5 ft across?  



pemerton said:


> But while we have it, it puts limitations on how abstract resolution can become, and also puts constraints on how the action economy can work (eg the action economy must have a "movement" phase or element).




To some extent that's true. However, WRT the 4e Warlord (and almost any 4e class, really), the resolution of the gamespace simply didn't support that kind of specificity in the game before 3e. (I'd give an exception to some of the options in the 2.5e Combat and Tactics supplement, but I never knew anyone who used them so...) Mostly, I think, this is because of the 1 minute combat round. Trying to define actions on the scale of singular "steps" or maneuvers on the scale of a sword swing seems a bit too fine a point in such a system.

From my perspective, you're arguing for a very "gamish" (as opposed to gamist) interpretation of D&D/the warlord. I don't mean that in a demeaning way, and I think given some of the other things you've written to me you might agree. What I mean is that you are looking for the mechanics to provide for you a visceral experience to reflect the fictional experience, even if it isn't directly simulating the fiction. Nowadays, I'm thinking that _that_ is what 4e delivers better than any edition before it, mostly because I don't think the other editions deliver it at all in any significant measure.

 Given that the 4e mechanics/Warlord work just fine if you've never heard of feet or inches, only gameboardlike "squares", I think that its the fiddly bits which you are missing, not the idea that they actually correspond to something in the fictional physics. I'm not sure if you and the other 4e folks who feel that way could be satisfied by a more freeform system like Fate or MHRP, but (since 4e) I don't think it would be as dramatic a departure as it would have been from say AD&D. I've had some recent experiences which seem to indicate that at least some old-schoolers find the freeform mechanics to be quite acceptable, in contrast to the encyclopedia of scripted fiddly bits that characterizes the WotC editions.


----------



## pemerton

Ratskinner said:


> From my perspective, you're arguing for a very "gamish" (as opposed to gamist) interpretation of D&D/the warlord. I don't mean that in a demeaning way, and I think given some of the other things you've written to me you might agree. What I mean is that you are looking for the mechanics to provide for you a visceral experience to reflect the fictional experience, even if it isn't directly simulating the fiction. Nowadays, I'm thinking that _that_ is what 4e delivers better than any edition before it, mostly because I don't think the other editions deliver it at all in any significant measure.
> 
> Given that the 4e mechanics/Warlord work just fine if you've never heard of feet or inches, only gameboardlike "squares", I think that its the fiddly bits which you are missing, not the idea that they actually correspond to something in the fictional physics. I'm not sure if you and the other 4e folks who feel that way could be satisfied by a more freeform system like Fate or MHRP, but (since 4e) I don't think it would be as dramatic a departure as it would have been from say AD&D.



I think MHRP could deliver an excellent battle captain - obviously mechanically quite different from the 4e one (but what else would you expect?), but it would be a character built around giving assets to your friends in appropriate combat situations, and you'd probably have a SFX that let you add a die to your pool and keep a bonus effect die as an asset for your ally under the appropriate circumstances. (Same caveat as above - this mechanic has not been fully though through, but is an attempt to outline how something might reasonably be done.)

It sounds like you might have taken something I was presenting as a necessary condition _given certain constraints_ to have been intended as a necessary condition per se.

I don't think you need fiddly (square based, inch based, whatever) movement to have a viable warlord, as the MHRP idea shows. (And again I assume FATE could handle this in some similar sort of form within the scope of its Fate point economy.) But _if you have such movement_, and the relationship between action economy and the passage of ingame time which goes with it - and all versions of D&D have this, except 13th Age - then I think it is hard to have a satisfying battle captain who does not somehow engage with those elements of the game. This is because the presence of those elements precludes, or at least gets in the way, of interpreting (say) a bonus to hit as helping someone move into a better position, because there is no actual movement by the beneficiary at least as movement is defined in the game rules.

I know some people use Fate-style aspects in D&D, and I don't know the details of how they do that, but I don't see how you can include aspects that - in Fate itself - would be seen as going to advantageous position, or greater speed, or anything like that, while still using the default D&D approach of treating time and distance in a roughly process-simulation fashion.

I can't remember if it was you or someone else - it might have been [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] - who complained that D&Dnext defines effects in terms of feet (eg ranges are in feet, Thunderwave pushes targets so many feet, etc) but then expects the group to use "theatre of the mind" - which means those distances really become simply cues for GM handwaving. I think it is something like this same feature of D&Dnext that is an impediment to improvising a satisfactory battle captain.


----------



## pemerton

Imaro said:


> Yes but almost all rpg's (since there may be some which totally buck this standard that I am not familiar with) permit resolution without GM fiat... to a point.  I mean even 4e has things which are not covered by it's rules which must be handled by GM fiat.



Of course. The question is whether the game encourages - in its rules text, in its advice text, in its examples of play, in its published modules, etc - the running of scenarios that fall within or without the scope of what it can handle.

4e really doesn't have the mechanical resources for running a game of fantasy merchants. But nor do any of its text suggest that you might use them to run this sort of game.

2nd ed AD&D doesn't have the mechanical resources to adjudicate an encounter between a PC and a town guard, or a patron, or a princess - unless that encounter is a combat encouner. But its text 100% suggests that you might run just this sort of thing in an AD&D 2nd ed game.



Imaro said:


> Couldn't a DM in OD&D, 1e, 2e, BECMI, 3e, etc. who had learned through advice from others, experimented (running mock combats), run enough games, etc. do the exact same thing.



Classic D&D doesn't have any sort of universal resolution mechanic. Neither classic D&D nor 3E has the relatively tight calibration of DCs, damage and levels that 4e does, that allows page 42 to exist and operate as it does in 4e. So my view is, no, this can't be done effectively in earlier versions of D&D.

It's like Robin Laws just cutting and pasting the pass/fail cycle material from HeroQuest revised into the 4e DMG2 - the techniques simply can't be applied in 4e (or any other version of D&D, for that matter) as they are in HeroWars/Quest because the mechanical "spine" of the system is so different.

Similarly, there is no analogue of p 42 for Burning Wheel, because it uses a fundamentally different technique for setting DCs (they are set "objectively" or "realistically", not on a metagame basis) and for adjudicating the effects of successful actions (there is nothing like the "level-appropriate damage" of 4e).



Imaro said:


> Just in deciding the credibility test the DM is in fact deciding it is good for a gonzo fantasy story.  I feel like you're splitting hairs here, if you are judging genre appropriateness then you are deciding whether an action is good or bad for the type of story you want to tell.



If you think the difference between choosing tropes and choosing outcomes is a hairsplitting difference, OK. I don't agree. When we all sit down to play (say) a core 4e rulebooks fantasy D&D campaign, we have settled on a whole heap of tropes: dwarves, elves and orcs are in; cities with steel skyscrapers and rayguns are out. But nothing is yet known about what events will occur within the game.



Imaro said:


> I don't remember reading about a "credibility test" in 4e...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> what i saw was that the DM decides whether an action is possible and then also how hard or easy it is.



DMG p 42:

Shiera the 8th-level rogue wants to try the classic swashbuckling move of swinging on a chandelier and kicking an ogre in the chest on her way down to the ground, hoping to push the ogre into the brazier of burning coals behind it. An Acrobatics check seems reasonable.

This sort of action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage, so you pick an easy DC​
There is the "credibility test: - "the classic swashbuckling move", "this sort of action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage", "an Acrobatics check seems reasonable".

Key features include the determining of what is "reasonable" not by reference to real world physics but rather genre considerations - "the classic swashbuckling move" - and the setting of DC based on metagame genre considerations - "this sort of action is exactly the kind of thinking you want to encourage - rather than ingame causal process considerations.

The only difference I can see from the process described in the HeroQuest revised or MHRP rulebooks is that application of a credibility test is part of _every_ action declaration in those games, whereas in 4e it only comes into play with p 42. When players are using their powers, they are performing actions which have been "pre-declared" to be credible within the genre.


----------



## Mercurius

pemerton said:


> I think there are different, orthogonal issues at play here.
> 
> Rules light vs rules heavy is one. Games like MHRP (and FATE) show that rules light games can still be comprehensive and robust.




Yes, sure.



pemerton said:


> In D&Dnext, it could be a simple as a token that every player gets when they roll initiative....snip




I like it. I haven't played Next yet so haven't thought about house rules, but this is the sort of thing I could see adding on - as you would put it, it adds dimensionality but without too much complication, and without (as I see it) the problematic AEDU paradigm...although it still gives a taste of that.



pemerton said:


> In the absence of mechanics, it seems to me that we have only GM fiat. To put it by reference to the slogan "say yes or roll the dice", if there are no dice to be rolled then either the GM "says yes" - ie the players get what they want - or the GM "says no" - ie the GM decides that the players don't get what they want.
> 
> For all sorts of reasons I don't find that very satisfying. I recognise that my view is not universal. But I don't see how this is easily described as anything but the GM deciding what story will be told. If the players would like the story to go differently, _where is their opportunity to bring that about other than by persuading the GM_?




Again, its not either/or. DM fiat fills the gaps (and there are always gaps, no matter how seemless the rules are), and also provides an over-arching "rule zero" that can be applied as deemed necessary by the DM, usually behind the screen.



pemerton said:


> By "Gygaxian gaming" I mean the sort of RPGing advocated by Gygax in his PHB and DMG. It is (in Forge terminology) gamist, or "step on up", RPGing. The players show their mettle by beating the referee's dungeon. Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain and the like are classics of this genre.
> ....
> 
> It would be wrong to say that in this style of game the DM's power is absolute. For instance, the DM does not have unlimited power over backstory - thsu, a DM who simply redraws dungeon corridors, or adjust dungeon inhabitants, so as to undermine the strategy and tactics the players have formulated in reliance upon their scouting, detection magic and the like is (in this style of play) flat out cheating. Of course, if those changes have an in-fiction explanation - say, a teleporter device - then the DM is _not_ cheating. But this shows it is not railroading but overly adversarial GMing which is the threat to the functionality of this sort of play. You can see it lurking beneath the surface, but not very far beneath the surface, in Gygax's DMG (with the advice on earseekers), in his MM (lurkers above, trappers, mimics, earseekers, rot grubs, gas spores, etc) and in Dragon and White Dwarf magazines of that period. Not to mention the Tomb of Horrors.




What you describe as the DM "cheating" has nothing to do with style of play, but who the DM is as a person - and thus can occur in any game, any edition. 



pemerton said:


> Unlimited DM power, even to the extent of fudging monster hit points so as to keep them alive, or fiating player attacks so as to stop them killing "special" NPCs, is a product of AD&D 2nd ed rules texts (and similar era rules text in White Wolf books - the so-called "golden rule").




Not sure I buy this. This seems to be an underlying assumption in _all _editions of D&D, that rule zero always applies. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing that you could find mention of it in some form or fashion in every edition, probably every DMG.



pemerton said:


> I prefer a game in which the players can make meaningful choices as to how their PCs engage the gameworld without relying upon the GM as the sole mediator of whether or not those choices have an effect - and if so, what effect - on the ingame fictional situation. I have two main reasons for this preference: (i) I want the players to play a major role in shaping the outcome of ingame events; (ii) I do not want the conflict of interset, as GM, of having to both establish the adversity that confronts the PCs, _and_ deciding whether or not they are able to overcome it. For me, systems which do not satisfy constraint (ii) - ie systems in which the GM decides to "allow" things or not based on whether or not they are "good for the story" - are insipid and uninspiring. Whether or not they involve roleplaying, they all fall under the broad notion of _the GM deciding what story will be told_.




See, both of your reasons aren't a problem in any game I've ever run. Players always have a major role in "shaping the outcome of in-game events" and I never feel I have a conflict of interest because I emply fiat/rule zero sparingly, and only when I deem it necessary to improve the enjoyment of all...and, if at all possible, it won't be noticed by the players. 

I think the main problem I see with your logic is that you see it as a black-or-white issue: if the GM "meddles" at all, the whole thing is tainted. I think the main issue is how _skillfully _(or tactfully) the GM employs fiat, and for what end.

Another variation on fiat is with critical hits and misses. I tend to find 4e's max HP rather boring, so I often throw in an added effect. The same with a critical failure. This effect is entirely subjective, entirely my choice, and the players have always been fine with it, even enjoyed the unknown quality of it.



pemerton said:


> That's not in disupte. I'm not saying that you should like 4e. I'm just denying that it's a game which is a threat to imagine, or has caused imaginative play to become "a secret that was lost". By empowering players in the ways I have described in the previous paragraph, I find it produces more imaginative play than any other fantasy RPG I have GMed.




That goes back to the original post, which I just re-read and still feel in resonance with. But its important to realize that I was talking about something much larger than just RPGs or editions of D&D and applying that to how I see it manifest within the context of RPGs and D&D.

Going back to my original point, another way of framing it is that as our technology develops, something is lost in the mix. The technology "fills in the gaps" but something gets obfuscated. One analogy is that of a going to the movie theater vs. sitting around a camp-fire and listening to a story. Another is that of the wonder and play of a child being obfuscated by the Important Activities of the Adult World. 

It is hard to pin-point exactly what it is in recent editions of D&D, especially 4e, that makes it more like a movie than a campfire story (for me), but I think it is related to the degree to which the rules cover everything, which is largely what we've been talking about. If there's a rule for everything then there is no room for rulings. If a PC has a whole list of powers with specific effects, its less likely that they'll improvise and come up with their own imagined action. That's the heart of it for me. 

This is a huge over-simplification, but its kind of like this: 

- In paradigm A a warrior can do one of two things: attack or do something fancy (improvise)
- In paradigm B a warrior can do ten things, or "powers"; they can also do something fancy, but it won't be as effective as the ten things they can do

I'd have no problem with paradigm B if it didn't obscure or marginalize doing something fancy. But, unfortunately, in 4e it does. Improvisation is put on the back-burner because A) there are so many pre-described options to choose from, and B) those pre-described options are generally superior and more failproof than making something up on the fly.

To put it another way, I don't have a problem with PCs having greater control of their own resources, but that those resources are so clearly defined and obscure the option to improvise, both by "covering them up" with the drop-down menu of powers, but also because the powers are inherently superior to page 42.

This is just one example, one area, in which I think "something has been lost," that the rules - both as written, but also as implied - limit the use of imagination and improvisation in 4e.

