# The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)



## Mercurius (Feb 7, 2011)

With yet another mega-thread devolving into an endless back-and-forth debate about whether 4E is real D&D, or if it is "D&D to me" or if it _feels _like D&D to me, etc etc...an intriguing question occurred to me: what if we're framing this entire discussion wrongly? Or rather, what if there was a better, more adequate way of framing it that could satisfy all (OK,_ most) _parties concerned?

Before I get to that, let me explain why I'm starting a new thread on this topic. I think this is an issue that just begs to be exorcised, delt with, psychologically and socially metabolized by the D&D community, or at least _this_ community. As Jung said, the way out is through - sometimes you just need to deal with  or else it just keeps coming back in a new form (the hydra, ya know?). So I'm hoping that this thread can, if not _Heal _the community, at least _Cure Light Wounds_ and get us going in the right direction.

So I have to admit that my "intriguing question" actually came after the answer, which was that I _do _think there are better ways to frame this issue, namely this: What if we saw D&D not as a game or an edition of a game, or a group of acceptable editions, but as an _experience. _Yes, D&D is a game, it is a brand name and concept, but it is in some sense most importantly _an experience that we all like to have._ 

In the context of my thread title, D&D is Rome. What are the roads, you say? The infinite ways to play D&D, and that includes not only the canonical editions but the countless house rules and fantasy heartbreakers, from slight tweakings to major revisionings. 

The beauty of this framework--that D&D is Rome and all editions and variations are different roads "to" Rome, or "ways to get there"--is that it takes away _any_ edition from being D&D; editions are ways to "get to" D&D, to play and invoke the D&D experience. So _no _edition is "true D&D", yet _all _editions - and all variations - are valid and legit ways to invoke that experience, although there is no one size fits all. We all have our own, unique configuration. Different variations will speak to each of us, well, differently. We don't need to say "4E isn't D&D to me" because it isn't D&D to _anyone, _but it is a way to _play _D&D that _some _find adequate to invoking the D&D experience (and some don't).

I may be wrong, but I think this works for everyone. It doesn't negate anyone's experience, but it also doesn't exclude anyone from the umbrella, the "circle of trust" that is the D&D family. We are all playing D&D, all looking for that D&D experience, but we simply choose different roads to get there.

We all share the one thing in common: We love the D&D experience. But we all "get there" by different means. One of the wonderful things about this hobby is that even if one doesn't actively play in a campaign, one can still have that D&D experience by picking up a book, making a character, dreaming up campaign ideas and worlds...

It is all the D&D Experience, and I love the fact that there are literally _countless_ ways to get there.


----------



## Abraxas (Feb 7, 2011)

What exactly does this solve?

Why not, instead, just let it slide when someone says edition X isn't/doesn't feel/does feel like D&D.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 7, 2011)

Well, by saying Rome is D&D you exclude all other RPGS.

Just say Rome is Goodrightfun and you will be more correct.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Feb 7, 2011)

The problem with your concept (and i would love if it worked) is that people who say x isn't D&D want to say that x isn't D&D. There is a definitive need to express this that cannot be satisfied with substitutes. But i i really would like this to catch on, because it also could be used to kill the "Real Realms / Shattered Realms" split with fire. 
Won't happen, though.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 7, 2011)

There's an inevitable problem-of-opinion that's going to arise when it comes to determining what defines the border of the D+D experience.

Some will say it's D+D edition x, period.  Others will want to include every role-playing game ever written and probably include LARPs as well.  Most will be somewhere in between, but that's still spread out over an awful lot of territory with room for an awful lot of arguments.

Defining Rome had the same problem.  Some said Rome was the city.  Others said it was the whole Empire.  Others saw Rome as the entire world, with non-Romans just Romans who didn't realize it yet.  Still others saw one of the above Romes as an idealized concept which the reality never quite lived up to.

Lan-"in some cases it really is easier to just go by what's on the front cover"-efan


----------



## Beginning of the End (Feb 7, 2011)

*¡* My favorite "road to D&D" is World of Warcraft.


----------



## thejc (Feb 7, 2011)

but according to the dead ale wives club if it doesn't suck our kids into the occult then it's not d&d


----------



## BryonD (Feb 7, 2011)

You could just as easily say that chess, checkers, go, and backgammon are all just board games.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying any one, or any combination of them.  But to call them all as just the same is really missing out on the variety.

The problem does not come in when some says that chess is not as fun as go to them.  The problem comes in when the chess fan gets emotionally involved in the idea that someone else prefers a different game.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2011)

From the thread title, I thought you were talking about the convention.

Your idea would work except for one thing: we are not all seeking the same singular experience in play.  Thus, some would say that certain games are not roads to the experience of D&D, and we'd be still be in the same boat.

Human beings are hard wired to divide the world into Them and Us.  You won't "get past" this tendency until mankind ascends, Vorlon-like, to the next stage of development and passes beyond the Rim.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 7, 2011)

Unfortunately, all you're doing is using a big analogy which doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of the problem.

If D&D is Rome, then in some meaningful ways, it is also NOT Carthage, Athens, Thebes...those differences should be spelled out.  And for some of us, 4Ed has lost its "Roman" identity.

Besides, "D&D Experience" means different things to different people.  For some, "D&D Experience" is nothing more than any kind of FRPG gaming.  For others, "D&D Experience" is a set of things unique to D&D that distinguish it from all other FRPGs.  And quite simply, you're not going to get 100% agreement on what that set is.


----------



## Ringlerun (Feb 7, 2011)

If D&D is Rome then that would make WotC Commodus and Hasbro Caligula.

*Mod Edit*: This is what is commonly known as a Threadcrap.  Please don't use otherwise innocuous threads as a venue for spewing non-constructive negativity.  You are welcome to your opinions, but please try to make something out of them, rather than just leave them lying steaming on the floor.  Thanks.  ~Umbran


----------



## Wik (Feb 7, 2011)

As someone who runs a 4e campaign that has some pretty strong roman elements, I'm perfectly willing to say that 4e definitely IS Rome.

It's also West Coast Native American culture, celtic folklore, and a touch of post-apocalypse.  But yeah, definitely yes on the 'rome' thing.  

Honestly, I think it's fine to have people that don't like one edition or another of the game.  I like 4e, but there are times it doesn't "feel" like D&D to me, absolutely.  And I have absolutely no problem with the 4e haters, whatsoever - of course, I feel the same way about 3e, so I suppose it's a fair trade.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 7, 2011)

By way of general response, what I'm trying to do is loosen up the term "D&D" to be more nebulous, permeable, and multi-faceted, and more of a feeling and experience than a concrete thing. If we see D&D as an experience then we don't need to squabble over what it is, because then it _is _personal but also shared. We both experience D&D, but in different ways, but your experience of D&D is not inherently more or less valid than mine, and vice versa.

Now some specifics:



Dice4Hire said:


> Well, by saying Rome is D&D you exclude all other RPGS. Just say Rome is Goodrightfun and you will be more correct.




Well again, "Rome" means different things in different contexts, and in this context we're talking about D&D, what it is and isn't, etc. If we want to talk about RPGs in general, sure, we could talk about the "RPG Experience" - but that is much more broad and when we get to that point we're talking about much more than just D&D. 



Keefe the Thief said:


> The problem with your concept (and i would love if it worked) is that people who say x isn't D&D want to say that x isn't D&D. There is a definitive need to express this that cannot be satisfied with substitutes. But i i really would like this to catch on, because it also could be used to kill the "Real Realms / Shattered Realms" split with fire.
> Won't happen, though.




This is a good point. I think my concept potentially separates out those that are emotionally attached to the idea of 4E not being D&D from those that just don't feel it is D&D to them. For the latter, 4E is not a good road to get to the "D&D Experience", which is why I think this idea serves the majority of us and is potentially unifying of this rift.



Lanefan said:


> There's an inevitable problem-of-opinion that's going to arise when it comes to determining what defines the border of the D+D experience.
> 
> Some will say it's D+D edition x, period.  Others will want to include every role-playing game ever written and probably include LARPs as well.  Most will be somewhere in between, but that's still spread out over an awful lot of territory with room for an awful lot of arguments.
> 
> ...




Right, and I appreciate your phrase in your name because that _would _be the easiest way to go, but obviously some don't buy it so we have this problem which is actually quite poisonous to the community.

But what you're saying is partially what I'm trying to advocate: Allowing "D&D" to be a nebulous, open-ended term that means different things in different contexts. As some have pointed out, to the majority of the world all RPGs are D&D; if I was playing _Mage _with my game group and my wife walked in, she would think we were playing D&D (actually, she wouldn't think about it at all! ). 

In some sense I'm saying that we should look at D&D not as a game but a Platonic Form. Our experience of it will vary, but it is still "D&D". It is an experience that we all partake of. More on this in a minute.



BryonD said:


> You could just as easily say that chess, checkers, go, and backgammon are all just board games.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with enjoying any one, or any combination of them.  But to call them all as just the same is really missing out on the variety.
> 
> The problem does not come in when some says that chess is not as fun as go to them.  The problem comes in when the chess fan gets emotionally involved in the idea that someone else prefers a different game.




This is back-tracking a bit, Bryon. I am not saying that all editions are the same, but that we all play D&D for what we individually feel is the "D&D experience" - how we get to that experience varies, and we all have our preferred routes, but the experience has a quality that is both universal and unique, shared and individual.

Your last sentence just sounds a bit like baiting. I think most people don't care what game others prefer, they just don't like it when others trash their preferred game or say that it is something different than what they experience it as.

My idea here bypasses all of that craziness because it gives us a shared common ground of this "D&D experience." We all share it, we all play it in one form or another to experience it; we _do _experience it in different ways, and we _do _get there by different roads...but that's just fine, that's part of the joy of the hobby, really.



Umbran said:


> Your idea would work except for one thing: we are not all seeking the same singular experience in play.  Thus, some would say that certain games are not roads to the experience of D&D, and we'd be still be in the same boat.
> 
> Human beings are hard wired to divide the world into Them and Us.  You won't "get past" this tendency until mankind ascends, Vorlon-like, to the next stage of development and passes beyond the Rim.




I think I addressed your first paragraph above - I don't see that as antithetical to my idea but actually supporting it. It is almost a paradox: The experience of D&D is both shared and unique to the individual, whether we're talking about EN World or a specific gaming group. As an analogy, when I say the word "apple" we all share the concept of apple - there is only one concept, one Platonic Idea; but there are infinite different variations of it in terms of image and reaction to that concept.

So again, I'm saying that D&D is a Platonic Form or Idea. We play D&D to experience it; what we experience differs individually, but we are all having "the D&D experience." I could say that X-edition doesn't give me that experience but you could say that it does; that has a very different quality than me saying X-edition is not D&D, or not D&D to me. I would be saying that X-edition doesn't get me to that place that I consider to be the D&D experience.

As for you second paragraph, I hear you, but we can try, right? 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Unfortunately, all you're doing is using a big analogy which doesn't fundamentally alter the nature of the problem.
> 
> If D&D is Rome, then in some meaningful ways, it is also NOT Carthage, Athens, Thebes...those differences should be spelled out.  And for some of us, 4Ed has lost its "Roman" identity.
> 
> Besides, "D&D Experience" means different things to different people.  For some, "D&D Experience" is nothing more than any kind of FRPG gaming.  For others, "D&D Experience" is a set of things unique to D&D that distinguish it from all other FRPGs.  And quite simply, you're not going to get 100% agreement on what that set is.




Yeah, and that's fine. It is also fine that for some people 4E doesn't take you to Rome, but that's different than saying that _4E is not Rome itself. _In this perspective that I'm advocating, _no edition _is Rome itself, not even OD&D. Why? Because of the individual. I'll take myself as an example. I was raised on AD&D 1st edition - I was an AD&D boomer, started playing in the early 80s like quite a few of us. To me that is the "primordial," archetypal form of D&D. I never even encountered or knew about OD&D until many years later, decades even. So to me, AD&D feels more liked D&D than even OD&D. On one hand, this is a logical absurdity because in a purist viewpoint you don't get any closer to true D&D than OD&D; everything else is just later modifications.

Many people started playing with 3E. To them, that is the archetypal form of D&D. Believe it or not there are even some folks that started with 4E and feel that it is "real D&D."

My point is that no edition, no version, of D&D is real D&D. But ever edition/version can be a road to what I'm calling "the D&D experience" (although there could be a better term). So when you say that 4E has lost its "Roman identity" I would rephrase that into my analogy as saying that 4E doesn't take you to Rome, it doesn't facilitate your D&D experience, your Rome. 

All of this relies upon the understanding that "Rome," in my usage, is both universal/shared and unique/individual. So when I say "Rome" or "the D&D experience" I am talking about something that we share, but we experience uniquely. Again, see my example of "apple."


----------



## shadzar (Feb 7, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> By way of general response, what I'm trying to do is loosen up the term "D&D" to be more nebulous, permeable, and multi-faceted, and more of a feeling and experience than a concrete thing. If we see D&D as an experience then we don't need to squabble over what it is, because then it _is _personal but also shared. We both experience D&D, but in different ways, but your experience of D&D is not inherently more or less valid than mine, and vice versa.




But you really can't discuss/quantify an experience as each person experiences things differently.

A player that goes through the game in brothels, and that is what they enjoy as their experience, bout easily say that getting a real prostitute is the D&D experience to them.

Could we all agree that getting a prostitute is the D&D experience?

If we quantify the experience as "fun with friends", then playing Magic the Gathering is D&D, going ot to the pub is D&D.

All you would be doing is really genericizing the term to mean one small aspect. The problem with discussing D&D is what was posted in the "dilution" thread. No one will every agree with everyone else what it is, because it iself doesn't agree with itself what it is.

The more generic you make it to include all products carrying the D&D brand name, the more you open it up for inclusion of other RPGs, and activities.

If one says "I like D&D" and also says "I like pudding", the simple experience of liking it would then make pudding = D&D for them?

That is one of the biggest problems with the English language today is that it has no structure and words have no meaning, because the meanings are changed constantly. Very few have an actual meaning left to them.

One can be happy that they like D&D, while another is happy that they also like D&D, if that is what you are striving for. The problem then lies when they start to relate those experiences and share them with others and the differing experiences come to head with each other.



> Tastes Great! v Less Filling




The pesonal attachment cannot be removed.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 7, 2011)

I'm sorry, but this all sounds unhelpfully nebulous to me.

This definition of D&D Experience is, essentially, so broad that you're having it if you're playing something with the D&D masthead...

Which I'm not with 4Ed, which some DO with 4Ed or even non-D&D games.

For me (continuing your analogy), 4Ed is the Eastern Roman Empire (a.k.a. Byzantium; capital, Constantinople).  IOW, not very Roman at all.  I don't feel any connection to Rome except in the most trivial fashion; Roman in name only.

Where is my shared experience beyond the name of the game?


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 7, 2011)

I like it. 

But do we say:

"Dude, let do some D&D"

or do we say:

"Dude, lets get D&D"

Either works for me.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 7, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> By way of general response, what I'm trying to do is loosen up the term "D&D" to be more nebulous, permeable, and multi-faceted, and more of a feeling and experience than a concrete thing. If we see D&D as an experience then we don't need to squabble over what it is, because then it _is _personal but also shared. We both experience D&D, but in different ways, but your experience of D&D is not inherently more or less valid than mine, and vice versa.




Well, you see, that's the basic thing:  either we already know this, and we squabble anyway, or we don't accept the posit that there is no, "One True Way".  



> As for you second paragraph, I hear you, but we can try, right?




You can try, of course.  But if the problematic folks were open to alternate definitions, they'd have resolved their differences ages ago.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 7, 2011)

How about this...

We run and play in _campaigns_.

These campaigns use various editions of the _D&D rules_.

There are both _similarities_ and _differences_ between these campaigns.

Campaigns using the same rules can be wildly _different_.

Campaigns using different rules can be strikingly _similar_.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 7, 2011)

Still not helping: I can and have run D&D-style games in HERO complete with races, spells and "classes" we'd all recognize; others have done likewise in GURPS.

Does that put those games in "Rome?"


----------



## billd91 (Feb 7, 2011)

I think my problem of this is: we already have it in various forms, but they all depend on how we personally define things anyway.

If Rome is having fun with RPGs, then we have all sorts of road that lead there including Superhero games, Spy games, Cyberpunk games, Fantasy games, Science Fiction games, Horror games, etc. Do we include dressing up like furries? Host a Murder parties? LARPing? Miniature skirmish games? Some people might include those. Some might not.

If narrow the definition so Rome is fantasy role playing, then we have D&D (in all editions), Fantasy GURPS, Fantsy Hero, Tunnels and Trolls, Runequest, World of Warcraft, etc. We're contending with what people cosider to be "fantasy" role playing. Does it include Vampire? Does it include Star Wars? Does it include Ars Magica? Some people might include those. Some might not.

If we narrow the definiton so that Rome is D&D, then we have to contend with what people consider a "D&D" experience. 

I just don't see that we're getting to some place where we aren't already there.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 7, 2011)

shadzar said:


> That is one of the biggest problems with the English language today is that it has no structure and words have no meaning, because the meanings are changed constantly. Very few have an actual meaning left to them.




From one angle its a _problem_, from another it is a _feature, _with some interesting (if problematic) possibilities. 

Look, words are malleable. If you look in the dictionary, most English words have multiple meanings, depending upon not only context but how one is choosing to use the word. If we can accept this, then communication becomes more of an art than a mathematical formula. If that is unacceptable then I suppose you could learn Latin .



shadzar said:


> One can be happy that they like D&D, while another is happy that they also like D&D, if that is what you are striving for. The problem then lies when they start to relate those experiences and share them with others and the differing experiences come to head with each other.




Which is one of the reasons that I'm advocating this approach: it creates a common ground to which everyone is invited. 

Now this doesn't mean that D&D is a jar of pickles or _Vampire: The Masquerade. _D&D is still D&D, but there is a distinct "signature" to the game of D&D, a feeling, a vibe, a gestalt of qualities, what I like to summarize as an _experience. _

If we can talk about editions as different roads to get to our own personal version of the D&D experience--that is itself part of a larger, archetypal D&D experience--then we take a step away from edition wars. We don't need to say that 4E isn't D&D to me; we can say 4E isn't a road that gets me to my version of the D&D experience. 

At the least I think this idea is a way to discuss this issue to better understand what we are all getting at, and even open the door to a larger (and more interesting) conversation as to what exactly the D&D experience is. I mean, _WTF is D&D, anyways?! _



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm sorry, but this all sounds unhelpfully nebulous to me.
> 
> This definition of D&D Experience is, essentially, so broad that you're having it if you're playing something with the D&D masthead...
> 
> ...




Maybe if you stepped back for a moment and realized that we're not in a court of law . Seriously though, you aren't using "Rome" in the way that I was intending in my original analogy. 4E can't be the Eastern Roman Empire because it isn't Rome, neither is any edition or version of D&D. D&D transcends and includes all versions, all editions, all perceptions of what it is. It is a Platonic Form which we all participate in in different ways, through different modalities. 

So I think you are saying that 4E doesn't take you to Rome, which is your experience of "the" D&D Experience. 

Let me put it slightly differently. Let's say that a certain kind of music gives you what we could call "musical bliss". A different kind of music gives me musical bliss. If I say that your music is not musical bliss I am making a category error; your music cannot possibly be musical bliss, it can only lead one to it. The bliss itself is an internal experience, something very personal although also universal in that just about anyone can experience it. 

My idea reframes this notion so that we stop confusing different types of music with the bliss experience that it may or may not invoke. To say that the Rolling Stones aren't musical bliss is wrong in this framework because it is a category error, like saying Lamborghinis are not the high you experience from driving fast. Lambhorginis are a thing, the high is an experience.

Specific versions of D&D are things, but they aren't the experience of D&D. I'm asking that we at least consider reframing our notion of what D&D is into _primarily _an experience. Sure, we can talk about it as a game with different editions, tropes, etc, but I'm saying that a kind of "uber-definition", one that is more primary to any other, is as an experience.



Umbran said:


> Well, you see, that's the basic thing:  either we already know this, and we squabble anyway, or we don't accept the posit that there is no, "One True Way".
> 
> You can try, of course.  But if the problematic folks were open to alternate definitions, they'd have resolved their differences ages ago.




What, are you trying to burst my balloon, Umbran? 



billd91 said:


> If we narrow the definiton so that Rome is D&D, then we have to contend with what people consider a "D&D" experience.
> 
> I just don't see that we're getting to some place where we aren't already there.




"Rome" is a sliding definition, it depends upon the context and in _this _context it is the D&D experience. What people consider the D&D experience is up to them, but as I have been saying it is both individual _and _universal.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 7, 2011)

I just don't understand why anyone cares what other people are playing.

I've played every version of D&D since I started playing in 1981.  I've had fun with each one of them.  Other folks would rather pick and choose which version they like.  And that's fine, but it doesn't make one version truer to D&D than some other version (even if you believe that to be the case in your heart of hearts).  It just makes it different.

I just don't get all this... "4th edition isn't fun to me, so I'm going to crap on it and anyone else that plays it" attitude that some people have.  If that's what gets your goat up, you probably need to get out more.  Seriously people... it's a game we all like to play... not a problem facing society.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 7, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> If we can talk about editions as different roads to get to our own personal version of the D&D experience--that is itself part of a larger, archetypal D&D experience--then we take a step away from edition wars. We don't need to say that 4E isn't D&D to me; we can say 4E isn't a road that gets me to my version of the D&D experience.




I am guessing you have never seen married couples in a vehicle arguing over which road to take to get to the same destination.

The problem isn't Rome or where everyone agrees where Rome is even for themselves. The problem will still exist that people will be arguing over the BEST road to take to get to Rome.

Do we take the shorter one through the mountain pass that is not paved and can often flood, or the one 10 times as long that is repaired daily with guards along it protecting those traveling it?

Different people will take different roads. The only way to remove discussing the roads, would be to forbid discussing the trip taken to get there. Thus removing the ability to discuss gameplay.

Person A: I like D&D.
Person B: I like D&D too.
Person A: Nice chatting with you.

That is what a conversation would look like when you remove discussing the roads used to get there because you wouldn't allow discussing what you liked about it.

Most, I would say, already have a common ground of liking what they call D&D; the destination Rome, otherwise we wouldn't be in discussions about it.

[MENTION=9171]Lalato[/MENTION]: I think it isn't people crapping on an edition per say, but some feel that someone saying "4th edition isn't D&D to me" is devaluing their opinion that it is to them even if not to the speaker.

As with the other thread, you just accept it and move on to discuss it with someone who has a view more aligned with your own, if that statement bothers you.

Such as the "DM doesn't like it" thread, when you start to debate someone else's feelings on something, you are likely to open yourself up to hearing things you may disagree with, and humans LOVE to argue over a disagreement.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 7, 2011)

> Now this doesn't mean that D&D is a jar of pickles or Vampire: The Masquerade. D&D is still D&D, but there is a distinct "signature" to the game of D&D, a feeling, a vibe, a gestalt of qualities, what I like to summarize as an experience.
> 
> _<also the stuff about Rome>_




You're still not getting me.

For _me_, 4Ed delivers *NONE* of the "distinct "signature" to the game of D&D, a feeling, a vibe, a gestalt of qualities, what I like to summarize as an experience."  They are simply as absent for me as if I were playing Earthdawn, Talisantha, Harn, Stormbringer or some other FRPG I enjoy but don't consider D&D.

Ergo, Re: your Rome analogy (from my perspective), _4Ed is not Rome _in any way except nominally, hence my calling it "The Eastern Roman Empire".  I got a more "Roman" feel from my D&D simulacra campaigns in HERO.

For you to try to shoehorn my perspective is a serious flaw in your analogy.

I'm not denigrating the game- there is much about it I enjoy- nor am I disputing that 4Ed is D&D on a factual basis (which would be insane).

What I am saying is that, call it what you will, 4Ed is not delivering what I expect from that brand in any significant amount.  You might as well be asking me to call the human body "Pure Magnesium."

Re: "musical bliss"
Again an analogy that does nothing to forward the discussion.  Why?  Because when we substitute terms, we see that what is happening in the threads discussing the phrase "4Ed is not D&D to me" is that people are getting upset that persons are not sharing their idea of "musical bliss."  Try it out- take any post and do the substitution yourself. (As I have done in my next post, below.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 7, 2011)

Example #1:


Mircoles said:


> Considering how heavily house-ruled AD&D was, saying 4Ed isn't *musical bliss* is infantile.




_(Edited by me, emphasis mine.)_


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> /snippage
> 
> Where is my shared experience beyond the name of the game?




Well, when you play D&D, do you sit around a table, eating various snacks, with people you enjoy spending time with?

Do you play a fantasy inspired character set within a fantasy setting?

Do you generally solve your problems with violence?

Do you spend a significant amount of time using combat mechanics?

Do you spend a significant amount of time using game mechanics in general?

Do you spend a significant amount of time detailing or experiencing a fantasy setting?

Me too.

The thing is, you don't HAVE to get the shared experience from the same game.  That you don't get that from 4e is fine.  But, there are far more shared points between someone playing 4e and your game than someone playing, say, Mutants and Masterminds or Traveler.

I believe this is Mercurious' point.  It doesn't matter how you get to that experience.  It doesn't matter that you can't get there via a particular road.  What matters is the end experience is pretty damn similar regardless of what game you are playing.

Regardless of edition, players are going to be having some pretty similar stories after the fact.  They went out, slayed the princess, set fire to the dragon and slept with the gold.  Or something like that.

Then again, I'm a pretty big tent kinda guy.  I'll totally accept that someone playing Spelljammer is still playing D&D despite the fact that I have zero interest in that particular game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

> Well, when you play D&D, do you sit around a table, eating various snacks, with people you enjoy spending time with?
> 
> Do you play a fantasy inspired character set within a fantasy setting?
> 
> ...




Again, still not helpful, because that list of questions includes my experiences with Stormbringer, Earthdawn, Harn, Talisantha, and dozens of other FRPGs, etc.  And I'm not sure most people who play those games OR D&D would feel comfortable with that definition of the "D&D experience."

Hell, but for 2 of those questions, that covers most of my experiences in Sci-Fi RPGs, Superheroic RPGs, and gaming in general...and could include some campaigns set in Star Wars or RIFTS, for that matter.

IOW, if that's what Mercurious is aiming for, its a useless definition because it is overbroad.

(And FWIW, I _do _consider Spelljammer to be D&D.)


----------



## Starman (Feb 8, 2011)

Whatever [MENTION=81511]Mercurious[/MENTION] seems to be advocating sounds like badwrongfun and I vehemently oppose any who play that way. Anyone with a lick o' sense would know my way is far superior.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 8, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, still not helpful, because that list of questions includes my experiences with Stormbringer, Earthdawn, Harn, Talisantha, and dozens of other FRPGs, etc.




It also encompasses World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, Everquest, etc as the same list would apply to them.

Removing the first one with the table, snacks, and people you enjoying time spending with won't work you say?

Then that definition would never hold true for the "D&D Experience" in regards to using NeverWinter Nights, DDO: Stormreach, DDi Game Table, MapTools, KludgeWerks, OpenRPG, etc online virtual tabletops.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 8, 2011)

So instead of "4e doesn't feel like D&D to me" we should say "4e isn't a road I can take to get that D&D feeling"?

Because, what does it mean when the road doesn't lead to Rome for me?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 8, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Because, what does it mean when the road doesn't lead to Rome for me?



That you're going to Albuquerque?

Lan-"the road goes ever ever on"-efan


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, still not helpful, because that list of questions includes my experiences with Stormbringer, Earthdawn, Harn, Talisantha, and dozens of other FRPGs, etc.  And I'm not sure most people who play those games OR D&D would feel comfortable with that definition of the "D&D experience."
> 
> Hell, but for 2 of those questions, that covers most of my experiences in Sci-Fi RPGs, Superheroic RPGs, and gaming in general...and could include some campaigns set in Star Wars or RIFTS, for that matter.
> 
> ...




The list wasn't meant to be exhaustive.  But, since it does exclude your SF rpg's it's a good start.  So, what differentiates Earthdawn from D&D?  Or Harn?

I'd say Harn differentiates because it's based so strongly in sim play.  That's the point of using Harn - to model as best as possible, a certain reality.  

Earthdawn doesn't use classes or levels does it?

Stormbringer is based on a single series of fiction, so, it differentiates because it's not broad enough.

As far as "sitting around a table" goes Shadzar - I didn't actually specify sitting around the SAME table did I?    Please, let's not get too caught up in pedantry shall we?  Everyone is still sitting around a table when playing online.  And, eating snacks.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> As far as "sitting around a table" goes Shadzar - I didn't actually specify sitting around the SAME table did I?    Please, let's not get too caught up in pedantry shall we?  Everyone is still sitting around a table when playing online.  And, eating snacks.



Which brings up yet another variable: is there such a thing as virtual Rome and can it also be shoehorned in here somewhere?

To me, there isn't.  It ain't D+D - hell, it's barely even gaming at all - to me unless I'm sitting around the same table as the DM and other players and can if needs must throw something at them. 

Lan-"if you throw it at me, it's mine"-efan


----------



## shadzar (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> As far as "sitting around a table" goes Shadzar - I didn't actually specify sitting around the SAME table did I?




Toupee! ....touche? one of them....

So then WoW and the rest fit the D&D experience satisfies you, IF using that inexhaustive list?

If so, how can you tailor the list so it does not include WoW, but still include NeverWinter Nights and DDO?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The list wasn't meant to be exhaustive.  But, since it does exclude your SF rpg's it's a good start.  So, what differentiates Earthdawn from D&D?  Or Harn?
> 
> I'd say Harn differentiates because it's based so strongly in sim play.  That's the point of using Harn - to model as best as possible, a certain reality.
> 
> ...




Fair enough, we're getting more refinement.

But so far, that still lets us add Palladium RPG to the list.  And HERO or GURPs "D&D clone" campaign.

And I'm not sure that being a "sim" excludes Harn, since some people play some _very _gritty, realistic games of D&D...not to mention D&D offshoots like Iron Heroes.  Harn may be a stronger sim than D&D, but that in and of itself ejects it from the class.  After all, that would lead us down the path of eliminating 3.X from the tent (many consider it the "sim"-iest incarnation of the game).


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 8, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You're still not getting me.




Danny, I think I _am _getting you but you are butchering my analogy. You either don't understand the analogy or you are deliberately misusing it to continue an argument that I have no interest in continuing (that this whole thread is about bypassing, actually!).

Seeing as I have no reason to think you are a nasty fellow, I am left to believe that you simply don't understand what I mean by "Rome." You keep saying that "4E is not Rome" - yes, Danny, that's the whole point of the analogy - but *no edition is Rome, not even your favorite one. *Rather, your favorite one is a road that gets you to "Rome", which is the "D&D Experience" that I have explained numerous times and have no interest in explaining again. 

I would suggest that if A) you don't understand the analogy, re-read the thread, if B) you are deliberately misusing it...well, I don't know what to say.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Toupee! ....touche? one of them....
> 
> So then WoW and the rest fit the D&D experience satisfies you, IF using that inexhaustive list?
> 
> If so, how can you tailor the list so it does not include WoW, but still include NeverWinter Nights and DDO?




Well, WoW wouldn't fit because it's not a role playing game.  That's a pretty easy one to discount.  Nothing in WoW actually presumes that you are attempting to role play your character.  While you can role play in WoW, the game does not in any way actually reward you for doing so.

And, I'm not sure I would include Neverwinter Nights or DDO for exactly the same reason.   Neither game actually rewards or presumes that you are role playing your character.  The fact that you can doesn't really matter.  RPG's presume that you are role playing the character and actually directly reward you for doing so.  Or, in the case of AD&D, punish you through training rules for not doing so.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Fair enough, we're getting more refinement.
> 
> But so far, that still lets us add Palladium RPG to the list.  And HERO or GURPs "D&D clone" campaign.
> 
> And I'm not sure that being a "sim" excludes Harn, since some people play some _very _gritty, realistic games of D&D...not to mention D&D offshoots like Iron Heroes.  Harn may be a stronger sim than D&D, but that in and of itself ejects it from the class.  After all, that would lead us down the path of eliminating 3.X from the tent (many consider it the "sim"-iest incarnation of the game).




Palladium, GURPS and Hero are not class based.  That right there takes them outside of the D&D experience.

I've never actually played Harn.  Is it class based?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

> Palladium, GURPS and Hero are not class based. That right there takes them outside of the D&D experience.



Palladium _most definitely _uses classes: they call them O.C.Cs (Occupational Character Classes) and it has a level advancement system as well.

The GURPS and HERO "D&D clone" campaigns have the same races, spells and classes and levels as you'd find in D&D because the GM builds them in.  There is not one spell, power, SLA or what have you in D&D you can't model in HERO. Its as easy as pie.  (Tedious, perhaps, but easy.)

I've not done it for GURPS, but to add levels, all a GM in HERO would have to do to have levels is not allow players to spend XP until they accumulate to a certain point.  If you're doing an AD&D/2Ed clone, you make separate XP charts for each class; for a 3.X clone, you have only one XP chart.

(And, FWIW, you can run a D&D clone with W&W/M&M, which has Power Levels.)

As for Harn, its been so long since I played it or Talisantha- more than a decade for each- that I've forgotten.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, *WoW* wouldn't fit because it's *not a role playing game*.  That's a pretty easy one to discount.  Nothing in WoW actually presumes that you are attempting to role play your character.  While you can role play in WoW, the game does not in any way actually reward you for doing so.
> 
> And, I'm not sure I would include Neverwinter Nights or DDO for exactly the same reason.   Neither game actually rewards or presumes that you are role playing your character.  The fact that you can doesn't really matter.  RPG's presume that you are role playing the character and actually directly reward you for doing so.  Or, in the case of AD&D, punish you through training rules for not doing so.




 WoW not a role playing game. All I can say to that is WOW!

NWN and DDO do not reward for role playing your character? How not?

They offer XP for killing things, and fit all your other criteria for the "D&D Experience".

If NWN and DDO do not provide the "D&D experience", then I guess Dungeons and Dragons 1977 does not provide the "D&D Experience" also.

How can a, no not a, THE FIRST instance of Dungeon and Dragons _not_ provide the "D&D Experience"?

It rewards for the same things as NWN and DDO. So wait...we can have the "D&D Experience" with some, but not all of the D&D RPG products; AND we can have it with products that are not even D&D?

Are all roads leading to the same place? Is Rome the "D&D Experience", or is it just fantasy escapism?

What is Rome?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

I'll admit the only Palladium I've played is TMNT and a brief stint of Rifts, ages ago.  TMNT didn't have classes, so, I'm not entirely sure about Palladium.

The fact that you have to rebuild Hero to emulate D&D doesn't really negate my point.  If you've rebuilt Hero to the point where it's simulating D&D, is it really all that different of a game?  Of course, the base Hero system doesn't presume that.  So, basically, you're playing D&D using a different system.  At that point, why not just use D&D?

The same thing goes for GURPS.  If you've modded the game to the point where you're essentially playing D&D, just with a different system, are you still playing the base system anymore?

IOW, why bring up homebrewing various systems to emulate D&D?  If someone goes through Hero, to the point where they've entirely recreated every single power, SLA and whatnot from D&D, I'd say they've bloody well EARNED the right to call themselves D&D players.  

But, it's sort of pointless to talk about how you can play D&D with other systems.  We can talk about homebrews all you like, but, the basic point still remains.  HERO is not D&D because it's not a level based fantasy system.  GURPS is not a level based fantasy system.  Palladium is mostly point buy AFAIK, so, again, it's not exactly D&D either, although it's pretty close.

Then again, most Palladium players would not call themselves D&D players.  Because they are deliberately choosing to play Palladium and not D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

> _<snip>_What is Rome?




My point: its not a useful metaphor.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

shadzar said:


> WoW not a role playing game. All I can say to that is WOW!
> 
> NWN and DDO do not reward for role playing your character? How not?
> 
> ...




Really?  What XP do I get for acting in character in any CRPG?  How am I rewarded for being a Paladin vs being an Cleric?  Do I gain more xp for healing someone as a cleric?  I certainly do in 2e D&D.  Am I forced to spend more money training if I run away as a fighter?  I certainly do in 1e D&D.

Does OD&D use training rules?  I actually don't know.

From AD&D forward, the rules presume that you are actually role playing and reward (or punish you) for such.

WoW and other CRPG's don't.  I can play a paladin in NWN and steal everything not nailed down and not suffer any penalties.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

> The fact that you have to rebuild Hero to emulate D&D doesn't really negate my point. If you've rebuilt Hero to the point where it's simulating D&D, is it really all that different of a game? Of course, the base Hero system doesn't presume that. So, basically, you're playing D&D using a different system. At that point, why not just use D&D?



1) Its not really modding if the system can do it.  Levels are just a matter of telling players when (IOW, how often) they can spend their XP.  D&D races and classes are just a matter of making "package deals"- a standard device for HERO, used to model family bloodlines, afflictions like lycanthropy, creature types like undead, vampires and elementals, mutants, RW occupations like police officer, etc.  The only thing is making them into D&D lycanthropes, undead, vampires and elementals, as opposed to those you'd find in standard Fantasy HERO, WoD, Palladium, or what have you.

2) You do this because you have players who want to play a FRPG campaign but have little to no familiarity with D&D and lots of familiarity with HERO.  Which does describe RW groups of which I have been a member.

3) You do this because its even more flexible than the game you're cloning.  While I can model the D&D fireball with an AoE RKA, I can also come up with an infinite number of variants on the fireball, covering 3.X metamagic versions, class effects, and things that don't exist in the game...such as a Fireball that simultaneously turns you into a winged frog AND teleports you to France.



> IOW, why bring up homebrewing various systems to emulate D&D?




Because *I *get more of the same feel from a HERO D&D clone as I do from pre-4Ed D&D than I do from 4Ed D&D itself. * If "feel" is the point of contention, then a HERO D&D clone, to me, feels more like D&D than 4Ed.
*


> Palladium is mostly point buy




Not really.  You get rolls that set your base stats and then modify them with benefits gained from skills, race and class.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

DannyA said:
			
		

> Because I get more of the same feel from a HERO D&D clone as I do from pre-4Ed D&D than I do from 4Ed D&D itself. If "feel" is the point of contention, then a HERO D&D clone, to me, feels more like D&D than 4Ed.




But, that's the entire point.  It doesn't matter what you feel.  If someone else feels that X gives them the D&D experience, then it does.  That you don't is irrelavent.  You don't like that particular road.  Cool.  

To me, playing a Hero emulation of D&D probably wouldn't do it for me.  Does that invalidate your experience?  No, of course not.  That's just one more road on the route to getting a D&D experience.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Feb 8, 2011)

Mercurius said:
			
		

> I think this is an issue that just begs to be exorcised, dealt with, psychologically and socially metabolized by the D&D community, or at least this community. As Jung said, the way out is through...




As with other aspects of the Shadow, certain personalities like to revisit their pain with a perverse, masochistic joy; even when doing so provides no psychological benefit. 

The rationale which a neurotic invokes in this case is usually one of exploration; in fact, the desire is for the conflict (whether personal or interpersonal) to continue, as it lends meaning and purpose to the patient's life.

The horse is dead.

Really.

Very.

Dead.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really? What XP do I get for acting in character in any CRPG? How am I rewarded for being a Paladin vs being an Cleric? Do I gain more xp for healing someone as a cleric? I certainly do in 2e D&D. Am I forced to spend more money training if I run away as a fighter? I certainly do in 1e D&D.
> 
> Does OD&D use training rules? I actually don't know.
> 
> ...





Erm... 

You don't get xp for roleplay in 4e, you don't get more xp for healing someone as a cleric, you don't have training costs, and the rules don't reward or punish you if you don't roleplay (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92652).

But I agree, WoW involves minimal roleplaying, but there are some people who will roleplay anyway. You CAN roleplay in WoW, it's just that it's mainly "solve quests and kill stuff for treasure and XP."



But, I'm dangerously close to implying that 4e is like WoW and that 4e is not D&D here...so I'll stop.



(seriously, don't hurt me )


----------



## MerricB (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'll admit the only Palladium I've played is TMNT and a brief stint of Rifts, ages ago.  TMNT didn't have classes, so, I'm not entirely sure about Palladium.




Strictly speaking, TMNT has *one* class. 

Cheers!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Erm...
> 
> You don't get xp for roleplay in 4e, you don't get more xp for healing someone as a cleric, you don't have training costs, and the rules don't reward or punish you if you don't roleplay ([4e] Paladins and Alignment - Giant in the Playground Forums).
> 
> ...




That would be wrong though.  The whole Skill Challenge ruleset awards xp for non-combat and role play.  Additionally, the Quest rules give awards for role play and non-combat.  4ed rewards in character play to at very least the extent any other edition did.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

> But, that's the entire point. It doesn't matter what you feel. If someone else feels that X gives them the D&D experience, then it does. That you don't is irrelavent. You don't like that particular road. Cool.




Were that true, this thread would not exist.  From start to finish, its ALL about feel.

Mercurious' impetus for starting this thread was to untangle and disarm the discussion of the phrase "4Ed is not D&D to me," a phrase that inspired reactions like *"silly"*, *"pointless"* and *"infantile"* from those who clearly love the game.

"All Roads Lead to Rome"..."The D&D experience"..."distinct "signature" to the game of D&D, a feeling, a vibe, a gestalt of qualities, what I like to summarize as an experience."- every last bit Mercurious has posted about...its all about _feel._

That you may not find a HERO D&D clone D&D-ish is both understandable.  Its clearly not D&D to you...nor would it be to a lot of people.

Still, though, such a game IS to me...at least, much moreso than 4Ed is.  Because of _feel_.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 8, 2011)

Well, I was mostly just being playful, but I honestly don't see where 4e rewards roleplaying in ways that WoW does not.

My group may have done skill challenges wrong, but aren't they basically "pick a skill and apply it"? Rolling high, not roleplaying, being the chief factor? I admit, I may have an incorrect view of skill challenges.

Quest rules give rewards for non-combat achievement of goals, sure (that's present in WoW). Do they give rewards for roleplay?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Well, I was mostly just being playful, but I honestly don't see where 4e rewards roleplaying in ways that WoW does not.
> 
> My group may have done skill challenges wrong, but aren't they basically "pick a skill and apply it"? Rolling high, not roleplaying, being the chief factor? I admit, I may have an incorrect view of skill challenges.
> 
> Quest rules give rewards for non-combat achievement of goals, sure (that's present in WoW). Do they give rewards for roleplay?




Pick a skill and roll it is certainly how a skill challenge is resolved.  Fair enough.  But, if that's all you did for a skill challenge, then yes, you did it wrong.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 8, 2011)

Ok.

Well, we did do more. We roleplayed during it. (For what it's worth, I like the idea and some of the implementation of skill challenges in 4e...I think it's a nice design element that was brought to D&D by 4e).

But the point there is that we didn't HAVE to roleplay. Similar to WoW.


(EDIT: and let me be clear...I don't think 4e = WoW or that there is no roleplaying in 4e. I just am following this line of discussion to point out that it's not even clear if WoW is an RPG, much less D&D. I will say that I play WoW, and that it does help scratch my D&D itch, but I wouldn't call it D&D or "Rome"...though maybe I should based on the OP and the itch being scratched?)


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

True, you didn't HAVE to roleplay.  Then again, that's always been true.  The presumption, however, is that you will roleplay that situation.

Nothing in WOW actually presumes that you will behave in any manner consistent with whatever character you happen to be playing.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Pick a skill and roll it is certainly how a skill challenge is resolved.  Fair enough.  But, if that's all you did for a skill challenge, then yes, you did it wrong.




But the skill challenge was an encounter with the two guards at the city gate, and "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun."

So expediting it via quickest resolution method to get to the fun is wrong?


----------



## Lalato (Feb 8, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> But the point there is that we didn't HAVE to roleplay. Similar to WoW.
> 
> 
> (EDIT: and let me be clear...I don't think 4e = WoW or that there is no roleplaying in 4e. I just am following this line of discussion to point out that it's not even clear if WoW is an RPG, much less D&D. I will say that I play WoW, and that it does help scratch my D&D itch, but I wouldn't call it D&D or "Rome"...though maybe I should based on the OP and the itch being scratched?)




Yeah... but, strictly speaking, you don't have to roleplay in ANY edition of D&D.  D&D has ALWAYS been based on the combat mechanics.  D&D was born with combat in mind and so it rewards combat more than anything else.  That's EVERY edition of D&D... not just 4e.  

Why is it that 4e gets singled out for this?


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 8, 2011)

I dunno why it gets singled out...maybe because the focus is more strongly on "the encounter" and "not the encounter" the way the mechanics work? (Not that people need to play it this way, I've seen it played without this imposed dichotomy).


I was merely pointing out that all of the examples that Hussar gave that made WoW "not an RPG" also apply to 4e. They do not all apply to any other D&D version, though. So, in this thread, and in this discussion, that's why I'm singling out 4e.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

shadzar said:


> But the skill challenge was an encounter with the two guards at the city gate, and "An encounter with two guards at the city gate isn’t fun."
> 
> So expediting it via quickest resolution method to get to the fun is wrong?




Wow, nothing like quoting out of context to feed the flames huh?  How about actually going back and reading the 4e DMG and more than just the single line that gets trotted out for edition wars and seeing what the book actually says.

-----------------

WoW isn't an RPG because there's no presumption of R.  I don't know how to put it more simply than that.  Nothing in the game actually presumes that you are going to play your character.  It's no different than Monopoly in this sense.  Sure, you can role play in Monopoly but that doesn't make it an RPG.

The entire 4e DMG revolves around the presumption of adopting a role.  Every bit of advice flows from that basic assumption.  Page 42 examples come from the idea that the player is making role play decisions, not based on what is the most tactically advantageous, but on what would make a good story.

The artifacts rules are almost entirely role play based.  The whole artifact reaction rules depend on the player acting out his character.  

To me, this is pretty fundamental to what differentiates a CRPG from an RPG. 

-----------

The thing that blows my mind about "It just doesn't feel like D&D to me" is that it's so hard to defend.  I can play:


 an anthropomorphic hippo flying a spaceship using the Skills and Powers 2e rules.
a demigod halfling using the Immortals rules.
a gestalt gnomish binder/wizard using the 3e ruleset and 14 different 3rd party splatbooks
a human thief
a fighting man.

and say that I'm playing D&D and no one bats an eye.  But, I play a Dragonborn warlord and suddenly it's not D&D anymore?  Really?  There are more differences between edition in those editions considered "D&D" than there are between 3e and 4e, yet, suddenly 4e is out in the cold?

The other thing is, if 4e isn't D&D, why is 3e?  After all, people told me for years that 3e wasn't really D&D.  Why are you suddenly right when they are wrong?


----------



## shadzar (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Wow, nothing like quoting out of context to feed the flames huh?  How about actually going back and reading the 4e DMG and more than just the single line that gets trotted out for edition wars and seeing what the book actually says.
> 
> -----------------
> 
> WoW isn't an RPG because there's no presumption of R.  I don't know how to put it more simply than that.  Nothing in the game actually presumes that you are going to play your character.  It's no different than Monopoly in this sense.  Sure, you can role play in Monopoly but that doesn't make it an RPG.




Maybe it is what you consider the R in RPG that is flawed?

4th edition has clearly defined R correct?

Defender, Striker, Controller, and Leader.

Are you saying WoW doesn't have an equivalent? What NWN and DDO doesn't have something equivalent to a role that you are playing?

This is why Rome burned. Too many people just walking down the road and not paying attention to what was going on around them.

So basically the "D&D Experience" is that nothing can be shared because the flames will in the end engulf it. While some are trying to decide and figure out what a "role" is others are trying to figure out where the "property lines" are and nobody has noticed before it is too late, that the flames are coming and cannot be stopped, because they come fast. It is inevitable.

So you choice is to stay in Rome if you survived and help rebuild it and enjoy YOUR Rome, or leave with your memory of Rome and discuss it with others of the same memory. Should you meet someone coming from the rebuilt Rome, you may be able to accept its location, but do not feel it to be Rome just because it was built in the same location....or with the same product name in the case of D&D. Someone from the rebuilt Rome doesn't need to be offended that someone else doesn't feel it is Rome anymore.

No one ever has to understand anothers feelings in order to accept them as the feelings of that person.

FYI, yes I am tired of the analogy and figured I would give my take on it...


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

Yes, Shadzar, if you deliberately misinterpret the multiple meanings of Role, then you are 100% right.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2011)

Lalato said:


> I just don't understand why anyone cares what other people are playing.



Well, in my case, I don't (except as a matter of curiosity).

But I do get a bit annoyed when I get told (either directly or by implication) that my game is not _really_ an RPG, or is in various way _deficient_ as an RPG, or is just a minis skirmish game with a random collection of encounters, or . . .

If people have that view of my game, fine. But when I'm trying to post about and discuss my game on an RPG discussion board, I could easily cope without having such views shared with me!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> We all share the one thing in common: We love the D&D experience. But we all "get there" by different means.





Umbran said:


> Your idea would work except for one thing: we are not all seeking the same singular experience in play.  Thus, some would say that certain games are not roads to the experience of D&D, and we'd be still be in the same boat.



I tend to agree with Umbran on this.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can and have run D&D-style games in HERO complete with races, spells and "classes" we'd all recognize; others have done likewise in GURPS.



And Rolemaster - many times I've posted here about my Rolemaster games without needing to indicate that it was Rolemaster, because it didn't matter (for the purposes of that discussion) that the various fantasy tropes that define the characters in the game are mechanically realised in a different way.



Hussar said:


> there are far more shared points between someone playing 4e and your game than someone playing, say, Mutants and Masterminds or Traveler.





Dannyalcatraz said:


> Again, still not helpful, because that list of questions includes my experiences with Stormbringer, Earthdawn, Harn, Talisantha, and dozens of other FRPGs, etc.  And I'm not sure most people who play those games OR D&D would feel comfortable with that definition of the "D&D experience."



On this point I tend to agree with Dannyalcatraz.

I believe, for example, that the experience of my previous RM game sand my current 4e game are much closer to one another than either is to the last (2nd ed) AD&D game that I played. Although the gross features of the mechanics - 3-18 stats, lots of polyhedral dice, etc - are more alike in the case of the two D&D games, for me at least this is only a modest part of the overall gaming experience.



Hussar said:


> I'll Palladium is mostly point buy AFAIK



Palladium Fantasy is a class-and-level based game with no points buy that I recall. It does have skill selection, but not on a points-buy basis (it's a bit more like 4e - you choose a certain number of skills from a class list).



Mercurius said:


> D&D transcends and includes all versions, all editions, all perceptions of what it is. It is a Platonic Form which we all participate in in different ways, through different modalities.



I think Danny's point is that there _is no such form_. Putting to one side the various issues with Platonic Forms, I think it's uncontroversial to say that a group of things cannot fall under a given Form unless they all resemble one another in a greater number of salient respects than any of them resembles anything else. This is what makes them all particular instances of the one Form.

And I think Danny is right that, when it comes to fantasy RPGs, including the various editions of D&D, the type-constituting salient resemblances just aren't there.

I don't want to be disagreeing with you, because I like the motivation for your proposal. I just don't think it works.

And to try and be constructive (and also to show that others are equally capable of putting up proposals that probably don't work!): I think it would be helpful if posters were more prepared to speak frankly about what they are looking for in play, and to talk about what various mechanical and other aspects of different games - including D&D - would help them with this.

I think this proposal faces at least two problems, though. First, it depends upon the vocabulary being available to do this talking - and the only well-developed such vocabulary is the one the Forge uses, and there is a lot of hostility to the Forge on these boards.

Second, it depends upon people being willing to separate their discussion of RPGing and their RPG experiences from commercial questions about what company is publishing what. And that is not likely to happen on a fansite dedicated to products defined primarily by their relationship to a particular gaming company.

That's why, in the end, I'm inclined to agree with Lanefan - if the publisher has put D&D on the cover, then it's D&D, end of story.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

> I don't want to be disagreeing with you, because I like the motivation for your proposal. I just don't think it works.




Which I agree with 100%, FWIW.

I don't want there to be tumult over a five word phrase, but there it is.  When I say it, it is not meant to provoke or insult, but to express my viewpoint of my relationship to the game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

> I think it would be helpful if posters were more prepared to speak frankly about what they are looking for in play, and to talk about what various mechanical and other aspects of different games - including D&D - would help them with this.




Many of us have...and out of that have sprung many an Edition Wars thread.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> You don't get xp for roleplay in 4e



It depends what you mean by "roleplay".

4e doesn't have "Thespian" XP - it is not an important part of the game, therefore, whether players talk about their PCs in 3rd person or speak in 1st person (although some social interactions can be a bit stilted if done only in 3rd person).

4e does have quest XP, which is XP awarded to the group when one or more PCs achieve goals for those PCs. The guidelines for establishing quests aren't the best written, but include the following (DMG pp 102-103):

Don’t be shy about letting the players know what their quests are. Give the players an obvious goal . . .

You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!​
For me, the best way to make sense of this is that quests are set by the GM in close collaboration with the players. This fits within a (non-Thespian) definition of rewarding roleplaying.

The DMG2 also has the following rule (p 25, under the heading "Drama Rewards"):

Award the characters experience as if they had defeated one monster of their level for every 15 minutes they spend in signficicant, focused roleplaying that advences the story of your campaign.​
And then, as Hussar pointed out, there are skill challenges.



Aberzanzorax said:


> My group may have done skill challenges wrong, but aren't they basically "pick a skill and apply it"? Rolling high, not roleplaying, being the chief factor? I admit, I may have an incorrect view of skill challenges.



Apologies in advance!, but you've just pressed the button in my brain that forces me to post the relevant rulebook text on skill challenges:

From the player’s point of view (PHB pp 179, 259):

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail…

Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. Your goal is to accumulate a specific number of victories (usually in the form of successful skill checks) before you get too many defeats (failed checks). It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.

From the GM’s point of view (DMG pp 72–75):

More so than perhaps any other kind of encounter, a skill challenge is defined by its context in an adventure…

Begin by describing the situation and defining the challenge. . . You describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results...

When a player’s turn comes up in a skill challenge, let that player’s character use any skill the player wants. As long as the player or you can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it…

In skill challenges, players will come up with uses for skills that you didn’t expect to play a role. Try not to say no. . . This encourages players to think about the challenge in more depth…

However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing … Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge.​
To me, this makes it pretty clear how a skill challenge works: the GM sets the scene and describes it to the players; the players explain how their PCs are engaging with that scene to achieve their goal; in doing this, the players also nominate skills as the mechanical implementation of how they are engaging; and the GM adjudicates such nominations, determines the difficulty if such a nomination is approved, and adjudicates the results of success or failure.

What these rules don't entirely spell out, but what is a pretty clear implication (and it's hinted at a bit in the example of play in the DMG p 77, and a bit better in the example of play in the Rules Compendium pp 162-63) is that the GM should also be narrating the result of each skill check - whether a success or a failure - in such a way as to set the context for the next PC (or perhaps the same PC again) to engage the ingame situation.

Played in this way (which, in light of the quotes and examples, I'm pretty confident is the intended way), a skill challenge is a roleplaying experience. 

My impression is that a lot of 4e groups run skill challenges in the way you describe because they've been misled by the examples in the DMG and in the modules into assuming that the setup of the challenge involves the GM tellilng the players what skills to use, and what is going on in the gameworld when those skills are used.

But given the actual rules that I've quoted, the only way to make sense of the DMG examples is as GM's notes: the GM has noted the likely relevant skills, and the sorts of things that the players might do with them (just as, in prepping a combat encounter, a GM might note what the monsters will do in response to likely actions on the parts of the players). But these "GM's notes" are not a template that the players have to work their way through, any more than tactical notes in a combat encounter are a script for the players.

Skill challenges are very obviously based on action resolution mechanics in some indie or indie-style games like Maelstron Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth and Burning Wheel, and I think one reason they haven't taken off is because many D&D players aren't familiar with those games, and the WotC authors didn't do as good a job as they might have done explaining how they are meant to play out. (I don't mean to rudely impute to you ignorance of any particular RPGs - but from the way you describe your skill challenge experiences, I'd be surprised if you have very much familiarity with these other games.)

EDITED to respond to this:



Aberzanzorax said:


> I dunno why it gets singled out...maybe because the focus is more strongly on "the encounter" and "not the encounter" the way the mechanics work?



This is another area where I think there's a degree of confusion.

The _encounter_, in 4e, is what is called at The Forge _the situation_. The idea is that, in an encounter/situation, something is at stake which (i) the players care about, and (ii) they can attempt to engage with via their PCs.

The contrast would be with an exploration game, where much of the game is devoted not to encounters in this sense, but to the players learning about (in a sandbox) the gameworld, or (in a railroad) the GM's pre-determined story.

I 100% agree that 4e is not an exploration game - or, at least, not best suited to that. It does have strong exploration elements, though, like most RPGs, and there is a thorough discussion of exploration in chapters 1 and 8 of the PHB and chapter 2 of the DMG. And of the 4e GMs who post on this board, LostSoul is at least one who is running a sandbox game in 4e (although it emphasises exploration less, and gamism and players' emotional engagement with the setting more, than perhaps is the case for some sandboxes).

But the notion that a game that reduces emphasis on exploration has therefore downplayed roleplaying is, as far as I can tell, only plausible for those who aren't familiar with the huge range of situation-driven RPGs that have been in print since the mid-to-late 1990s, like those I mentioned above. When a skill challenge is being presented and resolved in the way I described above, the players aren't exploring a pre-given world or story. And they're not necessarily being 1st-person Thespians. But they are certainly roleplaying!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Many of us have...and out of that have sprung many an Edition Wars thread.



I don't really agree with this.

And I should add - I don't count you as an edition warrer (am I editing my memory here?).

Anyway, to avoid the embarassment of talking about you any more in my reply, I'll talk about Lanefan instead (who might still be reading, but at least it's a bit more third person!).

Lanefan and I clearly have some different preferences in RPGs. He has no interest in 4e. He has explained on various occasions why not. I could probably get into his houseruled AD&D if I tried, but I'm certainly not knocking down his door to get a copy of it. For the reasons I've posted on many occasions, I find that 4e better delivers to me what I'm looking for from an RPG. Lanefan likes 9-point alignment. I don't really like alignment at all, but prefer 4e's approach to AD&D's. We each have our reasons.

But Lanefan and I have had lots of friendly and productive exchanges about GMing styles, playstyles, things we like and don't like. We've compared experiences running Night's Dark Terror. When we disagree, we tell each other why, and respectfully move on.

I don't see that as edition warring, because Lanefan has never tried to tell me I'm doing it wrong. And I can tell from his posts, and the duration of his campaign, and his obvious enthusiasm for and experience with the game, that he's not doing it wrong either.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

> And I should add - I don't count you as an edition warrer (am I editing my memory here?).




Can't really say.  I mean, I defend my preferences and express what I feel about this game or that.

Despite my not considering myself one, I'm sure I've gotten hot enough that someone might have labeled me thus in their mind.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 8, 2011)

??? said:
			
		

> The fact that you have to rebuild Hero to emulate D&D doesn't really negate my point. If you've rebuilt Hero to the point where it's simulating D&D, is it really all that different of a game? Of course, the base Hero system doesn't presume that. So, basically, you're playing D&D using a different system. At that point, why not just use D&D?



_Note: Dannyalcatraz quoted this in a post above, original author uncredited._
So let's go the other way: if I rebuild D+D - which I and others jointly have - to make it the game I want, is it still D+D?  Obviously my highly-biased answer is 'yes', but what do others think?



pemerton said:


> Anyway, to avoid the embarassment of talking about you any more in my reply, I'll talk about Lanefan instead (who might still be reading, but at least it's a bit more third person!).



::hand goes up:: 

I'm over here in the corner practising my hide-in-shadows.



> Lanefan and I clearly have some different preferences in RPGs. He has no interest in 4e. He has explained on various occasions why not. I could probably get into his houseruled AD&D if I tried, but I'm certainly not knocking down his door to get a copy of it.



You don't need to...the basics are on our website and I can always send you the rest... 


> For the reasons I've posted on many occasions, I find that 4e better delivers to me what I'm looking for from an RPG. Lanefan likes 9-point alignment. I don't really like alignment at all, but prefer 4e's approach to AD&D's. We each have our reasons.
> 
> But Lanefan and I have had lots of friendly and productive exchanges about GMing styles, playstyles, things we like and don't like. We've compared experiences running Night's Dark Terror. When we disagree, we tell each other why, and respectfully move on.
> 
> I don't see that as edition warring, because Lanefan has never tried to tell me I'm doing it wrong. And I can tell from his posts, and the duration of his campaign, and his obvious enthusiasm for and experience with the game, that he's not doing it wrong either.



There's a number of key posters here in ENWorld that I've come to realize just plain "get it", for lack of a better term; even though collectively we often disagree and sometimes fight like cats.  And by "get it" I mean they both understand and care what the game's about on a much greater scale beyond the mechanics and the minutiae, and that comes through in what they post.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is one such, which is why I mention it here.

What I'd really love to do is get together over a beer or three with those people and just talk shop all night.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2011)

Lanefan, very kind of you to say what you did!


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 8, 2011)

pemerton said:


> SNIP for post made of win.




Thanks very much, this post really helped me to understand not just what we're discussing here, but also some (pretty cool) nuances of 4e.

I'd give you xp, but I gotta give Gary (and others) some more first.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 8, 2011)

Keefe the Thief said:


> But i i really would like this to catch on, because it also could be used to kill the "Real Realms / Shattered Realms" split with fire.




Real Realms. Heh. Do we actually have people claiming to have been there?  

Too funny.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 8, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Erm...
> 
> You don't get xp for roleplay in 4e,




Erm... yes you do.  As pmerton quoted from the DMG2:
Award the characters experience as if they had defeated one monster of their level for every 15 minutes they spend in signficicant, focused roleplaying that advences the story of your campaign.​


> you don't get more xp for healing someone as a cleric,




Good!  Clerics are people and the representatives of their Gods.  Not healbots.  There _should not_ be an incentive for Clerics to half axe-murder people just so they can get the XP for healing them again.  If you give bonus XP for actions to clerics, _give it for converting people_.



> you don't have training costs,




Oh.  It's a cost.  *crosses a few thousand gold off character sheet* - apparently this is roleplaying?



> and the rules don't reward or punish you if you don't roleplay ([4e] Paladins and Alignment - Giant in the Playground Forums).




Given that you can't meaningfully engage with skill challenges without roleplaying if the DM doesn't just give you a list of skills then I'd say it punishes you a bit.



> But I agree, WoW involves minimal roleplaying, but there are some people who will roleplay anyway. You CAN roleplay in WoW, it's just that it's mainly "solve quests and kill stuff for treasure and XP."
> 
> But, I'm dangerously close to implying that 4e is like WoW and that 4e is not D&D here...so I'll stop.




And I'd call you dangerously close to implying that D&D is like WoW.  Especially 1e where treasure _was_ XP.  And modules like Tomb of Horrors are about solving the dungeon for treasure and XP (which is what the OSR seems to want).  For that matter with the 1e Treasure = XP rules, the very thing the game encouraged you to do was solve quests and take stuff for treasure and XP.

Yes, 4e is like World of Warcraft.  But with the single exception of powers to give all classes something cool to do, 4e is like World of Warcraft _because World of Warcraft learned most of those things from D&D._


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 8, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Ok.
> 
> Well, we did do more. We roleplayed during it. (For what it's worth, I like the idea and some of the implementation of skill challenges in 4e...I think it's a nice design element that was brought to D&D by 4e).
> 
> But the point there is that we didn't HAVE to roleplay. Similar to WoW.




Every edition of D&D can be approached and played as a tabletop skirmish game. The opportunity to roleplay is what sets it apart from being just a tactical combat game. Roleplaying opportunity exists for the enjoyment of the players. If the players do not enjoy it, then don't do it. 



Hussar said:


> True, you didn't HAVE to roleplay. Then again, that's always been true. The presumption, however, is that you will roleplay that situation.




Yes. Otherwise why waste time with an rpg. Play a combat game, get more "meat" and do away with unnecessary character stuff.



Lalato said:


> Yeah... but, strictly speaking, you don't have to roleplay in ANY edition of D&D. D&D has ALWAYS been based on the combat mechanics. D&D was born with combat in mind and so it rewards combat more than anything else. That's EVERY edition of D&D... not just 4e.
> 
> Why is it that 4e gets singled out for this?




Not quite. OD&D, BD&D, and AD&D were all about the treasure. Aquire it by any means possible. Avoiding combat was often a faster route to success. Roleplaying, as with any edition, was still purely optional. 



Aberzanzorax said:


> I dunno why it gets singled out...maybe because the focus is more strongly on "the encounter" and "not the encounter" the way the mechanics work? (Not that people need to play it this way, I've seen it played without this imposed dichotomy).
> 
> 
> I was merely pointing out that all of the examples that Hussar gave that made WoW "not an RPG" also apply to 4e. They do not all apply to any other D&D version, though. So, in this thread, and in this discussion, that's why I'm singling out 4e.




For purposes of being all about the combat, I wouldn't single out 4E more than 3E. 4E actually has more to offer in the way of non-combat XP gain than 3E does. Both systems are fairly heavy on combat focus though. 

"The encounter" mode of play is a separate issue from combat as an encounter may be a skill challenge or puzzle as well as combat. 
I think the encounter format does more to downplay roleplaying than any amount of combat. The encounter format divides play into "active" and "passive" mode. Much like a video game the encounters are the part of the game where the player can use the controller and have his guy "do stuff". In a tabletop game this means declare actions and roll lots of dice. The non-encounter mode of play is more like a movie interlude. The player watches the story unfold in a "roleplaying" scene. This is the time to yawn, go get a drink, use the bathroom, etc until the next encounter when the player can " do stuff" again. The impression given is that players can only impact the game world during "encounters" so that is the only time deemed worthy of mentally showing up for. 

Since a great deal of roleplaying takes place outside of the encounter it is often glossed over because it has no perceived impact upon the game. After all, the way the rules are written if you are not rolling dice then nothing of consequence is taking place.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 8, 2011)

I'll concede the XP for roleplaying point (sorry, I thought I already had). Pemerton put that really well. 

Mainly I was just responding to Hussar who was very quick to point out that the Massive Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game was not a Roleplaying Game.

He then listed a number of points as to how it wasn't, I don't agree with all of those points (training costs do not roleplaying make), but I thought it was really funny that he (probably unintentionally) ruled out 4e as a roleplaying game as well. I'm not making broad claims with any of this, I wanted to address a very specific point that he was making. I don't think that 4e isn't a roleplaying game...I was using the basis that it IS as a Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You can't claim WoW is not a roleplaying game for specific reasons if those same reasons make something that is clearly a roleplaying game suddenly fail to fit the criteria.

But, like I said, I'll concede that 4e does have some of those elements (notably roleplaying xp built in...though not directly, but still built in).


Thing is, and I thought I made my point clearly, but I'll rephrase: Hussar claims WoW isn't even an RPG, but claims "The thing that blows my mind about 'It just doesn't feel like D&D to me' is that it's so hard to defend."

Really? I can't have an emotion (or emotionally driven criteria), but he can tell Blizzard their game is incorrectly labeled?


But I don't want to unfairly "pick on" Hussar. He was just the first person who brought up this topic. I'm interested in this specific line of the discussion.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 8, 2011)

(Separate post because I didn't want it to get lost in my Mea Culpa or specifying of my intent.)

Here's another part of the reason, and a potential clarification/deliniation that might (maybe) help clarify the OP. I already mentioned this in brief.

The OP mentions Rome, describing it basically as "what gives us that D&D feeling"...claiming the feeling is the same (or very similar) across all players of D&D. (Let's assume, for now, that it does.)

If rolemaster, WoW, or even watching Lord of the Rings give me that feeling, then it "Is D&D". Assuming this is true, there's an interesting phenomenon that follows. Someone who has never played D&D is still engaging in "D&D" by watching Lord of the Rings if it gives them that same emotion, i.e. scratches the same itch. If they later play D&D for the first time and the feeling provided is the same, their Rome might be labled "LotR" to them and D&D to us.

For some that boundary may be too broad, for others, maybe not?


*Here's another division of terms as well: *
x doesn't give me the feeling of D&D - or more clearly, _it doesn't scratch my D&D itch._

x doesn't feel like D&D - it doesn't give me the impression that it meets _my own personal emotional criteria_ of D&D.

EDIT: a third non-term, but another useful distinction in all of this. I may or may not enjoy the edition/media/experience. This can be separate from whether the experience is or is not D&D to me (hence, sort of a non-term).


For me, WoW scratches my D&D itch. I feel as engaged in "D&D/Rome" as when prepping for games (but not as engaged as when actually playing D&D). WoW doesn't feel like D&D to me, though. It's not similar enough in the experience of it to meet my criteria of what D&D is. But I say it doesn't feel like D&D _to me_, because it might to others.

Before anyone addresses WoW again, please note I'm using this as an example. You can substitute Rolemaster, Neverwinter Nights, watching Lord of the Rings, 3e, 4e etc for WoW in all of those statements. 


So, for instance, I might enjoy 4e (I do), might scratch that D&D itch (it does), and still not meet my emotional criteria of D&D _to me_ (it doesn't).

I'll also state I don't really like AD&D much anymore (got kinda burned out on it). So, I don't enjoy AD&D, it probably would still scratch that D&D itch, and it does meet my emotional criteria of D&D _to me_.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 8, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Many of us have...and out of that have sprung many an Edition Wars thread.




Edition wars don't spring out of discussing frankly what you want out of a game.

Edition (and other dichotomy) wars spring from folks failing to remember that:

1) There's no objective reason for others to like what you do, and/or

2) Other people liking something else is not an insult, statement that you're wrong, or a threat to your way of life such that you need to defend your preferences and stomp out opposition.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 8, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Not quite. OD&D, BD&D, and AD&D were all about the treasure. Aquire it by any means possible. Avoiding combat was often a faster route to success. Roleplaying, as with any edition, was still purely optional.




That's true, but what I was getting at was that D&D was birthed from war gaming.  Combat is in D&D's blood.  Every edition spent a ton of rulebook space on this part of the game. But yeah, treasure as XP...  I'm glad it's gone.  LOL


----------



## Hussar (Feb 8, 2011)

I'm curious, because I don't actually know, does Blizzard describe their own game as a roleplaying game?  I know that you see MMORPG floated around on chat boards loads of time, but, is that simply shorthand?  After all, CRPG is a term used to describe a particular genre of computer game that borrows heavily from role playing games, but, it's a pretty long stretch to call a lot of them role playing games.

I'm currently replaying Baldur's Gate actually.  That's about as close to D&D as you can get on a computer.  But, it still, in no way, actually rewards you for role assumption.  My paladin can, and does, rob the town blind and is not punished in any way.  I can make choices that have little to nothing to do with the persona of the character, and the game chugs right along fine and in fact actually rewards me for doing so.

Tabletop RPG's do not.  The training rules in 1e actively punish players for not playing their characters "in character".  A fighter that refuses to fight or a wizard that doesn't act wizardly is forced to pay significantly higher costs for gaining levels.  In other words, you play your role (which 1e tied strongly with class) or you get whacked with a stick.

Pemerton has outlined how role play ties directly to the mechanics in 4e, so I won't belabor that again.

In MMO's, there is no presumption that you will play a persona at all.  You are not rewarded for doing so, nor are you punished for failing to do so.  If I want my Troll (I played EQ for a while) to walk around spouting Shakespeare, I can.  There is no punishment or reward for roleplay.  

It's technically a role playing game I suppose since you do take a specific role as defined by your class/race combination.  As Shadzar pointed out, you do have the four combat roles in MMO's.  So, in that sense, an MMO is a role playing game.  

But, it's not an RPG in the sense that you roleplay a particular persona.  It's no different than playing Axis and Allies.  Just because you play Germany or Russia doesn't impact your decision making processes - you base your decisions on the mechanics of the game and what you think would get you ahead the best.  Your decisions are not influenced by trying to roleplay the persona of Stalin.  The game certainly doesn't presume that you would even try.

So, I don't count MMO's as RPG's for exactly the same reason that I don't count board games as RPG's.  Neither presume that the players will attempt to play within the confines of a pre-defined persona.

-------------

Oh, and as far as having my mind blown, it's not about your personal emotional reaction Az.  It's mind-blowing to me because if there are so many things that ARE considered D&D, I find it truly strange to discount something that really isn't all that different.  3e to 4e isn't a massive leap mechanically.  3e using something like Bo9S and Tome of Magic looks a lot like 4e mechanically.

Like I said, I find it really strange to exclude 4e from a tent that includes spacefaring hippo's, dimensionally hopping centaurs and human rogues.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'm curious, because I don't actually know, does Blizzard describe their own game as a roleplaying game? I know that you see MMORPG floated around on chat boards loads of time, but, is that simply shorthand?
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> ...




Excellent post. I get it now, and I agree with you.

Since you asked, here is what blizzard says about WoW:
Beginner?s Guide - Game - World of Warcraft

The intro:


> What is World of Warcraft? World of Warcraft is an online game where players from around the world assume the roles of heroic fantasy characters and explore a virtual world full of mystery, magic, and endless adventure.




The roleplaying section:


> Role-Playing
> In World of Warcraft, each player character has a specific set of skills and abilities that define that character’s role. For example, mages are powerful spellcasters who use magic to inflict damage on their enemies from afar but are very vulnerable to attacks. These traits define the role of the mage: hang back, do a ton of damage, and hope to kill the monsters before they reach you.
> In a group context, there are three main roles: tank, damage dealer, and healer. A warrior can choose to serve as a formidable “tank,” or protector. Tanks are resilient, and it’s their job to draw the enemy’s attention away from the more vulnerable members of the group. The aforementioned mages make excellent damage dealers. A priest specialized in healing powers may not do as much damage as other classes, but they can play a vital role, keeping the party alive with healing magic. It’s important to note that all classes, regardless of which role they perform, are able to play solo. Some classes are limited in the kind of role they can play: warlocks and rogues, for instance, are strictly damage dealers. Some character classes, like the druid, can capably fulfill all three roles.
> Role-play also means that you play the role of a character living in the game’s fantasy world. How much or how little you role-play is up to you; some players construct entire background histories for their characters and adopt unique mannerisms when they’re “in character.” Immersing yourself completely in the fantasy can be a lot of fun, but tastes vary, and it’s perfectly alright if full immersion simply isn’t your style. This kind of role-play is purely optional, and we provide separate Role-Play realms for those who prefer to play in an immersive world.




EDIT: For what it's worth, I play on a roleplaying server rather than a "general" server. My own opinions are likely colored by what I've observed.


As far as the second part of your post, I never took it personally, though I am in the camp of "it doesn't feel like D&D to me" as I've tried to explain over the years since its release. Again, I like it, but it doesn't to me...and 2e does, and I don't really like it anymore.

I'd say that things like Star Wars SAGA and Book of 9 Swords and Tome of Magic ARE sort of like 4e in many ways. I'd also say they're only sort of like 3e in many ways (despite the latter two being officially part of 3e).

I'm sure that if you ran a campaign where the only classes were Book of 9 Swords and Tome of Magic, that some people would say that it doesn't feel like D&D to them (I might be among them...I'd have to play it once or twice to be sure).

I have a post somewhere on these boards (there was a poll) asking about a combined "bridge edition" between 4e and 3e, perhaps taking the best of both. People hated HATED the idea because 4e and 3e are so different to much of our community. 
EDIT: Found it: http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...edition-d-d-4th-edition-hybrid-evolution.html 


On 4e being substantially different (even with your Giff qualifier) we may just have to agree to disagree.

I might also make the claim that D20 modern uses the same system (moslty) as 3e..at least the skeleton, but is not Dungeons and Dragons (and here I'm saying it is not, not only that it doesn't feel like it. I don't think it was even released under the brand name.) It not so much that it is the system of 4e that creates this feel to me...it's also a lot of the underlyings assumptions about goals, play, roles, etc.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 8, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> There's a number of key posters here in ENWorld that I've come to realize just plain "get it", for lack of a better term; even though collectively we often disagree and sometimes fight like cats.  And by "get it" I mean they both understand and care what the game's about on a much greater scale beyond the mechanics and the minutiae, and that comes through in what they post.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is one such, which is why I mention it here.
> 
> What I'd really love to do is get together over a beer or three with those people and just talk shop all night.



*pemerton* and *Barastrondo* have taken hammer and tongs to my gaming style, and I to theirs, and I know my thinking about gaming was improved by the experience.

*pemerton* is the one of the very few FoREplayers I'm genuinely interested in listening to, largely because of his application of theory to actual play.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 8, 2011)

Tough crowd.

Speaking as a mostly-outside observer, someone who plays any version of _D&D_ very rarely and who missed two complete editions of the game (2e and 4e), I wonder why the original post is in any way controversial. My impression is that _D&D_ is a collection of elements which produce some fundamentally comparable experiences, and that some other games may or may not produce those same experiences depending on how they are played.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 8, 2011)

I tend to think that the term "D&D" has become so nebulous as to have little meaning outside of brand identity.  And this is nothing new....Gary Gygax mentions the same in the 1e DMG, when he suggests that some D&D campaigns are simply not D&D anymore ("Dungeons & Beavers" at CalTech).

At the same time, all editions of D&D (and many other games!) are close enough in feel that I have no problem stealing...er, borrowing....elements from them for my own campaign settings.  

The "D&D Experience" may be different things to different people.  IMHO, so long as most of those people are having a "D&D Experience" that they are enjoying, it doesn't really matter if/that they are enjoying different things.


RC


----------



## Nagol (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'll admit the only Palladium I've played is TMNT and a brief stint of Rifts, ages ago.  TMNT didn't have classes, so, I'm not entirely sure about Palladium.
> 
> The fact that you have to rebuild Hero to emulate D&D doesn't really negate my point.  If you've rebuilt Hero to the point where it's simulating D&D, is it really all that different of a game?  Of course, the base Hero system doesn't presume that.  So, basically, you're playing D&D using a different system.  At that point, why not just use D&D?
> 
> ...




Hero doesn't need modding to build D&D; it just needs character growth constraints.  Almost all Hero campaigns have some form of character growth constraints.  This set is just tedious to build and ends up emulating the D&D genre.

That said, Palladium, Chivalry and Sorcery, Fantasy Wargaming, and Tunnels and Trolls are all examples of RP games with fantasy genre, levels, focus on combat, various forms of magic and divine action, and to some extent have characters advance through killing things and taking their stuff.