I don't know where to go from here. We can continue to nit-pick the fine points of the rules of various editions, but I don't see much point in that - plus we'll just end up going round and round.


----------



## Ratskinner

pemerton said:


> It sounds like you might have taken something I was presenting as a necessary condition _given certain constraints_ to have been intended as a necessary condition per se.




Possibly, I found one of the previous exchanges to be a little odd in the "did he really mean that?...maybe he did." way.



pemerton said:


> I think MHRP could deliver an excellent battle captain - obviously mechanically quite different from the 4e one (but what else would you expect?), but it would be a character built around giving assets to your friends in appropriate combat situations, and you'd probably have a SFX that let you add a die to your pool and keep a bonus effect die as an asset for your ally under the appropriate circumstances. (Same caveat as above - this mechanic has not been fully though through, but is an attempt to outline how something might reasonably be done.)
> 
> I don't think you need fiddly (square based, inch based, whatever) movement to have a viable warlord, as the MHRP idea shows. (And again I assume FATE could handle this in some similar sort of form within the scope of its Fate point economy.)




Fate Core would probably handle it with a stunt or two that affect what happens when you _Succeed With Style_ in melee or if you tried to _Create Advantage_ using another skill or... Honestly, how an individual player wanted to do it could be quite variable in Fate, reflecting wildly different styles and methods of leadership or encouragement. Cooperative action between the PCs is such a common aspect of climactic scenes in Fate that its easy to do. In some ways its just a specific flavoring of what everyone does.



pemerton said:


> But _if you have such movement_, and the relationship between action economy and the passage of ingame time which goes with it - and all versions of D&D have this, except 13th Age - then I think it is hard to have a satisfying battle captain who does not somehow engage with those elements of the game. This is because the presence of those elements precludes, or at least gets in the way, of interpreting (say) a bonus to hit as helping someone move into a better position, because there is no actual movement by the beneficiary at least as movement is defined in the game rules.




Got it, and generally agreed to the extent that that movement/time/action economy must be specified precisely enough to warrant such things.



pemerton said:


> I know some people use Fate-style aspects in D&D, and I don't know the details of how they do that, but I don't see how you can include aspects that - in Fate itself - would be seen as going to advantageous position, or greater speed, or anything like that, while still using the default D&D approach of treating time and distance in a roughly process-simulation fashion.




When you consider that Fate also handles things like spell effects with temporary aspects...yeah, that's why it falls flat. You end up with Fate-using-a-d20 or D&D-with-hamstrung-aspects rather than D&D-that-plays-like-Fate.  



pemerton said:


> I can't remember if it was you or someone else - it might have been  @_*Campbell*_  - who complained that D&Dnext defines effects in terms of feet (eg ranges are in feet, Thunderwave pushes targets so many feet, etc) but then expects the group to use "theatre of the mind" - which means those distances really become simply cues for GM handwaving. I think it is something like this same feature of D&Dnext that is an impediment to improvising a satisfactory battle captain.




Wasn't me, I don't think. The 13th Age Bard manages it fairly well with rather abstract positioning...or at least I don't hear a lot of players complaining about it. Personally, I still think having a battle captain in classical D&D architecture is more limited by the fact that skill attribute checks don't have much reliable mechanical meaning for fictional positioning, especially in the social sphere where it tends to be all DM fiat AFAICT. They tend to act as solely permission mechanics. When a player says "I try to <X>". The DM has three responses: "Yes", "No", or "Make a check."

 In Classic D&D, I've only seen the type of narrative that others are describing here used as a (often jesting) post hoc justification for die rolls that already happened in combat. Sort of a Fortune at the Beginning way of playing. (Strangely, Classic D&D can be played as Fortune almost anywhere.)


----------



## TwoSix

Mercurius said:


> Not sure I buy this. This seems to be an underlying assumption in _all _editions of D&D, that rule zero always applies. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing that you could find mention of it in some form or fashion in every edition, probably every DMG.



I think rule zero has always been around, in the context that the DM is not limited to the scenarios and resources presented in the books.  The DM has the right to insert and modify encounters to match his vision (and whether his vision be the greater or story or simply the framing of any one scene).

The true issue with rule zero becomes when the DM-enforced changes become intrusive enough to make the players feel deprotagonized.  The 2e/WoD mantra was that the DM-story should have a higher precedence that the player's desire to drive the action, which often mandated heavy use of rule zero.  That's why such uses of rule zero are frowned upon in indie games, where being player-centric is a major tenet.

Ultimately, what constitutes a fair use of rule zero is an (explicit or implicit) negotiation between the players and the DM.  



Mercurius said:


> See, both of your reasons aren't a problem in any game I've ever run. Players always have a major role in "shaping the outcome of in-game events" and I never feel I have a conflict of interest because I emply fiat/rule zero sparingly, and only when I deem it necessary to improve the enjoyment of all...and, if at all possible, it won't be noticed by the players.



There's nothing wrong with illusionism (making changes to rules that aren't visible to the players) in and of itself.  But there's nothing wrong with also expecting the game to do what it says.  If a game offers the promise of cinematic battles, but the enemies always die in one round, I'm going to have to resort to illusionism to make the game run the way it was offered (as I don't see a cinematic battle being over in 6 seconds).  



Mercurius said:


> I think the main problem I see with your logic is that you see it as a black-or-white issue: if the GM "meddles" at all, the whole thing is tainted. I think the main issue is how _skillfully _(or tactfully) the GM employs fiat, and for what end.



But that's not a logic issue.  For his _preferences_, GM meddling taints the game.  The GM should set up the encounters, and run them according to the rules.  He shouldn't give the enemy 50 extra hit points because it got critical'd by a daily power.  



Mercurius said:


> Another variation on fiat is with critical hits and misses. I tend to find 4e's max HP rather boring, so I often throw in an added effect. The same with a critical failure. This effect is entirely subjective, entirely my choice, and the players have always been fine with it, even enjoyed the unknown quality of it.



But that isn't really fiat.  You have a house rule that criticals do max damage plus an additional narrative effect.  You've negotiated with your players to take back some narrative authority upon certain resolution results.  It's not indie or anything, but I don't think of it as fiat.  Fiat is "Sorry, your vorpal sword can't cut off this guy's head because he's wearing armor that covers his neck."  It's the imposition of DM preference (whether in the cause of story or greater simulative "fidelity") to override a player's rules-granted authority to shape the fiction.  




Mercurius said:


> Going back to my original point, another way of framing it is that as our technology develops, something is lost in the mix. The technology "fills in the gaps" but something gets obfuscated. One analogy is that of a going to the movie theater vs. sitting around a camp-fire and listening to a story. Another is that of the wonder and play of a child being obfuscated by the Important Activities of the Adult World.



I think your thesis would be stronger if you could identify what the "something" is.  To be honest, the campfire story is kind of lost on me, since I never really did that.  (I could invoke "Are you Afraid of the Dark?" on 90s era Nickelodeon, but that might just prove your point!  )  I've seen similar arguments about animation styles, especially hand-drawn versus photorealistic CGI.  Or possibly between novels and graphic novels, where in reading you have to generate your own images, but a graphic novel does it for you.  I've always found novels to be immersive, and graphic novels not to be (I generally find them a waste of money, as I read too fast for them to provide much value), but I don't think that's anything else than a product of my own style of cognition.



Mercurius said:


> This is a huge over-simplification, but its kind of like this:
> 
> - In paradigm A a warrior can do one of two things: attack or do something fancy (improvise)
> - In paradigm B a warrior can do ten things, or "powers"; they can also do something fancy, but it won't be as effective as the ten things they can do
> 
> I'd have no problem with paradigm B if it didn't obscure or marginalize doing something fancy. But, unfortunately, in 4e it does. Improvisation is put on the back-burner because A) there are so many pre-described options to choose from, and B) those pre-described options are generally superior and more failproof than making something up on the fly.



See, I guess where you see marginalize, I see deemphasize.  And again, I think this is a function of player-type, not system.  Even in old-school games, most players I met would simply attack, or look through their magic items.  Spellcasters would look over their spells.  I've never played in games where players were always looking for chandeliers to swing on or fireplaces to push people into.   

The best way to get players to improvise, I've found, is to give them upfront knowledge of the outcome and that attempting to engage with the environment (which is really what improvise means) is their tactically most sound option.  You're right that 4e powers are reliable, so that people will default to them.  I certainly think 4e powers could be improved by adding in narrative conditions to triggers rather than a reliance on the ED part of AEDU system and reskinning.  (My own 4e hack has no encounter powers, for example).  But I've never found any other D&D system to do a better job.  When we played OSR, people just attacked, and hoped I gave them a bonus.  They told me in our last OSR session that they were bored because there was nothing for them to choose in combat, they just told me what they were doing and hoped it work.  They wanted _control._  So we're back to a (hacked) 4e.


----------



## Luce

pemerton said:


> I don't think they "enforce" this, in so far as a GM might ignore them or not use them.
> 
> But they _permit_ resolution without GM fiat. That is the respect in which they resemble FATE or MHRP and differ from (say) 2nd ed AD&D, which does not have a mechanic for (say) finding your way through the wilderness to the temple, or persuading the guard to open the gate, other than GM fiat.





DMG 2e pp. 172-173 Rules for getting lost in wilderness 
PH pp86 Tracking
In the first place to find a hidden temple the PC should have some reason to believe/suspect it is there. So they either follow some clues or try to follow the trail of somebody. The DM may be rolling the "lost" chance, but the PCs can influence the probability.

DMG pp. 97-99,157 Morale rules and their uses for bribing NPCs
DMG pp.140  PH pp. 25 & 59 (bard) Encounter/NPC reactions
Opening the gates to me implies either:
1. A dereliction of duty, resolved by the Morale rules, triggered by either a bribe or a threat. 
2. If the NPC being contrary or not, which is a encounter reaction.


While those might not be rules you like, but they are there. So lets be fair.


----------



## Balesir

Sorry to be in-and-out in this thread - much to do at present...

Speaking for myself, the "GM fiat" issue I have with older editions is not really with the "fringe" activities or off-the-wall manoeuvres and such like. Those are going to require fiat or negotiation or some such with any RPG, at some point.

My problem is really with rules that *require* GM fiat, not because the rules don't cover a specific effect, situation or action but because the designers apparently thought that an arbitrary decision by the GM would be the best thing for the game.

I'm thinking here of:

- copious situations where something might or might not be allowed "at DM discretion".

- "Charm" type spells where the target "viewed the caster as a friend". What sort of friend? The sort of friend a lifeboatman is to a drowning sailor he's never met? The sort of friend J.R. Ewing was to his brother Bobby? The sort of friend Short Round was to Indiana Jones? What does this effect mean? The GM _*has*_ to decide, because the rules simply don't say.

- "Illusion" type spells that deal with what a monster or NPC will believe and how they will react. Is that illusory bridge "obviously solid" or will they treat it with the sort of caution player characters would treat an unknown bridge in a dungeon environment? If they know the bridge wasn't there this morning, will that change their view? How do we know if they "knew it wasn't there this morning" or not?

In all these cases and more, the GM has to make arbitrary and fiat decisions - not because this is a situation the rules writer didn't cover, but because of some specific element that the rules writer specifically _included_ into the rules of the game.

This is something 4E doesn't do*, and I am eternally grateful for that when I run it.



*: Apart from a couple of additions in Essentials, but those were a retrograde and misjudged late inclusion, in my view.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Balesir said:


> - "Charm" type spells where the target "viewed the caster as a friend". What sort of friend? The sort of friend a lifeboatman is to a drowning sailor he's never met? The sort of friend J.R. Ewing was to his brother Bobby? The sort of friend Short Round was to Indiana Jones? What does this effect mean? The GM _*has*_ to decide, because the rules simply don't say.




Charm Person from 1E:  This spell will affect any single person or
mammal it is cast upon. The creature then will regard the druid (or magic user) who cast the spell as a *trusted* friend and ally to be heeded and protected.


----------



## Brock Landers

JRRNeiklot said:


> Charm Person from 1E:  This spell will affect any single person or
> mammal it is cast upon. The creature then will regard the druid (or magic user) who cast the spell as a *trusted* friend and ally to be heeded and protected.





That's true, and a trusted friend looking out for your protection is pretty explicit and huge.


----------



## Manbearcat

TwoSix said:


> See, I guess where you see marginalize, I see deemphasize.  And again, I think this is a function of player-type, not system.  Even in old-school games, most players I met would simply attack, or look through their magic items.  Spellcasters would look over their spells.  I've never played in games where players were always looking for chandeliers to swing on or fireplaces to push people into.
> 
> The best way to get players to improvise, I've found, is to give them upfront knowledge of the outcome and that attempting to engage with the environment (which is really what improvise means) is their tactically most sound option




I wanted to drop in right quick to address these two points.  

It seems that mostly what we're discussing here is the propensity to stunt.  

In my 1e games, who was "stunting" the most?  The Thief and the Monk.  It was quite easy to discern why they were stunting (trying to engage me to make favorable rulings and/or provide transparent odds for success on their wacky stunts) while the Fighters were continuously pressing the "meat-grinder attack button" while the spellcasters were looking through their spells and then pressing the appropriate "problem solving spell button."  Its because their default options were terribly ineffectual and engaging in symmetric warfare meant death.  

I'm going to fast forward to my present game.

I have a Thief (Rogue) and a "Monk" in my present game.  The "Monk" is a Bladesinger who is basically a Jedi with a FIghter/Mage skin.  He uses the Bladesong (Force).  They are both light armored, mobile, duelists/fencers.  One is an Errol Flynn Swashbuckler and the other is a Jedi Knight basically.  These guys have a fair bit of functional and thematic overlap due to the nature of the archetypes and how the mechanics go about supporting that:

  1)  They have above average, passive AC for their level (with the Bladesinger at Defender levels).
  2)   They have activatable abilities that buff their defenses significantly  (especially AC and Reflex).  They both have enough of these that they  can sustain these defenses for 80 % (or more) of the daily percentage of  combat rounds.  
  3)   They both do significant at-will, single target damage (The Bladesinger  just under and the Rogue just exceeding of-level, high damage  expression).
  4)   They both have a robust suite of off-turn actions to riposte,  deny/subvert attacks against them, or move in response to a trigger.


However, while one gets by on the "aerialist swashbuckler" shtick, the other gets by on "using the force (Bladesong)".  When one stunts (invoked p42) to engage what might be an otherwise benign terrain feature, he is going to be deploying his ridiculous Acrobatics (automatically passing the Medium DC and 80 % on the Hard) and doing the sliding down the bannister into a leaping kick, knocking the Ogre into the brazier.  The other also has a ridiculous Acrobatics check, but he is much more likely to leverage his "use the force shtick", deploying his ridiculous Arcana (automatically passing the Medium DC  and 80 % on the Hard) and force-throwing the brazier (with its burning coals) at the Ogre.

Do they stunt as much as 1e?  No.  That was literally an every round affair.  Do they stunt a lot?  Absolutely.  And when they do, their stunting is informed by the (i) the mechanical constraints of their PC build tools, the (ii) thematic guidance of their archetype, and (iii) the tier-based, genre credibility test that  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] was speaking of.

One archetype is (tactically, not strategically) stunting more than ever in my 4e games; spellcasters.  They are deploying Arcana, Nature, and Religion with interesting combos riffed off of the baked-in thematics and mechanics of their respective power sources and spells far and away more than I've ever seen before.


----------



## Mercurius

TwoSix said:


> The true issue with rule zero becomes when the DM-enforced changes become intrusive enough to make the players feel deprotagonized.  The 2e/WoD mantra was that the DM-story should have a higher precedence that the player's desire to drive the action, which often mandated heavy use of rule zero.  That's why such uses of rule zero are frowned upon in indie games, where being player-centric is a major tenet.
> 
> Ultimately, what constitutes a fair use of rule zero is an (explicit or implicit) negotiation between the players and the DM.




I agree. If players feel that the DM is overstepping then there needs to be an agreement that they can say so. For better or worse, DM are people too - and not all are mature. I played with one guy some years ago who was mad that I had actually rolled 18/00 Strength - the only time I ever did so, or was aware of anyone doing so. He quickly dispatched my 1st level fighter via two giant scorpions. He was a real prick in other ways, too!



TwoSix said:


> There's nothing wrong with illusionism (making changes to rules that aren't visible to the players) in and of itself.  But there's nothing wrong with also expecting the game to do what it says.  If a game offers the promise of cinematic battles, but the enemies always die in one round, I'm going to have to resort to illusionism to make the game run the way it was offered (as I don't see a cinematic battle being over in 6 seconds).




This was a problem with 4e combat - the Grind for which numerous DMs resorted to "illusionism." Eventually folks started houseruling to give monsters less HP and more damage output, but even then the pace could be wonky.



TwoSix said:


> But that's not a logic issue.  For his _preferences_, GM meddling taints the game.  The GM should set up the encounters, and run them according to the rules.  He shouldn't give the enemy 50 extra hit points because it got critical'd by a daily power.




There's an element of logic in seeing something as black and white that has more nuance than that. It isn't just a matter of preference to think that a bag of 10 apples is basically the same as a bag of 40 apples, or a touch versus a ton of mustard von the sandwich ruins it if you don't like mustard.



TwoSix said:


> But that isn't really fiat.  You have a house rule that criticals do max damage plus an additional narrative effect.  You've negotiated with your players to take back some narrative authority upon certain resolution results.  It's not indie or anything, but I don't think of it as fiat.  Fiat is "Sorry, your vorpal sword can't cut off this guy's head because he's wearing armor that covers his neck."  It's the imposition of DM preference (whether in the cause of story or greater simulative "fidelity") to override a player's rules-granted authority to shape the fiction.




We didn't actually have a specific house rule. It was just that I would sometimes embellish things with description and added effects. So in a sense the "house rule" was that I had freedom to do so. Sometimes a critical miss would result in a dropped weapon; sometimes it would result in a possible hit on an ally (with another roll, of course), depending upon the situation and location of the characters. The point being, it was up to my judgment. It wasn't about me being power-hungry or a jerk, but augmenting the drama.



TwoSix said:


> I think your thesis would be stronger if you could identify what the "something" is.  To be honest, the campfire story is kind of lost on me, since I never really did that.  (I could invoke "Are you Afraid of the Dark?" on 90s era Nickelodeon, but that might just prove your point!  )  I've seen similar arguments about animation styles, especially hand-drawn versus photorealistic CGI.  Or possibly between novels and graphic novels, where in reading you have to generate your own images, but a graphic novel does it for you.  I've always found novels to be immersive, and graphic novels not to be (I generally find them a waste of money, as I read too fast for them to provide much value), but I don't think that's anything else than a product of my own style of cognition.




A lot of those examples I used up thread, or in the OP - e.g. hand-drawn animation versus CGI. I think the point of the "something" is that it isn't easily identifiable or definable...and I think that's part of the point, that as soon as you define or identify, you lock it in. "It" is an opening in consciousness, an imaginative aperture that is closed, or at least narrowed, the more "technology" intrudes. 



TwoSix said:


> See, I guess where you see marginalize, I see deemphasize.




I've used both words throughout the thread.



TwoSix said:


> And again, I think this is a function of player-type, not system.  Even in old-school games, most players I met would simply attack, or look through their magic items.  Spellcasters would look over their spells.  I've never played in games where players were always looking for chandeliers to swing on or fireplaces to push people into.




I think its both - player-type (and cognitive style) and system, which facilitate different types and styles to greater or lesser degrees. But as Marshall McLuhan said, _the medium is the message._ Technically guns don't kill people, people kill people through their intention, but guns are made to kill living organisms, including people, so the "message" is inherent in the "medium." The system (medium) and play experience (message) are, if not synonymous, then certainly entwined.



TwoSix said:


> The best way to get players to improvise, I've found, is to give them upfront knowledge of the outcome and that attempting to engage with the environment (which is really what improvise means) is their tactically most sound option.




Maybe I misunderstand what you mean but I would never want to give players knowledge of the outcome - talk about destroying drama! Maybe I don't get what you mean?



TwoSix said:


> You're right that 4e powers are reliable, so that people will default to them.  I certainly think 4e powers could be improved by adding in narrative conditions to triggers rather than a reliance on the ED part of AEDU system and reskinning.  (My own 4e hack has no encounter powers, for example).  But I've never found any other D&D system to do a better job.  When we played OSR, people just attacked, and hoped I gave them a bonus.  They told me in our last OSR session that they were bored because there was nothing for them to choose in combat, they just told me what they were doing and hoped it work.  They wanted _control._  So we're back to a (hacked) 4e.




I'm wondering if anyone ever came up with "improvised powers" - some kind of system where a player determined intended effects based upon a power/level/AEDU type grid, then roll for it. Sounds complicated but maybe worthwhile once up and running.


----------



## TwoSix

Mercurius said:


> This was a problem with 4e combat - the Grind for which numerous DMs resorted to "illusionism." Eventually folks started houseruling to give monsters less HP and more damage output, but even then the pace could be wonky.



I agree grind is a problem with 4e combat.  A 13th Age style escalation die and stronger powers that trigger on escalation die values help with that lot, I've found.



Mercurius said:


> There's an element of logic in seeing something as black and white that has more nuance than that. It isn't just a matter of preference to think that a bag of 10 apples is basically the same as a bag of 40 apples, or a touch versus a ton of mustard von the sandwich ruins it if you don't like mustard.



I think you vastly underestimate [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] if you think he sees the issue with no nuance.



Mercurius said:


> We didn't actually have a specific house rule. It was just that I would sometimes embellish things with description and added effects. So in a sense the "house rule" was that I had freedom to do so. Sometimes a critical miss would result in a dropped weapon; sometimes it would result in a possible hit on an ally (with another roll, of course), depending upon the situation and location of the characters. The point being, it was up to my judgment. It wasn't about me being power-hungry or a jerk, but augmenting the drama.



The indie play style isn't really about protecting players from jerk DMs, it's about the fact that giving the players greater authority leads to a different play experience.  Not an objectively better or worse one, just different.




Mercurius said:


> A lot of those examples I used up thread, or in the OP - e.g. hand-drawn animation versus CGI. I think the point of the "something" is that it isn't easily identifiable or definable...and I think that's part of the point, that as soon as you define or identify, you lock it in. "It" is an opening in consciousness, an imaginative aperture that is closed, or at least narrowed, the more "technology" intrudes.



I think when you replace a less detailed concept for a more detailed concept, you lose the opening to fill in those details.  But simultaneously, you gain the ability to use that more detailed concept as a building block for yet more varied concepts.  I think having both finely and coarsely grained imaginative concepts in one's personal repertoire is probably the ideal.




Mercurius said:


> I think its both - player-type (and cognitive style) and system, which facilitate different types and styles to greater or lesser degrees. But as Marshall McLuhan said, _the medium is the message._ Technically guns don't kill people, people kill people through their intention, but guns are made to kill living organisms, including people, so the "message" is inherent in the "medium." The system (medium) and play experience (message) are, if not synonymous, then certainly entwined.



Sure.  Honestly, a system that isn't pushing for a particular play experience probably isn't doing a very good job!  That's one of the concepts animating indie games, after all.  



Mercurius said:


> Maybe I misunderstand what you mean but I would never want to give players knowledge of the outcome - talk about destroying drama! Maybe I don't get what you mean?



I mean being upfront that if they push the enemy into the fire, it's going to do 6d6 damage.  If there's an edge of a cliff, getting pushed over it means a 200 ft drop.  Let them now the mechanics and probabilities of the stunt before they attempt it.



Mercurius said:


> I'm wondering if anyone ever came up with "improvised powers" - some kind of system where a player determined intended effects based upon a power/level/AEDU type grid, then roll for it. Sounds complicated but maybe worthwhile once up and running.



I've seen tables swapping damage dice for different effects, based on level and the frequency type of the power.


----------



## pemerton

Luce said:


> DMG 2e pp. 172-173 Rules for getting lost in wilderness
> PH pp86 Tracking
> In the first place to find a hidden temple the PC should have some reason to believe/suspect it is there. So they either follow some clues or try to follow the trail of somebody. The DM may be rolling the "lost" chance, but the PCs can influence the probability.
> 
> DMG pp. 97-99,157 Morale rules and their uses for bribing NPCs
> DMG pp.140  PH pp. 25 & 59 (bard) Encounter/NPC reactions
> Opening the gates to me implies either:
> 1. A dereliction of duty, resolved by the Morale rules, triggered by either a bribe or a threat.
> 2. If the NPC being contrary or not, which is a encounter reaction.
> 
> 
> While those might not be rules you like, but they are there. So lets be fair.



These seem very similar to the comparable rules in 1st ed AD&D.

In the case of the guard and the gate, there is little to no mechanical support for the PCs persuading the guard, by way of argument (be it reasoned, impassioned or both), that the gate _should_ be opened.

In the case of the wilderness temple, I think the searching rules are somewhat underdeveloped (eg if you enter a 6-mile hex are you aware of all temples in it?), but they are more robust than the social rules. If somewhat frustrating to apply for those who don't enjoy hex crawls, but youare correct that that is a matter of taste.


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> What you describe as the DM "cheating" has nothing to do with style of play, but who the DM is as a person



I don't agree with this. The example I gave was a GM changing the dungeon map not for ingame reasons but for metagame reasons.

In Gygaxian play that _is_ cheating - it invalidates the players' strategic choices. But in other playstyles - including the one I happen to prefer - it may be quite permissible, if it doesn't invalidate the players' thematic choices and in fact increases the weight and force of those choices.



Mercurius said:


> I think the main issue is how _skillfully _(or tactfully) the GM employs fiat, and for what end.



The equation of "skill" with "tact" still leads me to think that you are talking here about illusionist play - ie the GM creating an illusion that game events are unfolding for reasons to do with mechanical resolution, when they are really unfolding for reasons to do with the GM's fiat override of that mechancial resolution.


----------



## Balesir

JRRNeiklot said:


> Charm Person from 1E:  This spell will affect any single person or
> mammal it is cast upon. The creature then will regard the druid (or magic user) who cast the spell as a *trusted* friend and ally to be heeded and protected.



OK, "trusted friend and ally" - but that still leaves open a whole gamut of possibilities that I, as GM, have to pick from and that will decide the power (or uselessness) of this spell.

Contrast that with the "Charm Person" spell we used in our homebrew of the time, where casting the spell initiated a willpower battle with the target. Winning the willpower battle gave complete control of the target's actions (but not use of their skills or knowledge) as long as the link was maintained. Doing other things - particularly casting spells - would initiate a renewed willpower battle with penalties for the distractions. The result was a useful and suspenseful spell that was explicit in its effects and not overpowering in its effects.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Balesir said:


> OK, "trusted friend and ally" - but that still leaves open a whole gamut of possibilities that I, as GM, have to pick from and that will decide the power (or uselessness) of this spell.
> 
> Contrast that with the "Charm Person" spell we used in our homebrew of the time, where casting the spell initiated a willpower battle with the target. Winning the willpower battle gave complete control of the target's actions (but not use of their skills or knowledge) as long as the link was maintained. Doing other things - particularly casting spells - would initiate a renewed willpower battle with penalties for the distractions. The result was a useful and suspenseful spell that was explicit in its effects and not overpowering in its effects.




That sounds both overpowering and unnecessary.  Total control?  That's not what I would expect a "charm" spell to do.  In 1E, you get a trusted friend.  He'll do things you'd expect from your best friend.  You can't control his actions.  

Originally posted by 1e DMG: 







> "Remember that a charmed creature’s or person’s priorities are changed as regards the spell-caster, but the charmed one’s basic personality and alignment are not. The spell is not enslave person or mammal. A
> request that a charmee make itself defenseless or that he/she/it be required
> to give up a valued item or cast a valuable spell or use a charge on a valued item (especially against the charmee’s former associates or allies) could allow an immediate saving throw to see if the charm is thrown off. In like manner, a charmed figure will not necessarily tell everything he/she/it knows or draw maps of entire areas. A charmed figure can refuse a request, if such refusal is in character and will not directly cause harm to the charmer. Also, a charm spell does not substantially alter the charmee’s feelings toward the charmer’s friends and allies. The charmed person or creature will not react well to the
> charmer’s allies making suggestions like ”Ask him this question . . .” The charmee is oriented toward friendship and acceptance of the charmer,
> but this does not mean that he/she/it will put up with verbal or physical
> abuse from the charmer‘s associates."