There's a whole bunch more games like them as well and they're not D&D either.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'm curious, because I don't actually know, does Blizzard describe their own game as a roleplaying game?  I know that you see MMORPG floated around on chat boards loads of time, but, is that simply shorthand?  After all, CRPG is a term used to describe a particular genre of computer game that borrows heavily from role playing games, but, it's a pretty long stretch to call a lot of them role playing games.




If the previous reply is not enough with using the world roleplaying by the company, then think of it like this from the actual front page of the WoW site...

Blizzard Entertainment: World of Warcraft


> Descend into the World of Warcraft and join thousands of mighty heroes in an online world of myth, magic, and limitless adventure.






> Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role. While the Oxford English Dictionary defines role-playing as "the changing of one's behaviour to fulfill a social role",[1] the term is used more loosely in four senses:
> 
> * To refer to the playing of roles generally such as in a theatre, or educational setting;
> * *To refer to taking a role of an existing character or person and acting it out with a partner taking someone else's role, often involving different genres of practice*;
> ...




Seeing you assume the "role" of one adventuring in WoW, then by the definition of role playing, Blizzard and others don't NEED to say what kind of game it is, as any time you play a game and assume the 1st person control of a character in that game, you are pretty much playing that role, aka role playing the character.

This is where MMORPG comes from, that one is assuming the role of a character in the game, as opposed to armchair general that doesn't actually participate in the game, or just being an onlooker or something else outside of assuming the role of one or more of the characters.

Ergo: the original used reference of role playing to be explained as D&D is similar to cowboys and indians, or cops and robbers, etc.


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> WoW isn't an RPG because there's no presumption of R.  I don't know how to put it more simply than that.  Nothing in the game actually presumes that you are going to play your character.
> 
> The entire 4e DMG revolves around the presumption of adopting a role.  Every bit of advice flows from that basic assumption.




But nothing in 4e presumes RP, either, and folks DO adopt roles in WoW, as described by race and class.  Yes, RP would imply much more--personality, emotion, character, etc.--but there are folks who play D&D who add nothing of the sort, and are content to have race and class describe the character they play.

The fact that a WoW player chooses a character, and controls the character through multiple, ongoing adventures, gaining in power and equipment and (hopefully) creating cooperative and strong relationships with other characters--this qualifies WoW as and RPG, IMO.

But it doesn't feel like D&D to me.  <Dodges thrown tomato.>



Hussar said:


> Page 42 examples come from the idea that the player is making role play decisions, not based on what is the most tactically advantageous, but on what would make a good story.




My experience with 4e is that most, if not all, decisions are based on whats tactically advantageous.  Since monster math scales with character level, if you don't make tactically advantageous choices throughout, a character will be behind the power curve, leaving the player missing in combat or failing in skill challenges WAY more often than 50%.




Hussar said:


> But, I play a Dragonborn warlord and suddenly it's not D&D anymore?  Really?




I haven't seen anyone claim that 4e doesn't feel like D&D to them because of Dragonborn and Warlords.  For myself, the reason it doesn't feel like D&D to me has more to do with the way the power-centric rules limit my Dragonborn Warlord's choices in and out of combat.  Also, square fireballs.

But thats just my humble opinion of how the game _plays_.  It feels really different, and not always in a good way.  But let me also say that I play in a weekly 4e campaign, with a terrific DM and a group of great folks, that is an absolute blast.

The "feel" thing is more related to my preferences, and has little or nothing to do with my enjoyment while I'm playing.

And in relation to the OP--that translates as the opinion that certain paths to Rome don't have the right feel for me, (I like to see more orchards on the way, or whatever).  Though I certainly don't mean to disparage anyone for taking the rockier or coastal paths.


----------



## Stoat (Feb 8, 2011)

My wife doesn't like shrimp.  I think shrimp are delicious.  I'm a little embarrassed how long it took before I quit bugging her to keep trying shrimp.  But hey, they're delicious!


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 8, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Tough crowd.
> 
> Speaking as a mostly-outside observer, someone who plays any version of _D&D_ very rarely and who missed two complete editions of the game (2e and 4e), I wonder why the original post is in any way controversial. My impression is that _D&D_ is a collection of elements which produce some fundamentally comparable experiences, and that some other games may or may not produce those same experiences depending on how they are played.




Evidently I gave you XP too recently to give it again, but thanks for this. I agree 100%.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 8, 2011)

Sepulchrave II said:


> As with other aspects of the Shadow, certain personalities like to revisit their pain with a perverse, masochistic joy; even when doing so provides no psychological benefit.
> 
> The rationale which a neurotic invokes in this case is usually one of exploration; in fact, the desire is for the conflict (whether personal or interpersonal) to continue, as it lends meaning and purpose to the patient's life.
> 
> ...




Ah, I see you've taken Psych 101. Nothing like a bit of unasked for psychotherapy in the mornin', thanks! I'm wondering why this sort of thing is tolerated on EN World - it is actually a subtle form of aggression (you pretty much called me a neurotic; hey, guilty as charged!). 

But rather than psychoanalyze me (whom you know nothing about, except for a couple posts on EN World in which you seem to think are someone representative of who I am), why not ask yourself why one would feel the need to put others into psychological categories, especially when you don't know said others? Or did they not talk about that in Psych 101? Maybe it was 201? 



pemerton said:


> I think Danny's point is that there _is no such form_. Putting to one side the various issues with Platonic Forms, I think it's uncontroversial to say that a group of things cannot fall under a given Form unless they all resemble one another in a greater number of salient respects than any of them resembles anything else. This is what makes them all particular instances of the one Form.




It came to me after reading this that we're looking at a "Platonic Form" in a slightly different way. First of all, remember that a Platonic form is an ideal, not an actual, particular version of that ideal. But because it is an ideal, it is inherently flexible or at least without a solid, concrete, and narrow definition. Perhaps the word "archetype" is more useful for what I'm getting at.

Now we could say that if I want to be more accurate with my analogy, what I mean by "D&D Experience" is both the ideal itself and a particular (personal) version - both at once. The ideal is the idea or archetype of D&D itself; the particular is one's own individual version. There is one idea of D&D but infinite possible particular expressions. I am reminded of Hindu ontology in which the soul "drop" (Atman) is both within/part of the "ocean" of spirit (Brahman) _and _synonymous with the ocean itself. To put it another way, one cannot really meaningfully talk about D&D outside of one's own experience. Thus one could say that D&D is what a D&D player says it is, as long as when we make such statements as "4E is not D&D to me" what we are really saying is not that 4E is not D&D, but that 4E is not synonymous with one's own definition and experience of D&D.

In other words, D&D is both my own personal definition and the sum total definitions of everyone who has ever thought of it. Or maybe I'm too much of a 21st century Wikipedia/Urban Dictionary approach to epistemology? 

Now it may be that we simply have two different types of thinkers with regards to this issue, those that choose a "big umbrella" approach and those that are more specific and want something more concrete. Speaking for myself, I have a hard time saying that _any _form of D&D is "not D&D to me" because I just don't think that way. I tend to take a big umbrella approach and feel that "D&D to me" has less to do with the specific edition or version and more the experience that I get, which could theoretically come from just about any rules set. I mean, you could play Savage Worlds with beholders, drow, and fighter/magic-users and it could quite easily _feel_ _like_ D&D.

So in a sense I'm baffled that someone could not take the 4E rules and create a game experience that "feels like D&D," especially considering I think I could easily do so (for me) with anything rules system (or maybe even no rules system at all). It may come down to the fact that some people's experience is more or less tied to the rules system they are playing with than others in terms of feeling, rather than--as in my case--the tropes, themes, and ideas that are used, which are rather flexible and not inherently tied to system. I think rules matter, but not as much (evidently) as someone that says "X-edition doesn't feel like D&D to me." 

But as some have said, it depends upon what we mean by "D&D" when we refer to it in the feeling domain. That is why I've been pushing the experiential aspect and why I feel that it is important to keep it at least somewhat nebulous, because that means it is also flexible and customizable to the individual. 



> That's why, in the end, I'm inclined to agree with Lanefan - if the publisher has put D&D on the cover, then it's D&D, end of story.




That's the easiest way to go about it and I'm personally fine with it.


----------



## MrMyth (Feb 8, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Well, I was mostly just being playful, but I honestly don't see where 4e rewards roleplaying in ways that WoW does not.
> 
> My group may have done skill challenges wrong, but aren't they basically "pick a skill and apply it"? Rolling high, not roleplaying, being the chief factor? I admit, I may have an incorrect view of skill challenges.




It's a common way to run them, but not the only way, and not really the intent of the skill challenge rules - the method you describe is a byproduct of the risk/reward system, while I think the goal of Skill Challenges is to roleplay a scene first, and give rewards out based on the rolls that naturally occured during it. 



Aberzanzorax said:


> Quest rules give rewards for non-combat achievement of goals, sure (that's present in WoW). Do they give rewards for roleplay?




Actually, DMG2 presents guidelines on giving out XP for roleplaying alone. Basically giving you a way, if your players have one combat every few sessions, to still regularly reward xp (beyond the amount given by skill challenges and quest rewards). 

It should be noted that the system is not for rewarding 'good' roleplay (given how subjective such a thing is), but for rewarding _productive_ roleplaying. If the party spends an hour overcoming some obstacle (the collapsed tree blocking the path; the debate in the king's court; finding the thief who ran off with the Wand of Wonder and is causing chaos in town; etc)... then, even if no skills were rolled or attacks made, we have some guidelines for how much xp those accomplishments are worth. 

The final note, of course, is that this is an optional system. Asking whether 4E 'rewards roleplaying' is honestly a meaningless question - the reward for roleplaying, in general, _is the act itself_. It is an approach you are taking to the game and a way to enjoy it, and being able to play the game in that fashion is not part of the journey, it _is the goal_. 

Roleplaying will almost certainly result in both rewards and predicaments, depending on what the players do and how the DM responds. That's the nature of the game. 4E doesn't 'reward' roleplaying in the sense that it doesn't offer artificial incentives to steer people towards a certain style of roleplaying - what it instead does is offer tools for the DM to make roleplaying a smooth and engaging part of the session. 

Those tools include both the skill challenge system (albeit in concept more than execution), as well as such guidelines as the DMG2 XP system to allow a group that _is _heavily focused on roleplaying to still feel the boons of character advancement. Along with simply the advice in the books themselves, and various other tips and tricks featured, especially in DMG2.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 8, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Now it may be that we simply have two different types of thinkers with regards to this issue, those that choose a "big umbrella" approach and those that are more specific and want something more concrete. Speaking for myself, I have a hard time saying that _any _form of D&D is "not D&D to me" because I just don't think that way. I tend to take a big umbrella approach and feel that "D&D to me" has less to do with the specific edition or version and more the experience that I get, which could theoretically come from just about any rules set. I mean, you could play Savage Worlds with beholders, drow, and fighter/magic-users and it could quite easily _feel_ _like_ D&D.
> 
> So in a sense I'm baffled that someone could not take the 4E rules and create a game experience that "feels like D&D," especially considering I think I could easily do so (for me) with anything rules system (or maybe even no rules system at all). It may come down to the fact that some people's experience is more or less tied to the rules system they are playing with than others in terms of feeling, rather than--as in my case--the tropes, themes, and ideas that are used, which are rather flexible and not inherently tied to system. I think rules matter, but not as much (evidently) as someone that says "X-edition doesn't feel like D&D to me."




This is where I was saying the Rome burned. The fact that there are more than one way to think about it.

Your approach to turn anything into D&D to get that same experience, and others wanting the specific non generic which is limited to products with the name D&D on it, are the only ones capable of giving the D&D experience.  Then there is the middle ground from those two opposites.

Rome is never reached because the road DO lead there, but are not actually connected and instead connect to a circular path outside of Rome. You actually have to leave the road to get to Rome once you are in reach of it. That actually works better for your initial premise as the roads taken get you to the same "feel for you" and generic contentedness with being in Rome, but aren't directly connected to any entrance or exit of Rome.

Are we each happy with our own D&D experience? Of course, but that happiness cannot equate to Rome as we never reach the same place, were are always circling it and looking at it form outside the city itself from our angle of happiness derived from each persons "D&D experience".

I can agree all products labeled D&D on them are a D&D product. I cannot agree that all of said products are "D&D to me", due to that D&D experience, the form of happiness that each would or would not bring.

So even saying that happiness of the D&D experience IS Rome, when you do reach it in your example, you cannot ignore the fact that people ARE arriving on different roads. Someone is going to question why everyone didn't take the same road. Then the reasons for that will come into play.

Whether one can take 4e, RoleMAster, RuneQuest, WoW, Lord of the Rings, Willow, etc and reach the "feel of D&D" isn't the problem, but that why should they have to do they work to do so. Why doesn't all things D&D have the same feel.

That is simply because each new iteration of D&D strove to change the feel.

miniatures to imagination
hexes to squares
combat to roleplaying/simulation
DM control to player agency
staggered levels to same level progression
roleplaying/simulation to combat

The very fact that D&D is self diluting is why this happens. In each case of trying to remove dilution, more dilution has been caused as you cannot deny past instances.

ONLY under the first D&D game could all agree what feels like D&D, but after a second version was made, the consensus was forever lost.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 8, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> That's the easiest way to go about it and I'm personally fine with it.



If this is established as the ground rules for a conversation, it is certainly completely viable.

But isn't it entirely useless for effective communication regarding what actually happens during play?

And the most often tossed about phrase is "feels like", which is fundamentally different than an answer that boils down to nothing more than a sterile legal finding of fact.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> *pemerton* is the one of the very few FoREplayers I'm genuinely interested in listening to, largely because of his application of theory to actual play.





Aberzanzorax said:


> Thanks very much, this post really helped me to understand not just what we're discussing here, but also some (pretty cool) nuances of 4e.



Thanks both for these generous responses.

Because I'm an academic philosopher and lawyer by trade, I think it's somewhat natural that I'm heavily invested in theory, and also heavily invested in the real-world impact of rules systems and the texts used to express them. It's reassuring that the posts this produces are at least sometimes interesting to some others!

Reverting back to the edition-wars issue, I don't care that someone doesn't enjoy 4e as much as I do (or at all). But I like at least to try and get clear what exactly 4e is trying to achieve as a game.



Mercurius said:


> It came to me after reading this that we're looking at a "Platonic Form" in a slightly different way.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Merkurius, another generous post. Thanks. I'll plead guilty to not always being a "big umbrella" person. But your comment about Savage Worlds gives me a better handle, I think, on what you mean. With this in mind, I think my old RM games count as "my D&D" under your conception.

That's not entirely easy for me to embrace, because back in the day we Rolemaster players took a degree of pride in _not_ playing D&D (mostly it was an issue with hit point attrition combat). Strangely enough, given that The Forge is mostly seen as an anti-D&D website, since I've become a FoRE (Shaman's term - "Friend of Ron Edwards) I've got a better handle on what various iterations of D&D can do. Posts from Raven Crowking and Philotomy Jurament, in particular, have given me a new appreciation for 1st ed AD&D and earlier editions, while also making it clearer to me why the way I approached those games wasn't getting out of them what they were capable of giving. This hasn't made me go back and play those games again, but it has made me stop criticising them, and instead look around for rulesets that better support what I'm looking for in an FRPG.

Anyway, thanks for starting a thread which (for me at least) has turned out to be really affirming of the ENworld community even if it hasn't turned out exactly how you hoped!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 8, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The entire 4e DMG revolves around the presumption of adopting a role.  Every bit of advice flows from that basic assumption.  Page 42 examples come from the idea that the player is making role play decisions, not based on what is the most tactically advantageous, but on what would make a good story.





MrGrenadine said:


> My experience with 4e is that most, if not all, decisions are based on whats tactically advantageous.



I think this response to Hussar may have missed Hussar's point.

I _think_ that what Hussar was saying is that page 42 is a way of making decisions that would, _in the real world_, be tactically suboptimal, _nevertheless_ be mechanically effective and even advantageous. The idea seems to be that players who do wacky things get roughly the benefits of using an encounter power.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 8, 2011)

My main problems with the "big umbrella" approach:

1) it does not address the issue certain persons have with other's perceptions that 4Ed doesn't have the right feel: the personal attacks and dismissive language continue.  If Defenders of the Fourth can't accept that others experiences with the game may vary from their own, the approach taken here simply fails.

2) if it can encompass games/campaigns that have the "right" feel and yet are in no way to be mistaken for D&D (in the factual sense- see examples of RM or HERO, supra), then it is overbroad.  At a certain level, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the "D&D experience" can be had by playing systems totally alien to D&D.  Even though I get the right feel from my HERO D&D clones, I daresay most would want to exclude that from inclusion under the "umbrella," if for no other reason than it seemingly stretches the definition of D&D to all-inclusive uselessness.  Such as when non-hobbyists use the term.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 9, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My main problems with the "big umbrella" approach:
> 
> 1) it does not address the issue certain persons have with other's perceptions that 4Ed doesn't have the right feel: the personal attacks and dismissive language continue.  If Defenders of the Fourth can't accept that others experiences with the game may vary from their own, the approach taken here simply fails.




Not sure if I count as a "Defender of the Fourth" or not, but, I'm not sure why you would be surprised that personal attacks and dismissive language wouldn't breed the same in return.

"It's not D&D" has been the rallying cry of edition warriors for over a decade now.  Telling someone that they're not really doing what they say they are doing is going to get a pretty negative reaction.

So, just because you tag on "for me" at the end of "4e isn't really D&D", doesn't really matter.  People are still going to have pretty strong reactions to that.  And when pressed on the issue, the only response that seems to be forthcoming is "Well, it just doesn't _feel_ like D&D".  

Are you really surprised that this might be very frustrating to anyone who might want to honestly engage in dialogue, never mind people who are immediately negative?  



> 2) if it can encompass games/campaigns that have the "right" feel and yet are in no way to be mistaken for D&D (in the factual sense- see examples of RM or HERO, supra), then it is overbroad.  At a certain level, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the "D&D experience" can be had by playing systems totally alien to D&D.  Even though I get the right feel from my HERO D&D clones, I daresay most would want to exclude that from inclusion under the "umbrella," if for no other reason than it seemingly stretches the definition of D&D to all-inclusive uselessness.  Such as when non-hobbyists use the term.




I think though, that your examples are somewhat self-selecting out of the umbrella anyway.  Someone who chooses to play, say, Rolemaster over D&D isn't going to claim that they're playing D&D.  By and large, as Pemerton says, they're going to vehemently deny that they are playing D&D.  Just as you deny that your HERO game is D&D.  So, since those people don't self-identify as having the D&D experience, they aren't germane to the discussion.

I would also point out that are games that deliberately emulate D&D (such as building a HERO game to "do" D&D) really "alien" to D&D?  The entire point of these games is to capture the "D&D experience" just with different mechanics.

For a system to be really alien, I'd say you'd have to go to something like FATE and then run a fantasy campaign.  That would not be D&D.  Too different.  The focus of play is very different and the mechanical rewards are based on very different presumptions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> "It's not D&D" has been the rallying cry of edition warriors for over a decade now.  Telling someone that they're not really doing what they say they are doing is going to get a pretty negative reaction.
> 
> So, just because you tag on "for me" at the end of "4e isn't really D&D", doesn't really matter.  People are still going to have pretty strong reactions to that.  And when pressed on the issue, the only response that seems to be forthcoming is "Well, it just doesn't _feel_ like D&D".




(1)  This is, IMHO, pretty strong evidence that the "D&D Experience" doesn't exist in any objective sense.  One person's "D&D Experience" may have very little in common with another's.

(2)  I don't believe that there has has been a "rallying cry of edition warriors" for the most part -- just people who want to open a dialogue.  Sometimes, though, that dialogue is about disappointment, and how a product doesn't meet their expectations.  Specifically, it doesn't meet their expectations as to what the "D&D Experience" is.

(3)  Believing that the other party is simply "edition warriors" and that their words are simply a "rallying cry" -- rather than meant to impart actual meaning -- is probably closer to the root cause of "edition wars" (and, quite probably, other similar events) than anything else.

(4)  "Well, it just doesn't _feel_ like D&D" is very much "It doesn't have what I believe is the D&D Experience".

(5)  Getting frustrated over "Well, it just doesn't _feel_ like D&D" therefore seems very much like either (a) denying the other person's "D&D Experience" is valid, and/or (b) demanding that the other person modify his/her definition of the "D&D Experience" to match one's own.

(6)  So, this still seems very much like simply being unable to accept that others have differing (and equally valid) points of view.

(7)  So long as one is respectful of other viewpoints, and doesn't invest one's ego in what other people's "D&D Experience" must be like, neither "X is D&D to me" or "X is not D&D to me" should carry any emotional weight, positive or negative.


RC


EDIT:  I note, also, that there is a lot of similarity between worrying about "Well, it just doesn't _feel_ like D&D" being the only answer forthcoming, and "I just don't like it" being the answer when a GM doesn't wish to include an element in a campaign.  

Neither are caused by reason, although one might come up with reasons why one feels as one does.

It is better, IMHO, to simply accept that people feel differently and get on with it (whatever *it* might be).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Telling someone that they're not really doing what they say they are doing is going to get a pretty negative reaction.




Just wanted to touch on this for a second.

IMHO, when someone says "X isn't Y, to me" that doesn't IMO mean that they are saying you cannot believe X is Y, or that when you say you are doing Y that you are lying or mistaken.

It means, rather, that you define Y (and/or possibly X) in a different way than the other person does.

Either (a) you can choose to work together toward a common definition, or (b) you can choose to respect the other person's differing definition.  Or, I suppose, you can demand that they adopt your own.  Me, I think that last option is the worst possible option.  YMMV.


RC


----------



## Sorrowdusk (Feb 9, 2011)

WAIT...id D&D is Rome...WHO are Caligula and Nero?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

> "It's not D&D" has been the rallying cry of edition warriors for over a decade now. Telling someone that they're not really doing what they say they are doing is going to get a pretty negative reaction.
> 
> So, just because you tag on "for me" at the end of "4e isn't really D&D", doesn't really matter. People are still going to have pretty strong reactions to that. And when pressed on the issue, the only response that seems to be forthcoming is "Well, it just doesn't feel like D&D".
> 
> Are you really surprised that this might be very frustrating to anyone who might want to honestly engage in dialogue, never mind people who are immediately negative?




Actually, this is mostly news to me.  I don't recall any meaningful Edition Wars prior to the launch of 4Ed.  One- and only one- guy refused to adopt 3Ed for a few years based on what they did with PC stats (he's a math whiz "They've changed the math of he game!!!").  He does now play 3.5...and 4Ed out of fair play towards other members of the group.

Still, the coda "to me" indicates rather clearly that the statement precedent is entirely from one's own view, not an attack.  To me. 


(FWIW, I don't consider you an Edition Warrior, Hussar.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

> I think though, that your examples are somewhat self-selecting out of the umbrella anyway. Someone who chooses to play, say, Rolemaster over D&D isn't going to claim that they're playing D&D. By and large, as Pemerton says, they're going to vehemently deny that they are playing D&D. Just as you deny that your HERO game is D&D. So, since those people don't self-identify as having the D&D experience, they aren't germane to the discussion.




Not really.  I chose the HERO D&D cloning to make a point:  the "big umbrella," as Mercurius has refined over the course of this thread, is _defined_ by "feel," and that's a problem.

That 4Ed doesn't give me that feel and that it does for others is OK by Mercurius', yours AND my way of thinking.

However, since the very definition of the "big umbrella," the "D&D experience" is all about _feel_, despite the fact that inclusion strikes the two of us (and possibly her) as somehow wrong, there is *no reason *to exclude those games and campaigns that evoke the same feeling we expect from D&D- the aforementioned RM, HERO, and GURPS games.  By the very parameters Mercurius sets, since they evoke the same response, they MUST be placed under the "big umbrella."*





* "Under the Big Umbrella" was, FWIW, the name of a boargame I played as a tot...the one part i can remember is the rule "Bunnies like it under the Big Umbrella.  Ducklings like it in the rain.". Good times.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Telling someone that they're not really doing what they say they are doing is going to get a pretty negative reaction.



If they are playing 4E and saying they are playing 1E, they are objectively wrong.

If they are playing 4E and saying it "feels" like 1E to them, then who exactly is saying they are not?

But, what if someone else is playing 4E and they say "I am feeling like I'm doing something that is different than 1E."  Is it ok for you to say they are not doing what they say they are doing?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 9, 2011)

You know, 3E and PF are really, really close.  And I strongly support "3.5 Thrives" when I play PF.  It feels like 3E to me.  But there are differences.

1E and 2E are virtually the same game.  I consider them practically the same games.  But there are differences.

In each case the differences are enough that they feel a bit different, but just as variations of the same thing.

1E and 3E feel very different to me.
1E and 4E feel very different to me.
3E and 4E feel very different to me.

If someone comes along and tells me that they truly don't appreciate any notable difference, then so be it.  But if it hurts someone's feeling to hear the reality that there are big differences to me, then so be it.

If the resolution of how someone "feels" the game is that coarse, and each edition truly feels the same, then that person is missing out, and that is a shame.  But one person's lack of experience does not negate another's actual experience.


----------



## Sepulchrave II (Feb 9, 2011)

> Nothing like a bit of unasked for psychotherapy in the mornin', thanks! I'm wondering why this sort of thing is tolerated on EN World - it is actually a subtle form of aggression (you pretty much called me a neurotic; hey, guilty as charged!).




I apologize. My post was crude and insensitive. 

But given the number of edition-related threads you've got on the front page right now, it makes me wonder whether your inquiry is disingenuous. Your Enantiodromia thread (referencing Jung and 4E again) for one; A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been being another.

But I don't think some kind of catharsis followed by a grand reconciliation amongst the warring factions is likely at this stage. My advice is to let it go. Divorce can be amicable if accepted by all parties. Time passes; we learn to behave with civility to one another.



> But rather than psychoanalyze me (whom you know nothing about, except for a couple posts on EN World in which you seem to think are someone representative of who I am), why not ask yourself why one would feel the need to put others into psychological categories, especially when you don't know said others? Or did they not talk about that in Psych 101? Maybe it was 201?




It was 101. 20 years ago. I remember nothing of it, except that it didn't involve Jung - which disappointed me, because I'd rather hoped it might. 



> It came to me after reading this that we're looking at a "Platonic Form"




When I got to here, I thought, "Ah, Jung's archetypes."



> in a slightly different way. First of all, remember that a Platonic form is an ideal, not an actual, particular version of that ideal. But because it is an ideal, it is inherently flexible or at least without a solid, concrete, and narrow definition. Perhaps the word "archetype" is more useful for what I'm getting at.




And then I thought, "Ah, Jung's archetypes."



> Now we could say that if I want to be more accurate with my analogy, what I mean by "D&D Experience" is both the ideal itself and a particular (personal) version - both at once. The ideal is the idea or archetype of D&D itself; the particular is one's own individual version. There is one idea of D&D but infinite possible particular expressions. I am reminded of Hindu ontology in which the soul "drop" (Atman) is both within/part of the "ocean" of spirit (Brahman) _and _synonymous with the ocean itself. To put it another way, one cannot really meaningfully talk about D&D outside of one's own experience. Thus one could say that D&D is what a D&D player says it is, as long as when we make such statements as "4E is not D&D to me" what we are really saying is not that 4E is not D&D, but that 4E is not synonymous with one's own definition and experience of D&D.




"Hinduism" has no such clear-cut ontology, but this is not the place for that discussion.

_Jung's understanding_ of _Advaita Vedanta_ might approximate what you are communicating.

I wish you success in your journey.



.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 9, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Merkurius, another generous post. Thanks. I'll plead guilty to not always being a "big umbrella" person. But your comment about Savage Worlds gives me a better handle, I think, on what you mean. With this in mind, I think my old RM games count as "my D&D" under your conception.




Well remember, we're talking about the _feeling _of D&D, as in the now infamous phrase "4E doesn't feel like D&D (to me)."

My assertion is that the _feeling _has much more to do with the thematic elements than it does with mechanical elements - at least to me! It may be that some relate with the mechanical elements on a more emotional level than I do, or that their _feeling _for the game is more entwined with mechanics than it is for me.

The mechanics _do _impact my feeling of the game, especially in certain sacred cows like the hallowed d20 roll, having Hit Points, the Sacred Six Abillity Scores, etc. But I am pretty open about them; for some a character sheet without the eccentric saving throws of AD&D just doesn't feel like D&D. To me the _essence _is much more important than the _form, _so if the form changes it can still feel like D&D to me, as long as it holds that essential D&Dness.



pemerton said:


> Anyway, thanks for starting a thread which (for me at least) has turned out to be really affirming of the ENworld community even if it hasn't turned out exactly how you hoped!




Hey, no problem - I've enjoyed your contributions, although haven't followed them in-depth in this thread; after reading some of the accolades you've received I might have to go back and read them, or do you have an off-site "Pemerton's Guide to 4E Theory?"  



Dannyalcatraz said:


> My main problems with the "big umbrella" approach:
> 
> 1) it does not address the issue certain persons have with other's perceptions that 4Ed doesn't have the right feel: the personal attacks and dismissive language continue.  If Defenders of the Fourth can't accept that others experiences with the game may vary from their own, the approach taken here simply fails.




Danny, can we be clear that tomatoes get thrown on both sides of the debate? There are just as many "4E haters" attacking 4E players as there are 4E players attacking 4E haters.

But to be clear, I haven't seen much of this phenomena of "Def4s" not accepting the fact that others don't experience the game in the same way as they do. What I see is Def4s disagreeing with the assertion that 4E is not real D&D, or questioning the notion that an edition that is very clearly D&D and has more in common with, say, 3E than not can somehow not feel like real D&D.

Speaking for myself, I _accept _it but it is still baffling, like someone saying NFL Football on ABC doesn't feel like real NFL because it doesn't have that annoying Fox cyborg dude jumping around.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2) if it can encompass games/campaigns that have the "right" feel and yet are in no way to be mistaken for D&D (in the factual sense- see examples of RM or HERO, supra), then it is overbroad.  At a certain level, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the "D&D experience" can be had by playing systems totally alien to D&D.  Even though I get the right feel from my HERO D&D clones, I daresay most would want to exclude that from inclusion under the "umbrella," if for no other reason than it seemingly stretches the definition of D&D to all-inclusive uselessness.  Such as when non-hobbyists use the term.




With regards to "feel," see my response to pemerton above. I would argue that a game experience could _feel _like D&D but not be D&D; I suppose the converse is that a game experience could _be _D&D but not _feel _like it, that is one's own personal identification of what D&D should feel like.

So while playing Savage Worlds with D&D monsters and tropes would _feel _like D&D to me, it wouldn't _be _D&D in the sense of an official rule set that is D&D. 

Maybe the key to this is differentiating what we mean by "feeling" and what it refers to, versus the by-the-book definition which we can play it safe with and equate with the copyright and brand name? (Although I would also include retro-clones and heartbreakers like Pathfinder).


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 9, 2011)

Sepulchrave II said:


> I apologize. My post was crude and insensitive.




Hey, no problem. This recent post of yours won me over. 



Sepulchrave II said:


> But given the number of edition-related threads you've got on the front page right now, it makes me wonder whether your inquiry is disingenuous. Your Enantiodromia thread (referencing Jung and 4E again) for one; A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been being another.




Well, here's the history, if you care: The first thread of the three--"A reason"--was actually about settings, or at least that was my original intention before the thread got derailed sometime in the first page or two; very few folks bought my premise as valid and then decided that the thread should be about The Real Reason that 4E isn't as popular as it could have been.

I kind of lost interest/patience but then got dragged into (OK, I entered the fray of) a discussion about how 4E is not/does not feel like D&D. The frustration of _that _topic led to the 2nd post, which was this one - and my attempt to find a way to at least cognitively solve the issue. Again, failure. Although like the first one, I presented ideas that I still hold to be valid, even if no one else does!

Finally, the third thread ENantiodromia was a kind of parody/performance art inspired by the first two. Thankfully the canny participants of ENWorld immediately picked up and embellished on the performance art aspect and saved me from not looking foolish.



Sepulchrave II said:


> But I don't think some kind of catharsis followed by a grand reconciliation amongst the warring factions is likely at this stage. My advice is to let it go. Divorce can be amicable if accepted by all parties. Time passes; we learn to behave with civility to one another.




Yes, you are probably right...although, this thread has had some nice in-roads, no? I know that DannyAlcatraz _really_ wants to play some 4E with me and pemerton! 



Sepulchrave II said:


> It was 101. 20 years ago. I remember nothing of it, except that it didn't involve Jung - which disappointed me, because I'd rather hoped it might.
> 
> When I got to here, I thought, "Ah, Jung's archetypes."
> 
> And then I thought, "Ah, Jung's archetypes."




I like you.



Sepulchrave II said:


> "Hinduism" has no such clear-cut ontology, but this is not the place for that discussion.
> 
> _Jung's understanding_ of _Advaita Vedanta_ might approximate what you are communicating.
> 
> I wish you success in your journey.




You know, I didn't think anyone would pick up on that but yeah, you are absolutely right. Speaking of big umbrellas, Hinduism is a massive umbrella with thousands of different ontologies (one could say, 10,001 to be exact, or is it 108?). 

But still, one could say that the Atman-Brahman idea is a drop within the ocean of Hinduism. Or would it be _Hinduism 4.25E: Essentials?_


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

> Danny, can we be clear that tomatoes get thrown on both sides of the debate? There are just as many "4E haters" attacking 4E players as there are 4E players attacking 4E haters.




While you're absolutely right in general, I have to say not on _this_ issue, IME.  I've yet to see a 3.5Ed warrior take umbrage that 3.5Ed is "not D&D" to someone else.  Partly because so few 4Ed warriors use that expression.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 9, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> /snip
> Either (a) you can choose to work together toward a common definition, or (b) you can choose to respect the other person's differing definition.  Or, I suppose, you can demand that they adopt your own.  Me, I think that last option is the worst possible option.  YMMV.
> 
> 
> RC




But, how do I do the first one, when the only answer forthcoming is, "Cos I say so"?  

If I do the second one, then, well, conversation just ended.  Because we no longer have any common definition to work from, we can't actually communicate.

I dunno about "demand" though.  That's pretty strong.  OTOH, I can totally see someone saying, "Well, I play that game and it does feel like X to me.  I'm not really comfortable with someone coming along and telling me that I'm not actually playing X just because they don't like it."

Funny thing about respect is that it works both ways.  If I come up and tell you that you're doing something wrong, and my only reason is, "Cos I said so", how warm and fuzzy are you going to be?

Now, multiply that by about ten thousand people over the course of ten years, every single month someone coming along and telling you that you're doing it wrong.

Still warm and fuzzy?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, this is mostly news to me.  I don't recall any meaningful Edition Wars prior to the launch of 4Ed.  One- and only one- guy refused to adopt 3Ed for a few years based on what they did with PC stats (he's a math whiz "They've changed the math of he game!!!").  He does now play 3.5...and 4Ed out of fair play towards other members of the group.
> 
> Still, the coda "to me" indicates rather clearly that the statement precedent is entirely from one's own view, not an attack.  To me.
> 
> ...




Really?  You don't remember people refusing to call 3e D&D, but rather insisting it was "D20 Fantasy"?  You have never seen Dragonsfoot?  I mean there are entire forums devoted to the idea that 3e isn't D&D with pretty large followings.  

((But thanks for that actually.  I know I can be kinda abrasive and I really don't want to.  ))  (Well, except to that Raven Crowking guy... oh hi there.    ))



BryonD said:


> You know, 3E and PF are really, really close.  And I strongly support "3.5 Thrives" when I play PF.  It feels like 3E to me.  But there are differences.
> 
> 1E and 2E are virtually the same game.  I consider them practically the same games.  But there are differences.
> 
> ...




Ahh, but there we hit the crux of things.  X and Y feel different I can totally get behind.  Got no problems with that.  Basic D&D and 3e D&D are about as different as you can get.  So, I'm not sure if anyone is denying that there are any differences.

The sticking point for me is when you add the tag, "3e and 4e feel very different to me, so, 4e isn't really D&D anymore."

That's where I draw the line.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

> With regards to "feel," see my response to pemerton above. I would argue that a game experience could feel like D&D but not be D&D; I suppose the converse is that a game experience could be D&D but not feel like it, that is one's own personal identification of what D&D should feel like.
> 
> So while playing Savage Worlds with D&D monsters and tropes would feel like D&D to me, it wouldn't be D&D in the sense of an official rule set that is D&D.
> 
> Maybe the key to this is differentiating what we mean by "feeling" and what it refers to, versus the by-the-book definition which we can play it safe with and equate with the copyright and brand name? (Although I would also include retro-clones and heartbreakers like Pathfinder).




I suspected that you would feel HERO D&D should not be encompassed by your definition.

But this latest reformulation is, IMHO, logically dishonest and destroys the umbrella: if the D&D experience is just those games with the official badge that give us the feel, then you CANNOT include Pathfinder, etc.  If Pathfinder, AU/AE, W&W, True20 or any other close cousin or retro-clone is included, then any game/campaign that delivers the same experience MUST be included.

If you *REALLY* believe the _essence_ is more important than the _form_, you can't have it any other way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

> Really? You don't remember people refusing to call 3e D&D, but rather insisting it was "D20 Fantasy"? You have never seen Dragonsfoot? I mean there are entire forums devoted to the idea that 3e isn't D&D with pretty large followings.




In order:

1) No.

2) No- the only other major gaming sites I've ever visited were WotC's , RPGA's, Palladium's, HERO's, SJG's and The Atomic Think Tank.  And the only messageboards on those sites I ever used were WotC's, Malhavoc's, and The Atomic Think Tank.

And of _THOSE_, I don't know if I've posted on any of those since mid-2010.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 9, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In order:
> 
> 1) No.
> 
> ...




Steve et all at Dragonsfoot considers 1E to be the last edition of D&D. Not even 2nd edition gets much respect.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 9, 2011)

Sorrowdusk said:


> WAIT...id D&D is Rome...WHO are Caligula and Nero?



No idea, but I'm Spartacus.

Lan-"Spartacus, I say!"-efan


----------



## billd91 (Feb 9, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Steve et all at Dragonsfoot considers 1E to be the last edition of D&D. Not even 2nd edition gets much respect.




That may seem weird to me, but you know what? It doesn't really bother me that they feel this way. 3e has been under fire for a decade now from some people saying it isn't D&D. I remember some of the vitriol spewed at it in the first couple of years. But we weathered it. We also weathered fairly constant criticism of it throughout the years, complaints about 15 minute adventuring days, about fighters and rogues not having fun and special things to do, about being the caster edition, about CoDzillas, and more and more. In fact, we still do to a certain degree right here on these boards. Some of these complaints are exactly why some people here like 4e. Some of the rest of us had other solutions or impressions of these issues and thus feel that 4e's solutions to them don't fit. 

So what's the big deal about being critical of another edition? What's the big deal about an individual being accepting of some variations within the same gaming space but drawing the line at others?


----------



## MerricB (Feb 9, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> No idea, but I'm Spartacus.




And so am I.

Cheers!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Steve et all at Dragonsfoot considers 1E to be the last edition of D&D. Not even 2nd edition gets much respect.




Oh well...I'm not going to call that silly, pointless or infantile.

That's his viewpoint, and he's entitled to it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, how do I do the first one, when the only answer forthcoming is, "Cos I say so"?




Working to share a common definition can be done by (a) working together, if both parties wish to, or (b) accepting the other definition _*for the sake of this conversation only*_.