Seems simple enough to me without being overpowered.  And it keeps the flavor of a charm spell, as opposed to a dominate spell.  I just ask myself, would I do this for my best friend - if the answer is yes, then the charmed creature does it.  If not, then he doesn't.  It ain't rocket science.


----------



## Balesir

Let me reprise a little. I wrote:


Balesir said:


> My problem is really with rules that *require* GM fiat, not because the rules don't cover a specific effect, situation or action but because the designers apparently thought that an arbitrary decision by the GM would be the best thing for the game.
> 
> I'm thinking here of:
> 
> - "Charm" type spells where the target "viewed the caster as a friend". What sort of friend? The sort of friend a lifeboatman is to a drowning sailor he's never met? The sort of friend J.R. Ewing was to his brother Bobby? The sort of friend Short Round was to Indiana Jones? What does this effect mean? The GM _*has*_ to decide, because the rules simply don't say.
> 
> <snip>



To which you replied with some points regarding what the Charm spells wording was precisely in the AD&D books in general (when I wasn't talking specifically about AD&D but of D&D style rules in general.

After this deviation you sum up your case with this:


JRRNeiklot said:


> I just ask myself, would I do this for my best friend - if the answer is yes, then the charmed creature does it.  If not, then he doesn't.  It ain't rocket science.



Indicating that you, as GM, use fiat. Which was my original point; this spell can be used in play only if the GM uses fiat decisions, based on something other than the game itself (in this case your opinion of what you might or might not do for your best friend), to adjudicate its use.

What point are you trying to make, here? You have just stated, in effect, that my original inclusion of this example of something requiring fiat adjudication was correct - so why the comments?

If your message is "GM fiat is fine - I have no problem with it" then cool - I never said you couldn't. I just said that I *do* have a problem with it - and your not having a problem with it doesn't help with that in the slightest.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Sounds like you want a game with no dm at all, then.  If the dm doesn't make decisions, what, exactly, is his job?  To memorize page numbers?  Fact is, there can't be a rule for everything that might come up in game.  Every rpg has to have the dm make an off the cuff ruling at some point, though I don't see that charm person requires very much.  4e went away from this, and that's why it failed.            
     You house rule charm person to not be charm person any more, and call it "fixed."  Regardless, you asked what sort of friend charm person referred to.  The AD&D version has hard rules for that.  It requires no more dm fiat than a dm ruling whether or not it's cloudy enough for call lightning to work, or if yelling loudly will waken a sleeping companion.  It just takes a little common sense.

Also, suppose there's no charm spell involved.  How is the dm supposed to role play a "trusted friend and ally?"  I don't think I've ever seen a hard coded rule for that in ANY rpg.


----------



## Ahnehnois

JRRNeiklot said:


> Fact is, there can't be a rule for everything that might come up in game.



Actually, there is. It's called "Rule Zero". The DM interpreting situations, making rulings, and even changing or ignoring published rules is not "fiat", it's DMing, as the rules themselves define it.

The "fiat" term is meaningless; either every word out of the DM's mouth is fiat, or none of it is.

Thus I agree with what you're saying; the DM determining the behavior of a charmed NPC is no different than the DM determining the behavior of a non-charmed NPC.


----------



## Cadence

A nod of agreement to [MENTION=717]JRRNeiklot[/MENTION] 's post #179.... especially the second paragraph.  

Similar questions go to playing (e.g.determining tactics in combat, exactly what is said, or what they're doing at any particular moment and for how long) any NPC or monster, don't they?    Doesn't the picture the DM has in their head of how the story should (or would, could, might be best to, or seem likely to) play out go in to determining those things?


----------



## Balesir

Ah, well, it was good while it lasted. Now that the lynch mob have turned up to punish those not following accepted dogma, this is likely my last post to this thread.


JRRNeiklot said:


> Sounds like you want a game with no dm at all, then.



Yep, that works just fine with the one system I have used for it. The GM functions are assigned to one person by tradition and habit, not necessity.



JRRNeiklot said:


> If the dm doesn't make decisions, what, exactly, is his job?



Of course the GM makes decisions - just as any player does. I just find it deeply unhelpful when the GM gets to make decisions about how effective the player-characters are; they still get to make decisions about what other creatures appear and what they do. Isn't that enough?



JRRNeiklot said:


> Also, suppose there's no charm spell involved.  How is the dm supposed to role play a "trusted friend and ally?"  I don't think I've ever seen a hard coded rule for that in ANY rpg.



All non-player creatures act as the GM has them act - when they are not under the direct influence of something a PC has done. If the PCs act to have an effect on them, however, the scope of that effect should, for my own preferences, be described explicitly and precisely by the game rules. That is, it should not, for my preferred play style, depend upon an arbitrary judgement by the GM. The examples I listed all do depend on such a judgement.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Balesir said:


> All non-player creatures act as the GM has them act - when they are not under the direct influence of something a PC has done. If the PCs act to have an effect on them, however, the scope of that effect should, for my own preferences, be described explicitly and precisely by the game rules. That is, it should not, for my preferred play style, depend upon an arbitrary judgement by the GM. The examples I listed all do depend on such a judgement.



Would you agree, then, that if a PC is charmed or otherwise enchanted by an NPC, that PC's behavior should likewise be explicitly dictated by the rules, and the player should not be able to control his own character?


----------



## Cadence

Balesir said:


> Ah, well, it was good while it lasted. Now that the lynch mob have turned up to punish those not following accepted dogma, this is likely my last post to this thread.




"punish", "lynch mob", and "dogma" seem pretty harsh for people just trying to get to the heart of your example and claims.  Sorry if my post added to your feeling like bailing :-(     




Balesir said:


> Of course the GM makes decisions - just as any player does. I just find it deeply unhelpful when the GM gets to make decisions about how effective the player-characters are; they still get to make decisions about what other creatures appear and what they do. Isn't that enough?




Fair enough. It never struck me that charm person was doing that... or that your house rule was the equivalent to the standard charm spell.  I guess we all have things we don't like and house rule though.

Is the difference between this and the GM setting the DCs for challenges (such as deciding what the NPCs will save is) where the GM decision comes in to play?  (Did I miss that in a previous post?)

Back to your post #168 on Illusions and monster knowledge.  Have you done in illusions for your game, or do you have a house rule to remove that problem?  Does the monster knowledge also come in to play on things like disguises as well (if the party has a great disguise, but the monster knows the thing they're disguised as shouldn't be there)?



Balesir said:


> All non-player creatures act as the GM has them act - when they are not under the direct influence of something a PC has done. If the PCs act to have an effect on them, however, the scope of that effect should, for my own preferences, be described explicitly and precisely by the game rules. That is, it should not, for my preferred play style, depend upon an arbitrary judgement by the GM. The examples I listed all do depend on such a judgement.




So how do you work (or house-rule) diplomacy or reaction checks where the descriptors are similar to the old charm person?   (If that's not "direct influence" then why does the charm person need to be?)


----------



## Balesir

Ahnehnois said:


> Would you agree, then, that if a PC is charmed or otherwise enchanted by an NPC, that PC's behavior should likewise be explicitly dictated by the rules, and the player should not be able to control his own character?



Yep.


----------



## pemerton

JRRNeiklot said:


> Sounds like you want a game with no dm at all, then.  If the dm doesn't make decisions, what, exactly, is his job?  To memorize page numbers?



I agree with [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s reply to this.

And as I said in reply to someone else's similar comment quite a bit upthread, the notion of "making decisions" is underanalysed. Here are a range of decidions that have to be made in a typical RPG session:

* Decisions about backstory for PCs;

* Decisions about backstory for PCs' friends and family;

* Decisions about backstory for the rest of the gameworld;

* Decisions about what is happening _here and now_ - who meets whom, and what mood they are in when they meet;

* Decisions about actions taken by PCs, and the outcomes of those actions;

* Decisions about actions taken by NPCs, and the outcomes of those actions.​
Balesir is talking about the interaction between the last two categories of decision. Even if, in certain circumstances at least, a player has more authority in respect of those decisions than the GM, it hardly follows that there is nothing else for the GM to be deciding. Apart from anything else, there might be another, uncharmed NPC present here and now.



JRRNeiklot said:


> It requires no more dm fiat than a dm ruling whether or not it's cloudy enough for call lightning to work, or if yelling loudly will waken a sleeping companion.



I'm 99% confident that these would also fall into Balesir's "dislke of fiat" basket. They certainly do for me.

When I GM (and when I play) I want the players' choices to determine whether or not their PCs succeed at dealing with the challenges that confront them. Every time I, as GM, have to make a decision about how effective the players' actions are, I am undermining the contribution made by their choices and making the outcome a matter of my choices.



Cadence said:


> So how do you work (or house-rule) diplomacy or reaction checks where the descriptors are similar to the old charm person?   (If that's not "direct influence" then why does the charm person need to be?)



Balesir can answer this for his own case. In my case, via "intent and task": the players indicate what they are hoping to achieve via having their PCs engage with the NPC, then checks are made, and if the players succceed they achieve their intent.



Cadence said:


> Is the difference between this and the GM setting the DCs for challenges (such as deciding what the NPCs will save is) where the GM decision comes in to play?



The difference is between posing a challenge and dealing with it. The GM's adjudication of the charm spell doesn't pose a challenge that the playes respond to by deploying further resources. (This contrasts with, say, a skill challenge, which has exactly that character - the players don't realise their intent until the challenge is successfully completed, and in the meantime they _are_ deploying further resources to deal with the unfolding challenges of the GM's ongoing narration of outcomes of individual checks.)


----------



## Aenghus

To create a flawed analogy, the failure mode of DM fiat is the "divine right of DM's" which leads to pesky treasonous players prattling on about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the rule of law not of men.

DM fiat without moderation by setting, precedent, player expectations, "common sense" or ,yes, rules has produced the worst games I have ever seen (briefly). DM fiat is the primary hammer of railroading DMs, frustrated novelists, and referees who just don't want the players to mess with their nice clean gameworld. So it's unsurprising that the term carries negative emotional connotations for me.

I find unmoderated DM fiat only appropriate for surreal settings and/or horror games. Most game genres need to be understandable to the players so they can act within it in a reasonably reliable way. A world that only exists in the DM's head is IMO too inaccessible for most players. So in the interests of a playable game, DM fiat is moderated by consistency concerns, precedent established by previous rulings, player expectations and the rules of the game. 

I think the vast majority of DM's will admit that a certain amount of DM fiat is needed to keep the game moving. That "certain amount" is a subjective quantity, that will vary from game to game, campaign to campaign, decision to decision due to many factors, including player preferences. I use DM fiat mostly for setting details and throwaway NPCs, and as sparingly as possible for anything seriously affecting player actions.

Also, making decisions is tiring. Making DM fiat the primary mechanic IMO makes too much work for the average DM, and makes lots of standard PC actions into exercises in negotiation, bogging the game down. And I think rules should be aimed at the average DM, who needs all the help he or she can get, and doesn't a bunch of extra work making unnecessary decisions.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Mercurius said:
			
		

> I think the OSR has less to do with rules, though, than it does with a feeling - which includes presentation and the basic assumptions of the game. One of the problems with 3e, in my opinion, is that there was no simple, basic game that could be played without the density of rules that edition (and now Pathfinder) became known for. Castles & Crusades was an attempt to create that, and in my mind combines the best of "old school flavor" and "new school design," although without the production values and support that jaded D&D players of the 21st century have become accustomed to (plus the name itself implies something more medieval than fantastical).




I mentioned at the beginning of this thread that I was working on my own OSR/OGL game that was a mix of old school design with new school mechanics.

I've now released it to EN World for playtest.

You'll have to let me know what you think in terms of hitting the mark, rules & concept wise.


----------



## Sunseeker

Aenghus said:


> To create a flawed analogy, the failure mode of DM fiat is the "divine right of DM's" which leads to pesky treasonous players prattling on about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the rule of law not of men.
> 
> DM fiat without moderation by setting, precedent, player expectations, "common sense" or ,yes, rules has produced the worst games I have ever seen (briefly). DM fiat is the primary hammer of railroading DMs, frustrated novelists, and referees who just don't want the players to mess with their nice clean gameworld. So it's unsurprising that the term carries negative emotional connotations for me.



This hits the nail on the head for me.  I actually quit a game a few days ago after ONE HOUR of play because of this sort of DM behavior, with a heaping helping of other detrimental behaviors.



> I find unmoderated DM fiat only appropriate for surreal settings and/or horror games. Most game genres need to be understandable to the players so they can act within it in a reasonably reliable way. A world that only exists in the DM's head is IMO too inaccessible for most players. So in the interests of a playable game, DM fiat is moderated by consistency concerns, precedent established by previous rulings, player expectations and the rules of the game.



This is precisely why I leave my gameworlds rather vague.  Yes, cities and kingdoms exist, they have certain alignments, desires and motivations, but generally speaking these are fairly fluid and with a rare exception, adaptable to player input.  

I write stories for a hobby, I do transcription for a living.  There is a time and a place for the author to get exactly what they want, and that time and place by and large isn't a group-based game.



> I think the vast majority of DM's will admit that a certain amount of DM fiat is needed to keep the game moving. That "certain amount" is a subjective quantity, that will vary from game to game, campaign to campaign, decision to decision due to many factors, including player preferences. I use DM fiat mostly for setting details and throwaway NPCs, and as sparingly as possible for anything seriously affecting player actions.



I tend to run a "Gandalf" in my games.  They're a knowledgeable, sort of oddball who will lend players direction, wander off on their own when the party doesn't really need them, and basically be my "voice" when players do certain things, but otherwise they'll simply tag along and make themselves useful without stealing the party's thunder.



> Also, making decisions is tiring. Making DM fiat the primary mechanic IMO makes too much work for the average DM, and makes lots of standard PC actions into exercises in negotiation, bogging the game down. And I think rules should be aimed at the average DM, who needs all the help he or she can get, and doesn't a bunch of extra work making unnecessary decisions.



Oh dear lord yes.  The DM already has so much to do behind the screen, I've got absolutely no desire to make decisions or take actions on behalf of my player(without their consent of course).


----------



## Ahnehnois

Aenghus said:


> I find unmoderated DM fiat only appropriate for surreal settings and/or horror games.



That strikes me as about as extreme of a straw man as it gets. Why would a DM ever be completely unmoderated by some considerations or other?

I would think, though, that horror and surrealism would involve stricter reading of rules systems, than, say adventure, naturalistic play, and thematic drama, all of which require a very active DM because the world implied by the D&D rules is nonsensical and counter to almost everything we would want to do.


----------



## ExploderWizard

pemerton said:


> Unlimited DM power, even to the extent of fudging monster hit points so as to keep them alive, or fiating player attacks so as to stop them killing "special" NPCs, is a product of AD&D 2nd ed rules texts (and similar era rules text in White Wolf books - the so-called "golden rule").




Those are not rules per se, more like terrible advice than anything else. I believe suggestions such as those did the most to put forth the idea that all DMs engaged in illusionism and regularly cheated to ensure desired outcomes. 



pemerton said:


> I'm not very good at GMing Gyagaxian D&D, and not all that keen on playing it either. But I would prefer it to 2nd ed style based on unlimited GM power in the interests of "the story".




I do really enjoy Gygaxian D&D but the 2E style you are referring to disinterests me as well. Why play at all if your decisions and actions are meaningless? 



pemerton said:


> I prefer a game in which the players can make meaningful choices as to how their PCs engage the gameworld without relying upon the GM as the sole mediator of whether or not those choices have an effect - and if so, what effect - on the ingame fictional situation. I have two main reasons for this preference: (i) I want the players to play a major role in shaping the outcome of ingame events; (ii) I do not want the conflict of interset, as GM, of having to both establish the adversity that confronts the PCs, _and_ deciding whether or not they are able to overcome it. For me, systems which do not satisfy constraint (ii) - ie systems in which the GM decides to "allow" things or not based on whether or not they are "good for the story" - are insipid and uninspiring. Whether or not they involve roleplaying, they all fall under the broad notion of _the GM deciding what story will be told_.




Here we disagree a bit. (surprise!! ).  In the D&D that I run, the players ultimately decide what adversity they wish to overcome AND their odds of overcoming it based on their own approach. While it is true that I populate the game world with 'things' other than the PCs, I do not get to pre-decide the what and when of some of those things resulting in adversity for the players. There is no conflict of interest because I don't know what adversity the players will drum up for themselves or what plans they might come up with to handle it. That is the fun of the game for me as a DM, being just as curious about what might happen as the players. I do a good deal of prep to ensure that multiple avenues of adventure are open for the players to explore. It is my job to provide the players with information and opportunity to seek adventure. The players choose their own destiny. Does this mean that everything is static and no events of any importance happen? Not at all. The world is always in motion and individuals and groups take steps to advance their agendas. The players may cross paths with many of them in their adventures thus getting entangled with ongoing plots hatched by these entities. This often leads to events and other opportunities that wouldn't have existed without player involvement. Thus the players can have a major impact on the world via their decisions and actions, none of which require complex resolution mechanics to bring about. 

I do not play to tell a story, and therefore don't really care if one gets told or not.


----------



## Yora

Just wondering. Did anyone bring up the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming by Matthew Finch yet?

I think particularly for people unacustomed to rules-light games it does a fairly decent job in summarizing and explaining the difference in actual gameplay that result from the different rules of the old TSR games and retro-clones and the modern d20 games.


----------



## Ahnehnois

ExploderWizard said:


> Why play at all if your decisions and actions are meaningless?



What if, instead, some of your decisions and actions are meaningless, and some aren't, but you don't know which ones or why? And as a player you can't know the result of an action in advance, but can make some educated guesses?

Then, as a player, you're merely making decisions on the same level that the character is.


----------



## Mercurius

I remain somewhat flabbergasted by the notion that any degree of DM fiat or employment of Rule Zero is "cheating" and tantamount to railroading a game.

This is where I see the logic fail. Sort of like saying all cloudy days are alike, whether we're talking a stray cirrus wisp or gray overcast, and thus "the sunny day is ruined" (not to mention that you need gray days every so often to remember what a sunny day is like, but that's only tangentially related in that the clouds end up augmenting the clear sky).

I use fiat sparingly, and only when (I feel) it augments the play experience of everyone concerned. I don't "cheat." Actually, if we want to RAW, Rule Zero is not cheating because its implied in ALL editions of D&D. Actually, it isn't implied - its outright stated. 

In a way I see fiat/Rule Zero as being akin to the _Wish _spell. It isn't about using it in an overpowering sense that completely upsets the game, but as a way of accomplishing something that otherwise couldn't be accomplished.

I'd also question the idea that a DM can "cheat." As Rule Zero is part of the RAW, this doesn't make sense. A DM can, however, make poor decisions that de-stabilize game play, betray player trust, or otherwise mar the play experience. It is less a matter of right or wrong, or black or white, and more a matter of what makes sense contextually, and what the DM ultimately serves. I see the DM as ultimately serving to facilitate enjoyment, so Rule Zero is an escape clause when a certain kind of intervention would increase enjoyment. 

There are different ways to play D&D, but using that statement to defend one's preferred style while calling Rule Zero "cheating" seems contradictory. It seems that those who see Rule Zero (or fiat, if there's a difference) as cheating can only say so if they house rule it out of the RAW, so then it is only cheating in their house rule version of D&D. Hey, that's fine, but let's call a spade a spade!


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone

Ah, Rule Zero.  It's critical to the game, since the game can't cover everything and the GM must be able to improvise and adjust on the fly, and also overrule the rules in instances where rule-based outcome simply wouldn't fit into the game being played.

But Rule Zero should also be considered in light of Rule One, which is that the RPG is a social compact between GM and players.  The players give the GM tremendous power over how the game is played; in my opinion the GM's part of that contract is to ensure that GM rulings are transparent and predictable to the greatest extent possible.  The GM has to retain the players' trust.  When that compact fails, Rule Zero starts to look like GM fiat and the RPG a dictatorship, which I submit is never what is intended.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> But Rule Zero should also be considered in light of Rule One, which is that the RPG is a social compact between GM and players.  The players give the GM tremendous power over how the game is played; in my opinion the GM's part of that contract is to ensure that GM rulings are transparent and predictable to the greatest extent possible.  The GM has to retain the players' trust.  When that compact fails, Rule Zero starts to look like GM fiat and the RPG a dictatorship, which I submit is never what is intended.



I don't know that transparent and predictable are necessarily the terms. The conceit here is that you give the DM dominion over your shared fantasy, with the expectation that the resulting game will be enjoyable for all. There are a lot of ways of achieving that.

I think the DM's job is to put the players in the characters' shoes. If the characters feel strong, the players should be looking at their character sheets thinking how huge those numbers are. If the characters feel fear, the players should be afraid that the game will go badly for them. If the characters face a tough choice where they can't know the outcome, so should the players. I think this is best accomplished by a very careful and thoughtful DM who runs a game that the players don't understand until it's over, because just like any other form of fiction, if it becomes predictable, there's no reason to play it out.


----------



## Minigiant

It all comes down to playstyle to me.

For every player who feels free i to open space of rulings, nonmechanical imagination, and less rules... there's another player paralyzed by the lack of hard structure and another who is it the middle who like the freedom but needs to ask two dozen questions before doing anything.

For every DM freeed by openness and lack of rulings there is another crippled by the workload.

Then there's the rule-genre thing.


----------



## Aenghus

Ahnehnois said:


> That strikes me as about as extreme of a straw man as it gets. Why would a DM ever be completely unmoderated by some considerations or other?




IMO dependence on fiat is a high effort style, like tightrope walking without a safety net. Maintaining consistency requires constant effort, as does respecting precedent.

Being even a little bit inconsistent means logical flaws appear, and repeated inconsistency means the flaws build up over time.  Not following reasonable precedents means players have difficulty figuring out the game, which makes many players disengage emotionally or play 20 questions before trying anything important. 

Personally I prefer  high values for consistency, precedent and information provision to players. YMMV.



> I would think, though, that horror and surrealism would involve stricter reading of rules systems, than, say adventure, naturalistic play, and thematic drama, all of which require a very active DM because the world implied by the D&D rules is nonsensical and counter to almost everything we would want to do.




The surreal settings I intend to refer to generally place much less value on consistency and precedent, fluid dreamlike settings with less cause and effect and/or unreliable physical laws. Horror settings restrict player information or outright lie to them, make pc actions less reliable, and railroad and deprotagonise players in order to produce a horrifying experience for the players. I hate horror, so YMMV. 

D&D settings are typically pseudo-medieval pastiches, that work like the real world apart from the fantastic elements, which are less prevalent at low levels in most settings. If anything, D&D settings work too much like the real world socially, but that's a compromise for accessibility to players and to make the worlds like the fairy tales players remember from childhood.

A strange world with different but reliable physical laws, so cause and effect applies, does require lots more explanation and adherence to rules. I find mid to high level D&D often falls in this category.


----------



## pemerton

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Ah, Rule Zero.  It's critical to the game, since the game can't cover everything



I think this necessity can be exaggerated. A good general resolution system can cover everything: even if it's as simple as "Roll a d6, and if it comes up 6 the player gets to narrate his/her desired outcome, and otherwise the GM gets to narrate the PC's failure to achieve his/her intent".

It's true that these sorts of general resolution systems do not simulate or represent any in-fiction causal process, but such simulation is not a necessary condition of being an effective resolution system.



Ahnehnois said:


> What if, instead, some of your decisions and actions are meaningless, and some aren't
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Then, as a player, you're merely making decisions on the same level that the character is.



That is certainly one way to play an RPG. It just happens not to be a way that I prefer to play, either as GM or player.



Mercurius said:


> I remain somewhat flabbergasted by the notion that any degree of DM fiat or employment of Rule Zero is "cheating" and tantamount to railroading a game.
> 
> This is where I see the logic fail. Sort of like saying all cloudy days are alike, whether we're talking a stray cirrus wisp or gray overcast, and thus "the sunny day is ruined"



As [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, there is no "logic fail". There is a statement of preference (somewhat generalised to an identifiable playstyle).

Although by talking about "any degree of DM fiat" you are leaving important distinctions unanalysed - such as the distinctions between establishing backstory, framing scenes, and determining outcomes of declared actions.



Mercurius said:


> I'd also question the idea that a DM can "cheat." As Rule Zero is part of the RAW, this doesn't make sense.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> There are different ways to play D&D, but using that statement to defend one's preferred style while calling Rule Zero "cheating" seems contradictory. It seems that those who see Rule Zero (or fiat, if there's a difference) as cheating can only say so if they house rule it out of the RAW, so then it is only cheating in their house rule version of D&D. Hey, that's fine, but let's call a spade a spade!



I believe that I was the poster who introduced the terminology of "cheating" upthread. And I stated that, playing Gygaxian D&D, changing the dungeon maps or contents without some ingame explanation being available would be cheating (with the ingame explanation, it might be good GMing or highly adversarial GMing, depending on further context).

If you are playing a version of D&D in which that sort of GM transformation of backstory is not cheating, fine - from that we can infer that you're not playing Gygaxian D&D.

Judging from their posts on this thread plus other parts of their posting history that I'm familiar with, I think that the two posters on this thread who play Gygaxian D&D are [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION]. Certainy not me. And not [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] either, at least judging from posts in this and other threads.


----------



## Mercurius

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> Ah, Rule Zero....Rule One




I agree on your distinctions, Olgar. 



pemerton said:


> As  @_*TwoSix*_  pointed out upthread, there is no "logic fail". There is a statement of preference (somewhat generalised to an identifiable playstyle).




But what about the analogy of clouds? I'm not saying its a "logic fail" to not like fiat or rule zero at all in your campaign; I'm saying its a logic fail to make no distinction between mild and judicious use of it, and excessive power-mongering. I've found that there is a huge difference.



pemerton said:


> Although by talking about "any degree of DM fiat" you are leaving important distinctions unanalysed - such as the distinctions between establishing backstory, framing scenes, and determining outcomes of declared actions.




Fair enough. However, rule zero could be applied to any context, but it is less likely the more it impacts player autonomy.



pemerton said:


> I believe that I was the poster who introduced the terminology of "cheating" upthread. And I stated that, playing Gygaxian D&D, changing the dungeon maps or contents without some ingame explanation being available would be cheating (with the ingame explanation, it might be good GMing or highly adversarial GMing, depending on further context).




I don't think the DM has to explain that unless the players demand it (if they notice it at all). But I don't see it as problematic unless the players notice and are bothered by it.

But I agree with you that a DM should offer an explanation for changing something..._if _the players notice. If they don't, well, what's the harm? Assuming the DM is doing it for the right reasons, that is! (Fun for all).



pemerton said:


> If you are playing a version of D&D in which that sort of GM transformation of backstory is not cheating, fine - from that we can infer that you're not playing Gygaxian D&D.




By "Gygaxian D&D" you mean D&D as Gary Gygax ran it, probably not. But if you mean a specific edition of D&D, as we discussed up thread, _all _versions of D&D (afaik) had some kind of rule zero.



pemerton said:


> Judging from their posts on this thread plus other parts of their posting history that I'm familiar with, I think that the two posters on this thread who play Gygaxian D&D are  @_*ExploderWizard*_  and  @_*Libramarian*_ . Certainy not me. And not  @_*Mercurius*_  either, at least judging from posts in this and other threads.




From the way you describe it, I would agree. But "Gygaxian D&D" is your term. If you mean "old school D&D" then it might not be so clear to me.

I don't really identify with any label of what kind of D&D I play. I just play D&D!


----------



## pemerton

Mercurius said:


> But what about the analogy of clouds? I'm not saying its a "logic fail" to not like fiat or rule zero at all in your campaign; I'm saying its a logic fail to make no distinction between mild and judicious use of it, and excessive power-mongering. I've found that there is a huge difference.



For me, this goes to the issue of analysis.

I personaly don't find the contrast between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" helpful. For me, the useful distinctions are between different domains of gameplay or - which for me comes to the same thing - different ways in which content is contributed to the shared fiction.

Backstory, scene-framing, outcomes of action resolution: these are the categories that I think in (not invented by me - I'm under the influence of Ron Edwards here), and I think the GM has a different relationship to each of them (and likewise the other players).