You might be familiar with both principles, because I have employed both in "conversations" with you over the course of the years.

It is only if you demand that the other person alter his/her definition that the "conversation just ended".



> If I come up and tell you that you're doing something wrong, and my only reason is, "Cos I said so", how warm and fuzzy are you going to be?




"X isn't Y to me" =/= "X isn't Y to you" and certainly =/= "You are doing something wrong".

So, yes, I am still warm and fuzzy!



> ((But thanks for that actually.  I know I can be kinda abrasive and I really don't want to.  ))  (Well, except to that Raven Crowking guy... oh hi there.    ))




And, yes, I am _*still*_ warm and fuzzy!



> The sticking point for me is when you add the tag, "3e and 4e feel very different to me, so, 4e isn't really D&D anymore."
> 
> That's where I draw the line.




Or, you could just assume that you and the speaker are both right, because you are using different defining parameters for "D&D" (and/or 3e and/or 4e...such as, for example, a limited knowledge of 3e or 4e, which both you and I know happens).  

In which case, there is no line, and you can still be warm and fuzzy.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 9, 2011)

shadzar said:


> The very fact that D&D is self diluting is why this happens. In each case of trying to remove dilution, more dilution has been caused as you cannot deny past instances.
> 
> ONLY under the first D&D game could all agree what feels like D&D, but after a second version was made, the consensus was forever lost.




Foever lost? I am of the opinion that it was never found. Even if the only edition of D&D ever published was OD&D (1974 no supplements) there would be no universal consensus on what "the real D&D experience" actually is. Even when there there was no big menu of editions to choose from the D&D experience could be quite different from campaign to campaign. 

D&D is game in which the imagination of the participants can shape the feel and flow of, and be completely unique to each and every group even using the same basic rules. This is a very positive attribute IMHO and far more desired (at least by me) than a uniform standard type of game which produces predictable experiences. 

I _love _that there is no "true definitive" D&D experience. As we flock to messageboards to argue with each other about which one true way is correct I think that we forget that doing whatever the hell we feel like doing in our games is what attracted us to it in the first place.

The true beauty of the D&D experience is infinite replayability regardless of what ruleset you use to do it.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The sticking point for me is when you add the tag, "3e and 4e feel very different to me, so, 4e isn't really D&D anymore."
> 
> That's where I draw the line.



Well, I certainly can't claim to have read every post ever on ENWorld, but I think you are worrying about a bogeyman.

As soon as you add the words "to me", as in "4E isn't really D&D anymore to me", it is about feel.  One person comments on their feelings, and then someone else decides that is an absolute.  And everything else comes from that break down.

Even if it was me personally talking explicitly about YOUR game, all I can express is my opinion.  Frankly, it is impossible for you to play a game of 4E and have ME perceive it as "D&D as I would have recognized it before 4E existed".

Now, if someone insists that they feel the same to them, I'm a bit inclined to think they are just being argumentative.  But, if they really insist, so be it, I will take them at their word.  But that isn't really a victory, they have simply made it clear that for one reason or another they don't get it the way I do.

Clearly the definition of "D&D" is formally changed.  But the context of the conversation is always such that "Pre-4E D&D" is what is being talked about.

If you walked to any person who takes the "doesn't feel like" position and asked them if they wanted to play D&D, a very early question is going to be "what edition?"  No one is disputing that D&D is an edition.  
But at the same time, back when I would play GURPS I would introduce it to new players as "like D&D".  I thought (still do) that there were huge differences between GURPS and D&D (2E at that time).  But I also understood that a brand new player would have a general idea of what D&D was and the differences would not be significant to someone brand new.  As they played a few times, they would get it and "playing GURPS" would have a different meaning than "playing D&D".  But that is a transition from being a total new player to having experience.  I'd readily tell a completely new player that PF and GURPS and 2E are all "playing D&D, kinda like 4E."  But anyone who is past the completely new phase I would expect to grasp the distinctions.

If someone tells me there are no distinctions then I immediately know they are in that "brand new player" level of perception.  People may not like that their perceptions is seen that way.  But, sorry, there is no way around it.
People are saying they perceive it differently.  And people are clearly suggesting that they don't have a great deal of respect for less discriminating perceptions.  But no one is saying those less discriminating perceptions don't exist.  They are just saying that they do not apply to people with more discriminating perceptions.

I would say the opposite does not apply.  There are people saying they DON'T perceive a difference and that since they don't this somehow proves that a difference doesn't exist and therefore OTHER people's experiences of an actual difference don't exist.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 9, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I suspected that you would feel HERO D&D should not be encompassed by your definition.
> 
> But this latest reformulation is, IMHO, logically dishonest and destroys the umbrella: if the D&D experience is just those games with the official badge that give us the feel, then you CANNOT include Pathfinder, etc.  If Pathfinder, AU/AE, W&W, True20 or any other close cousin or retro-clone is included, then any game/campaign that delivers the same experience MUST be included.
> 
> If you *REALLY* believe the _essence_ is more important than the _form_, you can't have it any other way.




I think part of the problem is that you keep trying to pin me down to a specific definition, which I don't have. If you stop doing that you might find that I'm not being "logically dishonest" but that I just take a different approach to thinking than you might want me to; I see thinking as more of an art, a kind of poetry even, than a science or set of laws and rules.

And yes, I do believe that the essence, as well as the thematic elements, is more important than the form, the nuts and bolts, and least of all, the rules themselves. I think you could play a game that narrates exactly like D&D but only uses a d20 with no stats but a descriptive understanding of your character for completely DM-decided resolution. That could "feel like" D&D to me, and even _be _a form of "Ultralite D&D." Now it wouldn't feel the same as AD&D or any current edition, but it would still feel "D&Desque" enough to call it D&D.

See, to me D&D is not a game that has either Vancian magic or powers, it is a game where you explore a fantasy world with certain now classic D&D-fantasy archetypes, like elf wizards, dwarf fighters, half-orc barbarians. There are terrible monsters, many of them unique to D&D, there are iconic treasures like the bag of holding and the vorpal sword; there are classic campaign and adventure types, like the dungeoncrawl, the trap-laden maze, the quest to the mountains for the ruined dwarven keep. It is all of these elements and many more, but no specific combination or single element is defining. 

This is why I think the disagreement around this issue at least partially comes from different types of people and where they put the weight of "what is D&D to them." If one puts the weight on mechanical elements then the issue of Vancian magic vs. powers may be more important. 

You seem to want to pin me down to a specific definition which, to me, would be artificial and pointless, like trying to stop the flow of a river and take a snapshot saying, "This is the river! This moment." To me that's a limited view, just as it is limited to say "But this snapshot is not the river." The whole flow and movement is the river. Thus any definition that I could possibly come up with would be more _descriptive _than _definitive. _


----------



## BryonD (Feb 9, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> See, to me D&D is not a game that has either Vancian magic or powers, it is a game where you explore a fantasy world with certain now classic D&D-fantasy archetypes, like elf wizards, dwarf fighters, half-orc barbarians. There are terrible monsters, many of them unique to D&D, there are iconic treasures like the bag of holding and the vorpal sword; there are classic campaign and adventure types, like the dungeoncrawl, the trap-laden maze, the quest to the mountains for the ruined dwarven keep. It is all of these elements and many more, but no specific combination or single element is defining.



Do you have a simple means of discriminating between 4E and GURPS Fantasy?


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 9, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Do you have a simple means of discriminating between 4E and GURPS Fantasy?




Well, I've never played GURPS Fantasy but I assume that you cite it as an example of "generic fantasy"?

Again, I think we need to differentiate between _feels like _and _is/is not. _Obviously GURPS Fantasy _is not _D&D, yet it could _feel like it _with the right combination of thematic elements. That is, if you assemble a group of D&D-esque characters on a quest to an active volcano that spews white steam in search of magical artifacts,  it would _feel like _D&D to me, at least to some degree.

That's another element that has been missing: _degree. _Statements like "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" are so black and white. You mean 4E doesn't feel like D&D to you _at all?! _That would be hard to believe. Wouldn't all this be more accurate if we thought in terms of degree and spectrum? A lot of nuance is lost.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 9, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> That's another element that has been missing: _degree. _Statements like "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" are so black and white. You mean 4E doesn't feel like D&D to you _at all?! _That would be hard to believe. Wouldn't all this be more accurate if we thought in terms of degree and spectrum? A lot of nuance is lost.




Ultimately, we are all speaking in terms of degree and spectrum. The trouble is there's a lot of disagreement where on that spectrum of D&D the dividing line occurs between D&D-enough and not-D&D-enough.
4e feels more like AD&D to me than playing Call of Cthulhu, but less like AD&D than playing Pathfinder.

And for what it's worth, to me 4e kind of fits in the D&D extended family... but not as the 4th edition of a particular line of products that started off with AD&D. I see its relationship to 3e as more akin to the relationship between Basic D&D and AD&D - it jumped off the same development track and into fundamentally new territory, a third development track distinct from both early D&D and AD&D, even if it uses some similar design just like AD&D did compared to the iterations of D&D before it. For me, it lives in a space more akin to General Fantasy Game Focusing on Similar Subject Matter(tm) than to the D&D games I've played including Holmes and Red Box Basics and AD&D 1-3.5 editions. I know some people think it feels more like the old Red Box line but, frankly, I don't see it. It feels like an outlier to me, not without a few charms, but pretty different.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 9, 2011)

See, I don't think there is enough explicit talk about spectrum; if there is it gets lost in the blaring black-and-white statements.

That's an interesting idea, Bill, re: 4E as a "third developmental track" distinct from AD&D and D&D. I actually feel that the biggest jump from "classic" D&D was from 2E to 3E, that it was even larger than 3E to 4E. So I tend to group the different iterations into a few groups:

1. Original D&D and its variations - basically everything up until AD&D came out; this birthed two different streams or, as you say, "developmental tracks:
2. AD&D 1E & 2E
3. BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia

Then these were consolidated and revised into 3E, which was the first "modern" or 21st century version:
4. 3.x, Pathfinder, 4E

Now we could split these into two groups, but I'm grouping them because I feel that they're all part of a similar "integrated design philosophy," unlike any previous edition.

Now many people will say, as do you, that 3.x is closer to AD&D than it is to 4E, but that's not my sense of things. It is not that I don't see a significant jump from 3.5 to 4, I do, but that it feels less significant than the jump from 2E to 3E, mainly because before 3E it always felt like (A)D&D was behind the times, caught in the 80s (or even 70s) in terms of design principles. In some sense 3E felt like what D&D _should have _been in the 90s, say instead of the "Skills & Powers" phase that foreshadowed the end of TSR. It might be that if 3E had come out in 1995 or so that not only would the D&D community been more receptive to 4E in 2005+, but it could have had more of a chance to "bake" before WotC took it out of the oven prematurely.

I guess you could call 4E the doughy version of D&D - some great ideas but they haven't been baked long enough.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

> I think part of the problem is that you keep trying to pin me down to a specific definition, which I don't have. If you stop doing that you might find that I'm not being "logically dishonest" but that I just take a different approach to thinking than you might want me to; I see thinking as more of an art, a kind of poetry even, than a science or set of laws and rules.
> 
> _<snip>_
> 
> You seem to want to pin me down to a specific definition which, to me, would be artificial and pointless, like trying to stop the flow of a river and take a snapshot saying, "This is the river! This moment." To me that's a limited view, just as it is limited to say "But this snapshot is not the river." The whole flow and movement is the river. Thus any definition that I could possibly come up with would be more descriptive than definitive.




No, M., I'm not the problem, here.  It doesn't matter how vague your definition is if you don't stick to it.

As *you* state:



> D&D is still D&D, but there is a distinct "signature" to the game of D&D, a feeling, a vibe, a gestalt of qualities, what I like to summarize as an experience



And


> I'm asking that we at least consider reframing our notion of what D&D is into primarily an experience. Sure, we can talk about it as a game with different editions, tropes, etc, but I'm saying that a kind of "uber-definition", one that is more primary to any other, is as an experience.




Either those words have meaning or they don't.

If they do- vague though they are- then any and every game that delivers that experience is perforce included as part of the "D&D experience."

If those words are meaningless, then this entire discussion doesn't help solve a doggone thing.

There is _nothing_ you've posted that eliminates D&D clones in other systems from qualifying under your definition at its vaguest.  And when you try to eliminate the RM, HERO, GURPS (etc.) D&D clones by saying they don't have the name D&D somewhere on the cover, you still arbitrarily include clones from other games that you yourself have decided needed inclusion, despite their not having the D&D badge.

IOW, you have decided- without visible justification- that your definition of "D&D experience" trumps my own; that my "D&D experience" is somehow invalid...which is precisely the kind of thing you started this thread to eliminate or reduce.

And you can't hide behind claiming this is like "art" or "poetry either: both fields have generally understood rules defining their forms.  A photorealist painting is not cubist or impressionist; a sonnet is not a limerick is not a haiku.  Why?  Because they have definite rules defining their forms.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 9, 2011)

Danny, I don't know what to say. For some strange reason you seem invested in pinning me to the wall, into a position of your choosing (like me supposedly invalidating your "D&D experience," which is just ludicrous). To be fully honest, I'm really not interested in these sorts of lawroom-style debates.

At this point I think we're speaking past each other - you seem to want to continue debating something that, first of all, I thought was left behind awhile ago, and second of all I'm not even sure what it is! What's your problem? I don't get it at this point, just as I don't really feel like you understand what I'm saying, as if I'm speaking Swahili or something but you insist on translating it into German.

Again, there is a difference between talking about _what feels like _D&D or not, and _what is _D&D. The first is much broader than the second, and much more personal. If we really want to discuss the second I suggest that we decide on some kind of working definition; some have suggested the brand name as a place to start, which I'm fine with. But I think you could broaden it to at least retro-clones and very similar heartbreakers (like Pathfinder).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

> Danny, I don't know what to say. For some strange reason you seem invested in pinning me to the wall, into a position of your choosing (like me supposedly invalidating your "D&D experience," which is just ludicrous). To be fully honest, I'm really not interested in these sorts of lawroom-style debates.




I'm trying to make your definition developed over the course of this thread meaningful and helpful.  This isn't about lawroom-style debates, this is about logic and how to disarm the underlying argument about how people perceive and react to the phrase "4Ed isn't D&D to me."



> What's your problem?




My problem is that you have set up a definition of the discussion (namely, the "D&D experience") that- if we were standing in a classroom together- I could illustrate in seconds with a Venn diagram, beautifully and easy as pie.  And then we could draw ovelapping circles showing the various published De facto D&D games, retro clones and 3PP variants that also get us that same experience while simultaneously having elements that differ.

But as soon as I metaphorically start to draw those circles that would represent HERO, GURPS, RM or other system D&D clones that supply the "D&D Experience" as intersecting with that center circle, suddenly you say I'm playing verbal games.

I'm not. I'm using logic- very *basic* logic- to show there is a flaw in your restatement because it logically includes elements we- yes WE- feel should be excluded from the set.

Or to put it a little differently, if we cannot logically exclude HERO D&D sims- with a valid, logical basis- from your definition, it's useless, because then you're just being as arbitrarily exclusive (but not judgmental) as the people who take offense at "4Ed is not D&D to me."


> Again, there is a difference between talking about what feels like D&D or not, and what is D&D. The first is much broader than the second, and much more personal. If we really want to discuss the second I suggest that we decide on some kind of working definition; some have suggested the brand name as a place to start, which I'm fine with. But I think you could broaden it to at least retro-clones and very similar heartbreakers (like Pathfinder).



To me, there is no controversy as to what IS D&D- that would be anything legally sold by the IP holders with that designation, end of story.  Anything besides those rulesets, despite similarity of (non-copyrightable) rules is just a copy.

So again, the sole area of contention is "feel"...and we get tripped up by the non-D&D clones that nonetheless deliver that feel, that personal, emotional response.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 9, 2011)

billd91 said:


> So what's the big deal about being critical of another edition? What's the big deal about an individual being accepting of some variations within the same gaming space but drawing the line at others?




I dont know?

The only real big deal with there and other places, would likely be how they treat the people of differing opinion. You pretty much know not to go to Dragonsfoot to talk about 3rd edition, or as they put it TETSNBN (the edition that should not be named).

The barrier is already there, the door to communication is closed, and the conversation of it are not welcome.

The confusing thing is when people want to try to tear down that barrier, when they have no right to.

I think it is like many places trying to get "equality" in things. Imagine the 50's where there was men's clubs and thing men wanted to do , for whatever reason, away from women/females. Now people may be forced to not have that option as they are forced to allow women/females int heir club. Society has taken away people's right to exclusive thought and exclusivity to many other things to be fair to those people that aren't welcome in those activities.

Really that is what dumbfounds me most. Why someone would insist on being a part of something where they are not welcome in the first place.

Pretty much it revolves around the politics of many things where the white male excluded all others from certain activities, and now the white male isn't allowed to do so, but still females, and non-"whites" can have exclusivity in activities.

That political stance of punishment for bad behavior int he politics arena and social arena, has just trickled out into everything.

As with "everything is core" meaning it is all well tested as the concept of 4th edition, it leads people to think they can use anything any time in any game, whether a player or DM of a specific game doesn't like them. This is part of discussions probably had here as it was many other places a few years ago. Like someone not liking "dragonbewbs" so doesn't allow dragonborn.

You know what, they don't have to like or allow them in their games. There really is no legal requirement for them to do so, likewise Dragonsfoot has the right to be exclusive and, being a privately owned forum, has the right to turn away certain topics of discussion. Likewise ENWorld has the right to refuse service, as any business.

Sadly there are still those that think it chaos, because one persons right for themself, overrides the other persons and shouldnt be allowed.

Person A doesn't like 4th edition and thinks something about it doesn't give them that "D&D Experience".

Person B does, and feels that Person A not feeling the same is somehow removing their right to this 4th edition does give Person B the "D&D Experience", so Person B feeling their right to think a certain way and join in with Person A thinks that then then have a right to remove the right of Person A from feeling the way they do.

What should happen is this:

Person A doesn't think 4th edition gives them the "D&D Experience".

Person B thinks 4th edition does give them the "D&D Experience".

East twain East, and West twain West and n'er the two shall meet.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The sticking point for me is when you add the tag, "3e and 4e feel very different to me, so, 4e isn't really D&D anymore."
> 
> That's where I draw the line.




This is an example of that, where one person feels their rights have been stolen by another person thinking differently. When they should just accept they have a right to think their way, and the other person has a right to think "4th edition isn't D&D".

Society and people in it just need to grow up and understand and accept it is OK for people to feel, think, do, and like different things. As long as the things being done don't cause physical harm to another, remove their rights, or endanger their ability to live, then as you say, "who cares what another person does or thinks".

4th edition isn't D&D to me. It doesn't kill me in any way that someone else thinks it is. Just simply I have no interest in discussing it as if it can offer the "D&D Experience" to me.

The only thing I am really depriving that person of, is discussing D&D with me and including 4th edition in that discussion of D&D. That is my right, but another doesn't have the right to force me to accept discussion of D&D wherein 4th edition is included.

Oddly enough, I have the right to deprive ANYONE at ANYTIME of being in my presence in ANY fashion. When that right is challenged, I, and many other, will defend it.

People do NOT have the right to force a line of thought onto another to accept theirs.

That is where people can "agree to disagree" and move on to another topic/activity, or find other people to discuss that topic or do that activity that agrees with them.

Another of my favorite examples is Boy Scouts. Girls weren't allowed in to say they couldn't do these things, but maybe just because boys wanted to do them together. The fact Girl Scouts didn't offer the same things wasn't the fault of Boy Scouts, but those in charge of Girl Scouts. Nobody said girls can't go camping and all that other stuff. Just they can't do it with this group of boys that don't want to do it with girls.

I know some countries do have unisex bathrooms that allow more than one person in at a time, other countries have different bathrooms for the different sexes, or unisex single person bathrooms. Different strokes for different folks.


ExploderWizard said:


> Foever lost? I am of the opinion that it was never found. Even if the only edition of D&D ever published was OD&D (1974 no supplements) there would be no universal consensus on what "the real D&D experience" actually is. Even when there there was no big menu of editions to choose from the D&D experience could be quite different from campaign to campaign.
> 
> D&D is game in which the imagination of the participants can shape the feel and flow of, and be completely unique to each and every group even using the same basic rules. This is a very positive attribute IMHO and far more desired (at least by me) than a uniform standard type of game which produces predictable experiences.
> 
> ...




What feels like D&D, not what D&D feels like. When there was only one, people knew what feel D&D had, even if they felt differently about that feel.

Some people like the feel of python skin, others do not, but they can agree on that is has a feel.

After D&D became more than one thing that agreement it had A feel, was lost since two different things then obviously had two different feels. Those that felt D&D wasn't fun with the first one, might have liked the second because it had a different feel.

So we have added elephant hide to the snakes. Some might like the feel of both, others now prefer elephant to snake, and some still snake only. You have changed the sensory components and expanded them, so the experience is different.

Therefore you have lost the common ground. You wouldn't say snakes are elephants, but they are both living things. D&D editions are all called D&D, but they are snakes and elephants.

After you introduce the second, third, and later iterations you have alter the experience.

Let's take a stab at the New Coke angle as an example.

A person tries New Coke and old Coke. When asked which tastes better they pick New Coke. When asked if they would buy it they answer, "No, I don't like brown soft drinks.' Replace old Coke with Pepsi, you can get the same result.

You can only restrain the experience to one thing, which will have different feels to different people but they will get the same experience, as long as you have only one of the thing.

Sure every DM runs games differently, but assuming the same DM with 1074 versus Holmes D&D, then you have to admit that person having the experience will not have the same one since they aren't using the same set of control to have the experience. The only things that are the same is the player and the DM. Everything else has changed so you are obviously going to change the experience had.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 9, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> And yes, I do believe that the essence, as well as the thematic elements, is more important than the form, the nuts and bolts, and least of all, the rules themselves.




Here lies the problem with the "D&D Experience" being shared by all.

The fact that you look for the function to adapt to the form, but others look for the form made for the function.

Therefore again Rome cannot exist unless it is so diluted to just say Rome = "D&D Experience" = "fun". Then you have really lost any point of talking abou D&D, as there are many other forms of "fun". Rome just became fun without being exclusively anything that would have to be recognizable as D&D to anyone.

You are wanting to get to Rome after it burned, or before, you don't care. I was hoping to reach Rome before it burned. The New Rome doesn't interest me.

Any Rome for you is the essence, thematics, etc. I was going to see lions and Christians fight in the Coliseum. After the Coliseum is no longer being used, it is no longer in the form I want because it does not perform the function of Rome for me.

Oddly your statement takes the approach of the destination is the important thing while other walks of life think the journey is the important thing, or just AS important as the destination.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 9, 2011)

shadzar said:


> I think it is like many places trying to get "equality" in things. Imagine the 50's where there was men's clubs and thing men wanted to do , for whatever reason, away from women/females. Now people may be forced to not have that option as they are forced to allow women/females int heir club. Society has taken away people's right to exclusive thought and exclusivity to many other things to be fair to those people that aren't welcome in those activities.
> 
> Really that is what dumbfounds me most. Why someone would insist on being a part of something where they are not welcome in the first place.
> 
> ...




You might want to avoid the detour into whiney white man politics here. There are still plenty of exclusive clubs around. They weren't limited to the 1950s in any way. But keep in mind that a lot of local politics can occur in these club settings and exclusion from the club can mean exclusion from political power.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 9, 2011)

billd91 said:


> You might want to avoid the detour into whiney white man politics here. There are still plenty of exclusive clubs around. They weren't limited to the 1950s in any way. But keep in mind that a lot of local politics can occur in these club settings and exclusion from the club can mean exclusion from political power.




But that is my whole point. The fact of trying to remove exclusivity in any place, has created more of it.

Some people have the right to exclusivity, while others do not. 

It is basically a fight over whose needs are greater. who has the right to decide what they exclude. Same with the "DM doesn't like it" thread.

The "group" you are dealing with that may want to exclude a "thing" isn't the only group in the world. If the "thing" being excluded from that "group" is you, you are fre to find another "group" as is your right, but is NOT your right to force that "group" to include the 'thing' or you, if they are content and happy without "it" or you.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service."

As Umbran's "universe has rules" suggests, some you must obey as people have the right to make them, while others just seem silly. You want service from that place, you must wear shirt and shoes. You are not forced to get service from that place, so may choose another that offers service to unshirted, and unshoed person. You cannot force that place to service you because you exist even though you don't have shirt or shoes. You can wear shirt and shoes and they will give you service.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 9, 2011)

shadzar said:


> What feels like D&D, not what D&D feels like. When there was only one, people knew what feel D&D had, even if they felt differently about that feel.
> 
> Some people like the feel of python skin, others do not, but they can agree on that is has a feel.
> 
> ...




So the D&D feel is strictly about the rules? 

I don't think so. Look at the differences between the original Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns. Both used OD&D as common starting ground but the games were different. 

Someone else could take the OD&D rules and run a Traveller campaign. Would that experience feel like D&D?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 9, 2011)

> Someone else could take the OD&D rules and run a Traveller campaign. Would that experience feel like D&D?



Most probably not.

Which would place that bit of the OD&D circle of a Venn diagram outside the "D&D Experience" circle...and presumably within a "Traveller Experience" circle.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 9, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To me, there is no controversy as to what IS D&D- that would be anything legally sold by the IP holders with that designation, end of story.  Anything besides those rulesets, despite similarity of (non-copyrightable) rules is just a copy.
> 
> So again, the sole area of contention is "feel"...and we get tripped up by the non-D&D clones that nonetheless deliver that feel, that personal, emotional response.




But how can we possible argue over "feeling" as that is completely personal? I mean, if I say that eating Cheetos feels like D&D to me, who is to say that I am wrong for feeling that way? Crazy, maybe, but wrong?

This is why I find the statement "4E does not feel like D&D to me" much less problematic than "4E is not D&D to me." The first emphasizes that what the individual is talking about is _feeling; _the latter could mean any number of things but seems to challenge the status of 4E as a valid form of D&D.

But if we can recognize that:

A) What _feels like_ D&D is entirely up to the individual, and 
B) What _is _D&D is most easily answered by what holds the brand name as D&D...

Then there is nothing to debate (unless we want to talk about whether Pathfinder or Labyrinth Lord are D&D). Or is there? Are you looking for an interpersonal agreement as to what "feels like" D&D?

To go back to my OP, my contention was and is that we all tap into what could be called the "D&D Experience" that is both universal (as a kind of archetype) and individual (as a personal feeling-experience). Maybe what has caused difficulties is my assertion that there is a universal element.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 9, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> This is why I find the statement "4E does not feel like D&D to me" much less problematic than "4E is not D&D to me." The first emphasizes that what the individual is talking about is _feeling; _the latter could mean any number of things but seems to challenge the status of 4E as a valid form of D&D.





That just seems like you are bending over backwards to get offended.

They are the same comment.  They would be the same comment if people took a great amount of time to carefully choose their words.  Considering that people flat out shoot from the hip, it is particularly over the top to try to parse out this distinction.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 9, 2011)

BryonD said:


> That just seems like you are bending over backwards to get offended.
> 
> They are the same comment.  They would be the same comment if people took a great amount of time to carefully choose their words.  Considering that people flat out shoot from the hip, it is particularly over the top to try to parse out this distinction.



Not really. One statement is far more absolute about the "D&D status" of the edition than the other.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 9, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Maybe what has caused difficulties is my assertion that there is a universal element.



The thing is, I, personally, agree 100% that there is a universal element to tabletop fantasy role playing games.

But I go back and read your OP and don't agree with that.

There is a universal element, but there are also a vast number of variables that can go with or be excluded from the combination with that universal element.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 9, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> Not really. One statement is far more absolute about the "D&D status" of the edition than the other.




There is such thing as an official "D&D status"?
Where do I go to see this registration?

I think Joe has his own D&D status.  And 4E be "be" D&D under his status.
I think Mike has his own D&D status.  And 4E might not "be" D&D under his status.

But all "D&D status" are just imaginary silliness.   No one has the ability to do anything other than express their view.  If their view rejects yours, there is nothing remotely official or binding about it.

Even if some idiot DID come along and scream that they had proof that 4E really was not D&D and it was all a grand WotC conspiracy, that would just make they guy a paranoid fool.

There is no such thing as D&D status.  There are individual opinions.

If you are looking at other people's opinions and taking offense if they don't valid your own, you are going to feel a lot of pain.  This goes way beyond D&D.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 9, 2011)

BryonD said:


> There is such thing as an official "D&D status"?
> Where do I go to see this registration?
> 
> I think Joe has his own D&D status.  And 4E be "be" D&D under his status.
> ...



If you are able to say "4E is not D&D to me," then you must have some preconception as to what D&D is. The same is true for the statement, "4E does not feel like D&D to me." A preconception is needed. But the difference is that the first statement is far more obstinate in its view point. The statement suggests working off of objective criteria that delineates what D&D _is_. The second statement is similar, but it suggests a more subjective criteria, far more ambiguous and open as to how D&D _feels_. 



> If you are looking at other people's opinions and taking offense if they don't valid your own, you are going to feel a lot of pain.  This goes way beyond D&D.



I do not feel offense by differing opinions, but I do take offense at your condescension. I said nothing of differing opinions or being offended by them. I am arguing that a semantic difference does exist between the statements "4E is not D&D to me" and "4E does not feel like D&D to me."


----------



## shadzar (Feb 9, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> So the D&D feel is strictly about the rules?
> 
> I don't think so. Look at the differences between the original Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns. Both used OD&D as common starting ground but the games were different.
> 
> Someone else could take the OD&D rules and run a Traveller campaign. Would that experience feel like D&D?




But with Greyhawk and/or Blackmoor you have already created a second instance. You are no longer using the prior singularity of D&D. You have changed it so of course the feel would be different. 

Chainmail -1971
D&D -1974
Greyhawk SUPPLEMENT I, Blackmoor SUPPLEMENT II -1975

D&D was a 3 book set, that got followed after that with the same structure. But that game was not the same game when you added stuff to it.

Like any "splat"book or accessory or supplemental material will change the game and how it feels. Thus after adding anything new, even Greyhawk or Blackmoor, you have already split off from the initial "D&D Experience".


----------



## BryonD (Feb 9, 2011)

Aldarc said:


> If you are able to say "4E is not D&D to me," then you must have some preconception as to what D&D is. The same is true for the statement, "4E does not feel like D&D to me." A preconception is needed. But the difference is that the first statement is far more obstinate in its view point. The statement suggests working off of objective criteria that delineates what D&D _is_. The second statement is similar, but it suggests a more subjective criteria, far more ambiguous and open as to how D&D _feels_.
> 
> I do not feel offense by differing opinions, but I do take offense at your condescension. I said nothing of differing opinions or being offended by them. I am arguing that a semantic difference does exist between the statements "4E is not D&D to me" and "4E does not feel like D&D to me."



Ok, and I think that is bending over backward to find offense where there is none.

It is not possible for anyone to make an absolute statement of fact on this matter.  It is implicitly a matter of opinion, so leaving out the optional confirmation that it is an opinion does not mitigate it.  They are the same statement whether eihter the speaker or listener choose to admit it or not.

4E does not feel like D&D to me.  Accordingly, 4E IS NOT D&D to me.
I have no idea what it is or is not you.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> ...
> In MMO's, there is no presumption that you will play a persona at all. You are not rewarded for doing so, nor are you punished for failing to do so. If I want my Troll (I played EQ for a while) to walk around spouting Shakespeare, I can. There is no punishment or reward for roleplay.
> 
> It's technically a role playing game I suppose since you do take a specific role as defined by your class/race combination. As Shadzar pointed out, you do have the four combat roles in MMO's. So, in that sense, an MMO is a role playing game.
> ...




I think your definition of roleplaying is too narrow in the context of D&D. 

Over the last week I took advantage of the excellent "Powerlevel Gary" thread and read through all of the Q&A threads that a kind poster linked in from the archives. Fairly regularly through threads lasting for the last 2+ years of his life, Gary expressed a certain derision for the notion of thespianism, improv theatre or play-acting as being part of roleplaying games.

I am usually uncomfortable making an argument based on an appeal to authority; but in the case of a publicy stated opinion of the original creator of D&D, I will do so. 

Roleplaying was intended to be the assumption of a race and class and interacting with the world based on that choice of race and class.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 9, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> This is why I find the statement "4E does not feel like D&D to me" much less problematic than "4E is not D&D to me." The first emphasizes that what the individual is talking about is _feeling; _the latter could mean any number of things but seems to challenge the status of 4E as a valid form of D&D.




And the problem with that is? Both include "to me". Each person has a right to challenge things. Why would someone find a problem with someone else challenging the status of something for themselves?

Neither of those statements claim you have to agree with them, only you have to accept the personal perspective of the person saying it as their belief.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 9, 2011)

shadzar said:


> But with Greyhawk and/or Blackmoor you have already created a second instance. You are no longer using the prior singularity of D&D. You have changed it so of course the feel would be different.
> 
> Chainmail -1971
> D&D -1974
> ...




This isn't about splat material. Those campaigns were running before the first ruleset was even published.  The initial D&D experience happened before the rules saw publication. Sorry you missed the boat. I guess you will have to settle for just the 1974 OD&D rules. Of course by the time of the printing, some changes were made and the essence of true game was lost. What a shame.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 9, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> This isn't about splat material. Those campaigns were running before the first ruleset was even published.  The initial D&D experience happened before the rules saw publication. Sorry you missed the boat. I guess you will have to settle for just the 1974 OD&D rules. Of course by the time of the printing, some changes were made and the essence of true game was lost. What a shame.




And yet we live on. Each with their own "D&D Experience"...which all still boils down to "fun" as each person will ALWAYS experience things differently as individuals.

When asked of riders of a roller coaster what the experience they took form it was in some documentary about the coaster, some replied it was really fast and exciting, others replied the were thrilled by the loops, others still replied they were scared at the heights. Yes all found it fun or not fun. So the only "D&D Experience" anyone can share, is that it was "fun or not fun".


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 9, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Ok, and I think that is bending over backward to find offense where there is none.



Ok, and I think that in itself is a fairly offensive comment to make. 



> It is not possible for anyone to make an absolute statement of fact on this matter.  It is implicitly a matter of opinion, so leaving out the optional confirmation that it is an opinion does not mitigate it.  They are the same statement whether eihter the speaker or listener choose to admit it or not.
> 
> 4E does not feel like D&D to me.  Accordingly, 4E IS NOT D&D to me.
> I have no idea what it is or is not you.



But the problem is that 4E _is_ Dungeons & Dragons. No feeling or opinion can swat that reality away. Therefore you suggesting that "4E IS NOT D&D to me" comes across as an grossly inaccurate statement, a sort of an obstinate defiance.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 9, 2011)

shadzar said:


> And yet we live on. Each with their own "D&D Experience"...which all still boils down to "fun" as each person will ALWAYS experience things differently as individuals.
> 
> When asked of riders of a roller coaster what the experience they took form it was in some documentary about the coaster, some replied it was really fast and exciting, others replied the were thrilled by the loops, others still replied they were scared at the heights. Yes all found it fun or not fun. So the only "D&D Experience" anyone can share, is that it was "fun or not fun".




Exactly. Rule specifics are of little concern and the degree to which individuality shapes the experience makes it more awesome.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> But how can we possible argue over "feeling" as that is completely personal?




That's where this whole thing got started- people overreacting to other's expressing their feeling.

And honestly, "feeling" is how you started defining things in this thread.



> This is why I find the statement "4E does not feel like D&D to me" much less problematic than "4E is not D&D to me." The first emphasizes that what the individual is talking about is _feeling; _the latter could mean any number of things but seems to challenge the status of 4E as a valid form of D&D.




The difference between the two statements _*in context*_ is quite minimal.



> A) What _feels like_ D&D is entirely up to the individual, and
> B) What _is _D&D is most easily answered by what holds the brand name as D&D...



Then that's it for all clones.  ALL of them.

The Venn diagram now looks like a circle with smaller circles within it, each of which overlap in some way all the others.  Those circles represent the various editions of D&D released by TSR and WotC.  D&D clones and cousins are all represented by circles which touch the greater circle, but do not overlap.


> Then there is nothing to debate (unless we want to talk about whether Pathfinder or Labyrinth Lord are D&D). Or is there? Are you looking for an interpersonal agreement as to what "feels like" D&D?




Nope, just looking to take your OP and make it useful.



> To go back to my OP, my contention was and is that we all tap into what could be called the "D&D Experience" that is both universal (as a kind of archetype) and individual (as a personal feeling-experience). Maybe what has caused difficulties is my assertion that there is a universal element.




Perhaps.

But how does eliminating "universal" help?


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 10, 2011)

Hold it right there, Danny. I would actually include the retro-clones and Pathfinder within a broad D&D definition, but I didn't realize that we were actually going for a definition. I wasn't trying to be comprehensive with that 1-2, just illustrative.

Actually, if we are going to try to define D&D I would suggest that it would include multiple definitions (like most words in the dictionary), yet that relate with eachother as nested spheres - one definition is embraced by the next, and so on. So it could be something like this:

1. A fantasy roleplaying game bearing the brand-name "Dungeons & Dragons."
2. A family of fantasy roleplaying games that are based upon the original Dungeons & Dragons game and share broad themes and mechanical similarities.
3. A family of fantasy products thematically related to the fantasy roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons.
4. Common vernacular for any roleplaying game.

Or something like that. Obviously the fourth definition isn't that useful but would exist in a dictionary entry, if one existed. WotC has co-opted the third usage for its board games and perhaps other products. Some controversy exists around the second definition. 

But all four are "correct," just in different ways and, perhaps, to varying degrees. I'm not sure how I could reasonably adjust those definitions to make the phrase "4E isn't D&D to me" make any kind of sense, in the same way that saying "clay-court tennis isn't tennis to me." It is purely a statement of affectation, which I am not invalidating, but has no, shall I say, "ontological merit."

And I would agree with Aldarc that taken beyond mere affectation, it has a feeling of "obstinate defiance," like saying "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond to me."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

> > 4E does not feel like D&D to me. Accordingly, 4E IS NOT D&D to me.
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is that 4E is Dungeons & Dragons. No feeling or opinion can swat that reality away. Therefore you suggesting that "4E IS NOT D&D to me" comes across as an grossly inaccurate statement, a sort of an obstinate defiance.




It is not an inaccurate statement.  It is a statement of opinion & perception, and of a structure commonly found in reviews.

I've seen it in film reviews, auto reviews, cuisine critique, and many, many other venues.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

> And I would agree with Aldarc that taken beyond mere affectation, it has a feeling of "obstinate defiance," like saying "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond to me."




Oddly enough, Daniel Craig _isn't_ James Bond to me.  Nor is George Lazenby.  Sure, they played the role, but to me, there was something missing.

This isn't something you can dismiss as an affectation.  This is a bona fide statement of an emotional reaction to something.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

> Actually, if we are going to try to define D&D I would suggest that it would include multiple definitions (like most words in the dictionary), yet that relate with eachother as nested spheres - one definition is embraced by the next, and so on. So it could be something like this:
> 
> 1. A fantasy roleplaying game bearing the brand-name "Dungeons & Dragons."
> 2. A family of fantasy roleplaying games that are based upon the original Dungeons & Dragons game and share broad themes and mechanical similarities.
> ...




I'd say your definition is starting to get in trouble once you start talking mechanics (which have varied greatly over the history of the game) and is floundering by the end of the third statement because "themes" again opens the door to the HERO (etc.) D&D Clones that can deliver those as easily as TSR's and WotC's product line.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Oddly enough, Daniel Craig _isn't_ James Bond to me.  Nor is George Lazenby.  Sure, they played the role, but to me, there was something missing.
> 
> This isn't something you can dismiss as an affectation.  This is a bona fide statement of an emotional reaction to something.




Funny. Every time I read an Ian Fleming Bond, I picture George Lazenby as the actor. I think he actually fits the description best...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Funny. Every time I read an Ian Fleming Bond, I picture George Lazenby as the actor. I think he actually fits the description best...




I'll grant you that.  Perhaps his take on the character as an actor against the backdrop of his appearance led to my disappointment.  And the disappointment that led to him being JB only once.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 10, 2011)

Danny, since you're so married to the idea of defining D&D, why don't you take a stab at it?


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> And I would agree with Aldarc that taken beyond mere affectation, it has a feeling of "obstinate defiance," like saying "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond to me."




Actually, I think the James Bond example is an excellent one. While I love the new direction for James Bond (making him a no-nonsense SAS-type badass rather than the overly patrician Roger Moore type), my mother was never able to see anybody but Sean Connery as James Bond. Simply put, nobody else is really Bond to her. Her opinion doesn't dampen my enthusiasm for Bonds after Connery, though. I *like* both George Lazenby and Daniel Craig as Bond. I don't feel like my Bond-watching is somehow marginalized by her devotion to the man from Edinburgh.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

Lalato said:


> Danny, since you're so married to the idea of defining D&D, why don't you take a stab at it?




No thank you.  I see it kind of like tilting at windmills.

I know from my own introspection that 4Ed doesn't feel like D&D to me; that playing 4Ed feels like playing FRPGs that I would never call D&D; and that my own HERO D&D clones _did_ deliver a substantially D&D-esque experience to me and certain players.  I also know that I can and do enjoy 4Ed on the basis of treating it like any other FRPG, but that for some, the game is such a departure, they won't even try it beyond PC design.  It actually causes revulsion in them.

Part of that is mechanics...but not all, or the HERO games wouldn't have felt that way.

Part of that is class/level structure...but not all, or I'd have to count games like Palladium RPG, and I don't.

I must therefore admit that a good part of what is going on when I say "4Ed is not D&D to me" is purely irrational, an emotional response...which I have done, numerous times, here and in other threads.

But certain people are unable to see that phrase as anything but a red flag to their inner toro, so Mercurius (laudibly) started this thread in an attempt to find a way to a better resolution than derailed thread after derailed thread.  Unfortunately, we haven't been able to agree on anything more concrete than the tautology of "it's D&D if it's been released into the market as D&D."

Beyond that, everything goes to hell.

And the reason is, beyond that, _there is no agreement._  I was just in another thread and noted that someone posted that D&D was fundamentally unchanged- still a D20 vs target number- from it's earliest days.  That there are other games that use that might not matter to him.


----------



## Aldarc (Feb 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'll grant you that.  Perhaps his take on the character as an actor against the backdrop of his appearance led to my disappointment.  And the disappointment that led to him being JB only once.



It was actually Lazenby's agent who convinced him not to do further James Bond films as opposed to the reception of his character.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

Didn't know that.  Thanks!


(That's a DUMB agent.)


----------



## Hussar (Feb 10, 2011)

Gryph said:


> I think your definition of roleplaying is too narrow in the context of D&D.
> 
> Over the last week I took advantage of the excellent "Powerlevel Gary" thread and read through all of the Q&A threads that a kind poster linked in from the archives. Fairly regularly through threads lasting for the last 2+ years of his life, Gary expressed a certain derision for the notion of thespianism, improv theatre or play-acting as being part of roleplaying games.
> 
> ...




There's an excellent series in Dragon, from about 2000 (ish) just after the release of 3e where Gary took a reader poll on what constituted the important elements of an RPG and then he discussed in his Up On a Soapbox column the results.  He stated there that he was rather surprised that improv theater ranked number 1 or 2 (I misremember which) as the most important element in RPG's.

I'm thinking that perhaps the definition of RPG has evolved some since the mid-70's.



BryonD said:


> Ok, and I think that is bending over backward to find offense where there is none.
> 
> /snip




Not unlike the way some decided to take offense at every single word that came from WOTC's mouth in the run-up to 4e.  Kinda annoying isn't it.  

-------------------

Really, this is simply a genre discussion.  Or close enough for government work.  We can all likely define the far ends, it's just when one genre bumps up against another that things get... sticky.

For example, I think we'd all agree that 2001 A Space Odyssey is SF and LotR is Fantasy.  But, there's a whole host of works in between those two points.  Is Star Wars SF or Fantasy?  Depends on who you ask (and don't think coming down on one side or the other of THAT fence won't start paroxysms of nerdrage. )

I think we'd all agree that if you're sitting at a table with Gary Gygax, a bunch of dice and OD&D books playing through his version of Greyhawk, you're playing D&D.  OTOH, if you're sitting down with John Wik and a JENGA tower, you're probably not playing D&D.

The thing is, there's so much in between those two extremes.  People talk about the differences between 3e and 4e.  Yet, mechanically, 3e is miles closer to 4e than it is to OD&D (or Basic D&D for that matter).  1e and 2e are fairly close mechanically, but, to fans of either system, there are gigantic differences.  And, stylistically, they've got a point - 1e was heavily influenced by pulps and S&S fiction, 2e draws much more heavily on epic fantasy traditions.

The trick is, people draw the lines based mostly on their own preference.  "I don't like X, therefore X isn't something that I like".  It's tautological.  I don't like 4e, I like D&D, therefore 4e isn't D&D.  And D&D fans have done this since AD&D was released.  Just ask Diaglo.  

How many people do you see who like an edition that claim that that edition isn't D&D?  (and no, a single example does not disprove my point.  This was meant to be rhetorical.  sit down in the back there, you.... sigh.  )


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 10, 2011)

shadzar said:


> You are wanting to get to Rome after it burned, or before, you don't care. I was hoping to reach Rome before it burned.



I just want to be the one that burns it down. 


			
				Gryph said:
			
		

> Over the last week I took advantage of the excellent "Powerlevel Gary" thread and read through all of the Q&A threads that a kind poster linked in from the archives. Fairly regularly through threads lasting for the last 2+ years of his life, Gary expressed a certain derision for the notion of thespianism, improv theatre or play-acting as being part of roleplaying games.



I don't think I'd have lasted long at his table, then. 

Lan-"all the world's a stage, no matter whose world it is"-efan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

Personally, I draw the line at wearing costumes at the table.  Won't do it.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> So the D&D feel is strictly about the rules?
> 
> I don't think so. Look at the differences between the original Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns. Both used OD&D as common starting ground but the games were different.



Great post, can't posrep you again yet.



Mercurius said:


> Then there is nothing to debate (unless we want to talk about whether Pathfinder or Labyrinth Lord are D&D). Or is there? Are you looking for an interpersonal agreement as to what "feels like" D&D?



I'm looking for people to stop trying to tell me that 4e is primarily a tactical skirmish game, or that a game run without a pre-build setting _cannot_ be anything but a series of hack-n-slash random encounters not much different from a game like Talisman.

Now someone might turn around and say that when a poster says "4e is just a skirmish game" what they're _really_ saying is "4e is just a skirmish game _for me_", or "I can't see any way to run or play 4e other than as a skirmish game." But I don't buy it. In particular, the tone of "I can't see any way to run or play 4e other than as a skirmish game" is something like a confession of an inability, or of a desire to learn - it invites a response of "OK, fair enough, but here's how I do it, maybe you could try that if you were interested". But the tone of "4e is just a tactical skirmish game" isn't like that at all. It's pretty clearly an attack on the game, with an implied criticism of the players of the game as not being _real_ roleplayers.

And it irritates me, because I like to come here and participate in a forum where posters ranging from The Shaman and Lanefan and Raven Crowking to Hussar and LostSoul and others share ideas on how to run roleplaying games that use various techniques to produce various experiences. I want the sorts of discussions that led me to try running a non-sandbox exploration scenario. Or to think harder about how to run skill challenges, as has come up in this thread. And being told that I'm really just playing a tactical skirmish game and not an RPG gets in the way of these discussions I want to have, as well as really rubbing me up the wrong way.

And for completeness: the lowpoint of those sorts of jibes is when roleplaying in 4e is compared to speaking in a funny voice while moving the boot around the monopoly board. Which example I have seen put forward, on multiple occasions, as a real contribution to the analysis of the nature of roleplaying in 4e. That sort of nonsense isn't just about someone not feeling like playing 4e, or not knowing how to run or to play in 4e, and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 10, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> do you have an off-site "Pemerton's Guide to 4E Theory?"



I've deleted your smiley so that my serious response looks marginally less unwarranted!

For my best guess as to how 4e is meant to be run, given its rules plus what the designers said back when it was being released, see my post upthread on XP rewards and skill challenges, plus this post in your "Reason why 4e is not so popular" thread - which explains why 4e seems to be designed to support "just in time"/"no myth" play in a way that is harder for strongly simulationist rulesets to achieve.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Not unlike the way some decided to take offense at every single word that came from WOTC's mouth in the run-up to 4e.



Absolutely.

Now if you are trying to aim that at me personally, I'd take exception.  I'll readily admit to be eagerly argumentative.  But I don't run around whining and taking offense.  

But, if you just mean in general, then absolutely, and it is annoying whichever direction it runs.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 10, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Now if you are trying to aim that at me personally, I'd take exception.  I'll readily admit to be eagerly argumentative.  But I don't run around whining and taking offense.
> 
> But, if you just mean in general, then absolutely, and it is annoying whichever direction it runs.




As someone foolish enough to be that whiny git from time to time, I concur.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The trick is, people draw the lines based mostly on their own preference.



Which is how it should be.



> "I don't like X, therefore X isn't something that I like".  It's tautological.  I don't like 4e, I like D&D, therefore 4e isn't D&D.



I don't agree that is the sequence.

I like D&D.  This doesn't feel like D&D to me, therefore I don't like it.

That still isn't exactly open-minded, but you are shuffling the sequence to move it from the opinion being expressed over to a really unreasonable position, that isn't being pushed.  (The same old issue of telling someone else what they think, getting it worng, and then going off attacking your own error.)

And again, just to clarify my own position, 4E feels a bit like D&D to me and 3E feels a bit like D&D to me.  They both have similarities and they both have differences.  All in all, if we are talking about pre-3E D&D as the reference, then "feeling like D&D" is a bad start.  I left pre-3E D&D because I found better games.  To me, 3E feels like D&D with the parts I didn't like mostly scrubbed out.  And removing those parts makes it not feel completely like old school D&D.  But the general D&D flavor is there and the overall feel is much better.  To me, 4E feels like D&D with the parts I didn't like enhanced.  And in each case there are other elements of "feel" that are completely new, not previous likes or dislikes.  But I think we all agree it comes down to "key preference" issues.  


I would be surprised if there isn't someone out there who never liked any prior version of D&D, but likes 4E.  I would suspect the same logic applies to them:

They don't like D&D.  4E doesn't fee like D&D so that barrier to likeing 4E is removed.  Obviosuly in this case the extra step of "and they do like 4E" is requried, but that is just extra.




> And D&D fans have done this since AD&D was released.  Just ask Diaglo.



Certainly true.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm looking for people to stop trying to tell me that 4e is primarily a tactical skirmish game, or that a game run without a pre-build setting _cannot_ be anything but a series of hack-n-slash random encounters not much different from a game like Talisman.
> 
> Now someone might turn around and say that when a poster says "4e is just a skirmish game" what they're _really_ saying is "4e is just a skirmish game _for me_", or "I can't see any way to run or play 4e other than as a skirmish game." But I don't buy it. In particular, the tone of "I can't see any way to run or play 4e other than as a skirmish game" is something like a confession of an inability, or of a desire to learn - it invites a response of "OK, fair enough, but here's how I do it, maybe you could try that if you were interested". But the tone of "4e is just a tactical skirmish game" isn't like that at all. It's pretty clearly an attack on the game, with an implied criticism of the players of the game as not being _real_ roleplayers.




Do you also get cheesed off when people say that D&D is essentially killing people and taking their stuff? That's a common phrase around here, including in defense of 4e despite it also generally reducing the game down into a tactical killing and theft game.

I do feel that 4e put far too much emphasis on the mini skirmish game element of the rules. In fact, I've recently come to the realization that one of the things about 4e I don't like is that it feels like I'm participating in a pro-wrestling game. Lots of special, even weird, moves get thrown around in a fight, usually only once... reminds me very much of pro-wrestling.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> And for completeness: the lowpoint of those sorts of jibes is when roleplaying in 4e is compared to speaking in a funny voice while moving the boot around the monopoly board. Which example I have seen put forward, on multiple occasions, as a real contribution to the analysis of the nature of roleplaying in 4e. That sort of nonsense isn't just about someone not feeling like playing 4e, or not knowing how to run or to play in 4e, and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.



You may be referencing someone else.  I don't know.

But I know I have mentioned the monopoly angle a time or three.
I absolutely don't think that there is anything approaching an equivalence between 4E and monopoly.  But I've also seen the defense of 4E presented in ways that fail to distinguish it from monopoly.  And I won't hesitate to point that out.  

Those jibes may bug you, but look at them in context and you will find there are times when they are far from disingenous.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Oddly enough, Daniel Craig _isn't_ James Bond to me.  Nor is George Lazenby.  Sure, they played the role, but to me, there was something missing.
> 
> This isn't something you can dismiss as an affectation.  This is a bona fide statement of an emotional reaction to something.




If you re-read what I wrote, I did *not *dismiss this feeling as an affectation, but that if it was taken _beyond _affectation it came across as "obstinate defiance," as Aldarc put it. Or maybe willful denial? 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'd say your definition is starting to get in trouble once you start talking mechanics (which have varied greatly over the history of the game) and is floundering by the end of the third statement because "themes" again opens the door to the HERO (etc.) D&D Clones that can deliver those as easily as TSR's and WotC's product line.




Do you go through the dictionary and cross off which definitions are wrong to you? The four definitions I listed are all ways that the term "Dungeons & Dragons" are commonly used; they have nothing to do with what _I _think is D&D, or what is "D&D to me."

Scan through any English dictionary and you will find that a large number of words have multiple definitions with slightly to moderately different meanings. D&D is no different. As I've said elsewhere, the vast majority of non-gamers wouldn't know the difference between HERO fantasy and D&D; by their definition it is all D&D. This isn't an _exact _definition but it isn't "wrong" in the same way that calling a box of generic tissue Kleenex isn't "wrong."



pemerton said:


> I'm looking for people to stop trying to tell me that 4e is primarily a tactical skirmish game....(SNIP for brevity's sake)....That sort of nonsense isn't just about someone not feeling like playing 4e, or not knowing how to run or to play in 4e, and it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise.




Well put. I find it ironic that this sort of thing is ignored or unnoticed by many who take issue with criticism over the "4E is not D&D" statement. As if the issue, the "problem," if you will, is only because some people refuse to respect such statements. My point has been that it is worthwhile to question what sort of interpersonal impact these sorts of statements make, beyond just "offending people that bend over backwards to find offense."

My feeling is that people in general don't take enough responsibility and creativity for making the game their own, that there is enormous room and flexibility to take a given rules set--especially a D&D edition--and creating the kind of atmosphere and feel you want. If anything I would say that "4E is not D&D to me" is a baffling statement in that I don't see why it couldn't be made to be D&D to anyone. 

This is not to say that I think everyone should play and/or like 4E, not at all. Nor am I saying that everyone who says that "4E is not D&D to me" is lacking in creativity; actually, my sense is that many people who make such statements have bucketloads of creativity, but they simply seem unwilling to apply it to 4E. This is where I see "obstinate defiance come in." If one cannot make 4E be D&D to them, my sense is that they must have a rather finicky and narrow acceptance of what is D&D, or a "obstinate defiance" against 4E that prevents them from feeling how it, too, is D&D and can be played to feel like D&D with just a little flexibility of thinking.

The James Bond analogy works, I think, because it illustrates how there can be very different takes to playing the character "James Bond" and they are still all James Bond. The statement "Daniel Craig is not James Bond to me" implies an unwillingness to be flexible, to embrace a different variation as valid. Sort of as if, _if you look away, it won't exist..._I mean, Lazenby wasn't my favorite Bond, nor was Dalton or Brosnan, but they were all _James Bond, _they all captured the character in different ways.

That's the point: There's no one-size-fits-all take on James Bond. There is the "archetype" of James Bond, just as there is the archetype of D&D (or Rome), and then there are different, unique, embodiments of that archetype. 



pemerton said:


> I've deleted your smiley so that my serious response looks marginally less unwarranted!
> 
> For my best guess as to how 4e is meant to be run, given its rules plus what the designers said back when it was being released, see my post upthread on XP rewards and skill challenges, plus this post in your "Reason why 4e is not so popular" thread - which explains why 4e seems to be designed to support "just in time"/"no myth" play in a way that is harder for strongly simulationist rulesets to achieve.




Thanks, I'll take a look. And I was honestly curious, not mocking you!

EDIT: Your hyperlink took me to page 13 which only has a couple very short posts by you. Can you provide a direct link or, better yet, a post #?


----------



## Gryph (Feb 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> There's an excellent series in Dragon, from about 2000 (ish) just after the release of 3e where Gary took a reader poll on what constituted the important elements of an RPG and then he discussed in his Up On a Soapbox column the results. He stated there that he was rather surprised that improv theater ranked number 1 or 2 (I misremember which) as the most important element in RPG's.
> 
> I'm thinking that perhaps the definition of RPG has evolved some since the mid-70's.




I have no doubt nor disagree with the idea of roleplaying having matured and expanded, just like the rulesets of rpgs have matured and expanded. On the other hand, if the "evolved" definition can no longer encompass the original definition there is something entirely too limiting about the evolved definition. 

The breadth and scope of gourmet hamburgers that I can get today for lunch does not mean that the simple beef patty on a bun is no longer a hamburger. The fact that most people (myself included) prefer to add some nuance and personality to their characters when playing an rpg does not mean that the guy who plays his elf ranger in a quiet, mechanistic way is not roleplaying.

Anyway, I stand with the folks that accept that the guy playing WoW or other CRPGs is, in fact, roleplaying. An admittedly bland and generic sort of roleplay, but roleplay none the less.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

> Do you go through the dictionary and cross off which definitions are wrong to you?




No.  But when people are trying to find common ground, certain definitions may not be as useful as others.  As I've pointed out in various IP Piracy threads, "theft" has many definitions, and "copyright infringement" meets several...and no version of theft is all inclusive.

But here's the thing: no definition of theft overlaps a crime that is not theft.

All I'm trying to get you to do is to work towards a definition of D&D that doesn't draw in games that clearly are not.  And when you have tried opening your definitions to "themes" and "feel" and capture games like Pathfinder, you have done so in a fashion that is overinclusive and thus, not helpful.



> The statement "Daniel Craig is not James Bond to me" implies an unwillingness to be flexible, to embrace a different variation as valid.




No, and stop trying to infer when nothing is implied.

It's simply a statement that the speaker finds that _particular_ interpretation as somehow lacking.  The speaker may indeed find a wide variety of performances as completely valid, just not his.  At some point, you may find someone cast as JB who gives you the same feeling- say, Billie Piper.  Are you then inflexible when you say "Billie Piper isn't James Bond to me," even after she does 6 movies?  No.  clearly, you just don't care for her in the role.

To take the example back to it's roots, those who express "4Ed is not D&D to me" are simply stating that they find 4Ed lacks a certain D&D-ness, not that they are inflexible or denying certain realities.

How many games have been published under the D&D brand?  And when I find _*ONE*_ that doesn't do it for me, I'm inflexible?  Please.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 10, 2011)

billd91 said:


> I don't feel like my Bond-watching is somehow marginalized by her devotion to the man from Edinburgh.




Ah - but suppose you talked about your love of Bond movies fairly often with your friends, and every time you did, your Mom hopped into the room to mention how "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond."


----------



## shadzar (Feb 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm looking for people to stop trying to tell me that 4e is primarily a tactical skirmish game,



Then you have a problem beyond 4th edition. You want to dictate what others think and/or tell you.

If you don't want to hear what someone thinks about 4th edition, don't discus it with them. Also note that most of the design focus going into 4th edition and its mechanics was based around "two teams meeting to fight". Examples used were the skirmish game and basketball games.

That is where the focus is in 4th edition because that is the fulcrum. The point upon which the game was balanced.

It is actually the ONLY thing about 4th that hasn't been disagreed with so much that it required total reform. Skill challenges, healing, etc have all been under the knife by many people, but the biggest complaint about the core of the system, the combat, it the length of time or maybe how generic all the classes come to feel if they are all doing things the same way.

The part people like continuously about 4th is its tactical skirmish platform. You see a new person pick up the book and start reading the PHB and ask if it is a game like Warhammer, because the PHB looks like a Army Book for it, then that isn't the fault of the person, but the design of the product.

But that is the design that was wanted. One focused primarily on combat, the thing that gives that "movie action". The cinematics trying to be created from action movies and video games were telegraphed through the game and for it.

SO the problem more to the point of being the game itself, and how others view it versus what you want to see it as, or do.

Others won't view it the same way. 2nd edition to many felt like a tactical skirmish game when Combat and Tactics was added in the Player's Options series. 4th edition looks an awful lot like that and its focus. All those infamous quotes from the designers about what is and isnt fun is to sell it as a combat oriented game to capture those people.

Maybe you should complain to Mearls, Wyatt, Slaviseck, etc that promoted and designed the game that way; rather than the people that agree with them.

Nobody is telling you you have to see the game in ONLY that way, but you have to accept it IS seen in that way by many. It is one view of the game.



> or that a game run without a pre-build setting _cannot_ be anything but a series of hack-n-slash random encounters




There is no rhyme or reason. Encounters exist to be had when needed, IS just a series of hack-n-slashes. You can loosely connect them with a story, but there is little when the reason the encounter exists is because the players want one now.

You are being given critiques/reviews of things and getting mad at them.

Me or anyone else seeing your way of playing as not a good way to play, doesn't stop you from playing that way, nor your group if that is how you want to play. Everyone doesn't agree on the same way to play.

That is just the whole thing, people have to accept others do things differently. Then you won't be so upset about it.


Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Ah - but suppose you talked about your love of Bond movies fairly often with your friends, and every time you did, your Mom hopped into the room to mention how "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond."




If she was welcomed into the discussion, then you have to accept it, even if you disagree with it.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Ah - but suppose you talked about your love of Bond movies fairly often with your friends, and every time you did, your Mom hopped into the room to mention how "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond."




When I talk about my love of James Bond with friends, I fully expect people to disagree with me on certain points. If I were on a public message board, I would fully expect *anybody* to come in with disagreements on any points, including not liking a particular actor as James Bond. I might even agree if I were unable to get past seeing Pierce Brosnan as Remington Steele, for example, which is pretty much true by the way.

Every conversation is a *new* conversation. Maybe some people end up sounding like broken records if you're in conversations with them a lot, but I still bet that every time someone brings it up in a message board conversation there's at least one new person who has never seen that person post that opinion before.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No.  But when people are trying to find common ground, certain definitions may not be as useful as others.  As I've pointed out in various IP Piracy threads, "theft" has many definitions, and "copyright infringement" meets several...and no version of theft is all inclusive.
> 
> But here's the thing: no definition of theft overlaps a crime that is not theft.
> 
> All I'm trying to get you to do is to work towards a definition of D&D that doesn't draw in games that clearly are not.  And when you have tried opening your definitions to "themes" and "feel" and capture games like Pathfinder, you have done so in a fashion that is overinclusive and thus, not helpful.




I don't see how we can get around having multiple definitions, depending upon context - as with my four definitions. They really range in specificity, from very broad to more narrow. Some would go even more narrow, like "Any form of D&D published by TSR but not by any other company," but that, I think, passes the point of really having practical value - then you have to add something to the term, like "TSR-D&D."

But if we really want to develop a definition that, as you say, "doesn't draw in games that clearly are not (D&D)" I would suggest that the line is somewhere including Pathfinder and the retro-clones, but not HERO, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, etc. In other words, it would include official brand name D&D and games that are both derived from D&D and remain closely related to them. 

That last bit is the tricky part, and I think that's where we'll find a wide degree of difference. In my view Pathfinder, for example, is clearly D&D with a different name. And of course many retro-clones are closer to official versions of D&D than even Pathfinder is to 3.5.

So how could we define D&D, then? How about something like this (and I'm just making it up as I write, so bear with me):

*D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that bears the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons," or is derived from a brand name D&D game and still retains enough factors from said version of D&D to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.

*Yes, it is still nebulous, but then the question becomes "what would we consider to be 'enough factors'...'to bear a strong resemblance to' (D&D)"?

I just don't see how we're going to get away from some level of subjectivity. Even if we assembled a panel of WotC employees and designers from every edition of D&D, plus a few fans, to come up with a sharp definition of "What is D&D," there would still be disagreement (actually, there might be more considering how strong-minded we rpgeeks are!).



Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, and stop trying to infer when nothing is implied.
> 
> It's simply a statement that the speaker finds that _particular_ interpretation as somehow lacking.  The speaker may indeed find a wide variety of performances as completely valid, just not his.  At some point, you may find someone cast as JB who gives you the same feeling- say, Billie Piper.  Are you then inflexible when you say "Billie Piper isn't James Bond to me," even after she does 6 movies?  No.  clearly, you just don't care for her in the role.
> 
> ...




Danny, please understand that I have a lot of respect for you and don't feel insulted by you in any way or that you are criticizing me in any way because of your feeling that 4E isn't D&D to you. And to be honest, as I have admitted, there are many elements of 4E that I don't like within my D&D game, including some rather major features (I would even go so far to say that I like the _tone _of 3.5 better, including the layout and overall "vibe," but have enjoyed the _mechanics _of 4E so continue playing it).

My issue with this sort of statement ("4E isn't D&D to me") is more of an interpersonal one, a PR issue even. I understand the way people use it and I'm sure I could come up with numerous similar statements, but even then what do we really mean when we say something like that?

For example, let's take the example of the "prog rock" band King Crimson that I've been a fan of for many years, more so in the past than in recent years. If you're not familiar with them, they've gone through some very distinct stages in their 40+ year history, not like the editions of D&D: from the late 60s/early 70s, to mid-70s, to early-80s, to mid-to-late 90s, to 00s (although to me everything after the mid-90s sounds similar; I've just hear some people differentiate the two sub-phases). I much prefer the first three phases, especially the second one, and dislike much of what they've produced form the mid-90s onward. But even then, I wouldn't say that it "doesn't feel like King Crimson to me." It actually _does, _just not any of the first three stages.

So when people say "4E isn't D&D to me" I hear something similar to "mid-90s King Crimson isn't King Crimson to me." I understand what is meant, but find it to be a strange and misleading statement. What they are _really _saying, imo, is that "mid-90s King Crimson isn't [their preferred stage(s) of King Crimson]." Or, to put it another way, what "King Crimson is to me is what I identify with as their primary phase or sound" and probably the phase or sound that I prefer. 

In other words, it is a misleading statement that lacks specificity and, as a result, tends to generate unnecessary feuding, even if 90% of the time the person making such a statement doesn't mean it in a derogatory manner.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> But if we really want to develop a definition that, as you say, "doesn't draw in games that clearly are not (D&D)" I would suggest that the line is somewhere including Pathfinder and the retro-clones, but not HERO, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, etc. In other words, it would include official brand name D&D and games that are both derived from D&D and remain closely related to them.
> 
> That last bit is the tricky part, and I think that's where we'll find a wide degree of difference. In my view Pathfinder, for example, is clearly D&D with a different name. And of course many retro-clones are closer to official versions of D&D than even Pathfinder is to 3.5.
> 
> ...




Actually, I think that is probably the best formulation you've proposed to date.  About the only thing I'd change is "in terms of mechanics, game play and experience" for clarity.




> My issue with this sort of statement ("4E isn't D&D to me") is more of an interpersonal one, a PR issue even. I understand the way people use it and I'm sure I could come up with numerous similar statements, but even then what do we really mean when we say something like that?




We mean that 4Ee lacks some quality the speaker is expecting from playing something with that label.



> For example, let's take the example of the "prog rock" band King Crimson that I've been a fan of for many years, more so in the past than in recent years.
> 
> <snip>




I was actually going to bring up Rush...but KC is one of my favorite bands as well: not only do I have most of their albums, I play guitar primarily in Fripp's New Standard Tuning!



> I much prefer the first three phases, especially the second one, and dislike much of what they've produced form the mid-90s onward. But even then, I wouldn't say that it "doesn't feel like King Crimson to me." It actually _does, _just not any of the first three stages.
> 
> So when people say "4E isn't D&D to me" I hear something similar to "mid-90s King Crimson isn't King Crimson to me." I understand what is meant, but find it to be a strange and misleading statement. What they are _really _saying, imo, is that "mid-90s King Crimson isn't [their preferred stage(s) of King Crimson]." Or, to put it another way, what "King Crimson is to me is what I identify with as their primary phase or sound" and probably the phase or sound that I prefer.
> 
> In other words, it is a misleading statement that lacks specificity and, as a result, tends to generate unnecessary feuding, even if 90% of the time the person making such a statement doesn't mean it in a derogatory manner.




I think it lacks specificity for a variety of reasons, depending on the speaker, but it isn't intentionally misleading.

On the one hand, it could be the speaker has such a long and strong litany of dislikes of mid-90's KC that "mid-90s King Crimson isn't King Crimson to me" is about the only way they can get through the conversation in a concise and civil way.

OTOH, it could be something as simple as a feeling that they're "just resting on their laurels", "pandering to a fad" or something even more ephemeral, and thus difficult to put into words.

That said, even Robert Fripp makes distinctions in his musical output.  Part of the reason there are years-long gaps in the KC catalog is that Fripp only has the band active when he has KC music to record.  If music he wants to record isn't _"King Crimson"_ in his mind, he records it as a solo album or with someone else.  Hence Frippertronics, Fripp & Sylvan, Fripp & Summers, League of Crafty Guitarists, appearances with David Bowie, California Guitar Trio, and others, etc.

To use Rush (since I thought about them in this context), there are a couple of albums that simply aren't real Rush albums to me.  They'd be OK from almost anyone else, but they include elements that- to me- are ill-fitting additions to their sound.  And the sales of those albums were low enough that it was clear that much of their fanbase felt likewise.  Those elements never resurfaced.

Now, I've not seen interviews with the band saying how they felt about this.  They may have felt they were taking the band exactly where they wanted it to go, that their new sound would be seen as an evolution, and the lower sales were a disappointment.  Or the new elements could have been the result of label pressure, or the influence of the producer, so their lack of popularity would be seen as a vindication of their sound, sans additional elements.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 10, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> So how could we define D&D, then? How about something like this (and I'm just making it up as I write, so bear with me):
> 
> *D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that bears the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons," or is derived from a brand name D&D game and still retains enough factors from said version of D&D to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.*



The problem with this, no one is bound to observe your arbitrary definitions.  

This is pretty much free exchange here, and there simply comes with that a degree of obligation on listener's part to take context and the reasonable meanings of the speaker into account.  Certainly people can and do just make flatly unreasonable statements.  But this is just not a valid example of that.



> For example, let's take the example of the "prog rock" band King Crimson that I've been a fan of for many years, more so in the past than in recent years. If you're not familiar with them, they've gone through some very distinct stages in their 40+ year history, not like the editions of D&D: from the late 60s/early 70s, to mid-70s, to early-80s, to mid-to-late 90s, to 00s (although to me everything after the mid-90s sounds similar; I've just hear some people differentiate the two sub-phases). I much prefer the first three phases, especially the second one, and dislike much of what they've produced form the mid-90s onward. But even then, I wouldn't say that it "doesn't feel like King Crimson to me." It actually _does, _just not any of the first three stages.



Ok, so one clear point in here is that the fourth stage does not feel like the first three stages.  Your defintion of what King Crimson sounds like includes all three stages, but, at a minimum, the fourth stage feels different than the others.   If I could time travel back to stage two and play a stage four song for you, without you knowing who it was, then, as you already said, that would not feel like King Crimson to you.  It doesn't feel like those stages to you, and you had not yet revised your defintion to include this new sound.  It only became included once you changes your defintion.

And the thing is, there is no obligation to change the definition.  And if you really didn't like the new stuff at all and did not listen to it, it is very likely that in your mind the would not fall in the same segment on a Venn diagram as the music that you think of when you think of "King Crimson music".

I still think no one anywhere is disputed that it is officially D&D.  But when you wake up in the morning and find your self struck by the mood to listen to King Crimson, there is an understood that requires no statement that it is the old stuff and specifically not the new stuff you want.  Despite the valid name, what you want when you think of King Crimson is more specific than all the music that officially meets that definition.

Maybe I am not describing you right.  Maybe you just grab any King Crimson without discrimination and then just feel a little bummed when you get new stuff and it doesn't live up to your hopes.  But, if that describes you, then you are far from typical.  (which is cool)

There are people for whom the phrase "let's play D&D" strikes a very positve cord, with expectations and eagerness associated.  And if you then clarify 4E, they will become deflated because they suddenly realize that those expectations will not be fullfilled.  They, of course, realize that 4E did in fact fall under "D&D", but it just wasn't what they thought of and anticipated.  And, once upon a time, they were not obligated to look out for that loophole when someone said "lets play D&D".


----------



## shadzar (Feb 10, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> *D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that* bears the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons," or *is derived from a brand name D&D game* and still retains enough factors from said version of D&D to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.




Do I hear papers being filled out and filed? "Derivative works", "copy right infringement', "trademark dilution"....

I think there would be much disagreement on high with a part of that definition, and if became widely accepted would sure get notice, and probably not the good kind.

Herein lies where feelings about something such as "4th edition isn't D&D to me" is the only way to define things, unless you own the trademark.

By including those things that are derived from D&D, even if written by Gary or Dave, you are diluting what D&D is. Might as well not try to define it at that point.


----------



## jbear (Feb 10, 2011)

Skipping from page one to here, can't imagine I'm going to read anything enlightening or interesting from page 2 to 12 .

I can't xp you Mercurius (sread some around and all that) so I'm just dropping by to add that I like your analogy and agree with you sentiment that it would be good and positive for us all as a  'community' to find a common ground in D&D regardless of edition preference.

We all come to these boards because we share something very cool in common. We all think RPGs are awesome sauce. We like to spend out time playing them, and reserve a lot of mental space to think about them, and free time in between to discuss them down to the smallest nuts and bolts.

My experience is anecdotal at best, as its just my experience and I have no proof to back up anything i say. But for me the system is a Road, it takes me where Im going. And where I'm going is the same place regardless of edition. The system is not Rome. Just a road there. The experience is Rome. A journey of imagination, through time and space (cue the Mighty Boosh music). 

I'd find the way to get where I wanted to go no matter what edition I was using as a DM. The game I play in online, the DM runs it in a way that it could also be any edition.

The rules system is not a springboard for ideas for me, it doesn't influence the creation of my campaign. The adventures available to me based on that edition do more so, because I don't have time to do everything from scratch so I use pre made adventures as building blocks, to kickstart ideas. So elements of those of adventures have influenced the direction in which my games have gone. 

But the rules system? Nah, that's really just influenced how I resolve character actions. So that's all I base my preference upon, the smoothness of resolution of actions.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 10, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The Shaman ... and Raven Crowking to Hussar and LostSoul ...



I would love to get these four, along with yourself and Celebrim and Piratecat, sitting at the same table in the same pub for a long afternoon and evening discussing the sort of stuff we talk about in here.  We could design the perfect game in one day! 

Lan-"I suggest this year's GenCon, Tuesday afternoon-evening at the RAM for this"-efan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2011)

> Do I hear papers being filled out and filed? "Derivative works", "copy right infringement', "trademark dilution"....




Well, you can't copyright game rules.  As long as you don't use unique elements- Monsters, place names, uses of language, etc.- you're free to make your game as similar to the original as you'd like.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 10, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> This is not to say that I think everyone should play and/or like 4E, not at all. Nor am I saying that everyone who says that "4E is not D&D to me" is lacking in creativity; actually, my sense is that many people who make such statements have bucketloads of creativity, but they simply seem unwilling to apply it to 4E. This is where I see "obstinate defiance come in." If one cannot make 4E be D&D to them, my sense is that they must have a rather finicky and narrow acceptance of what is D&D, or a "obstinate defiance" against 4E that prevents them from feeling how it, too, is D&D and can be played to feel like D&D with just a little flexibility of thinking.



The problem is, in my case and I'd guess that of many others, is that the bucketloads of creativity have already been applied to an earlier edition.  Which means *I want any new edition to fit in with what I already have*, rather than have it expect me to do the same creative work I've already done.  Call it inherent laziness (you'd be right if you did), but I don't like doing things twice; particularly when said things involve a large degree of heavy slogging during which is often heard "I will never do this again!"

Lanefan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 10, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> So how could we define D&D, then? How about something like this (and I'm just making it up as I write, so bear with me):
> 
> *D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that bears the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons," or is derived from a brand name D&D game and still retains enough factors from said version of D&D to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.*



*

No, thank you.

I differentiate between the brand identity, and the identity of the game, thank you very much.  If I accepted the above, I would also have to accept that Candyland was D&D should it be published under the D&D brand.

May I suggest:

D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that is derived from any version of the D&D game, or the OGL published by WotC, and which still retains enough factors from the original version of D&D, as published by TSR, to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.

(I personally agree that 4e is D&D, but not due to the branding.  Nor am I happy to give carte blanche to anyone to determine the meaning of the D&D game - as opposed to trademark - simply because they hold the trademark.  Nor would I accept similarity to 3e, 4e, or even 2e as evidence that something was "D&D" in the game sense, if it did not also strongly resemble the game play and experience of the original game.  YMMV.)


RC*


----------



## shadzar (Feb 10, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, you can't copyright game rules.  As long as you don't use unique elements- Monsters, place names, uses of language, etc.- you're free to make your game as similar to the original as you'd like.




True, but you can't put the words "Dungeons and Dragons" on it to define it as D&D unless you hold the copyright/trademark.

So in defining things other than D&D products as D&D, you end up in the area where "Xerox" was used in commercials to mean "photocopy", and then Xerox must come defend their trademark or risk losing it. Right?

Defining D&D then must first start off as excluding things NOT of that specific trademark, and only including those things that bare it. Otherwise you are taking a risk, as well confusing the definition.

I would never accept anything without the trademark D&D on it as D&D, but that doesn't mean I accept everything WITH the trademark on it worthy of bearing it either.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 11, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> (I personally agree that 4e is D&D, but not due to the branding.  Nor am I happy to give _carte blanche_ to anyone to determine the meaning of the D&D game - as opposed to trademark - simply because they hold the trademark.  Nor would I accept similarity to 3e, 4e, or even 2e as evidence that something was "D&D" in the game sense, if it did not also strongly resemble the game play and experience of the original game.  YMMV.)



Exactly.  Buying the rights and slapping the name on a cover would not make GURPS fantasy suddenly be a different game experience.

If GURPS fantasy IS D&D to someone today, then their concept of D&D is so amorphous as to be useless to me.