----------



## S'mon

pemerton said:


> Also, how does one play an Excalibur-like game using Moldvay Basic?




Start everyone at 10,000 XP, all PCs are Fighters, Morale rules apply to PCs? 

But yeah, I agree with you (unsurprisingly). I love Moldvay for picaresque swords & sorcery, with frequent bathos - Thieves' World, or Lankhmar if you don't know whether your PC is 
Fafhrd or one of his short-lived rivals. When I tried to use 4e for picaresque sandboxing it 
quickly transformed into Epic Fantasy.


----------



## Mercurius

S'mon said:


> Start everyone at 10,000 XP, all PCs are Fighters, Morale rules apply to PCs?




Or just play Pendragon.


----------



## S'mon

Mercurius said:


> Or just play Pendragon.




Pendragon =/= Moldvay Basic. Fail.


----------



## MJS

I am the Dungeon Master. All who enter here are my bitches. 
Choose a safe word and have a seat.


----------



## Mercurius

S'mon said:


> Pendragon =/= Moldvay Basic. Fail.




Thank you, Master of the Obvious. Somebody have a case of the Mondays?


----------



## ExploderWizard

Ahnehnois said:


> What if, instead, some of your decisions and actions are meaningless, and some aren't, but you don't know which ones or why? And as a player you can't know the result of an action in advance, but can make some educated guesses?
> 
> Then, as a player, you're merely making decisions on the same level that the character is.




Almost all decisions and actions should have meaning. The importance of that meaning may vary wildly. The decision to go East or West at the bottom of a staircase has an important meaning to the characters but the players probably won't be aware of that importance when making that decision. Some very important decisions will be or can be made blindly if the players do not have or seek information before making those decisions. I like to provide as much information as possible and reward those who seek more out. The actual decisions made using gained information won't actually be transparent but at least they will be somewhat more informed.


----------



## Manbearcat

I'd like to take a quick look at the 4e Healing Surge.  Obviously this is a "new thing" as it didn't exist prior to 4e.  Mechanically, it is a unit defined as "1/4 of your maximum HP".  As it interacts with the sytem you have (i) a number per day (PC build choices) which unlock latent HP, (ii) unlockable during (short/extended) rests up to your max HS/day, (iii) unlockable in combat only when specified by a triggering feature/power.

Now what is this thing and how does it relate to the question posed at the outset of this thread?  It is clearly not a "unit of latent meat."  Within the scope of noncombat conflict resolution, what could loss of a Healing Surge mean?  Could it mean morale loss?  Mental anguish?  Embarassment?  Losing your cool?  Shame?  Rotten trail rations?  Having the wind knocked out of you?  Bewilderment or disorientation?  Exhaustion?  Dehydration?  Starvation?  Asphyxiation?  Tweaked ankle?  Infection?  The flu?  Seasickness?  The frustration and urgency of reaching into your quiver for an arrow and finding only a few remaining?  Getting hopelessly lost?

If the above is true, then does this amorphous, elusive "thing" expand or contract the conceptual narrative space?  Does it open or close the imagination?


----------



## Umbran

pemerton said:


> I personaly don't find the contrast between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" helpful. For me, the useful distinctions are between different domains of gameplay or - which for me comes to the same thing - different ways in which content is contributed to the shared fiction.




But the contrast should still be valuable within each domain.  And, from there, you have some point where the contrast is still valid in aggregate - a place where someone is so excessive in one or more domains that they are simply excessive overall.  



> Backstory, scene-framing, outcomes of action resolution: these are the categories that I think in




If your chosen framework makes the statements of others less useful... that's kind of your own problem, isn't it?  I mean, it is your choice to restrict yourself to that framework.  It doesn't make him wrong - it just means you need a translation step between frameworks.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Manbearcat said:


> ...
> If the above is true, then does this amorphous, elusive "thing" expand or contract the conceptual narrative space?  Does it open or close the imagination?



I suspect that it might seem open for a while, until the players started to get the sense that it didn't really matter what they interpreted the amorphous thing as being since the mechanical effects of losing the resource are always the same.

That's pretty much how hit points in general went for us. First it was the generic "you deal five damage". Then it was a range of imaginative "you slash this and dodge there and trip him and blood spurts out etc. etc.". Then it was "oh, what the hell, you deal five damage".

Some ambiguity is good (for example, it's fine that a Knowledge skill could refer to book learning or practical experience), but it's important that each mechanical element have some real-world meaning that could be concisely and cogently explained to a layman, and that the ambiguity doesn't go too far.


----------



## TwoSix

Umbran said:


> But the contrast should still be valuable within each domain.  And, from there, you have some point where the contrast is still valid in aggregate - a place where someone is so excessive in one or more domains that they are simply excessive overall.
> 
> If your chosen framework makes the statements of others less useful... that's kind of your own problem, isn't it?  I mean, it is your choice to restrict yourself to that framework.  It doesn't make him wrong - it just means you need a translation step between frameworks.



The problem is that describing the issue as between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" isn't a framework at all.  There's nothing to translate or analyze there to make the statement useful.  It's a Goldilocks measurement.  I mean, I get that [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] thinks you need some fiat, but not too much fiat, or else the players might find out.  But I don't know why he thinks that, or where he draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little".


----------



## Ahnehnois

TwoSix said:


> The problem is that describing the issue as between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" isn't a framework at all.  There's nothing to translate or analyze there to make the statement useful.  It's a Goldilocks measurement.  I mean, I get that [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] thinks you need some fiat, but not too much fiat, or else the players might find out.  But I don't know why he thinks that, or where he draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little".



Which is why "fiat" isn't a meaningful term. It's basically just DMing that you don't like.

If a player kills an NPC that he hates and the DM spares him via some deus ex machina, it's "fiat", and the player has been deprived of his "protagonism". If the PC fails a save against a SOD and the DM spares him, it's not, because the player got what he wanted. In truth, the death or lack thereof of any character was always a choice the DM made, one which is not determined by but merely informed by the rules.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ahnehnois said:


> I suspect that it might seem open for a while, until the players started to get the sense that it didn't really matter what they interpreted the amorphous thing as being since the mechanical effects of losing the resource are always the same.
> 
> That's pretty much how hit points in general went for us. First it was the generic "you deal five damage". Then it was a range of imaginative "you slash this and dodge there and trip him and blood spurts out etc. etc.". Then it was "oh, what the hell, you deal five damage".
> 
> Some ambiguity is good (for example, it's fine that a Knowledge skill could refer to book learning or practical experience), but it's important that each mechanical element have some real-world meaning that could be concisely and cogently explained to a layman, and that the ambiguity doesn't go too far.




This seems to be general discontent with D&D Fortune in the Middle mechanical resolution:fictional positioning association/mapping; the "how close does this mechanic hew to simulation of process as I understand it in the real world and make its own internal association." While I understand your concerns here (they are well documented), it is tangential. It is, of course, related to the "cognitive styles" factor in this analysis, which I invoked early on. However, I'm not concerned with immersion here. I'm trying to pin down the nature of mechanics that constitute an "expanding of the imagination" versus those that "contract the imagination" which is what appears to be at the heart of the OP's premise. 

Classic Impressionist painters such as Monet, Renoir, Dali obviously leave the association between their work and reality extremely malleable. However, it would be a stretch to say that their work is not deeply on the expansive side of the "imagination continuum."


----------



## Ahnehnois

ExploderWizard said:


> Almost all decisions and actions should have meaning. The importance of that meaning may vary wildly. The decision to go East or West at the bottom of a staircase has an important meaning to the characters but the players probably won't be aware of that importance when making that decision. Some very important decisions will be or can be made blindly if the players do not have or seek information before making those decisions. I like to provide as much information as possible and reward those who seek more out. The actual decisions made using gained information won't actually be transparent but at least they will be somewhat more informed.



If the players are choosing the East or West stairs, many things are possible. Maybe the East and West converge at the same place and the choice is a meaningless bit of flavor. Maybe one leads to a death trap and the other to unguarded treasure. Maybe the DM prepares one set of encounters, and reality will place them in whichever direction the players go because he doesn't have time to prepare things and not use them.

Maybe there are subtle sensory cues that suggest one way is better than the other. Maybe there is a riddle or bit of symbolism embedded in the choice. Maybe there is information out there but the PCs have to search for it. Maybe whatever information the PCs receive is conflicting. Maybe it's wrong.

There are tons of choices the player may make, and tons of outcomes in the game world, and very complex interactions between the two. I find that the level of influence the players have over their characters' fates is something that needs to be carefully titrated in order to convey the appropriate tone of game the DM is trying to run.


----------



## TwoSix

Ahnehnois said:


> Which is why "fiat" isn't a meaningful term. It's basically just DMing that you don't like.
> 
> If a player kills an NPC that he hates and the DM spares him via some deus ex machina, it's "fiat", and the player has been deprived of his "protagonism". If the PC fails a save against a SOD and the DM spares him, it's not, because the player got what he wanted. In truth, the death or lack thereof of any character was always a choice the DM made, one which is not determined by but merely informed by the rules.



If I were to try to give an objective definition, I would say "fiat" is any DM determination as to the resolution of a player's action that doesn't invoke the resolution rules.  I would say both your examples are fiat, personally.  If the hated NPC comes back later in the game because of campaign machinations, I think that's kosher.  If it's just "Haha, I didn't die, I'm immune to iocane powder because training", that's more fiat.

Not that fiat is inherently bad.  Some games are almost all fiat, after all.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Manbearcat said:


> This seems to be general discontent with D&D Fortune in the Middle mechanical resolution:fictional positioning association/mapping; the "how close does this mechanic hew to simulation of process as I understand it in the real world and make its own internal association." While I understand your concerns here (they are well documented), it is tangential. It is, of course, related to the "cognitive styles" factor in this analysis, which I invoked early on. However, I'm not concerned with immersion here. I'm trying to pin down the nature of mechanics that constitute an "expanding of the imagination" versus those that "contract the imagination" which is what appears to be at the heart of the OP's premise.



Well, there's a balance here. The human mind is only so creative. By your logic, would simply resolving all actions by rolling a d20 and having them succeed on a result of 10 or higher not encourage imagination? Ignore all those rules. Seems like it would.

Thing is, limitations breed creativity. To me, the limitations worth talking about are the ones that enforce a sense of real physical laws or the ones that keep PCs from becoming too powerful in the game, because they serve some concrete purpose, and give players a framework to imagine around. Too many of those limits, and players' imaginations are constrained. Too few, and the game is so vague it's difficult for the players to connect to it (and thus come up with anything).

Conversely, a daily use limitation (like a healing surge) doesn't serve any concrete purpose that I've ever made made aware of. It's simply a limitation for the sake of limitations. Not helpful.



> Classic Impressionist painters such as Monet, Renoir, Dali obviously leave the association between their work and reality extremely malleable. However, it would be a stretch to say that their work is not deeply on the expansive side of the "imagination continuum."D



First time I've ever heard D&D compared to surreal art.


----------



## Ahnehnois

TwoSix said:


> If I were to try to give an objective definition, I would say "fiat" is any DM determination as to the resolution of a player's action that doesn't invoke the resolution rules.  I would say both your examples are fiat, personally.



Well, it is invoking a rule (Rule Zero), so there's a contradiction there.

Or you can look at it another way and simply have the DM rationalize every move using the rules. After all, he has control over so many things that it's hard to imagine something that couldn't be done by the book. Who says the NPC didn't have Death Ward on him? Nothing prevents a DM from adding on things like that at the last minute. Contingent spells? Handy healing potions? A convenient +10 circumstance bonus for [insert made-up reason]? Is it any less "fiat-y" if the DM makes something up using mechanics than not using them? There's no reason why some deity watching over the situation couldn't just use his at-will wish spells to force any outcome the DM wants (the literal deus ex machina), while avoiding your literal definition. And that isn't even unreasonable for a some styles of campaign; one could argue that the mythological Hercules pretty much had this going on all the time.

Personally, I'd rather be a little more subtle.


----------



## billd91

TwoSix said:


> The problem is that describing the issue as between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" isn't a framework at all.  There's nothing to translate or analyze there to make the statement useful.  It's a Goldilocks measurement.  I mean, I get that [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] thinks you need some fiat, but not too much fiat, or else the players might find out.  But I don't know why he thinks that, or where he draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little".




Of course, you don't know where Mercurius draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little" fiat. You're not him. The judgment how much fiat is correct is subjective. And how much is the right amount will vary from player to player, group to group, and sometimes even session to session with the same group. This is one of the reasons that excessively doctrinaire approaches to RPGs and styles of play strike me as problematic. You just end up throwing more obstacles in the path of having a good time with the game than you need to.


----------



## TwoSix

Ahnehnois said:


> Conversely, a daily use limitation (like a healing surge) doesn't serve any concrete purpose that I've ever made made aware of. It's simply a limitation for the sake of limitations. Not helpful.



I do think that, broadly, daily limitations are actively harmful to the game.  What it is about sleep that makes it magically restorative of pretty much everything?  I'd much rather see spell load outs balanced by the fact they can only be restored between _adventures_, with enough downtime required to make the concept of a 15 min working day obsolete.


----------



## TwoSix

billd91 said:


> Of course, you don't know where Mercurius draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little" fiat. You're not him. The judgment how much fiat is correct is subjective. And how much is the right amount will vary from player to player, group to group, and sometimes even session to session with the same group. This is one of the reasons that excessively doctrinaire approaches to RPGs and styles of play strike me as problematic. You just end up throwing more obstacles in the path of having a good time with the game than you need to.



Well yes, of course.  But if he doesn't take the time to explain what makes it good or bad _for him_, how can I understand what he's talking about, and use it in a way to make my game better?  I mean, shouldn't the goal of these discussion be to say "When I play X way, with players who like Y, this concept works and this one doesn't"?  It has nothing to do with telling anyone how to _play,_ it's how to find terms so that we discuss with a common language.


----------



## Manbearcat

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, there's a balance here. The human mind is only so creative. By your logic, would simply resolving all actions by rolling a d20 and having them succeed on a result of 10 or higher not encourage imagination? Ignore all those rules. Seems like it would.




Not "my logic". I didn't establish a premise nor did I pose an answer. Neither is it rhetorical device. I'm legitimately posing a question to focus the issue and refine the analysis of D&D mechanics and their relation to some quality of "imagination expansion/contraction. My rejoinder to the original premise was the "cognitive style" analysis well upthread. I'm just trying to get an evaluation of a singular mechanic within the confines of the proposition outlined in the OP (and expanded upon throughout). 



Ahnehnois said:


> First time I've ever heard D&D compared to surreal art.




Perhaps so. However, we have a metric here that we're evaluating (of which the OP invoked); "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination". I was just trying to pin down its boundaries. If someone posits that Fortune in the Middle mechanics (which require association to "game reality" due to their malleable nature) yields a net loss in the evaluation of "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination", I think a comparison to the work of Monet, Renoir, Dali is apt as their work is willfully malleable such that that association to reality by the audience is a requirement.


----------



## TwoSix

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, it is invoking a rule (Rule Zero), so there's a contradiction there.
> 
> Or you can look at it another way and simply have the DM rationalize every move using the rules. After all, he has control over so many things that it's hard to imagine something that couldn't be done by the book. Who says the NPC didn't have Death Ward on him? Nothing prevents a DM from adding on things like that at the last minute. Contingent spells? Handy healing potions? A convenient +10 circumstance bonus for [insert made-up reason]? Is it any less "fiat-y" if the DM makes something up using mechanics than not using them? There's no reason why some deity watching over the situation couldn't just use his at-will wish spells to force any outcome the DM wants (the literal deus ex machina), while avoiding your literal definition. And that isn't even unreasonable for a some styles of campaign; one could argue that the mythological Hercules pretty much had this going on all the time.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather be a little more subtle.



I would say that if the DM decides that the NPC has spell X on after the PC chooses which ability to use, in order to specifically counteract it, than the DM is being overly, excessively fiat-y.  

But yes, if you invoke Rule Zero as a real rule, then my definition needs work.


----------



## Ahnehnois

Manbearcat said:


> Not "my logic". I didn't establish a premise nor did I pose an answer.



Fair enough. May have overreached on that one.



> I'm just trying to get an evaluation of a singular mechanic within the confines of the proposition outlined in the OP (and expanded upon throughout).



I don't think that particular mechanical paradigm works.



> However, we have a metric here that we're evaluating (of which the OP invoked); "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination". I was just trying to pin down its boundaries. If someone posits that Fortune in the Middle mechanics (which require association to "game reality" due to their malleable nature) yields a net loss in the evaluation of "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination", I think a comparison to the work of Monet, Renoir, Dali is apt as their work is willfully malleable such that that association to reality by the audience is a requirement.



I do not understand this comparison (not my type of art).


----------



## TwoSix

Manbearcat said:


> Perhaps so. However, we have a metric here that we're evaluating (of which the OP invoked); "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination". I was just trying to pin down its boundaries. If someone posits that Fortune in the Middle mechanics (which require association to "game reality" due to their malleable nature) yields a net loss in the evaluation of "the quality of various D&D mechanics to expand or contract the imagination", I think a comparison to the work of Monet, Renoir, Dali is apt as their work is willfully malleable such that that association to reality by the audience is a requirement.



Excellent metaphor.  And kudos as to the concise post, which I know can be an effort. 

I would think, considering [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION]'s own posts, that he would consider FitM mechanics to create more space for creativity, as they map less to a described reality and allow for greater imposition of one's own interpretation.  I guess I'll invoke my standard of Wall of Thorns example.  Go read that spell in the 3.5 SRD, and tell me whether you think its design ethos is imagination expanding or imagination contracting.


----------



## TwoSix

Ahnehnois said:


> I do not understand this comparison (not my type of art).



Interesting.  I wonder if that's illustrative.  Not a judgment, just curiosity if there's a mapping between preferred style of play and other aesthetic preferences.  I have a pet theory that simulationists also tend to be less forgiving of movie and TV plot holes, for example.


----------



## Ahnehnois

TwoSix said:


> I would say that if the DM decides that the NPC has spell X on after the PC chooses which ability to use, in order to specifically counteract it, than the DM is being overly, excessively fiat-y.



When do you think a DM has to decide those types of things? Who's checking?



> But yes, if you invoke Rule Zero as a real rule, then my definition needs work.



How else would one define it? It's "the" rule. How many D&D games have fighters? Most. How many games have fighters with +1/level BAB? Some. How many D&D games have a DM who is the final arbiter of all matters within the game? All of them.


----------



## billd91

TwoSix said:


> Well yes, of course.  But if he doesn't take the time to explain what makes it good or bad _for him_, how can I understand what he's talking about, and use it in a way to make my game better?  I mean, shouldn't the goal of these discussion be to say "When I play X way, with players who like Y, this concept works and this one doesn't"?  It has nothing to do with telling anyone how to _play,_ it's how to find terms so that we discuss with a common language.




I'm not sure we *are* successfully settling on terms and we're certainly not settling on relatively quantities and metrics, which is what I got out of your difficulties understanding what Mercurius means with his fuzzy quantities. In fact, this whole thread (and message board) might go better if we did try to stick more to what practical things we do and how they work out for us and our groups rather than try to put them into overarching frameworks that always seem to have political overtones.


----------



## Ahnehnois

TwoSix said:


> Interesting.  I wonder if that's illustrative.  Not a judgment, just curiosity if there's a mapping between preferred style of play and other aesthetic preferences.



When I said "not my type of art" I meant visual art in general rather than surrealism. I'm into music (playing as well as listening) and have a little bit of background in drama and in creative writing, but painting and its ilk are not my talent. So I don't know what makes Salvador Dali different from other artists.



> I have a pet theory that simulationists also tend to be less forgiving of movie and TV plot holes, for example.



Wouldn't terribly surprise me.


----------



## TwoSix

Ahnehnois said:


> How else would one define it? It's "the" rule. How many D&D games have fighters? Most. How many games have fighters with +1/level BAB? Some. How many D&D games have a DM who is the final arbiter of all matters within the game? All of them.



I'm glad to see we're going here again.


----------



## TwoSix

billd91 said:


> I'm not sure we *are* successfully settling on terms and we're certainly not settling on relatively quantities and metrics, which is what I got out of your difficulties understanding what Mercurius means with his fuzzy quantities. In fact, this whole thread (and message board) might go better if we did try to stick more to what practical things we do and how they work out for us and our groups rather than try to put them into overarching frameworks that always seem to have political overtones.



I totally agree.  [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] seems to have some good ideas, which is why I would like him to flesh them out more than say "Well, this is too much, but this is just enough."  So let's here some examples of where fiat was used, and where it wasn't, and why those worked.


----------



## pemerton

Umbran said:


> But the contrast should still be valuable within each domain.  And, from there, you have some point where the contrast is still valid in aggregate



I don't find the aggregation very helpful - my feet being freezing and my head being boiling might aggregate to a cozy warm body, but that is misleading at best.

But I agree with you that there can be useful contrasts in each domain, though I think descriptive contrasts are more useful than evaluative contrasts (which I think puts me in agreement with [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] upthread).

I think [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] likes a high degree of _player_ authority over scene-framing (though he probably wouldn't use that language) - the players choose what they encounter, via scouting, divining, and clever play. (As Gygax describes in the concluding pages of his PHB.)

I prefer GM authority over scene-framing, because for my preferred style the players have a conflict of interest if they set their own challenges, because they have an incentive to minimise the challenge, which goes contrary to the aesthetic demands of dramatic play. 

I don't think it's really of interest to anyone but me or ExploderWizard which approach one or the other of us prefers - that's just biographical data. What's interesting for others, I think, is idenifying what sort of play you can or can't achieve by adopting different techniques. (I think this also puts me in agreement with TwoSix.)


----------



## Imaro

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, it is invoking a rule (Rule Zero), so there's a contradiction there.
> 
> Or you can look at it another way and simply have the DM rationalize every move using the rules. After all, he has control over so many things that it's hard to imagine something that couldn't be done by the book. Who says the NPC didn't have Death Ward on him? Nothing prevents a DM from adding on things like that at the last minute. Contingent spells? Handy healing potions? A convenient +10 circumstance bonus for [insert made-up reason]? Is it any less "fiat-y" if the DM makes something up using mechanics than not using them? There's no reason why some deity watching over the situation couldn't just use his at-will wish spells to force any outcome the DM wants (the literal deus ex machina), while avoiding your literal definition. And that isn't even unreasonable for a some styles of campaign; one could argue that the mythological Hercules pretty much had this going on all the time.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather be a little more subtle.





Good post and it echoes what I posted much earlier in the thread.  Ultimately, unless the rules are going to dictate and constrain my decisions to the point where there might as well not be a DM,  all the rules are going to do (if I as DM want to control the story) is create a few more hoops for me to jump through to "justify" how the outcome or story I wanted ended up coming about.  In fact I would argue most DM's wouldn't even need to change things on the fly, when I ran a 4e game, I was familiar enough with my player's character's capabilities that if I wanted to I could manipulate the story and outcomes by manipulating the math of the game. 

In fact as an example... Passive perception basically demanded that you either be ignorant of the character's abilities or you decide while assigning the DC whether they would definitely find something or not (talk about deciding the outcome).  So yeah... I've yet to see anyone explain how, even when using the mechanics of any version of the game, the DM is in any way reigned in from instituting his will upon the story and outcomes if that's what he wants to take place.  in other words no amount of rules is going to fix bad DMíng... unless it eliminates the DM from the equation.


----------



## ExploderWizard

pemerton said:


> I think @_*ExploderWizard*_ likes a high degree of _player_ authority over scene-framing (though he probably wouldn't use that language) - the players choose what they encounter, via scouting, divining, and clever play. (As Gygax describes in the concluding pages of his PHB.)
> 
> I prefer GM authority over scene-framing, because for my preferred style the players have a conflict of interest if they set their own challenges, because they have an incentive to minimise the challenge, which goes contrary to the aesthetic demands of dramatic play.




To clarify the player agency regarding choosing challenges, the reward (treasure/ bulk of XP) generally increases with challenge difficulty. Piddly challenges result in piddly rewards. The desire for the "good stuff" usually keeps players reaching for the most they can handle.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Ahnehnois said:


> Maybe the DM prepares one set of encounters, and reality will place them in whichever direction the players go because he doesn't have time to prepare things and not use them.




Perhaps some DMs would do such a thing but that isn't something I'm into. I try and make sure choices are real or simply don't offer any. Actual player agency, not merely the illusion of such, is very important to me as a DM. Sometimes players will choose their way into a situation where there IS no good choice to be made. The important bit is that THEY got themselves there. 





Ahnehnois said:


> Maybe there are subtle sensory cues that suggest one way is better than the other. Maybe there is a riddle or bit of symbolism embedded in the choice. Maybe there is information out there but the PCs have to search for it. Maybe whatever information the PCs receive is conflicting. Maybe it's wrong.
> 
> There are tons of choices the player may make, and tons of outcomes in the game world, and very complex interactions between the two. I find that the level of influence the players have over their characters' fates is something that needs to be carefully titrated in order to convey the appropriate tone of game the DM is trying to run.




I have found that the amount of control the players have over their character's fates is somewhat proportional to the interest they have in the campaign. The less power they have to control what happens to them the closer the 'who cares' attitude sets in. It is a natural reaction to feeling powerless.


----------



## Ahnehnois

ExploderWizard said:


> I have found that the amount of control the players have over their character's fates is somewhat proportional to the interest they have in the campaign. The less power they have to control what happens to them the closer the 'who cares' attitude sets in. It is a natural reaction to feeling powerless.



Not necessarily. Horror gaming is very informative in that regard. A horror PC rarely if ever, makes meaningful choices and often has very little knowledge about what's going on. And even outside of that genre, players don't always care about their own influence.

Heck, the last session (of CoC) that I ran, I warned a player in advance that it might be a while before his character was introduced, and I ended up cutting him out of the entire session. Not even a hint of this character's existence or relevance. And he thought it was a great session. Which tells me that a) I have good players, and b) participation isn't sine qua non.

However, in general, I agree that the players expect to make a meaningful impact on the game.

But, if they get the sense that nothing ever happens to them without without them having a choice in the matter, that they aren't subject to the whims of fate, they quickly become megalomaniacal and start running rampant. That's why there needs to be a balance. The players need to feel like they matter, but not like they're in control. The DMing actions needed to achieve that have to be customized to the individual gaming table. Thus, the DM is given blanket authority, but asked to use discretion.


----------



## Manbearcat

TwoSix said:


> Excellent metaphor.  And kudos as to the concise post, which I know can be an effort.
> 
> I would think, considering  @_*Mercurius*_ 's own posts, that he would consider FitM mechanics to create more space for creativity, as they map less to a described reality and allow for greater imposition of one's own interpretation.  I guess I'll invoke my standard of Wall of Thorns example.  Go read that spell in the 3.5 SRD, and tell me whether you think its design ethos is imagination expanding or imagination contracting.




A brutal effort indeed  And I would agree with you with respect to forecasting that, in line with Mercurius's thesis, FitM mechanics should expand imagination.



TwoSix said:


> Interesting.  I wonder if that's illustrative.  Not a judgment, just curiosity if there's a mapping between preferred style of play and other aesthetic preferences.  I have a pet theory that simulationists also tend to be less forgiving of movie and TV plot holes, for example.




I agree here and I'm sure its true.  

I've said more than once that I don't like muddled genre.  If I go into the theater to see a new Western and I'm anticipating the Coen Brother's version of True Grit, 3:10 to Yuma, or The Unforgiven and I end up getting Silverado, I'm going to be disappointed.  The inverse is also true.  I love both subgenres (and all four of those movies) but I have expectations of those subgenres and a muddled composition grates on me considerably.  

I want John McClain, Indiana Jones and James Bond as protagonists whose scenes demand Big Damn Heroes that rally against impossible odds that would fell lesser folk.  They need to always come out on top even if reality would scoff at the silliness.  

Along those same lines, I want Rooster Cogburn, William Money Out of Missouri, and a small-time rancher Dan Evans to be flawed, fail as much as they succeed, and maybe even die (heroically).