If it is NOT D&D today and it is legally possible for it to become D&D 5E (which it is), then it must take more than that to really qualify.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> Your hyperlink took me to page 13 which only has a couple very short posts by you. Can you provide a direct link or, better yet, a post #?



Sorry, I'm configured to 20 posts per page.

The post number is 246.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Do you also get cheesed off when people say that D&D is essentially killing people and taking their stuff? That's a common phrase around here, including in defense of 4e despite it also generally reducing the game down into a tactical killing and theft game.



I'm personally not the biggest fan of that slogan, but it tends not to cheese me off because it tends to be used in a self-deprecating way. Whereas the assertion that "4e is really a skirmish came" is normally used in a context that gerenates an implication of superiority on the part of the speaker.



billd91 said:


> I do feel that 4e put far too much emphasis on the mini skirmish game element of the rules.



Now that doesn't irritate me at all, for at least three reasons. First, it's very clearly a statement of preference.

Second, it doesn't assert that 4e is a skirmish game. Rather, it just presupposes the obvious truth that the 4e combat enging is a tactical minis engine. And I don't disupte that - I've read the rles and played the game - I just dispute (i) that the combat engine exhausts the game, and (ii) that a combat engine of that sort is a necessary impediment to roleplaying. In fact, I find that the combat engine actually feeds roleplaying at my table - but that's primarily a truth about me, not about 4e.

Third, my familiarity with your posting history on these topics makes me fairly confident that you're don't have an agenda of denying that 4e is a serious roleplaying game.

(And fourth - my four year old daughter loves your "dancing boy" picture and makes me scroll back up to your posts so she can see it again whenever she's watching over my shoulder while I'm on ENworld.)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 11, 2011)

shadzar said:


> You want to dictate what others think and/or tell you.



No. I have preference about how they describe me.



shadzar said:


> There is no rhyme or reason. Encounters exist to be had when needed, IS just a series of hack-n-slashes. You can loosely connect them with a story, but there is little when the reason the encounter exists is because the players want one now.



And this is a classic case of what I object to. You're here, telling me, that there is no rhyme or reason to the sequence of encounters in my game. That my game is just a series of hack-n-slashes.

And all that without any reference to the copious detail I've posted and referred to about how my game plays.



shadzar said:


> Me or anyone else seeing your way of playing as not a good way to play



I don't believe you have the least idea of how I play the game.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 11, 2011)

billd91 said:


> In fact, I've recently come to the realization that one of the things about 4e I don't like is that it feels like I'm participating in a pro-wrestling game. Lots of special, even weird, moves get thrown around in a fight, usually only once... reminds me very much of pro-wrestling.



Y'know, if someone hacked 4e to make a masked wrestlers game . . . I'd consider buying it.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 11, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Y'know, if someone hacked 4e to make a masked wrestlers game . . . I'd consider buying it.




Dibbs on Senor Bag of Crap.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 11, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Sorry, I'm configured to 20 posts per page.
> 
> The post number is 246.




Thanks for that one - an excellent summary of the way I DM.  I'd XP you for it if I hadn't done so very recently for the thread in general


----------



## Hussar (Feb 11, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> I would love to get these four, along with yourself and Celebrim and Piratecat, sitting at the same table in the same pub for a long afternoon and evening discussing the sort of stuff we talk about in here.  We could design the perfect game in one day!
> 
> Lan-"I suggest this year's GenCon, Tuesday afternoon-evening at the RAM for this"-efan




Heh, if you spring for the airfare.  



Gryph said:


> I have no doubt nor disagree with the idea of roleplaying having matured and expanded, just like the rulesets of rpgs have matured and expanded. On the other hand, if the "evolved" definition can no longer encompass the original definition there is something entirely too limiting about the evolved definition.
> 
> The breadth and scope of gourmet hamburgers that I can get today for lunch does not mean that the simple beef patty on a bun is no longer a hamburger. The fact that most people (myself included) prefer to add some nuance and personality to their characters when playing an rpg does not mean that the guy who plays his elf ranger in a quiet, mechanistic way is not roleplaying.
> 
> Anyway, I stand with the folks that accept that the guy playing WoW or other CRPGs is, in fact, roleplaying. An admittedly bland and generic sort of roleplay, but roleplay none the less.




I got a bit sidetracked in my original answer away from the point I originally made.  Tabletop RPG's presume that the player will be taking on the persona of the character he creates.  Even going WAAYYY back to early D&D, you still had Alignment rules and strong penalties for straying from your alignment.  You had fairly broad rules for training and what happened, and how much time and money it was going to smack you with, if you strayed from playing your character.

In other words, the persona of your character was enforced by the mechanics.  

Just about every RPG ties the persona of the character to the mechanics in some form.  MMO's do not.  I can pillage, kill and say whatever I please and it has no mechanical effect whatsoever.  

There is no presumption in an MMO that the people playing that game will assume any sort of persona, or role.

So, I'm going to disagree with you on this.  MMO's are not role playing games in the sense that tabletop RPG's are.  In an MMO, your role solely depends on your combat abilities and not any sort of persona.  

Now, you can certainly role play IN an MMO.  Of course you can.  No problem whatsoever with that.  And, to be fair, it's not a huge step from MMO to rpg.  But, I still stand by the idea that something like WoW is not a role playing game (in the sense that role=persona).


----------



## BryonD (Feb 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> There is no presumption in an MMO that the people playing that game will assume any sort of persona, or role.



I actually quite agree with you that there is a key difference between MMOs and Tabletop RPGs.  That is a big part of my fundamental theory on "why 4E isn't as popular", they tried to focus more on getting MMO players than they did on retaining tabletop players.  (Stand disclaimer, if you don't know it, just ask)

But, you need to be a bit careful with this particular reasoning.

I've had it explained to me that "beer and pretzels", getting together with friends is more important than system, is a big piece of the marketplace that I don't take sufficiently into account.  There are more than one way to "role play" and, as much as I personally like "in character" stuff, I know that there are people who simply like to experience an empowerment by proxy kind of exercise.  (No value judgment implied, just noting difference).  I'd say that this kind of play is much more focused on the exact same "I"m a cool powerful dude", that is key for the great majority of WOW players then it is on role or persona.  

Yes, the distribution is different, I think vastly more table top gamers role play.  But the expectation isn't mandatory and rather than being a discrete differences between MMOs and tabletop, you have just identified different positions on the same spectrum.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> There is no presumption in an MMO that the people playing that game will assume any sort of persona, or role.




It is probably best you never try to make an MMO or RPG. Your presumptions are so wrong it is laughable.

EverQuest proved to MANY that mistakenly thought like you that there is in fact that very presumption that should be made. Guilds, etc prove you wrong by themselves.

Your definition of "role" is as one-sided, but in the opposite direction, as WotC's.

The "role" is not solely the combat position (Defender, Striker, Leader, Controller, tank, healer, etc), nor the thespianism, but a combination of both to the extent the individual wishes to employ them.

MMOs do in fact assume that some will be playing the "role" as there are often MANY people standing around talking and doing thing "in character" as opposed to camping the next spawn. It also has the function to facilitate such play.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Heh, if you spring for the airfare.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I disagree, but in a very disinterested way. I agree with the designers of 4e that the health of the hobby is dependant on attracting new players (which will likely come from computer game players). We, as members of the hobby, are going to be able to better strengthen and renew the player base if we are accepting of MMO players as roleplayers rather than dismissing their prior experiences.

So instead let me offer a different concept. The value of "roleplaying" within any game system (CRPG or TTRPG) can most meaningfully be measured in the emotional commitment of the player to the character being played.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 11, 2011)

> So instead let me offer a different concept. The value of "roleplaying" within any game system (CRPG or TTRPG) can most meaningfully be measured in the emotional commitment of the player to the character being played.




I don't know about that.  In my 34 years in the hobby, I've probably seen more players who act as if any of their PCs in any RPG as something akin to an overglorified war-game unit.  What they actually feel is unknowable without direct questioning.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2011)

What exactly "role playing" is is of course a vexed and contested issue.

I agree with Hussar that RPGs and MMOs are different. It's hard to capture the difference in a simple description, but if I had to I'd try it this way: in an RPG _the fiction matters_ - not just in that it provides an emotional "in" (this is important even to a game like M:TG - who would still be interested if it was just numbers ad categories without the fantasy flavour?), but that in it matters to the play of the game.

This is obviously true of AD&D (think White Plume Mountain). It is true of any purist-for-system simulationist engine, where the fiction provides the touchstone for interpreting and applying the rules (think RQ, RM or even 3E). It is true of good non-simulationist games too. One reason 4e gets hammered is because the rule books don't make it as clear as they could how and why the fiction matters to play - they leave it too much as an exercise for the reader. This leads some to conclude that in 4e the fiction doesn't matter, and hence that it is at heart just a minis game.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 12, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This leads some to conclude that in 4e the fiction doesn't matter, and hence that it is at heart just a minis game.



I am certain that your express use of the word "some" makes this completely a true statement.
But if you want to get inside the head of people who don't like 4E, in either an effort to either sway them or just get the best of both worlds in later efforts, you should keep in mind that there are also plenty of us who get the value of story and still see other systems as simple better at getting there.

No absolutes.
3E has elements of story and elements of mini game.
4E has elements of story and elements of mini game.

To many of us, 4E simply spends more time in the mini game district of Rome.
I know people get all worked up hearing that and demand that it isn't that way in their game.  But no 4E fan can gain understanding of the situation the game is in without coming to grips with this relatively common position.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 12, 2011)

BryonD, you might want to check out this blog post and its sister posts: anyway: A Moment of Judgment


----------



## BryonD (Feb 12, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> BryonD, you might want to check out this blog post and its sister posts: anyway: A Moment of Judgment




Ok, I don't see anything I particularly disagree with.  But, I'm certainly not at all invested in forge game-theory, so perhaps I'm not catching the full context there.

I guess I can see how they may be describing someone playing 4E and not catching the story.  (sort of not seeing the forest for the trees)

And I already agreed that this could happen.  I agree this is a valid scenario, I don't agree that it represents more than a small fraction of the total dissatisfaction with 4E.  If anything it may do a better job of describing people who do enjoy 4E, but don't get the full story portion out of it.

And maybe I've gone completely in the wrong direction because I read a game theory post pretty much "in media res" and at half past midnight.....


----------



## Gryph (Feb 12, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I don't know about that.  In my 34 years in the hobby, I've probably seen more players who act as if any of their PCs in any RPG as something akin to an overglorified war-game unit.  What they actually feel is unknowable without direct questioning.




You caught me. 

I was backing into my original point. MMO or Tabletop, roleplaying is only as deep as the player chooses to take it. An overglorified war-game unit at the table sounds awfully like playing an MMO character.

I'm not going to be the one to tell either player they are doing it wrong.

As a total aside, I wonder how many of us 30+ year rpg vets are still around and actively playing?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 12, 2011)

Gryph said:


> You caught me.
> 
> I was backing into my original point. MMO or Tabletop, roleplaying is only as deep as the player chooses to take it. An overglorified war-game unit at the table sounds awfully like playing an MMO character.
> 
> ...




The guys in my group who are like that are VERY good at running their PCs in combat situations, so I'm NOT complaining.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 12, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Ok, I don't see anything I particularly disagree with.  But, I'm certainly not at all invested in forge game-theory, so perhaps I'm not catching the full context there.




I was trying to show you the blog post that really pushed my 4E hack forward.  When I started trying to hack the system, that blog post was the guiding light.  That's why I call my hack "Fiction First".

It doesn't really have anything to do with the ongoing conversation, but I thought you might find it interesting.  (It's very light on the Forge jargon as well.)  If you want to discuss how rules can effect immersion, I'd be all for that.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 12, 2011)

Here's a question, I'm especially interested in responses from Mercurius, Hussar, and Pemerton as I've disagreed with you all in this thread (or the other one) and found your insights helpful. (Of course, and it should go without saying, anyone should feel free to respond. )

Hypothetical:
If WotC sells the rights of D&D to another company and they then make 5e, how different would it have to be for it to not feel like D&D? 

Also, it would be "officially" D&D, but could they change it enough so that you might say "5e is not D&D"?



For instance, and in an extreme example WotC sells D&D to Firestone Tires. (Who knows why those madmen buy it.) They release tires with dragon and dungeon designs on them and call it Dungeons and Dragons, 5e.

I'd say that 5e is NOT D&D in that case.


From you guys, though, I'm more interested in the least extreme example of what you might consider "doesn't feel like" and "isn't".


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 12, 2011)

Well Aberzanzorax, it would still have to be a tabletop role-playing game. There is a line where "tabletop rpg" becomes something else, whether a board game (e.g. _Castle Ravenloft) _or a MMO (_World of Warcraft). _Now one could say that _Castle Ravenloft _is D&D, or feels like D&D (or _WoW _for that matter), and I think that is true to a degree and in the broad sense of the term.

So I would say we really have two definitions: the broad definition, which includes _Castle Ravenloft _and a D&D-esque MMO, and a narrow definition, which is specific to the tabletop RPG. I assume that you are referring to the latter.

As I've said, I'm a big umbrella kind of guy so 5E would have to be significantly different to no longer feel like D&D to me. As long as I'm rolling dice (especially the d20) and have a character sheet with a certain amount of recognizable statistics (especially the six ability scores, hit points, and armor class), and most important, as long as I am participating in an imagination space with certain iconic D&D themes, characters, and monsters, than it is going to feel like D&D to me. It doesn't matter if it is Vancian magic or not, as long as there is some magic, and there are iconic spells like _magic missile, dispel magic, _and _fireball, _as well as magic items like the _bag of holding, _the _vorpal sword, potions of healing, _magical rings, wands, staves, and rods, etc.

The specific configuration of the game as expressed through the rules doesn't matter as much as the gestalt that it creates, namely as it is experienced in the shared imagination space. The configuration of rules _does _matter, but there is a lot of room for flexibility, and as long as the effect is that of creating and supporting a D&D experience of imagination and adventure.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But if you want to get inside the head of people who don't like 4E, in either an effort to either sway them or just get the best of both worlds in later efforts, you should keep in mind that there are also plenty of us who get the value of story and still see other systems as simple better at getting there.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To many of us, 4E simply spends more time in the mini game district of Rome.



Sure. But I also sometimes feel that some of the 4e critics are saying "4e is a bad game" when maybe what they really mean is "non-simulationist games are bad games" or even "I don't like non-simulationist games".

It's like the "balanced encounters" line in your sig - if I understand it right (in the context of your many posts on and around the issue) you are objecting to "balanced encounters" as interfering with the fiction, because they make the fiction - the gameworld - serve the game. (I assume that you also dislike the idea of the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest - restated by Robin Laws also in 4e's DMG2 - on similar grounds.)

I entirely agree that 4e makes metagame take a predominant place that it doesn't in (eg) 3E. The key is to not let this undermine the place of the fiction, but instead to make this serve the fiction - only because it is metagame-driven fiction, the role of those at the table is more like "creators" and less like "discoverers". (Of coures, if the creation is at least partly sub-conscious, there can be the experience of the creation "writing itself".) The GM, in particular, in running the gameworld, is asking less of "what should happend now, given how the world is" and more of "what should happen now, given how the people at the game table are". But in good non-simulationist play, the players will still be responding to "what is happening now in the gameworld". And I think that's what makes it an RPG, and makes it different from an MMO.



LostSoul said:


> BryonD, you might want to check out this blog post and its sister posts: anyway: A Moment of Judgment



Thanks - good link. It also gives me a better handle on some aspects of your 4e hack.

I found the discussion in the comments about using risk rather than resources to pay for advantage. If I understood it right, this is how I tend to run p 42 - risks in exchange for advantage.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2011)

Aberzanzorax, it's hard for me to answer your question.

After having been playing mostly Rolemaster for many years, 4e feels like D&D to me because of the d20, the hit points and the polyhedral damage dice. (Rolemaster is all d10s).

But once you get past these basic similarities - d20s to hit, longswords do d8s, etc, and also the names of classes, spells and monsters - it doesn't feel too much like AD&D or Basic in play. Which is for me a good thing, for others not so much.

A future edition which was still a fantasy RPG with d20s to hit, longswords doing d8s, and that used a lot of the same names, would still probably feel to me as much like D&D as 4e does. If it swung back in a hard simulationist manner, perhaps more so.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 12, 2011)

Double post deleted.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 12, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Sure. But I also sometimes feel that some of the 4e critics are saying "4e is a bad game" when maybe what they really mean is "non-simulationist games are bad games" or even "I don't like non-simulationist games".




I agree with you here, and I have to admit that I credit the discussions around 4e for helping me better understand what I want (and what I do not want) in a role-playing game!

I would further posit that the "D&D Experience" is related, in no small part, to the degree of simulation....at least for some people.  And, hence, a game which is not "fiction first" (as LostSoul calls his hack!) simply doesn't feel like it shares that experience, to them.

Indeed, in my own case, while I am willing to accept that 4e is D&D, it doesn't satisfy the "D&D itch".  Some 4e materials can be easily ported into a system that _*does*_ satisfy my gaming desires.  Of course, so can Harn and MERP materials!   But the 4e materials, to my mind, are more clearly of the same family as the D&D game I started on, and hence D&D, to me.

(I hope that was clear and follow-able!   )

RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 12, 2011)

> "4e is a bad game"



Some people ARE saying that.  The trick is discerning _who_ is saying it _when_.

Because, again, calling a game "bad" is a POV construct, that, while it may contain objective metrics, is ultimately a subjective opinion being expressed through the imperfect conduit of language.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 12, 2011)

Aside: if you're still reading this thread, could whomever it was who posted a link to online resources regarding HERO D&D sims just post that link here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/301174-hero-d-d-sim-campaign.html

Thanks in advance!

I mean, I can do it solo, but I've had nibbles and it would be cool to get it up & running ASAP.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 12, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Sure. But I also sometimes feel that some of the 4e critics are saying "4e is a bad game" when maybe what they really mean is "non-simulationist games are bad games" or even "I don't like non-simulationist games".



I'm sure some of them are.



> It's like the "balanced encounters" line in your sig - if I understand it right (in the context of your many posts on and around the issue) you are objecting to "balanced encounters" as interfering with the fiction, because they make the fiction - the gameworld - serve the game. (I assume that you also dislike the idea of the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest - restated by Robin Laws also in 4e's DMG2 - on similar grounds.)



I strongly object to balanced encounter as being the priority.  

But yes, the rules should serve the game and the game should serve the sense of being in the story.  

I realize you are going to take exception to me saying 4E doesn't do this.  But it is not a question of claiming 4E is the antithesis of what I want.  It is more a matter of why should I play a game that gets a B- when I have a solid A option.  (And, honestly, there are several B+ and A- alternatives out there as well).

The rules are not the same for npcs as they are for pcs.
The difficulty of a task is based not on the task but on the character level.
All wizards get better at climbing.
The black knights and pirate captains ACs are both based first on challenge level, not what they are.
Square fireballs and 1-1-1 diagonals.
The list goes on and on. 
And I understand the point of the changes.
And it really isn't the changes themselves so much as the driving philosophy that led to them and colors the entire game experience.
And I don't claim they ruin anything, but they detract a bit at a time.  In the end it is B-.

You can say I'm not describing your game.
But I know my opinion.
And I know statements made by design team members praising the specific things I don't care for.
And I know I've debated many 4E fans who were praising the very things I don't care for.
And I know I've talked to a lot of people who dislike 4E for the same reasons that I don't choose it.


I am not familiar with the Heroquest pass/fail cycle, and have not read the 4E DMG2.  I will simply readily agree that there are games I like and games I don't.   


It may be informative to note that I play some board games, but not often at all.  I don't play warhammer fantasy battles.  I don't play DDM.  I own Arkham Horror, I think it is fun.  I have not played it in well over a year.  It may be fair to say that I am not a gamer.  I am a story-teller role player.

People gripe about 3E prep time.  I enjoy prepping, both direct plot and the world at large, AT LEAST, as much as I enjoy sitting around the table with friends.  When I do play I enjoy
- the social activity with friends
- the being in character role play parts
- and, probably rather narcissistically, I enjoy experiencing other people responding to and impacting the world and story that I have created.  

My games feature quite regular combat, I think they are typical in that regard.  I enjoy combat, and I enjoy the tactical game.  But I absolutely find myself focused more on seeing how it plays out, and how that impacts the larger story.





> I entirely agree that 4e makes metagame take a predominant place that it doesn't in (eg) 3E. The key is to not let this undermine the place of the fiction, but instead to make this serve the fiction - only because it is metagame-driven fiction, the role of those at the table is more like "creators" and less like "discoverers". (Of coures, if the creation is at least partly sub-conscious, there can be the experience of the creation "writing itself".) The GM, in particular, in running the gameworld, is asking less of "what should happend now, given how the world is" and more of "what should happen now, given how the people at the game table are". But in good non-simulationist play, the players will still be responding to "what is happening now in the gameworld". And I think that's what makes it an RPG, and makes it different from an MMO.



I can role play in 4E.
I know you can role play in 4E.
We can both tell the exact same stories in 4E that I love telling in 3E.

It is not a question of whether or not I CAN prevent the issues from undermining the story.  I know I could.

But the question is, Why should I bother?
I have a better game.  It is that simple.  

I said this in one of these threads recently.  If I had never heard of RPGs and someone showed me 4E, I am certain I would instantly think it was the most awesome game ever.  I am also certain I would soon learn of even better games and move on.  

I don't think your work-arounds would budge my rating up to B+ even.  I think you are mostly just describing things I'd take for granted and are built into the B-.  But even if they did, I've got an A sitting right here.
I'm going to play that.

I think my comments above about the larger picture offer some reply here as well.  

Yes, in non-simulationist games the people at the table can be "in the story" just the same.  But the "just the same" stuff is, by definition, irrelevant to choice of which system is preferable.  The pro-simualtionist approach provides, to me, a much more rewarding reflection of the world that we are otherwise equally imagining.


----------



## Janx (Feb 12, 2011)

BryonD said:


> The rules are not the same for npcs as they are for pcs.
> The difficulty of a task is based not on the task but on the character level.
> All wizards get better at climbing.
> The black knights and pirate captains ACs are both based first on challenge level, not what they are.
> ...




I haven't read 4e rules.  What BryonD mentions as a short list of faults, some I agree with, some are meh.

Each edition had people in the prior edition thinking it was crap, 4e had the most dramatic changes to my eye.  I could have taken the spirit of the 4e ideas, and not as dramatically changed the game.  I think that bugs a lot of people.  Moreso than the "they changed my game" reaction we normally get at each edition.

Since I can have and have told a variety of kinds of stories in 2e and in 3e, I'm certain I could do those same stories in 4e, or some other RPG.

To the OT then, the 4e experience may be the most dramatically different than the others.  The prior editions had mostly the same classes, same races, same spells, same combat handling.  4e took out a bunch of classes (Bard?) added new ones, and changed what everybody could do, and when people talk about it, and "roles" and "Job" it just doesn't sound like the same game.  Character ideas that would have worked in 1-3e just don't work in 4e (barring the new books adding stuff). 


I think the complaint is, the differences in this revision are greater than the differences in all the other versions.  In a way, all the people who complained about the changes in prior editions look like whiny nit-pickers.  Because 4e made more changes in total to the game, than the others did.

I'm not gonna say 4e isn't D&D.  It's got it printed on the cover by the owner of the copyright.  I guess it is.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 12, 2011)

Janx said:


> What BryonD mentions as a short list of faults, some I agree with, some are meh.



Well, just to be clear, some people think my list are all awesome things about 4E, and that's cool.  I'm not saying everyone should agree that they are problematic to fun play.  But some people find them distinctly problematic to certain playstyles.




> I think the complaint is, the differences in this revision are greater than the differences in all the other versions.  In a way, all the people who complained about the changes in prior editions look like whiny nit-pickers.  Because 4e made more changes in total to the game, than the others did.



IMO this is not it.  I don't think the changes in 4E are any greater magnitude or in quality than the 3E changes were.



> I'm not gonna say 4e isn't D&D.  It's got it printed on the cover by the owner of the copyright.  I guess it is.



Well, this quibble has gone back and forth.  

4E is D&D.
A baseball is a ball.

If you want to play pre-4E D&D using 4E, you may find your experience is comparable to trying to play basketball with a baseball.


----------



## Janx (Feb 12, 2011)

BryonD said:


> 4E is D&D.
> A baseball is a ball.
> 
> If you want to play pre-4E D&D using 4E, you may find your experience is comparable to trying to play basketball with a baseball.




lol.

I remember pre-4e, explaining to a friend's friend about D&D when he was thinking about joining the group. He had played WoW and asked a lot of questions along the line of role in the party, ala tank, defender, etc.

I remember being a bit thrown off.  In all the editions I played (2x-3x) we usually started newbs off on what class we thought they could handle (figher being the baseline), and from there, asked them:
do you want to be like a swashbuckling erol flynn
an archer dude, maybe like Legolas from LotR
a big burly heavy armor wearing guy with a big weapon
or like some other fighting guy you've seen in a movie

That basically told us where to put his stats, and what equipment to buy.  No talk of role.  he was the fighter.  Do what yer good at when the game starts.

And so it would be with the other classes.

Whereas in 4e, that WoW player's talk sounds like it would mesh right into 4e concepts.


----------



## shadzar (Feb 12, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some people ARE saying that.  The trick is discerning _who_ is saying it _when_.
> 
> Because, again, calling a game "bad" is a POV construct, that, while it may contain objective metrics, is ultimately a subjective opinion being expressed through the imperfect conduit of language.




Yup. to some it is that simple, when a subjective word is used such as "good" or "bad" it is always the view or the speaker.

As to this part...



			
				pemerton said:
			
		

> they really mean is "non-simulationist games are bad games" or even "I don't like non-simulationist games"




"4e is a bad game" =/= "non-simulationist games are bad games"
"4e is a bad game" =/= "I don't like non-simulationist games"

Someone can think 4e is a bad game and think non-simulationist games are good games, even if they feel 4e is a non-simulationist game.

That is one of the problems with the Rome analogy and trying to be all inclusive.

Not everyone will think ALL non-simulationist games are bad or good, even if they consider 4e to be one.

When people mention the minis that you replied that too, you need to look at some minis games to get the idea.


DDM sets up a combat where you pick a small group of figures and play on a limited selection of maps. This is like other CMG such as Clix games.

Warhammer setups up a combat where you pick your group, then pick you abilities for members of that group (such as attack power, defense power, weapons, armor, feats, skills, etc), and each combat can be had it a newly designed arena. 4th edition is a step closer to a full blown minis wargame than DDM because the focus.

Warhammer even lets you connect those combats with story, and decide, before combat, story that gets you there. Once you are in that combat box, the rules exist for that lengthy simulated combat. Warhammer and 4th edition offer some pretty strong rules based on movement parameters, flanking, moving other pieces, ranged and CQ combat, etc.

Likewise BOTH can easily ignore any interconnected story to get you there. Yes previous editions could be just strings of combat, but in comparison to 4th they weren't as developed on the combat front. So it is that direct mention of minis in the games mechanics, coupled with the direct focus on the combat, that makes 4th edition scream miniatures game to many.

The fact you can add "story"/"narrative" to them, doesn't make it a stronger resemblance to something else. Monopoly can have story added, but it doesn't make it an RPG. You do play a "role" in Monopoly, but it is the role of yourself in a combined real world and monopoly mini world contained within the board. The games where you play the role of yourself, are the ones where you are an armchair general.

Again it is all about perspective. One person says "4e isnt' D&D to me", "4e is a tactical miniatures game", and someone else feels they have to defend it.

Just accept what the other person is saying as their view, even if you dont have the same view. It doesn't affect your ability to play.

If you fear that a furthering of that view by many others may change the game and move it away from a version you like to use to one you don't like to use then, Welcome to D&D. You have now finally had the "D&D Experience". Where what you play is nullified as valid and changed by the masses to something else. Continue to use your edition of choice, with those others you can find to do so, as others have done for nearly 40 years.

4th edition is to D&D, what X-2 is to Final Fantasy.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I absolutely find myself focused more on seeing how it plays out, and how that impacts the larger story.



In my experience 4e is not different in this regard from other FRPGs I've played. The diagonals and square fireballs stuff doesn't effect this, for me, because these sorts of issues are very rarely important to the larger story going on in my games. (I've noticed many differences from Rolemaster that have an effect on overall play, for example, but the movement and fireball issues aren't among them.)

Obviousy, for others this is not so.



BryonD said:


> The rules are not the same for npcs as they are for pcs.



This is true and false. In combat, the resolution rules are the same for NPCs. Out of combat, they may or may not be, depending on what resolution method is in play (generally, in a skill challenge there is no roll for an NPC - the NPC's contribution is reflected by the DC for the skill challenge). The build rules obviously are different.



BryonD said:


> The difficulty of a task is based not on the task but on the character level.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The black knights and pirate captains ACs are both based first on challenge level, not what they are.



I'd put it this way - what the task is, and who the knight and captaion are, _isn't known_ until a level is assigned. This is why I make the comparison to HeroQuest's pass/fail cycle - in HQ, difficulties are set based on the number of previous successes or failures (the higher the ration of success to failure, the greater the difficulty). The GM is then obliged to narrate the situation so as to ground that difficulty in the gameworld.



BryonD said:


> You can say I'm not describing your game.



The above do describe my game (although I've offered some glosses).

I think it's (in part) about whether the experience at the game table is closer to discovery or closer to authorship. I think these non-simulationist features push the game experience in the direction of authorship. They make the metagame overt at the table.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 13, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Warhammer even lets you connect those combats with story, and decide, before combat, story that gets you there. Once you are in that combat box, the rules exist for that lengthy simulated combat. Warhammer and 4th edition offer some pretty strong rules based on movement parameters, flanking, moving other pieces, ranged and CQ combat, etc.
> 
> Likewise BOTH can easily ignore any interconnected story to get you there.
> 
> ...



Newsflash! Some people play FRPGs as series of narratively unconnected combats. Almost as if they roled up high level PCs and took on the various gods in DDG!

I guess that never happened before 4e.

Also: another use of Monopoly to shed light on the nature of 4e as an RPG.

Keep it coming!


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I actually quite agree with you that there is a key difference between MMOs and Tabletop RPGs.  That is a big part of my fundamental theory on "why 4E isn't as popular", they tried to focus more on getting MMO players than they did on retaining tabletop players.  (Stand disclaimer, if you don't know it, just ask)
> 
> But, you need to be a bit careful with this particular reasoning.
> 
> ...




And, I think in the same way that you can role play during any game, you are able to _not_ roleplay in a game as well.

I'm talking about the presumptions that THE GAME makes.  And this is mostly directed at those who are pointing to things like guilds and the like.  You certainly can role play during an MMO.  But, the MMO itself does not presume that you will.  You gain nothing from the MMO itself by joining a guild.  You might gain things from your guild mates, but, that's beyond the scope of the MMO.

In the same way, you can certainly play D&D or any rpg without role playing.  Heck, pick up a module, run a group of characters through it with 1 person playing both the DM and the characters.  Not a whole lot of roleplaying going on there.

But, rpg's presume that you will take on some (excellent phrasing btw) emotional investment in the persona you take on.  And, not only do they presume this, they actively enforce it as well.  Playing your character "out of character" is seen as a big, big no no in RPG's, to the point where you may even be penalized by the mechanics for doing so.

MMO's do not do this.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 13, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> /snippage
> 
> 
> From you guys, though, I'm more interested in the least extreme example of what you might consider "doesn't feel like" and "isn't".




Heh, the "least extreme example", I like that.

For me, you'd have to lose the level based stuff and the classes, I guess would be my first, knee jerk reaction.  I mean, I could play a fantasy game with Savage Worlds, but, it really wouldn't feel much like D&D.  

Any time the presumption of taking on a persona was removed, that would definitely be a deal breaker for me.  But then, I wouldn't even see the new game as an RPG, let alone D&D.  

The basic assumed structure of D&D as well - that you start off relatively weak and then build up to amazing cosmic power (and, yes, believe it or not, even in 4e, you do start off relatively weak) by the end.

------------

Just a thought.  DannyA, because you know a lot more about this than I do.  How is a HERO emulation of D&D different than a retro-clone?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 13, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In my experience 4e is not different in this regard from other FRPGs I've played.



I've readily agreed on multiple occasions that people take different things from different games and have different expectations.

And, IMO, (though a very strong opinion) 3E provides a much better platform for the kind of experience that 4E fans like than 4E provides for 3E fans.  That isn't to say that 4E isn't vastly better for 4E fans, it certainly is.  But I see 3E as having much more of a blank slate, whereas 4E has a sort of grain to it.  Obviously, if that grain matches the way you were already playing other games, then that is bonus value added.  



> This is true and false. In combat, the resolution rules are the same for NPCs. Out of combat, they may or may not be, depending on what resolution method is in play (generally, in a skill challenge there is no roll for an NPC - the NPC's contribution is reflected by the DC for the skill challenge). The build rules obviously are different.



I prefer it to be false and false.



> I'd put it this way - what the task is, and who the knight and captaion are, _isn't known_ until a level is assigned. This is why I make the comparison to HeroQuest's pass/fail cycle - in HQ, difficulties are set based on the number of previous successes or failures (the higher the ration of success to failure, the greater the difficulty). The GM is then obliged to narrate the situation so as to ground that difficulty in the gameworld.



Again, don't know Heroquest, so no comment there.

But I reject your statement about "isn't known" for anything that I'm looking for in a game.  I picture WHO he is and the level comes from that, not the other way around.

Edit: and second to that, and more importantly, even once a level is selected, while a higher level opens doors to better AC, it in no way directly influences, much less establishes a "math works" "right/wrong" baseline for what that AC should be.  The spectrum between 4E and 3E here is
A) Level locks in AC 
B) Level directly establishes a baseline that can be tweaked
C) Level directly moves AC some degree
D) Level has no direct impact, but allows increasing indirect options
E) Level is completely unrelated in any way

4E is at B.  I am disinterested in anything above D.



> The above do describe my game (although I've offered some glosses).
> 
> I think it's (in part) about whether the experience at the game table is closer to discovery or closer to authorship. I think these non-simulationist features push the game experience in the direction of authorship. They make the metagame overt at the table.



Well, now we are back to the beginning.  
And as I said before, I don't accept that the gamist things would add to the "authorship", as you put it relative to how my games already are.  Maybe 4E brings your game to where my 3E game already is.  No offense intended.  but if you are praising the addition of something and I already have it, then there is a major difference right there.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 13, 2011)

Hussar said:


> MMO's do not do this.



Other than this declaration, I don't think we are disagreeing.

And I'm kinda torn on that.

I have no doubt that you can play table top RPGs with no investment.
I have no doubt that you can play MMOs with great levels of investment.

I think we both agree that the odds of finding great investment are much higher if you pick a random table top group.
But both platform certainly allow for both styles.  

But maybe your word "presume" is good.  Maybe tabletops presume investment, but you can get by without it, while MMOs don't presume it and simply leave room for it if you want to bring it along.

That certainly fits back to my premise about why MMO players did not end up flocking to 4E.


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 13, 2011)

MMO players didn't flock to 4E for similar reasons to why fast-food junkies don't flock to Whole Foods.

I know I sound elitist, but I think there is a huge qualitative difference in experience in an MMO vs. an RPG, the prime difference being that of _use of imagination. _MMOs are easier; they are quick fixes, junk food. RPGs require one to create, to imagine, to play make believe, and to generate it all from within. A more accurate comparison is a movie vs. a book.

Now 4E may have tried to make it easier to transition from an MMO to an RPG by making a larger percent of the experience in the visual realm (i.e. the battle map). This is one of my main beefs with 4E: its over-reliance on the battle map, with the caveat that I know that many folks are able to play it without a battle map or miniatures, that was not the default design approach and assumption. Designing 4E to assume and rely upon a battle map and miniatures was a mistake, imo.

But I agree that "investment" is a major aspect of this, if we're talking about time, imagination, effort, etc. Now it doesn't require a huge investment if you are a player; you just show up and roll dice. It is only the DM that must invest a huge amount of time and creativity to make the game run, even if they are using pre-published settings and adventures - at the least they still have to do a fair amount of reading.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 13, 2011)

> Just a thought. DannyA, because you know a lot more about this than I do. How is a HERO emulation of D&D different than a retro-clone?




Well...just off the top of my head:

I can emulate any edition of D&D I care to
I can mix & match, so I could have Dragonborn & Tieflings in an OD&D sim
designing variant or utterly new spells & powers is EASY.  A D&D lightning bolt would simply be a RKA with a Line AoE in HERO.  if I wanted, though, Tesla, the Electric Wizard could also design "Ghost Lightning" (lightning bolts that only affect immaterial targets), "Lightning Storm" (an autofire lightning bolt storm), and anything else because the power creation rules are transparent and universal.
And Ember the Firemage could have powers that are functionally identical, just using a different energy type- no more "I wish there were a sonic version of "Ice Storm."
the above applies to items as well- if you can think it and have the points to do it, you can design it.  Items are built with the same points as your PC is.
"Specialization" is as easy as simply designing your PC a particular way.
HERO uses only d6s
HERO has no "auto-hit" advantage (the term used to denote power-modifying elements), so _perfectly_ emulating MM isn't possible.  There IS, however, a "homing" advantage, so you CAN do a decent job of approximation.  And as I pointed out before, you could also apply "homing" to any power you want, so you could have a lightning bolt that snakes around the battlefield a little while...


----------



## Mercurius (Feb 13, 2011)

Re: HERO and retro-clones, Isn't it just a matter of degrees based upon "proximity" to an official version of D&D? So you could have:

*Primary D&D:* An "official" version of D&D produced by either TSR or WotC (OD&D, AD&D 1E and 2E, BECMI in its various incarnations, 3E, 3.5, 4E, Essentials).
*Secondary D&D:* A retro-clone that's rules and themes are based upon a primary form of D&D (e.g. Pathfinder, Labyrinth lord, Swords & Wizardry, etc).
*Tertiary D&D:* A completely different game system used to play D&D-style fantasy, complete with D&D themes, monsters, magic items, etc. This would be Danny's HERO game.

There would, of course, be grey areas between each degree and it may be tricky deciding what is "Tertiary D&D" and what is another fantasy RPG, but I think the distinction is pretty clear if we look at D&D as not only just an evolving rules set, but a gestalt of themes. Talislanta, for instance, is clearly not Tertiary D&D, whereas playing a Savage Worlds version of a D&D dungeon-crawl, complete with iconic D&D monsters and character archetyples, is. Would playing Savage Worlds through _White Plume Mountain _be tertiary D&D if it didn't include an monsters exclusive to D&D? I think so, because it is still based upon D&D.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 13, 2011)

FWIW, I think that's a better breakdown than in your OP as well.  Good job!


----------



## BryonD (Feb 13, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> MMO players didn't flock to 4E for similar reasons to why fast-food junkies don't flock to Whole Foods.
> 
> I know I sound elitist, but I think there is a huge qualitative difference in experience in an MMO vs. an RPG...




I agree with you in principal.  But I think you are taking a very one-sided view of it.  WOW fans could make the same argument that WOW is whole foods and D&D is fast food by simply looking at different key qualities which appeal to them.

But the reason I think this is important is I still firmly believe that the 4E design idea is based on looking at the vast numbers of people willing to pretend to be an elf when they play WOW and thinking that if they could get just 1 in 10 of those players to play D&D  (particularly with a DDI subscription, much like a WOW subscription), then it would not matter how many existing D&D fans were lost.