I can play D&D with both of these paradigms and thematic material (and have many-a-times) but I want the resolution tools and genre conceits to be in lockstep.  It is quite clear however, that some folks are outright averse to varying genres being central to the D&D experience.  Or, put another way, you can extrapolate which sorts of heroes they expect to emerge out of their D&D play and which sort of genre conceits (and concurrent system tools and mechanical defaults) that should naturally support their archetypes and subvert their interests.  Deviation from the aesthetic preference (as you put it) is certainly an issue at the heart of the edition wars (amongst plenty of others).


----------



## Ahnehnois

Manbearcat said:


> It is quite clear however, that some folks are outright averse to varying genres being central to the D&D experience.



I'm not. I've done zero-to-hero epics, procedural detective dramas, farcical comedy, gladiator fighting, dungeon crawls, and that's just with D&D. The thing that made each game different was the DM; the underlying rules system was always the same.

The primacy of the DM is a really useful attribute of D&D.


----------



## Imaro

Ahnehnois said:


> I'm not. I've done zero-to-hero epics, procedural detective dramas, farcical comedy, gladiator fighting, dungeon crawls, and that's just with D&D. The thing that made each game different was the DM; the underlying rules system was always the same.
> 
> The primacy of the DM is a really useful attribute of D&D.




This... simply by adjusting (Using DM fiat??) the DC's necessary for success, starting level, opponents faced, etc. one can achieve a wide multitude of D&D  "genres" without the actual hardcoding of one sub-genre into the rules over another.  I think perhaps the difference is that some enjoy that generalized tool which they can then customize to their tastes (again using DM fiat) while others would rather have a game with a sub-genre (Big gonzo action heroes!!!) already hardcoded into the game... which of course by necessity makes the game narrower in it's appeal and applications.  If anything I would say it's those that want the a specific genre hardcoded into the game that are outright adverse to varying genres being central to the D&D experience.


----------



## pemerton

Ahnehnois said:


> How many D&D games have a DM who is the final arbiter of all matters within the game? All of them.



Except mine.

And I don't think my game is radically divergent, either within the sphere of 4e play or the sphere of D&D play more generally. (And certainly not divergent within the sphere of RPG play.)



TwoSix said:


> Not a judgment, just curiosity if there's a mapping between preferred style of play and other aesthetic preferences.  I have a pet theory that simulationists also tend to be less forgiving of movie and TV plot holes, for example.



 [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] once referred to "literary criticism written by (and for) engineers". I think this is a distinctive approach to fantasy fiction, which is big enough to create its own genre, where world creation and world consistency figures very highly. My feeling is that those who take this approach to fiction probably prefer simulationinst play; I don't think I have the same intuition that the reverse is true, however.


----------



## TwoSix

Ahnehnois said:


> Heck, the last session (of CoC) that I ran, I warned a player in advance that it might be a while before his character was introduced, and I ended up cutting him out of the entire session. Not even a hint of this character's existence or relevance. And he thought it was a great session. Which tells me that a) I have good players, and b) participation isn't sine qua non.



Yea, but isn't your group fairly young?  I could deal with that when I was in my early 20s and played every week.  But now I get in maybe 15 sessions a year with my main group, and I have to schedule around 3 kids to get a Friday free.  If I showed up at a session and didn't get in the game, I'd be (I feel legitimately) angry.

I think it shows how important understanding social contract is to seeing what sort of game will work for everyone at the table.  Your actions obviously aren't wrong for your table, but could easily be soon as wrong at a table with a different set of expectations.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Ahnehnois said:


> Not necessarily. Horror gaming is very informative in that regard. A horror PC rarely if ever, makes meaningful choices and often has very little knowledge about what's going on. And even outside of that genre, players don't always care about their own influence.
> 
> Heck, the last session (of CoC) that I ran, I warned a player in advance that it might be a while before his character was introduced, and I ended up cutting him out of the entire session. Not even a hint of this character's existence or relevance. And he thought it was a great session. Which tells me that a) I have good players, and b) participation isn't sine qua non.
> 
> However, in general, I agree that the players expect to make a meaningful impact on the game.
> 
> But, if they get the sense that nothing ever happens to them without without them having a choice in the matter, that they aren't subject to the whims of fate, they quickly become megalomaniacal and start running rampant. That's why there needs to be a balance. The players need to feel like they matter, but not like they're in control. The DMing actions needed to achieve that have to be customized to the individual gaming table. Thus, the DM is given blanket authority, but asked to use discretion.





I was talking specifically about D&D. I don't approach every rpg or genre in the same way. There are different games for a reason. If they were all played the same way, we wouldn't need so many.


----------



## Ahnehnois

TwoSix said:


> Yea, but isn't your group fairly young?  I could deal with that when I was in my early 20s and played every week.  But now I get in maybe 15 sessions a year with my main group, and I have to schedule around 3 kids to get a Friday free.  If I showed up at a session and didn't get in the game, I'd be (I feel legitimately) angry.



Depends how you define young (mid to late twenties). However, we all have jobs, we all work different schedules including evenings and weekends, we live in different states, and we struggle to make sessions. I ran this session at the end of October and haven't run one since due to holiday breaks and other conflicts. This was a very significant sacrifice, and one that the player consciously accepted.

Don't get me wrong, I'd be mad if I was cut out too. This was a very unusual game idea and a very close group of people running it, not a typical day at the office. And it was a really good session. And it was really impressive that the player got on board with it. Unbeknownst to them, I'm working on another idea for a game that features player #1 and leaves the others out of it for a while.



> I think it shows how important understanding social contract is to seeing what sort of game will work for everyone at the table.  Your actions obviously aren't wrong for your table, but could easily be soon as wrong at a table with a different set of expectations.



Exactly. My only point was to go to the extreme in saying that _sometimes_ it's okay to do these things. Sometimes it's also okay to kill a PC arbitrarily, or dominate them and make them do something they wouldn't want to do, or arbitrarily negate their actions, or otherwise totally screw the player over. Not always. Sometimes. It's under the DM's purview.


----------



## Ahnehnois

ExploderWizard said:


> I was talking specifically about D&D. I don't approach every rpg or genre in the same way. There are different games for a reason. If they were all played the same way, we wouldn't need so many.



Is D&D a genre? To me, it covers quite a few genres. In any case, horror is definitely part of it. There's a clear Lovecraftian thread that runs through D&D, and I definitely took some DMing advice from Heroes of Horror, which is specifically a D&D book.

I certainly don't think that any part of D&D that I'm familiar with would lead me to believe that the game is primarily about player choice. That's simply one part of a very complex equation.


----------



## TwoSix

Ahnehnois said:


> Exactly. My only point was to go to the extreme in saying that _sometimes_ it's okay to do these things. Sometimes it's also okay to kill a PC arbitrarily, or dominate them and make them do something they wouldn't want to do, or arbitrarily negate their actions, or otherwise totally screw the player over. Not always. Sometimes. It's under the DM's purview.



See, I'm drawing a different inference from this. The authority to let you do this drew from the social contract, and specifically, from that particular player being OK with it.  Your group gives you that latitude.  It's not a prerequisite of the ruleset, or from anything else other than an understanding between all the people at the table.  Likewise, all the other actions you describe only are allowed because the table has granted you the same latitude, in pursuit of the table goals (i.e., an experience where you as DM drive the game and they as players immerse themselves in your game).  There's nothing inherent about D&D (or almost any other RPG) that creates that atmosphere, other than that some editions of D&D have prioritized a directed story as the highest priority.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Ahnehnois said:


> Is D&D a genre? To me, it covers quite a few genres. In any case, horror is definitely part of it. There's a clear Lovecraftian thread that runs through D&D, and I definitely took some DMing advice from Heroes of Horror, which is specifically a D&D book.
> 
> I certainly don't think that any part of D&D that I'm familiar with would lead me to believe that the game is primarily about player choice. That's simply one part of a very complex equation.




Yeah, D&D is its own genre with odd bits of fantasy, horror , and pulp sci-fi in the mix. The core principles of the original game were all about player choice. Risk vs reward is a central D&D theme.


----------



## Mercurius

I apologize for stepping out of this thread a couple days ago but I'll try to address some comments. 



TwoSix said:


> The problem is that describing the issue as between "mild and judicious use" and "excessive power-mongering" isn't a framework at all.  There's nothing to translate or analyze there to make the statement useful.  It's a Goldilocks measurement.  I mean, I get that  @_*Mercurius*_  thinks you need some fiat, but not too much fiat, or else the players might find out.  But I don't know why he thinks that, or where he draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little".




I used those phrases because I felt that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] wasn't differentiating between mild and excessive use of fiat, as if any kind of fiat led to the same result. And yes, it is a Goldilocks measurement because, as [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] said, it is subjective and varies by game group and situation. The "line" depends upon the situation.

This element of indeterminacy is part of what differentiates tabletop RPGs from computer games. Sure, there might be random computations in a CRPG that are akin to indeterminacy, but it is still based upon formula unlike the DM's mind. There's no DM-as-storyteller in a CRPG.

As I see it, the DM, as the caretaker of the campaign, bears the burden of the enjoyment of all more than any other participant. The players have some responsibility, of course, but not nearly as much as the DM. I employ fiat as a way to serve that end - the enjoyment of all. I will never--and I mean never--use it to take the life of a character (e.g. "You wake up naked, prone, and weaponless and a tarrasque appears in front of you and gets a surprise attack"), but I _will_ sometimes use it to save the life of a character. Not always, but sometimes. If I roll damage dice on a PC and see that the result will lead to death, I ask myself (internally) "Will this death significantly hamper the enjoyment of the game for all?" (or something like that). If the answer is yes, then I might give a reduced damage total that will merely knock the character out. But I will never let the players know that, because that would threaten immersion and suspension of disbelief, which I find to be key to enjoyment. 

So PC death is a case where I might employ fiat. Another might be if I _really_ want the PCs to find something and they just don't; I might subtly give them a hint, or move that something to a place where they might find it.



Manbearcat said:


> This seems to be general discontent with D&D Fortune in the Middle mechanical resolution:fictional positioning association/mapping; the "how close does this mechanic hew to simulation of process as I understand it in the real world and make its own internal association." While I understand your concerns here (they are well documented), it is tangential. It is, of course, related to the "cognitive styles" factor in this analysis, which I invoked early on. However, I'm not concerned with immersion here. I'm trying to pin down the nature of mechanics that constitute an "expanding of the imagination" versus those that "contract the imagination" which is what appears to be at the heart of the OP's premise.




I think its related to immersion. The reason I picked on 4e is because two of its elements are, in particular, hampering to the imagination (imo): the AEDU paradigm and the reliance on the battle mat. 

I think an analogy that might better explain my view is the difference between providing a child with crayons and a blank piece of paper versus a coloring book. As I see it, the blank page is more conducive to the use of imagination, while the coloring book puts parameters on imagination. If I say, "draw a lion," the child with the blank page has to imagine the lion, while the child with the coloring book finds a picture of a lion and colors it in. In the latter case, there's _some _use of imagination, but it is less so than in the former.

That relates to AEDU. The battlemat is simply from my experience, and from what I've heard from others, that reliance upon it leads to a game-within-the-game that is more like a wargame than a traditional RPG. So it kind of seemed as if with 4e we were playing D&D until combat began and the battlemat appeared, and then we were playing a miniature skirmish game. Decisions were made not based upon theater of mind, but by looking at the battlemat.



Manbearcat said:


> Classic Impressionist painters such as Monet, Renoir, Dali obviously leave the association between their work and reality extremely malleable. However, it would be a stretch to say that their work is not deeply on the expansive side of the "imagination continuum."




First a nitpick: Monet and Renoir were impressionists, while Dali was a surrealist. 

As far as art and imagination goes, for me the trick is to what degree the art inspires an inner experience. This may be entirely subjective, but I think art that "indicates" more than it "defines" tends to lend itself to this. 



billd91 said:


> Of course, you don't know where Mercurius draws the line between "just enough", "too much", or "too little" fiat. You're not him. The judgment how much fiat is correct is subjective. And how much is the right amount will vary from player to player, group to group, and sometimes even session to session with the same group. This is one of the reasons that excessively doctrinaire approaches to RPGs and styles of play strike me as problematic. You just end up throwing more obstacles in the path of having a good time with the game than you need to.




Well said.



TwoSix said:


> Well yes, of course.  But if he doesn't take the time to explain what makes it good or bad _for him_, how can I understand what he's talking about, and use it in a way to make my game better?  I mean, shouldn't the goal of these discussion be to say "When I play X way, with players who like Y, this concept works and this one doesn't"?  It has nothing to do with telling anyone how to _play,_ it's how to find terms so that we discuss with a common language.




Yes, I agree. But the thing is, there isn't really a common language, and what I hear you asking is for me to translate my language into yours by giving clear definitions and such. I've tried to offer analogies that better illustrate where I'm coming from, which allows you to take the analogy and translate it into your own way of thinking. But make of it what you will!



TwoSix said:


> I totally agree.   @_*Mercurius*_  seems to have some good ideas, which is why I would like him to flesh them out more than say "Well, this is too much, but this is just enough."  So let's here some examples of where fiat was used, and where it wasn't, and why those worked.




_Some _good ideas? _Some?! _


----------



## Manbearcat

Mercurius said:


> I apologize for stepping out of this thread a couple days ago but I'll try to address some comments.




No worries.

I have to get to bed but I'll try to address your points tomorrow.  One thing I was specifically trying to do was to excise the "immersion" interest from the issue.  It seems to me that the conflation of "need for tight coupling of fictional position:mechanical process for the sake of 1st person, deep immersion" with "capacity to expand or contract the imagination" does a disservice to the effort to achieve clarity on the discernment of the nature of the latter.  We're trying to distill that signal from the noise of competing RPG interests.  Reintroducing that noise doesn't seem very productive.



Mercurius said:


> First a nitpick: Monet and Renoir were impressionists, while Dali was a surrealist.




Not quite correct.  Dali's most well-known works are his Surrealist works but he had a deep and prolific period of Impressionism that preceded his jaunt into Surrealism.  His largest collection of works outside of Europe is right in my backyard!  Along with the lithograph _Lincoln in Dalivision_, his classical impressionist _Landscape Near Figueras_ is probably my favorite of his works.  Dali was extremely versatile.  He was much more than just a Surrealist and certainly had a deep Impressionist background.


----------