I don't think Mearls and Co set out to do this on their own and I don't think WotC (far far less Hasbro) micromanaged the design process.  But I do think "management" declared "thou shalt make a game that appeals to WOW players", and the design team set about designing a kick ass RPG with that direction as a mandatory element.

And yes, that is speculative.  I don't know.  But it fits the early on marketing campaign and it fits the changes I see.  I believe it.

And, while you may love 4E, a lot of us see it as fast food.  But, the WoW target sees it as "fast food" from their end as well.  Its all food (so all roads lead to "food"), but there is MMO food and tabletop RPG food.  And, in trying to be both, 4E is, all to often neither fish nor fowl.  (heh, just to torture to analogy a bit more).


----------



## shadzar (Feb 13, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Newsflash! Some people play FRPGs as series of narratively unconnected combats.




And thus 4th edition design was aimed at getting those people to it, to make it more appealing to them.

Hey you can be socially inept and play an "RPG"!

The thing about RPGs versus the heavy minis requiring games such as Warhammer is cost of minis and assembly of them.

Just because 4th is a minis focused game, doesn't mean you can't RP in it, just some are looking for more out of it. I have better games to play a "series of narratively unconnected combats". The combats are also better in them too.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I would further posit that the "D&D Experience" is related, in no small part, to the degree of simulation....at least for some people.



I think you're probably right about this, and that WotC miscalculated this when it came to 4e.



Raven Crowking said:


> And, hence, a game which is not "fiction first" (as LostSoul calls his hack!) simply doesn't feel like it shares that experience, to them.



I sort of agree with this, but am hesitant to open the door to my game being described as "fiction last"! Because that plays into the monoplogy/minis-game stuff that annoys me.

I think the way I play 4e (and as best I can tell it's what the game has been built to support) is fiction first when it comes to the overall narrative and thematic progression of the game, but fiction second when it comes to building encounters/situations, and when it comes to the details of resolving them.

The point about encounter building is well-known - assing a level first, and then create a fiction to explain that assignment (so metagame first, then the game follows). If you don't do any more of the fiction than choosing an appropriate-level monster from the MM, then you have Shadzar's minis-game 4e experience. But I think the game designers intend that the GM will do more (otherwise the stuff in the rulebooks on exploration would be redundant, apart from anything else). I certainly do more than this in creating a relevant fiction.

The point about action resolution is also known, but I don't see the nuances discussed as often. An example from my game yesterday - the PCs were investigating a hot spring inside a temple bathhouse, and were attacked by a water weird. They quicly discovered that psychic/Will attacks had no effect - it was animated water, with no discernible mind or body. So they decided to (i) try and destroy/move the water, using radiant and thunder attacks, and (ii) to try and plug the spring, by knocking stones down into it and using the thunder attacks to drive them home. This decision as to how to tackle the situation, and the details of power use that then followed, were determined by a mixture of thinking about the fictional situation, and looking down their character sheets to see what sorts of abilities they had to bring to bear. (And I had already decided, in my prep notes, to resolve it as a complexity 2 skill challenge ie 6 successes before 3 failures.)

Success came after the dwarf fighter jumped into the water, waited for it to surge up over him, and then pushed the rocks home with a sweep of his halberd (in mechanical terms this was Come and Get it combined with a successful Athletics check). And after the party had thus narrowly avoided all being drowned by the weird, the wizard performed a purify water ritual. I don't know if this was memories of AD&D on the part of the player, or just a spontaneous decision.

Anyway, I'm not even sure that what I've just described counts as "fiction second" action resolution, but I'll readily concede that it's not quite White Plume Mountain.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> (And I had already decided, in my prep notes, to resolve it as a complexity 2 skill challenge ie 6 successes before 3 failures.)




Offered for reference and nothing critical meant here; if you are having fun, then you are having fun and that is what it is all about...

You just flat out stated that it is mechanics first.  Yes, you are absolutely going to create a narrative story for how it played out.  But you have pre-established the mechanical definition of what would happen.  The story is then shoe-horned on to the prerequisite mechanical framework.

In my game one success may be all it takes.  Or maybe it takes 10.  And one failure may be catastrophic or maybe they can get away with eight.  I won't know until the players tell me what is happening and then we find out if they are successes or failures.  The narrative is the master of the situation and the mechanics do their best to obediently model what the narrative says.



> Success came after the dwarf fighter jumped into the water, waited for it to surge up over him, and then pushed the rocks home with a sweep of his halberd (in mechanical terms this was Come and Get it combined with a successful Athletics check).



And this is what I mean when I say "pop quiz" role playing.  You look at a list of powers, find one that looks workable and then build a story that explains why this mechanic applies to the situation.  But the story is following the lead of the mechanics.  It is an exercise in association.  (It has some elements in common with Iron DM).

I'd more enjoy the approach that Hacon, warrior of the North says "here is what I'm going to do" and then it falls to the DM to make the mechanics work.  

And, lest I get too caught up in praising my version, it doesn't always work great.  There are blips in the 3E mechanics, no doubt.  But it goes at it with that spirit in mind.  And I like that.

I don't remotely question the merit or fun in your approach.  I simply note the distinction as an example of decidedly different areas of Rome, which some people may not even really consider to be the same city.  (Even if they are both great places to visit).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD, what I would object to in your post are "shoe-horned" and "pop quiz". I can see where you're coming from, obviously, but these carry a pejorative tone that I don't want to accept. (I'm sure that pejorative tone accurately captures your aesthetic response - but I would prefer a description that doesn't build that experiential response into the description itself.) (EDIT: I'm skipping over your "different cities" point because I agree that simulationist and non-simulationist play are different experiences that satisfy different RPGing preferences.)

Starting with shoe-horned. In a sense, when I state up a monster as AC X, hp Y I've also made a mechanical decision about how hard the encounter will be. Now, I imagine your response (along the lines upthread of our exhange about the pirate and the knight) is that the monster's stats are derived from an ingame description. So that it is story/gameworld first, mechanics second.

My response to that is that in choosing to set up that particular story/gameworld, it defies belief that you as an experienced GM don't have in mind some sense of the mechanical implications of the decisions you're making. I almost want to say: the simulationist inhabits a type of self-constructed "naivety" about the mechanics, and the non-simulationist is just being upfront and reaslist. Of course that would be wrong - the simulationist isn't being naive, but is deprioritising the metagame/mechanical aspects.

But I don't think that prioritising the mechanics equals _shoe-horning_. Imposing a structure isn't, thereby, fitting something in that wouldn't fit in by itself. Sometimes I choose a particular monster because I think the fight with it will go a certain way. I did that yesterday - the scenario called for a Large bear, and in prepping I placed a single elite level 13 dire bear, rather than a lower level solo bear (a level 7 or 8 solo would be a rough XP equivalent) because I wasn't sure exactly how many 10th level PCs would be facing it at once, and thought the slightly swingier high level elite would produce a more interesting range of outcomes across a wider range of possible PC party size. The fact that the decision is driven (in part) by the mechanics doesn't mean I have to _shoe-horn_ in the outcomes.

Now a skill challenge is a bit different from a combat. Hit point attrition has a certain robust story content at a D&D table - every knows that we're wearing down the monster, even if the precise nature of that wearing down is a bit up for grabs (except perhaps in 3E, where at least some players interpret hit points solely as meat, in which case even the precise nature of the wearing down is probably known by all). Whereas the ingame interpretation of successes in a skill challenge is much more up for grabs every time. Nevertheless, in a 6/3 skill challenge I describe the results of successes in such a way as to give a general feel for how things are progressing, and also add a bit of quasi-mechanical commentary - "You feel like you've only just started" vs "You feel like you're pretty close to getting the job done" - to add an extra bit of infromation to the descriptions. So no one was shocked when the dwarf's last move turned out to be the success - even though they weren't 100% sure that it would be - just the same as if he'd struck the killing blow in a combat.

So, again, while mechanics are playing a role here, I don't see it as _shoe-horning_.

As to "pop quiz": the player of the dwarf had already set up the "plug the spring" idea because on his first turn he considered the situation as I'd described it, thought "as a strong guy with a big axe my best bet here is to probably plug the spring", and then I suggested that (i) if he wanted to do that he had to knock off a lot of stone, so I would require him to expend one of his encounter close burst powers, and (ii) to get the stones in the right place would also require a Dungeoneering check. (This is roughly following the model in DMG p 42.)

(EDIT: in my prep notes I'd expected the PCs to try and expunge the spirit, and had made some notes on how Religion and Arcana checks might play out. The idea of plugging the spring instead came as a surprise to me.)

When it came round to his next turn the wizard and paladin had already picked up on his idea and done more stuff with the stone. He then went in for (what he hoped would be, and what turned out to be) the last big effort. The player knew what he wanted to do - use Come and Get it to "pull" the water away from the rocks, so he could push them into the holes. I, as GM, suggested that what might make more sense is if, using his skill at timing his polearm strikes in relation to the fluid movement of the battlefield (as exemplified in part by this Come and Get It power), he waited for the water to surge up again and then pushed in the stone. The player liked that, and went for it. He made an Athletics check for being in the water, and an attack roll to actually drive the stone home. Expending Come and Get It meant that the issue of timing was not a problem for that PC (Come and Get It in this context, as in many other occasions of use, acted as a sort of fate point - "my PC's timing perfectly matches the flow of battle" - then as a model of an ingame action like taunting or luring).

Again, the mechanics are informing the decisions here. Personally, I don't feel that they do so any more intimately than in (for example) Rolemaster, where players routinely scour the character sheets looking for an applicable skill or spell before deciding how to tackle a situation. A game with a much-stripped down character sheet (especially for fighters), like Basic, would play a bit differently here. I don't have enough experience with 3E to really make a comparison.

But I think it's certainly not "fiction last". Why did the fighter jump into the water? Because otherwise how can he manipulate the stones at the bottom of the pool?

Another example - when the PCs actually encountered the bear, they decided to tame and befriend it instead of fighting it. The ranger and the wizard made Nature checks. The range was adjacent, so reached out to the bear. The wizard was at range, giving rise to the question - how does he actually calm the bear? Answer: he used Ghost Sound to make soothing noises and Mage Hand to stroke it. The sorcerer wanted (i) to back away so as not to get slammed in case the bear remained angry, and (ii) to try and intimidate the bear into submission. I (as GM) asked the player how, exactly, the PC was being intimidating while backing up? His answer: he is expending Spark Form (a lightning-based encounter power) to create a show of magical power arcing between his staff and his dagger, that would scare the bear. A successful Intimidate roll confirmed that the light show did indeed tend to subdue rather than enrage the bear.

Again, this is not fiction _divorced_ from the mechanics. But I don't think it's fair to call it "pop-quiz" roleplaying. The engagment with the fiction is permeating the whole thing, and shaping the way that mechanical resources and deployed and that deployment adjudicated.

FINAL EDIT: I've also taken this to a new thread, to see if we can get some more actual play discussion of how mechanics and fiction interact in gamepla.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The engagment with the fiction is permeating the whole thing, and shaping the way that mechanical resources and deployed and that deployment adjudicated.



But can we agree it's pretty damn different from the way earlier editions of _D&D_ would likely handle this same situation?

This reminds me of why I admire _HeroQuest_'s design and why I don't ever want to actually play it.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2011)

The Shaman, I fully agree that it's different. Like I said in response to RC, and also on the "4e not as popular as it could be" thread, I think this difference may be part of why 4e is (apparently) not as popular as one might expect the RPG with that brand name, being published by what is still the leading RPG publisher, to be.

On that other thread I also suggested that WotC hadn't done themselves any favours by giving so little guidance (in comparison to rulebooks for systems like HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Maelstrom Storytelling, etc) on how a game like this can be run well. I think the lack of that guidance helps produce games that reinforce the "just a minis game" and "just a dice-rolling exercise" impression that some have.

And I haven't played Encounters, but I gather that's also a format that doesn't fully leverage the system. And the published modules don't (or, at least, don't contain advice on how a GM might do so).

What's worse than losing your audience because they're more simulationist-inclined than you'd hoped? Not even giving them the guidelines to help them use the non-simulationist mechanics you're trying to sell them to run a fun non-simulationist game.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> BryonD, what I would object to in your post are "shoe-horned" and "pop quiz". I can see where you're coming from, obviously, but these carry a pejorative tone that I don't want to accept.



Well, "pop quiz" is certainly my own term, but I think it is fair.
"Shoe-horned" is a commonly used term and its meaning exactly fits what you describe.



> But I don't think that prioritising the mechanics equals _shoe-horning_. Imposing a structure isn't, thereby, fitting something in that wouldn't fit in by itself.
> ...
> 
> The fact that the decision is driven (in part) by the mechanics doesn't mean I have to _shoe-horn_ in the outcomes.



You said it was predetermined that it was going to be six successes before three failures.  This was set before play began is in every way a cookie cutter mechanical construct.

No matter what the players described, the narrative was going to be a slave to 6/3.  You have the option of declaring actions inapplicable.  But beyond that it is the sixth action that is going to seal the deal.  Certainly you could let all players describe their planned activity and back-build a story to fit the collective solution, but that gets in to its own temporal wonkiness.

No player can describe one action so clever or cool that it solves the problem.  And no five actions can solve the problem.  But any six actions, as long as you rule them relevant and they come in ahead of three failures, will solve the problem.  The path to victory was defined by you and the mechanics before you ever sat down to the table.  You said so yourself.  And this path was completely unrelated to anything to do with the actions described by the players.  After all, the path was defined before the players ever even knew they would encounter a water weird.

"Show-horning" the story on to this mandated mechanical process is an accurate use of language.




> But I think it's certainly not "fiction last". Why did the fighter jump into the water? Because otherwise how can he manipulate the stones at the bottom of the pool?
> 
> ...
> 
> Again, this is not fiction _divorced_ from the mechanics. But I don't think it's fair to call it "pop-quiz" roleplaying. The engagment with the fiction is permeating the whole thing, and shaping the way that mechanical resources and deployed and that deployment adjudicated.



I stand by my terms.  But here you are pushing "fiction last" and "divorced" on me.  Clearly decidedly pejorative terms which I have not used and do bring different meaning than what I said.

Yes, the narrative was going to involve interacting with water.  You have the option to disallow options which don't apply.  If the dwarf had declared that he is going to flap his arms and go have a conversation with a passing Delta Airlines pilot about chess strategy, he could role a skill check and declare it one of your victories.  And if "fiction last" or "divorced" applied, then you would be stuck with that.  Clearly I've made nothing remotely in the realm of that kind of claim. 

There are a lot of pieces.  Without thinking it required comment, I presume narrative and setting are near the top of the pack in importance in your games.  But, "near the top of the pack" is not the same as FIRST.  I've made no comment about second, third, eighth, or discarded.  So "last" is not meaningful to the point.  

Story is far from last in your games.  But it is behind the mechanics.  6/3 rules, now make a story for 6/3.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You said it was predetermined that it was going to be six successes before three failures.  This was set before play began is in every way a cookie cutter mechanical construct.
> 
> No matter what the players described, the narrative was going to be a slave to 6/3.  You have the option of declaring actions inapplicable.  But beyond that it is the sixth action that is going to seal the deal.  Certainly you could let all players describe their planned activity and back-build a story to fit the collective solution, but that gets in to its own temporal wonkiness.
> 
> No player can describe one action so clever or cool that it solves the problem.



As I discussed in some detail, this is like hit points in combat. In D&D, there is _nothing_ that a player can decrie that is so cool that it kills a foe in one blow.

In the case of combat, what we can infer is that in fact the non-fatal blow didn't fall under the "cool" description. In the case of a skill challenge, what we can infer is that the cool action isn't all done at once, or is commenced but not completed in one die roll, or . . .



BryonD said:


> But any six actions, as long as you rule them relevant and they come in ahead of three failures, will solve the problem.



The actions must be such that they can solve the problem. Mere relevance is not enough. Hence the decision by the player of the dwarf to have that PC jump into the water in order to be able to manipulate the stones.



BryonD said:


> The path to victory was defined by you and the mechanics before you ever sat down to the table.  You said so yourself.  And this path was completely unrelated to anything to do with the actions described by the players.



See, I strongly reject this suggestion. The path to victory was determined by the players - they were the ones who decided to plug the spring. And the pather was precisely related to the actions they described. The only effect of the 6/3 structure is to _determine the pace at which those actions proceed_- analogously to hit points.

Another way to think of it - it's a mechanicsm for adjudicating degree of success (again, the functional equivalent of damage rolls in combat).


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> As I discussed in some detail, this is like hit points in combat. In D&D, there is _nothing_ that a player can decrie that is so cool that it kills a foe in one blow.



There are work arounds for that, but in general I agree this is a problem.  Taking a problem from combat and propagating into the rest of the game is a bad thing.

Plus, if combat were boiled down not to hit points but "any combination of characters score 6 hits before they score 3 misses", I would not be playing that game.

If you want to comapre this to HP in combat then all they have done is take a combat problem and made it a whole lot worse in non combat situations.



> The actions must be such that they can solve the problem. Mere relevance is not enough. Hence the decision by the player of the dwarf to have that PC jump into the water in order to be able to manipulate the stones.



I already talked about this.   Story was part of it.  Just not first.  I want it to be first.



> See, I strongly reject this suggestion. The path to victory was determined by the players - they were the ones who decided to plug the spring. And the pather was precisely related to the actions they described. The only effect of the 6/3 structure is to _determine the pace at which those actions proceed_- analogously to hit points.
> 
> Another way to think of it - it's a mechanicsm for adjudicating degree of success (again, the functional equivalent of damage rolls in combat).



You say you strongly reject it, but then you immediately proceed to defend the postion you claim to be rejecting.

The "pace" is defined not by what the actions are but by the mechanics.  And the results of the actions are presdestined to be subordinate to the pace allowed by the mechanics.  And that cuts in both the not faster than and not slower than direction.  Adding the word "pace" into the conversation does nothing to change the issue i've described.

I don't want an arbitrary preordained mechanics to determine the pace of events.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Spycraft has subsystems for making non combat situations resolve in a manner directly analogous to combat.

I think it is a really cool system.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> As I discussed in some detail, this is like hit points in combat. In D&D, there is _nothing_ that a player can decrie that is so cool that it kills a foe in one blow.




By pure decree no. By taking notice of surroundings and using them to full advantage the answer switches to possibly. 



pemerton said:


> The actions must be such that they can solve the problem. Mere relevance is not enough. Hence the decision by the player of the dwarf to have that PC jump into the water in order to be able to manipulate the stones.




The actions _should _be such that they could solve the problem. The issue I have with the structure is that the actual content of player input is limited by the mechanical structure. No matter how brilliant an idea, or how well it is executed, the value is identical- 1 success. In combat a character at least has options and opportunities that go beyond "a hit". 



pemerton said:


> See, I strongly reject this suggestion. The path to victory was determined by the players - they were the ones who decided to plug the spring. And the pather was precisely related to the actions they described. The only effect of the 6/3 structure is to _determine the pace at which those actions proceed_- analogously to hit points.




The artificial pacing is what makes things incredibly boring. In a combat, the hit points are a set threshold yet the pace of progress can vary dramatically. Critical hits, using "big gun" abilities and so forth can make the pace of any given combat unpredictable. That is what makes excitement. 

Perhaps if there were a way for the quality of player input to have more than a premeasured degree of effectiveness, the whole thing wouldn't seem so artificial. What if a really awesome idea could suddenly be worth two or three successes by itself if pulled off? This would mean that the cleverness of the actual player would have a direct mechanical effect upon the resolution of the situation. That is what 4E is sorely missing IMHO. 

Premeasured formulas produce balance, predictable results and boredom. What if damage was as structured as the skill challenge system? Each hit will do X damage. Each character can get hit X number of times. The players must score more hits on the monsters than they take or the combat is lost. Would combat be more or less exciting this way?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> On that other thread I also suggested that WotC hadn't done themselves any favours by giving so little guidance (in comparison to rulebooks for systems like HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Maelstrom Storytelling, etc) on how a game like this can be run well. I think the lack of that guidance helps produce games that reinforce the "just a minis game" and "just a dice-rolling exercise" impression that some have.



It is interesting to compare this position with the highly common position that 4E is in fact much more popular amongst casual gamers.  It certainly stands to reason that if lack of guidance was the problem then casual gamers would be the least attracted.

And, IME, people who don't care for 4E are not taking that position as a result of lack of guidance.  I know I could run a good game in 4E.  I don't choose not to because I am not getting the guidance I need.  I choose not to because I perceive other games as offering a better experience.


Part of the sales pitch for 4E was that it made prep a lot easier.  And a lot of the way it does this is by putting modular "dice rolling exercises" in to cover areas where more prep may have been expected from other systems.  You can't really have it both ways on that.

But, there is also a matter of perspective.  It isn't JUST a dice rolling exercise.  But it is closer to it than some other systems, so it gets expressed in the most simple of terms.  I'm reminded of a George Carlin bit. He said there are two kinds of drivers on the road.  Morons who drive slower than you and Maniacs who drive faster than you. That is human nature.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> As I discussed in some detail, this is like hit points in combat. In D&D, there is _nothing_ that a player can decrie that is so cool that it kills a foe in one blow.




Sorry, but I disagree.

In a fiction-first game, hit points are representational of what the creature should be within that fictional space.  They are not representational of what "challenge" the creature should be.....Which is why you get creatures that are glass cannons (for example).

I.e.; when devising a fiction-first monster, one says "How tough is an X, as compared to creatures Y, Z, A, etc., which I have stats for?"  The level of challenge then becomes a function of the fictional "reality".

When devising a mechanics-first monster, one says "What level of challenge should this creature be?"  The fiction (how the monster operates in the shared fictional space) then becomes a function of the mechanical "reality".

Skill Challenges in 4e are, IMHO and AFAICT, the mechanics-first equivilent of what ByronD and others would use in their games.....resolution based first on the fiction, and then by determining how (or if) the currently available mechanics model that fiction well, inventing substitute mechanics on the fly if it is deemed that they do not.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Other than this declaration, I don't think we are disagreeing.
> 
> And I'm kinda torn on that.
> 
> ...




Heh, well, a blind squirrel finds the nuts once in a while.    But, it is nice to be on the same page nonetheless.  

My issue with this quote though is the presumption that 4e is somehow directed at drawing MMO players in.  I don't understand this point of view.  4e isn't any more MMOish than 3e really.  There was no large marketing done towards wooing MMO players that I recall, nor are the mechanics particularly familiar to MMO players.

Other than calling out combat roles, which, to be fair, had been called out years before 4e came out, what about 4e is meant to be a major draw to MMO players?  Online tools?  Really?  3e had online tools for years.  Heck 2e had electronic tools that are, for the time they came out anyway, very much analogous to DDI.

WOTC went to an online subscription model because virtually every single niche print venue has done exactly the same thing.  Look at SF magazines like Analog or F&SF - both online now.  How many niche genre products are purely offline anymore?

Sure, I'm sure WOTC would have loved to tap into 10% of WoW players.  But, their marketting does not really reflect any strong push towards gaining MMO players.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 14, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Perhaps if there were a way for the quality of player input to have more than a premeasured degree of effectiveness, the whole thing wouldn't seem so artificial. What if a really awesome idea could suddenly be worth two or three successes by itself if pulled off? This would mean that the cleverness of the actual player would have a direct mechanical effect upon the resolution of the situation. That is what 4E is sorely missing IMHO.




Can someone XP EW for me?

Thanks.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> /snip
> 
> Premeasured formulas produce balance, predictable results and boredom. What if damage was as structured as the skill challenge system? Each hit will do X damage. Each character can get hit X number of times. The players must score more hits on the monsters than they take or the combat is lost. Would combat be more or less exciting this way?




I would point out there are a number of systems that work this way.  Pretty much any system that doesn't use hp, for one.  Savage Worlds works pretty much exactly like this - you can get hit X number of times (and any non-Wildcard can only take one hit before going down).  I've never heard anyone describe SW combat as boring.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> My issue with this quote though is the presumption that 4e is somehow directed at drawing MMO players in.  I don't understand this point of view.





Although I am too lazy to look it up, I believe that this POV comes from designer quotes prior to 4e's release.  But, as I said, I am too lazy to look it up, so until someone else does so, you may simply assume that I am mistaken.

(And, until that time, your assumption might be right!   )


RC


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> 4e isn't any more MMOish than 3e really.



I don't think 4E is MMOish.  (I do think it borrowed a few ideas from WoW, but I actually think those were fairly decent ideas and in no way make the overall game MMOish).

I understand the association.  But when I say they want to attract MMO fans, I don't mean they want to make 4E be an MMO.

There is a lot that can be said about the marketing campaign etc...  And it has been said many many times before.

But the easier to prep, less intimidating, friendlier to causual play approach clearly indicated to me that they wanted to make the footprint of the fan base larger.  I'm all for that general principle, I just don't think the application was very realistic.  But that aside, I think the major driver for why the marching orders to go find new fans, regardless of impact to existing fans, went out was seeing the massive fan base of WoW.

The management logic was:
I own D&D.
D&D is THE GAME about pretending to be an elf.
THOSE people are paying to pretend to be an elf.
Why are they not paying me?
Fix it.

So it had nothing to do with the specifics of WOW or making 4E be WOW.  It was just audience envy.

(And again, I also don't think management in any way micromanaged the design process.  I just think they pointed it in a starting direction and said go make it)


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Although I am too lazy to look it up, I believe that this POV comes from designer quotes prior to 4e's release.  But, as I said, I am too lazy to look it up, so until someone else does so, you may simply assume that I am mistaken.
> 
> (And, until that time, your assumption might be right!   )
> 
> ...



I knwo there were a variety of indications to this effect.  I dont' recall if they were this explicit or not.  But I know it was entirely clear, to me, that this was a driver.  Granted, the sales spin has evolved since then.  But the thinking that drove the initial game design is in the books.  (pun intended)


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Perhaps if there were a way for the quality of player input to have more than a premeasured degree of effectiveness, the whole thing wouldn't seem so artificial. What if a really awesome idea could suddenly be worth two or three successes by itself if pulled off? This would mean that the cleverness of the actual player would have a direct mechanical effect upon the resolution of the situation. That is what 4E is sorely missing IMHO.



Heh

The bard makes +19 diplomacy attack against the ogre's 26 diplomacy defense.  He gets an extra +2 for having the Soapbox feat.

He normally does 1d8+9 points of damage (the ogre has 29 dedication points before he becomes disillusioned).  However, he gets an extra +3d6 because the rogue is in bantering position.  And then he scores a critical hit doing a grand total of 3d8+27+3d6.  He rolls high and scores a total of 50, completely switching the ogre to their side of the battle.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Heh
> 
> The bard makes +19 diplomacy attack against the ogre's 26 diplomacy defense. He gets an extra +2 for having the Soapbox feat.
> 
> He normally does 1d8+9 points of damage (the ogre has 29 dedication points before he becomes disillusioned). However, he gets an extra +3d6 because the rogue is in bantering position. And then he scores a critical hit doing a grand total of 3d8+27+3d6. He rolls high and scores a total of 50, completely switching the ogre to their side of the battle.




 Very entertaining but just a substitution of one mechanical formula for another. 

Is meaningful player input truly a lost art?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Very entertaining but just a substitution of one mechanical formula for another.
> 
> Is meaningful player input truly a lost art?




I know what you're getting at here, but, I'm not sure how much you can mechanically add to the system to cover "meaningful" player input.  How can you quantify that to the point where you can add it to the mechanics?

In earlier editions, there were few mechanics at all to cover this sort of thing, so it was all about the player input and the DM adjudicating its effectiveness.  In the hands of a good DM, that's all you really need.  You don't need a mechanical system and no mechanical system is going to equal a good DM.

However, that's the rub.  How many good DM's are there out there?  Depends on who you ask.  I imagine a fair number of gamers were turned off the hobby by poor DM's who used the lack of mechanics to ride roughshod over the players.

So, you swing it the other way.  Take the DM largely out of the equation.  Your success or failure is in the hands of the players and the mechanics.  Which in turn results in rather bland, stilted situations where you need X successes over Y failures.  

There's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches obviously.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> However, that's the rub.  How many good DM's are there out there?  Depends on who you ask.  I imagine a fair number of gamers were turned off the hobby by poor DM's who used the lack of mechanics to ride roughshod over the players.
> 
> So, you swing it the other way.  Take the DM largely out of the equation.  Your success or failure is in the hands of the players and the mechanics.  Which in turn results in rather bland, stilted situations where you need X successes over Y failures.
> 
> There's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches obviously.



And, again, I agree.

However, I would add that I'd much rather play with a poor DM making progress in a good system, than with a poor DM using a system which presumes poor DMing.

And I also think that systems that take the DM out of the equation don't help create tomorrow's great DMs.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> And, again, I agree.
> 
> However, I would add that I'd much rather play with a poor DM making progress in a good system, than with a poor DM using a system which presumes poor DMing.
> 
> And I also think that systems that take the DM out of the equation don't help create tomorrow's great DMs.




See, it's that whole "progress" thing that I wonder about.  I've seen more than my share of experienced DM's not progressing a whole heck of a lot.

Me, if I have to choose between the poor DM who gets no guidance and is expected to adjudicate everything by his gut vs the poor DM who has a whole system designed from the bottom up to support him and help him out, I'll take the latter thanks.

Then again, I'd much rather play game systems I know I can trust.  3e is fantastic for this.  I can trust 3e.  It has a rule for everything.  Unfortunately, for me, it has a rule for everything and everything has a rule.  To me, 3e is great at being 3e and as soon as I try to do something that is outside it's presumptions it becomes a great big hassle.

Again, for me, 4e works better for this.  Again, solid system that I can trust but has enough built in flexibility that lets me build the campaigns I want to run much more easily.

I'd given up creating stuff for 3e a long time ago.  3e is the game I'll only run modules in and it had been that way since shortly after the release of 3.5.  Just too darn much work otherwise.  I find creating adventures in 4e to be a whole lot more fun.

Obviously, YMMV.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I know what you're getting at here, but, I'm not sure how much you can mechanically add to the system to cover "meaningful" player input. How can you quantify that to the point where you can add it to the mechanics?
> 
> In earlier editions, there were few mechanics at all to cover this sort of thing, so it was all about the player input and the DM adjudicating its effectiveness. In the hands of a good DM, that's all you really need. You don't need a mechanical system and no mechanical system is going to equal a good DM.
> 
> ...






BryonD said:


> And, again, I agree.
> 
> However, I would add that I'd much rather play with a poor DM making progress in a good system, than with a poor DM using a system which presumes poor DMing.
> 
> And I also think that systems that take the DM out of the equation don't help create tomorrow's great DMs.




Someone throw BryonD some XP for me please!

A human being adjudicating the results of actions undertaken by other human beings is the spark that makes TTRPGs so great. Attempts to replicate the effects with heavier mechanics or a computer always seem to fall short of the real thing. 

Do gamers these days not understand the concept of learning by doing? There may be some awesome naturally talented DMs out there who were born knowing how to run great games but I suspect the majority of the very best learned how by running games, finding out what worked, what didn't and applying that knowledge. 

A ruleset that assumes the mediocre will produce exactly that.


----------



## The Shaman (Feb 14, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Someone throw BryonD some XP for me please!



*_clicky-clicky!_*

*_pop!_ "You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "




ExploderWizard said:


> A human being adjudicating the results of actions undertaken by other human beings is the spark that makes TTRPGs so great. Attempts to replicate the effects with heavier mechanics or a computer always seem to fall short of the real thing.
> 
> Do gamers these days not understand the concept of learning by doing? There may be some awesome naturally talented DMs out there who were born knowing how to run great games but I suspect the majority of the very best learned how by running games, finding out what worked, what didn't and applying that knowledge.
> 
> A ruleset that assumes the mediocre will produce exactly that.



*_clicky-clicky!_*

*_pop!_ "You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, it's that whole "progress" thing that I wonder about.  I've seen more than my share of experienced DM's not progressing a whole heck of a lot.



All I can say is:  I'm sorry.



> I'd given up creating stuff for 3e a long time ago.  3e is the game I'll only run modules in and it had been that way since shortly after the release of 3.5.  Just too darn much work otherwise.  I find creating adventures in 4e to be a whole lot more fun.
> 
> Obviously, YMMV.



What is this "work" you speak of?
I love the time I spend "creating".

Just as a side note, I'm still strongly of the opinion that running a module REALLY WELL takes just as much time as creating your own.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, it's that whole "progress" thing that I wonder about. I've seen more than my share of experienced DM's not progressing a whole heck of a lot.
> 
> Me, if I have to choose between the poor DM who gets no guidance and is expected to adjudicate everything by his gut vs the poor DM who has a whole system designed from the bottom up to support him and help him out, I'll take the latter thanks.
> 
> ...




I have never understood the trust issue with regard to a game system. I trust the people I game with or not. If I trust the people then the system doesn't matter. If I don't trust the people then no game system will help mitigate that lack of trust. 

My default assumption is that everyone is there to have fun and not be a jerk. If experience proves otherwise then that information becomes important if gaming with the same people again is a possibility. 

There is no system worth playing with a jackass.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 14, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have never understood the trust issue with regard to a game system. I trust the people I game with or not. If I trust the people then the system doesn't matter. If I don't trust the people then no game system will help mitigate that lack of trust.
> 
> My default assumption is that everyone is there to have fun and not be a jerk. If experience proves otherwise then that information becomes important if gaming with the same people again is a possibility.
> 
> There is no system worth playing with a jackass.




So true!


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 14, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Very entertaining but just a substitution of one mechanical formula for another.
> 
> Is meaningful player input truly a lost art?




No, of course not.  The players decide what they do and that changes how the world interacts with them.  It's very hard not to do that unless you're on a railroad and have something like the obscure death rule.

And as for not understanding the concept of learning by doing, there's also the concept that practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent.  Most people start out as _less_ than mediocre - and it's at this part that the ruleset supports them and gives them a launching ramp.  And there are ways that an experienced DM simply won't mess up.  Giving what is essentially a pretty good practice framework is therefore useful to a starting DM.

It's like martial arts.  Do you produce better swordsmen by giving them blunt swords, a basic lecture, and telling them to flail away, or do you produce better swordsmen by giving them decent frames, telling them how to hold a sword, and what useful cuts are, and giving them katas to work with?


----------



## MrGrenadine (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Then again, I'd much rather play game systems I know I can trust.  3e is fantastic for this.  I can trust 3e.  It has a rule for everything.  Unfortunately, for me, it has a rule for everything and everything has a rule.  To me, 3e is great at being 3e and as soon as I try to do something that is outside it's presumptions it becomes a great big hassle.
> 
> Again, for me, 4e works better for this.  Again, solid system that I can trust but has enough built in flexibility that lets me build the campaigns I want to run much more easily.




Thats an interesting perspective from the DM side.

From the player side, my feeling is the complete opposite--I find 4e much more inflexible in terms of character creation and progression.

Would that the next version of D&D serves players and DMs equally.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 14, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have never understood the trust issue with regard to a game system. I trust the people I game with or not. If I trust the people then the system doesn't matter. If I don't trust the people then no game system will help mitigate that lack of trust.




If I do not trust the game system, I find it almost impossible to roleplay a character who is routinely put into stressful situations.  If I'm playing a wizard regularly fighting for his life then you bet I'm going to in character use every spell I can get my hands on that has a disproportionately strong effect in the important matter of keeping my friends and myself alive.

Out of character I won't exploit the rules too badly.  I won't use broken builds.  But in character unless there is some _damn_ good in character reason not to do so I will use every dirty trick I can lay my hands on.  It is quite literally a matter of life and death (at least in character).  Or I could play a character who doesn't care about dying - but those tend to be short lived.



> My default assumption is that everyone is there to have fun and not be a jerk.




Indeed.  But if we have a broken system I'm basically there to have fun hanging out.  If I try playing any sort of spellcaster in a broken system, my DM's going to be tearing his hair out in handfuls if I want to actually roleplay - and access to magic is almost as bad.  And expect some of the rest of my group to do the same.  If I trust the system I can relax and enjoy myself without worrying about being forced to choose between stepping out of character and upsetting the DM.  (Or playing someone with a death wish).

It is precisely because I'm there to have fun and not be a jerk that I worry about trusting the system.  A bad system forces me to choose between the two.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2011)

> I find 4e much more inflexible in terms of character creation and progression.




My feeling exactly.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Heh
> 
> The bard makes +19 diplomacy attack against the ogre's 26 diplomacy defense. He gets an extra +2 for having the Soapbox feat.
> 
> He normally does 1d8+9 points of damage (the ogre has 29 dedication points before he becomes disillusioned). However, he gets an extra +3d6 because the rogue is in bantering position. And then he scores a critical hit doing a grand total of 3d8+27+3d6. He rolls high and scores a total of 50, completely switching the ogre to their side of the battle.






Neonchameleon said:


> No, of course not. The players decide what they do and that changes how the world interacts with them. It's very hard not to do that unless you're on a railroad and have something like the obscure death rule.




In that example (funny as it is) what player input is there beyond rolling dice? In the example given the decision of the player only impacts what dice to roll. 

If the player were to receive a bonus to hit or damage based on information about the ogre relayed by the player during the description of the action then you might have something. That would affect the resolution of the situation based on relevant information used to advantage. It isn't something that can be chosen as a build option prior to play. It comes from the moment and the players ability to affect it due to quick thinking. 

Put simply, if it can be quantified on the character sheet then it doesn't count. 



Neonchameleon said:


> And as for not understanding the concept of learning by doing, there's also the concept that practice doesn't make perfect, it makes permanent. Most people start out as _less_ than mediocre - and it's at this part that the ruleset supports them and gives them a launching ramp. And there are ways that an experienced DM simply won't mess up. Giving what is essentially a pretty good practice framework is therefore useful to a starting DM.
> 
> It's like martial arts. Do you produce better swordsmen by giving them blunt swords, a basic lecture, and telling them to flail away, or do you produce better swordsmen by giving them decent frames, telling them how to hold a sword, and what useful cuts are, and giving them katas to work with?




With such a dismal outlook it is indeed a miracle that so many DMs ran great games before such support structures existed.


----------



## avin (Feb 14, 2011)

I find interesting that Hussar trusts 3E for DMing... don't get me wrong: been there, DMed a lot. I loved to play 3.5 but absolutely hated to DM. Broken spells, grapple rules, I still have nightmares.

On the other hand, 4E shines in therms of rules consistency (lacking a lot in disbelief suspension, IMO, tho). In fact, constant rules updates anti combos (and CB/MB) is what sold 4E to me.

But it's a strange love... I like 3.5 more than 4E, by miles (it just give me less headaches...) 

That said, I take no side on D&D these days... I got burned by 2E, 3.5 and 4E. Playing GURPS until 5E shows up, and having lots of fun


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

avin said:


> Playing GURPS until 5E shows up, and having lots of fun



If I were to leave D20, I'd probably be heading back to GURPS.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 14, 2011)

MrGrenadine said:


> Thats an interesting perspective from the DM side.
> 
> From the player side, my feeling is the complete opposite--I find 4e much more inflexible in terms of character creation and progression.
> 
> Would that the next version of D&D serves players and DMs equally.




And from my player side, I find that 3e is full of spurious character flexibility.  For instance you can choose to level up in any class you like - but if you're a spellcaster it's always going to be better to level up as a caster than to diversify.  And likewise skills - I've seldom seen a character not max them out.

Yes, there's more total flexibility in 3e.  But I like playing a monk who's a viable member of the party and a mobile kung fu master.  Not a monk who's barely viable.  My bravura warlord simply wouldn't work in 3e - the whole concept doesn't work.  Pre-essentials, 4e had 25 classes with an average of about three fundamental archetypes per class (the fighter had six IIRC).  We're on seventy five archetypes or so before we've _started_ customising.



ExploderWizard said:


> In that example (funny as it is) what player input is there beyond rolling dice? In the example given the decision of the player only impacts what dice to roll.
> 
> If the player were to receive a bonus to hit or damage based on information about the ogre relayed by the player during the description of the action then you might have something. That would affect the resolution of the situation based on relevant information used to advantage. It isn't something that can be chosen as a build option prior to play. It comes from the moment and the players ability to affect it due to quick thinking.
> 
> Put simply, if it can be quantified on the character sheet then it doesn't count.




Oh, nonsense.  I can come up with a "Follow ad hoc plan" number.  Which means according to your rule that any ad hoc plan doesn't count.  And I can assure you that use of skills in skill challenges, at least when I run them, is based on what the PC says they are doing and how they are responding to the situation.

And, for the record, you've just blasted Dogs in the Vineyard for not having player input.  Because the mechanical resolution is just about picking dice.



> With such a dismal outlook it is indeed a miracle that so many DMs ran great games before such support structures existed.




Many DMs ran great games.  Many DMs also ran _appaling_ games.  And structures like skill challenges as DM side tools in no way get in the way of running great games; the DM simply doesn't use them if he/she doesn't want to.  On the other hand for an inexperienced DM they are useful for pacing, for setting the difficulty of the challenge and for setting the experience reward.

No ruleset can make a DM great.  A great DM finds their way almost above the ruleset.  But a ruleset can make the difference at the bottom of the structure.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Oh, nonsense. I can come up with a "Follow ad hoc plan" number. Which means according to your rule that any ad hoc plan doesn't count. And I can assure you that use of skills in skill challenges, at least when I run them, is based on what the PC says they are doing and how they are responding to the situation.




As a DM? Great! That is the essence of what I am talking about, providing a concrete value for player ideas as they come up. 

Does what the players say and do impact the difficulty of the challenge? 
Can a really great plan lower the threshold of required successes? 



Neonchameleon said:


> And, for the record, you've just blasted Dogs in the Vineyard for not having player input. Because the mechanical resolution is just about picking dice.




I don't know anything about the game. I would need to at least read it before deciding if I thought it was a decent TTRPG or not. 




Neonchameleon said:


> No ruleset can make a DM great. A great DM finds their way almost above the ruleset. But a ruleset can make the difference at the bottom of the structure.




I will concede the point that if all DMs were mental vegetables, then a more structured ruleset would most likely improve play on the average.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Yes, there's more total flexibility in 3e. But I like playing a monk who's a viable member of the party and a mobile kung fu master. Not a monk who's barely viable. My bravura warlord simply wouldn't work in 3e - the whole concept doesn't work. Pre-essentials, 4e had 25 classes with an average of about three fundamental archetypes per class (the fighter had six IIRC). We're on seventy five archetypes or so before we've _started_ customising.




I'm curious... do you apply the same logic to 4e's choices in the areas of powers, classes, feats, etc. Like how the PHB 1 Warlock and the OAssasin are considered by most players to be sub-standard strikers? Or how the Fighter is, because of support, damage output and numerous other things the top-tiered defender?  I mean sometimes I feel like the imbalances in 4e are just overlooked for some reason.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 14, 2011)

Speaking as one who loves his 3.5 monks and hates 4Ed's version, I'll just say that EVERYONE'S experiences differ.

However, I am somewhat dismayed with the imbalanced division of support in the game for classes other than those in PHB1.  Especially for those of us without a DDI account.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> No matter how brilliant an idea, or how well it is executed, the value is identical- 1 success. In combat a character at least has options and opportunities that go beyond "a hit".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Perhaps if there were a way for the quality of player input to have more than a premeasured degree of effectiveness, the whole thing wouldn't seem so artificial. What if a really awesome idea could suddenly be worth two or three successes by itself if pulled off? This would mean that the cleverness of the actual player would have a direct mechanical effect upon the resolution of the situation. That is what 4E is sorely missing IMHO.



I agree with your sentiments, but not your facts. Contra your first paragraph - there are ways for a successful check to count as more than just 1 success in the challenge. Contra the last sentence of your second paragraph, 4e already has what you say it is missing.

The mechanics I've got in mind here are secondary checks from the DMG and DMG2, plus "advantags" from the Rules Compendium, plus examples of how these can be done in some of the published skill challenges. Some of this came into play in my game on the weekend, but I left it out in my post for brevity (for example, when the paladin intimidated the bear, standing next to it and waving his khopesh while using an Encounter thunder power to help, he got a bonus on the roll).



ExploderWizard said:


> As a DM? Great! That is the essence of what I am talking about, providing a concrete value for player ideas as they come up.
> 
> Does what the players say and do impact the difficulty of the challenge?
> Can a really great plan lower the threshold of required successes?



In addition to what I said above - there are ways to affect the challenge other than by changing the number of successes required. One is to take actions that change the fictional situation such that new options to which the PCs are better suited open up. And if we go beyond the issue of mechanical difficulty, the PCs can take approaches which (for example) leave the bear calm and scared of them or calm and friendly to them (or, as in my party's case, scared of some and friendly to others). These are meaningful differences.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> There are work arounds for that, but in general I agree this is a problem.  Taking a problem from combat and propagating into the rest of the game is a bad thing.



Fair enough. Having deliberately migrated from a crit-driven game (Rolemaster) to a hit points game (D&D) I see this a bit differently.



BryonD said:


> You say you strongly reject it, but then you immediately proceed to defend the postion you claim to be rejecting.



I reject that I predetermined the path. I don't see the path as exhaustively defined by the pace. I agree that the pace was predetermined.



Raven Crowking said:


> In a fiction-first game, hit points are representational of what the creature should be within that fictional space.  They are not representational of what "challenge" the creature should be.....Which is why you get creatures that are glass cannons (for example).



Ah, but in 4e there are no glass cannons . . .

And thus the saga continues...


----------



## pemerton (Feb 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> And, for the record, you've just blasted Dogs in the Vineyard for not having player input.  Because the mechanical resolution is just about picking dice.



I find that a lot of the criticisms of skill challenges are also (by implication) criticisms of HeroWars/Quest. Not normally a system criticised for undermining roleplaying.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I reject that I predetermined the path. I don't see the path as exhaustively defined by the pace. I agree that the pace was predetermined.



Yes, there are a vast number of iterations of descriptions of the path.  But you had predestined that no action could provide more than, nor less than, 16.67% of the solution.  With no knowledge of how good or bad the actions would be, you declared "the number will be six".  

The path was "do six things".  You set THAT path before play started.  When we are discussing how the mechanics of the game work to model the system, the fact that those six things can have myriad flavor texts stapled on has no bearing.  Because the flavor text does nothing to change the game reality of roll die, compare to DC, place check mark under yes or no.  Count yeses, count nos.  

The quality of the actions have zero bearing.

I want the quality of the action to be the center of the game's universe.

You are taking credit for different descriptions of the path.  But when we are comparing two mechanical systems you can not take credit for something that the mechanics very pointedly disregard.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Fair enough. Having deliberately migrated from a crit-driven game (Rolemaster) to a hit points game (D&D) I see this a bit differently.
> 
> I reject that I predetermined the path. I don't see the path as exhaustively defined by the pace. I agree that the pace was predetermined.
> 
> ...




Minions a la 4e are the ultimate glass cannon.  Additionally, would not a striker (or whatever cute name the monster equivalent gets) without support be considered one?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Ah, but in 4e there are no glass cannons . . .



So if I want glass cannons to exist in my world, I should avoid 4E?


----------



## shadzar (Feb 14, 2011)

Hussar said:


> My issue with this quote though is the presumption that 4e is somehow directed at drawing MMO players in.  I don't understand this point of view.




Then you need to go talk to the designers at WotC, those that still exist as employees there. That was a design goal and reason to take in Mike Mearls as a designer to gain that sort of focus as to gain MMO players.

MMO players have larger numbers than TTRPG players, so a design goal was to try to bring them over.

Look in the blogs surrounding 4th editions release and you will see several designers saying that that was an intended goal of the design.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 14, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Ah, but in 4e there are no glass cannons . . .



Nor indestructible pillows, or whatever the opposite would be.

And it's such an easy fix, too.  Just take the concept of hit dice and divide it up, so each creature has a "Fight Level", or FL (i.e. it is as good in combat as a this-level Fighter), a saving throw level that may or may not be related to FL (4e has done this already with variable defenses but maybe hasn't realized it), and a hit point total that is determined by whatever means you like but is or can be completely divorced from the other factors.

Thus, I can end up with the equivalent of a 2HD monster that saves like a 10HD monster and that has 135 h.p., or a 15 HD monster with 12 h.p. that saves like a 4 HD monster except vs. Con-based attacks where it saves like a 12 HD.

Lan-"it really is simpler than it sounds"-efan


----------



## Gryph (Feb 14, 2011)

shadzar said:


> Then you need to go talk to the designers at WotC, those that still exist as employees there. That was a design goal and reason to take in Mike Mearls as a designer to gain that sort of focus as to gain MMO players.
> 
> MMO players have larger numbers than TTRPG players, so a design goal was to try to bring them over.
> 
> Look in the blogs surrounding 4th editions release and you will see several designers saying that that was an intended goal of the design.





At least anecdotally there is some evidence they have had some success. I'm running a table for a local Meetup group where 5 of the 6 players are MMO players looking for a broader gaming experience. For 3 of them my 4e game is their sole tabletop experience. A couple had tried a 3e game a few years ago and didn't like it. They specifically told me they gave 4e a try because of some of the design concepts they read about 4e (and listening to the PA podcasts). Honestly, the podcasts were probably the stronger reason.

3 to 5 individual cases are hardly compelling evidence, I know. However, on most Meetup game days we have 4 tables running with about 25 players. One of the tables playes 1e. Every other week there is a Pathfinder game going and the rest are 4e. The highest concentration of new players to tabletop gaming are at the 4e tables.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Yes, there are a vast number of iterations of descriptions of the path.  But you had predestined that no action could provide more than, nor less than, 16.67% of the solution.  With no knowledge of how good or bad the actions would be, you declared "the number will be six".




Except, of course, that's not true at all.

A particularly excellent bit of roleplaying and outside-the-box thinking can easily be rewarded by counting as multiple successes, just as - ferinstance - collapsing a structure on-top of your enemies can be more effective than just swinging your sword again.

Additionally, one player's successful die roll may not provide any successes towards the required count, but might instead provide a bonus on subsequent checks (either of a particular type, or for a particular duration, etc.).

So, your specific complaint seems to be pretty well answered by the system.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Yes, there are a vast number of iterations of descriptions of the path. But you had predestined that no action could provide more than, nor less than, 16.67% of the solution. With no knowledge of how good or bad the actions would be, you declared "the number will be six".
> 
> The path was "do six things". You set THAT path before play started. When we are discussing how the mechanics of the game work to model the system, the fact that those six things can have myriad flavor texts stapled on has no bearing. Because the flavor text does nothing to change the game reality of roll die, compare to DC, place check mark under yes or no. Count yeses, count nos.
> 
> ...




Except you cut off part of his quote where he states that multiple succeses are possible for some actions.

There are some very good design notes and suggestions in DMG2 and in Mearls series of articles in Dragon concerning skill challenges. Things like allowing automatic successes for appropriate power usage. "High quality" action results or crit type rolls giving 2 successes. Even inappropriate skill choice giving automatic failures. More importantly, suggestions on how to blend skill challenges as an underlying framework to an extended bit of narration.

The common, mechanical usage that I have seen in play and described on this board where initiative is rolled and each player is forced to declare an action and roll is not described in the DMG or even offered up anywhere in the rules as a method for resolution.

To me the discussion and stands about skill challenges in this thread are quite interesting. It seems the one place where 4e took an almost old school approach to mechanics, supplying loose guidelines and leaving the rest to the GM, is one of the least liked features of the system. Even by those who, otherwise, criticize 4e for its rigid mechanistic play style.

<Spock> Fascinating </Spock>


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 14, 2011)

Gryph said:


> It seems the one place where 4e took an almost old school approach to mechanics, supplying loose guidelines and leaving the rest to the GM, is one of the least liked features of the system.




The skill challenge system (as initially presented) doesn't seem old school to me.  Later revisions might have helped somewhat.

Old school would be:  Determine what the players try, and then determine what happens as a result.  There would be no base DC prior to the players making that determination, and there would be no set number of successes or failures to resolve the action.  The number of successes or failures would be purely circumstantial based upon what occured in play.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Except, of course, that's not true at all.
> 
> A particularly excellent bit of roleplaying and outside-the-box thinking can easily be rewarded by counting as multiple successes, just as - ferinstance - collapsing a structure on-top of your enemies can be more effective than just swinging your sword again.
> 
> ...



That absolutely helps.

I think "answered by the system" is more than generous.  
I'd say improving the granularity around 6/3 is clearly better than a hard core 6/3.

But it is still pretty weak.  The mechanics are still controlling the story rather than the other way around.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> The skill challenge system (as initially presented) doesn't seem old school to me. Later revisions might have helped somewhat.
> 
> Old school would be: Determine what the players try, and then determine what happens as a result. There would be no base DC prior to the players making that determination, and there would be no set number of successes or failures to resolve the action. The number of successes or failures would be purely circumstantial based upon what occured in play.
> 
> ...




Hence the almost. 

I probably should have left old school out of it since there is no more agreement on what that means than what is D&D. 

It is the one place in the base rules where the DM is expected to use a lot of situational judgement to make a ruling on play. Something that the 4e designers don't get much credit for. I think if the concept where examined with an open mind it would be appreciated more. Or maybe not.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 14, 2011)

BryonD said:


> That absolutely helps.
> 
> I think "answered by the system" is more than generous.
> I'd say improving the granularity around 6/3 is clearly better than a hard core 6/3.
> ...




Even the 6/3 was a DM choice, just like deciding he wanted to use Level 6 Ogres instead of Level 10 trolls for an encounter. The DM could as easily have decided more or fewer succeses were required for the skill challenge.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Gryph said:


> There are some very good design notes and suggestions in DMG2 and in Mearls series of articles in Dragon concerning skill challenges. Things like allowing automatic successes for appropriate power usage. "High quality" action results or crit type rolls giving 2 successes. Even inappropriate skill choice giving automatic failures. More importantly, suggestions on how to blend skill challenges as an underlying framework to an extended bit of narration.



Just to be picky, I already pointed out that inappropriate rolls could clearly be discarded.

But it is still all an "underlying framework" when none is needed, and moreso, a lack of such is preferred.

I guess you could say that in my game I use skill challenges.  Except instead of 6 success, they all require 1.   And instead of each success having a default of 1/6, they have no default whatsoever.  I don't offer "double credit" or even "triple credit" for better answers, because the idea that these actions have discrete quanta of completion is still overly rigid and unsatisfying.  Once the cumulative qualitative merits of actions, be they one or 18, meet the threshold, then "1"ness is decreed.  

When I want an open-ended spectrum, pointing out that 1 might actually be 2 is only a small improvement.

Now you might also say it could be 3.  How about 4?  How about 19 and the target is 53?  If you draw enough points you can make a polygon that the human eye can't tell from a circle.  But why bother if you have a circle?

But for now you have just "improved" the square up to a pentagon.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 14, 2011)

Gryph said:


> Even the 6/3 was a DM choice, just like deciding he wanted to use Level 6 Ogres instead of Level 10 trolls for an encounter. The DM could as easily have decided more or fewer succeses were required for the skill challenge.



No, not "just like".  Placing npcs is part of defining the plot, setting, and narrative.  Whether he assigned 6/3 or 17/2 has no narrative meaning.   The freedom to change the variables of that construct makes it no less a clunky construct controlling the story.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 14, 2011)

You know, from reading this I'm beginning to see where a skill-challenge-like system could be useful for a new DM, or even an experienced one who needs guidance on how to mechanically evaluate role-played encounters and-or encounters where there is no combat.

It doesn't involve any dice.  Rather, the DM writes '+' and '-' on a scrap of paper and starts keeping tallies as things go along - a '+' for something good/useful/ingenious and a '-' for something stupid/counterproductive/whatever.  She then quickly dreams up a couple of numbers - let's say 6 and 3 - and decides if there's 6 tallies beside '+' before there's three beside '-' then the encounter turns out successfully.  The players never see any of this and just play as they normally would.

What this does, besides getting dice out of where they shouldn't be, is allow the DM a significant and very handy fudge factor and provides for variable win-loss conditions.  In a 6-3 example, the DM could have something different happen on a 6-0 win than if it's 6-2, and if it ends up 5-3 then it could be a partial win; whatever.  The DM could also set a challenge as 1-x, where *any* '+' is a win but the number of '-'s somehow becomes a factor later.  Also, if only the DM knows the score then the score doesn't affect player actions.

An enterprising DM would also note who contributed to the '+' side, and only those characters would get ExP for that "challenge".

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Feb 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But you had predestined that no action could provide more than, nor less than, 16.67% of the solution.  With no knowledge of how good or bad the actions would be, you declared "the number will be six".



What do you mean by "action"? I had predetermined that the number of successes required is 6. "Success" has a technical meaning here. As I posted in reply to Exploder Wizard, there are fairly intricate rules and guidelines across the DMG, the DMG2 and the Rules Compendium for allowing some successful checks to count as multiple successes, or to cancel failures, or to give bonuses to other check, etc etc. All that stuff happened in the bear and water weird examples.



BryonD said:


> Because the flavor text does nothing to change the game reality of roll die, compare to DC, place check mark under yes or no.



I don't really agree with this. First, the flavour text changes the ingame reality quite a bit - it makes the difference between the bear being friends with, or afraid of, the sorcerer. And it also changes the resolution - because different options are open up or closed off. If the dwarf doesn't start pushing rocks in as his first action, he can't then push them in further as his final action.



BryonD said:


> You are taking credit for different descriptions of the path.  But when we are comparing two mechanical systems you can not take credit for something that the mechanics very pointedly disregard.



I don't quite understand this. My game table used a mechanical system to generate an interesting story about taming a bear. No one knew how it would happen at the start. At the end, we had a bear who had been befriended by the ranger, was scared of the sorcerer and paladin, and wanted to eat the dwarf but had been persuaded not to.

Maybe other tables can get the same story using other mechanical techniques. Cool! Give us some actual play examples! But that doesn't mean (i) that the techniques that my table used didn't help, nor (ii) that the story was predetermined by the mechanics. It wasn't. No one knew how it would end up until the things was done (heck, even half way through I was still expecting the dwarf to try and fight the bear, and was anticipating the resolution being that of a dead bear and a dissapointed paladin).


----------



## pemerton (Feb 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> So if I want glass cannons to exist in my world, I should avoid 4E?



I think so. 4e definitely treats hit points as playing a metagame role, namely, of regulating pacing in combat.



Nagol said:


> Minions a la 4e are the ultimate glass cannon.  Additionally, would not a striker (or whatever cute name the monster equivalent gets) without support be considered one?



True about minions - mechanically they are glass cannons, but again, the rationale here is mostly a pacing/scene-framing one.

You're right about there being glass cannon PCs - and some monsters have more hit points per level than others. But there's nothing quite like the 3E ogre mage or the AD&D NPC magic user.



Lanefan said:


> Nor indestructible pillows, or whatever the opposite would be.
> 
> And it's such an easy fix, too.  Just take the concept of hit dice and divide it up, so each creature has a "Fight Level", or FL (i.e. it is as good in combat as a this-level Fighter), a saving throw level that may or may not be related to FL (4e has done this already with variable defenses but maybe hasn't realized it), and a hit point total that is determined by whatever means you like but is or can be completely divorced from the other factors.



4e has something like this: Skirmishers have equivalent FL, defence and hit point level. Brutes have higher FL and hit points but slightly lower defence. Lurkers have higher FL but lower hit points. Artillery have higher FL but lower hit points and defences. Soldiers have higher defences.

But none of the differentials is as great as in previous editions.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 15, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> It doesn't involve any dice.  Rather, the DM writes '+' and '-' on a scrap of paper and starts keeping tallies as things go along - a '+' for something good/useful/ingenious and a '-' for something stupid/counterproductive/whatever.  She then quickly dreams up a couple of numbers - let's say 6 and 3 - and decides if there's 6 tallies beside '+' before there's three beside '-' then the encounter turns out successfully.  The players never see any of this and just play as they normally would.
> 
> What this does, besides getting dice out of where they shouldn't be, is allow the DM a significant and very handy fudge factor and provides for variable win-loss conditions.



Lanefan, add in the fact that sometime dice will be used (for skill checks) and what you have describe here _is_ the skill challenge mechanic. Including with variable win-loss conditions.

There's a further question of whether you let the dwarf fighter play his "come and get it" card to get benefits when it comes to shoving rocks into springs at the bottom of spirit-infested pools. That's neither a die roll nor just a described action, but an issue of metagame "fate point" type options.

But you could run skill challenges without having metagame options like come and get it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 15, 2011)

avin said:


> I find interesting that Hussar trusts 3E for DMing... don't get me wrong: been there, DMed a lot. I loved to play 3.5 but absolutely hated to DM. Broken spells, grapple rules, I still have nightmares.
> 
> On the other hand, 4E shines in therms of rules consistency (lacking a lot in disbelief suspension, IMO, tho). In fact, constant rules updates anti combos (and CB/MB) is what sold 4E to me.
> 
> ...




See, now I had a totally opposite experience.  Sure, grapple could be a problem, but, that wasn't usually a huge one.  Spells were almost never a problem in our campaigns and I allowed pretty much anything.  Then again, we rarely had anyone play wizards, so, maybe that was the reason.  But, I did see lots of clerics.

I find the 3e mechanics to be very rock solid.  I'm not someone who had huge problems with the CR rules either to be honest.  I found them useful most of the time and, with a bit of examination, it wasn't too hard to figure out why things went pear shaped.

No, my problems with 3e were mostly related to the massive amount of drudge work that I totally did not enjoy.  Building the stat block for a 12th level wizard took me friggin' forever.  And it was almost always wrong.    So, unlike BryonD, I LOATHED creating in 3e.  Didn't mind if the drudge work (stat blocks mostly) was done for me - ie running modules - but, I'd never build a campaign from scratch in 3e again.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 15, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> You know, from reading this I'm beginning to see where a skill-challenge-like system could be useful for a new DM, or even an experienced one who needs guidance on how to mechanically evaluate role-played encounters and-or encounters where there is no combat.
> 
> It doesn't involve any dice. Rather, the DM writes '+' and '-' on a scrap of paper and starts keeping tallies as things go along - a '+' for something good/useful/ingenious and a '-' for something stupid/counterproductive/whatever. She then quickly dreams up a couple of numbers - let's say 6 and 3 - and decides if there's 6 tallies beside '+' before there's three beside '-' then the encounter turns out successfully. The players never see any of this and just play as they normally would.
> 
> ...




Congratulations!  You've just understood the workings behind skill challenges with one simple exception.  Not everything people try works which is why you make skill checks.  And part of the fun of the skill challenge rules is recovering from an unexpected failure.  But "the dice where they shouldn't be" is an issue that's an argument for another time and has probably been rehashed a few thousand times already.  I know why you think the way you do and disagree, but consider that a matter of taste; dice provide advantages and drawbacks.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 15, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree with your sentiments, but not your facts. Contra your first paragraph - there are ways for a successful check to count as more than just 1 success in the challenge. Contra the last sentence of your second paragraph, 4e already has what you say it is missing.
> 
> The mechanics I've got in mind here are secondary checks from the DMG and DMG2, plus "advantags" from the Rules Compendium, plus examples of how these can be done in some of the published skill challenges. Some of this came into play in my game on the weekend, but I left it out in my post for brevity (for example, when the paladin intimidated the bear, standing next to it and waving his khopesh while using an Encounter thunder power to help, he got a bonus on the roll).




This example proves my point even more. It was simply another formulaic rules construct being exploited because it was known to provide a bonus. 
Find a way to use combat power X in a non-combat challenge and receive a bonus to Y, oh, and you get a cookie. 

I see this kind of thing more as a no brainer rather than inspired creative content. Hmm... a skill challenge is an encounter so find a way to shoehorn a combat encounter power into the situation, get an extra bonus, and profit. Hey no loss either as the power is refreshed right after the encounter. Such additions to the challenge are still merely rules constructs involving selecting something from a preset menu for a benefit and coming up with a plausible excuse in the fiction to justify the action. 



pemerton said:


> In addition to what I said above - there are ways to affect the challenge other than by changing the number of successes required. One is to take actions that change the fictional situation such that new options to which the PCs are better suited open up. And if we go beyond the issue of mechanical difficulty, the PCs can take approaches which (for example) leave the bear calm and scared of them or calm and friendly to them (or, as in my party's case, scared of some and friendly to others). These are meaningful differences.




In other words, succeed at a difficult menu option to unlock options of lesser difficulty making the overall goal easier to accomplish. I still don't see any genuine creativity in this or how the judgement of the DM has any bearing on the situation at all. 

If the basic actions of the players and the decisions of the DM can be simulated in a computer game then then the lightning in a bottle, which is the core of the human D&D experience is lost.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 15, 2011)

There is a lot of talking past each other and covering the same ground happening.

Fitting the story to the mechanics is different than fitting the mechanics to the story.

That does not mean one if remotely "better" or "more fun" than the other.  But someone who likes one may not like the other, or, more likely, may like it notably less.

But they are different.  

And I see people telling me that their orange is exactly the same as my apple, and then using a description of an orange as proof that it is an apple.  So be it.  To me that just means you are having fun and don't perceive the distinction that is important to me.  And there is no remote need for that distinction to be important.  

But when someone says that it doesn't look like Rome to them, they can be telling the truth, even if you don't see it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2011)

Can someone XP ByronD for me?

Thanks!


----------



## Gryph (Feb 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> There is a lot of talking past each other and covering the same ground happening.
> 
> Fitting the story to the mechanics is different than fitting the mechanics to the story.
> 
> ...





Now this I completely agree with. I would even look at it from a step further back. First and foremost, to me, D&D and other RPGs are games and I play games to have fun. Fiction and mechanics are both secondary considerations to fun and so, at my table, neither is more important to the other. 

I like the mechanics around skill challenges because my players find it more fun to include skill rolls on top of the rp when resolving those types of situations where I use them. Simple as that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 15, 2011)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]:

Just to be clear, by "fiction-first" I do not mean "story-first" or "plotline-first"; I mean "verisimilitude of the fictional setting-first".


RC


----------



## BryonD (Feb 15, 2011)

Gryph said:


> I like the mechanics around skill challenges because my players find it more fun to include skill rolls on top of the rp when resolving those types of situations where I use them. Simple as that.




And I like the way I do it in my games because my players (and I) find it fun to have the narrative significance of the rp included when resolving all kinds of situations.  
Simple as that.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 15, 2011)

This hypothesis has recieved official (if uncited) endorsement:


Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (An Introduction)


I am sure we can all agree that Mercurius should now win a large portion of the internet.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 15, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Just to be picky, I already pointed out that inappropriate rolls could clearly be discarded.
> 
> But it is still all an "underlying framework" when none is needed, and moreso, a lack of such is preferred.




Why?  And just checking that you are intending to argue for diceless outside combat?  Because that's what not having an underlying framework means.  And I for one like having a framework there to give me a hand with pacing and so I don't need to worry about what or how much the PCs have to roll, allowing us to get on with the game.  Skill challenges are scaffolding, not architecture.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> This example proves my point even more. It was simply another formulaic rules construct being exploited because it was known to provide a bonus.
> Find a way to use combat power X in a non-combat challenge and receive a bonus to Y, oh, and you get a cookie.



I think that's a little harsh.

How come, in earlier editions, the paladin using his "Shout really loud in the name of my god" power to scare someone is _creative spellcasing_, but in 4e it's "receiving a bonus to get a cookie"?



ExploderWizard said:


> I see this kind of thing more as a no brainer rather than inspired creative content. Hmm... a skill challenge is an encounter so find a way to shoehorn a combat encounter power into the situation, get an extra bonus, and profit. Hey no loss either as the power is refreshed right after the encounter.



As it happens, the PCs - while knowing that the temple they were in was somewhate damaged - hadn't though through the ramifications of using thunder powers. The same paladin PC later nearly got hit by falling ceiling blocks as he entered the room the bear had been in. (The vulnerability of the ceiling to various sorts of effects was a part of the 3E module text that was very easy to implement when I ran it for 4e.)



ExploderWizard said:


> If the basic actions of the players and the decisions of the DM can be simulated in a computer game then then the lightning in a bottle, which is the core of the human D&D experience is lost.



This is definitely too harsh. If you come over to the Actual Play thread that I linked to earlier, I think you'll see that computer simulation is not an option on the table.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> [Just to be clear, by "fiction-first" I do not mean "story-first" or "plotline-first"; I mean "verisimilitude of the fictional setting-first".



I think that fits with what I had previously thought.

As I posted on my Actual Play thread, I think verisimilitude is itself a bit slippery, because other stuff going on can make parts of the gameworld become more or less salient. But my impression of your preferences is that you strongly prefer a world exploration game. And I'm on the record in numerous threads, including probably this one, as saying that 4e doesn't support world exploration. Even since I've been running a couple of exploration-focused scenarios (as I've been talking about in my actual play threads over the past month or two) I don't think of these as world exploration in what I understand to be your preferred sense.

You also seem to me to be saying something different from what BryonD is saying:



BryonD said:


> And I like the way I do it in my games because my players (and I) find it fun to have the narrative significance of the rp included when resolving all kinds of situations.



This implies, for example, that in a skill challenge approach the narrative significance of the RP is not included. Which I regard as false. What is true is that in a skill challenge approach the narrative signficance of the RP is not, on its own, determinative, because the structure of the mechanic obliges the GM to inject additional complications, and the players to inject their own responses to those complications.

But this feature of the skill challenge mechanic _does_ mean that the world and its ingame causal logic are not determinative. Sometimes, at least, the complication that the GM injects will be purely metagame driven (as in the example skill challenge in the Rules Compendium).

I hesitate to say that this is at the expense of verisimilitude - the example in the RC doesn't break verisimilitude, for example. But it is at the expense of world exploration as a priority. Apart from anything else, there are these potential bits of the world - the complications that the GM is ready to inejct - that can't be known (and hence can't be explored) until the resolution mechanic plays out.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 16, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> This hypothesis has recieved official (if uncited) endorsement:
> 
> 
> Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (An Introduction)
> ...






> *THE LINKED ARTICLE*
> "This may sound strange, coming from R&D—but it’s easy to mistake what Wizards of the Coast publishes as the core essence of D&D. We might print the rules for the current version of the game, or produce accessories you use at your table, but the game is what you, the community of D&D fans and players, make it. D&D is the moments in the game, the interplay within a gaming group, the memories formed that last forever. It’s intensely personal. It’s your experience as a group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that."




Personally, I think they're merely making the mistake of being overbroad and imprecise I criticized from the start.

I mean, the closing phrase of the last sentence is simply _wrong._


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Why?  And just checking that you are intending to argue for diceless outside combat?  Because that's what not having an underlying framework means.  And I for one like having a framework there to give me a hand with pacing and so I don't need to worry about what or how much the PCs have to roll, allowing us to get on with the game.  Skill challenges are scaffolding, not architecture.



Nice try at imposing a false meaning that completely ignores the context of the statement.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> This implies, for example, that in a skill challenge approach the narrative significance of the RP is not included. Which I regard as false.



Regard it all you want.  It makes no difference to me.

The way YOU initially described it, the only relevance is whether you veto a check as valid or not.  Presuming you agree with the actions proclaimed, 6/3 is the end of discussion.  Now, it has been clarified to me that a cool really applicable action could count double.   And, truly, going from having zero relevance to having relevance is a huge improvement.  It still falls way short, but it is a huge improvement.

But still, before you ever sat down to the table you knew that 6 valid successes would be victory.  That knowledge comes with zero insight or relationship to the actions the characters will eventually take.  It does not need that insight because it isn't relevant.  

I'm guessing here, but I think I'm coming to understand where your view comes from.
After the game is over, you and I could each sit down and write out the events in a story form.  Neither of us would mention anything that had anything to do with mechanics.  Someone reading our stories would learn of characters encountering situations and taking appropriate actions to overcome the obstacle.  There would be no way to tell it was a game at all, much less a game run using skill challenges or not.

So from that point of view, either way is identical.  A collection of narrative appropriate actions were used to solve a problem.  Our stories can not be distinguished from each other and both involve only actions in which are fitting to the narrative.  Therefore there is no difference.

And, if I simply wanted to write fiction, that would be true.

But I love the mechanics.  I love seeing how the pieces interact in a consistent, but not fully predictable manner.  I love seeing the direct cause and effect and how the world changes on both the immense and trivial scales.  There is no way I would ever sit down at a table knowing that every challenge can be overcome by N successes.  Even if N can change from challenge to challenge and really cool successes can count with a multiplier 2, 3, or 19.  The very model is wrong from the get go.  These are not mathematical problems to be quantified.  Certainly not at anything remotely as coarse as 6/3.  Counting successes has nothing to do with the solution.  It isn't a quantitative problem, it is a qualitative problem.  You can have a DC to determine if a given action is successful or not.  (And I frequently use much more than an up/down interpretation  of skill check)  But the impact of that action on the challenge simply can not be satisfactorily captured as 1 or 2 of X successes.  The impact and how the situation changes should be judged based purely on the narrative value.

End the end skill challenges ignore the narrative value.  Yes, the veto is there, ok, the double credit chance is there.  But, ultimately it is check marks that control.

You could run a skill challenge as a 6/3.  And the characters could overcome that obstacle in seven tries, with one failure.  And you could then write a back story to fit what happened.  And a reader would not be able to tell you used a skill challenge.

Then, for kicks, you could run the exact same skill challenge as a 11/5.  And the characters could take the exact same seven actions, and then finish off in seven more, with two more failures in the mix.  And you could then write a back story to fit what happened.  And a reader would not be able to tell you used a skill challenge.

But, the stories would not be compatible.  The actions which solved the problem the first time would be inadequate to solve the problem the second time.  This is possible because the narrative significance of the actions are irrelevant to the progress.  You only go in and assign the relevance after the fact.  Because the mechanical system imposed is in charge and the narrative obeys the mechanics.

In my games, a valid solution is a valid solution.  It may be harder or easier to implement that solution, and appropriate DCs can be used to set that.  But if one character does just the right thing, then, in hindsight I now know that was a 1/0 challenge.  Or maybe it was a 3/11 challenge.  I can retrofit a skill challenge on to the events afterward the same way you can retro fit narrative.

But when you start a skill challenge, you know that the first character's action is not going to solve the problem.  You know that because the mechanics are in control and won't allow it.  I don't know because the narrative is in control and all bets are off. 

And, as I understand it, that is a design success of skill challenges.  The first guy to go won't solve the problem.  It will be a team effort and all the players get to contribute and share the glory.  And my system completely fails at this.

And I don't care about that.
Just as you clearly don't care that the narrative is retrofitted to match the N successes.  We both start with a challenge and end with a narrative fitting result.  I don't claim one is better, or much much less, more "fun" or rewarding than the other.

But I absolutely claim they are significantly different and that I have a personal preference for one approach over the other.  

The narrative can control the mechanics or the mechanics can control the narrative.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2011)

I believe BryonD has the right of it.

The Jester's skill challenge impressed me because it follows the natural consequences of the setting, and implies both that it is static (i.e., the difficulty for actions is given in the check, rather than determined by the PCs), is triggered by PC decisions (if the PCs attempt this, that is the result), and is bypassable (if the PCs do not attempt this, then some other result occurs).  Or, at least, it seemed to as I read it.

These factors, combined, are all necessary for a skill challenge to be "fiction-first" as opposed to "rules-first", IMHO.

For example, in BryonD's post, he could have notes about the DCs of attempting various things, and what needs to be done to accomplish a task.  And that could be seen as a "skill challenge" of sorts.  But, if the PCs come up with some method of bypassing their difficulties, then they don't have to slog through the "challenge".  

I.e., the challenge is about bypassing or cleverly resolving difficulties rather than playing through them to ensure everyone has a turn, or the level of challenge isn't changed by player choices, or everyone gets so much XP, and so on.

I was also very favourably impressed by the implication in the Jester's skill challenge by how the actions of the PCs affected the outcome of future actions.  It seemed much better than simply 6/3.  Indeed, it seemed (to me) head-and-shoulders over any other example that I have read.  

([MENTION=2]Piratecat[/MENTION]:  Sorry, I know that your pigeon attack was probably fun to play, but the setup as you described it sounds much more like what BryonD is talking about, and much less like what the Jester accomplishes with his.  I do list this one as #2, though.  IMHO.  YMMV.   )


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 16, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think that's a little harsh.
> 
> How come, in earlier editions, the paladin using his "Shout really loud in the name of my god" power to scare someone is _creative spellcasing_, but in 4e it's "receiving a bonus to get a cookie"?




Who says it is? A character using a standard ability for its intended effect in _any _edition isn't being particularly creative. The same goes for a magic user casting a sleep spell to incapacitate foes using AD&D. It is simply the standard use of character abilities to accomplish goals. 

The difference with skill challenges is that the players engage the mechanical structure instead of the situation. Rather than think about what can be done to resolve the issue, the player thinks about what applicable skill will be the best to roll against in order to contribute toward winning the challenge. 

This is partially a skill challenge problem but mostly an _encounter _problem. 
"The encounter" is the root of all suckitude and the death of organic play IMHO. The breaking up of activity into set piece mechanics-heavy mini games is bad enough for just combat but when applied to any activity of substance going on at all _the game _itself drifts away into this series of mini games. 

Honestly, it seems like D&D for the attention deficit generation. Blah, Blah,Blah [combat] Blah,Blah [skill challenge],Blah,Blah [skill challenge],Blah,Blah [combat]

Between these set piece mini games is "filler" during which players get a drink, go to the bathroom, check twitter, etc. The encounter structure is a player dog whistle signaling that its time to pay attention because turn taking, round robin dice rolling is about to begin.  

This is just how I feel about the encounter structure having run a 4E campaign for about a year. The experiences of others will most certainly vary. 



pemerton said:


> This is definitely too harsh. If you come over to the Actual Play thread that I linked to earlier, I think you'll see that computer simulation is not an option on the table.




Live play at the table can never be captured by computer. The question is, can the resolution of encounters be so modeled?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> For example, in BryonD's post, he could have notes about the DCs of attempting various things, and what needs to be done to accomplish a task.  And that could be seen as a "skill challenge" of sorts.



To be clear, the root concept of skill challenges is really cool.  And I've been using things that would be seen as clearly cousins to the approach since long before 4E was heard of.

It is the preconceived mechanical determinism that I wish to avoid.

You could even reverse engineer a scenario in which the 4E approach fits perfectly.  But you would need to find a particular scenario that just happens to fit the model.  (Stopped clock happens to be right this time)


----------



## BryonD (Feb 16, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I was also very favourably impressed by the implication in the Jester's skill challenge by how the actions of the PCs affected the outcome of future actions.



For my view, this is great, but also aside from the point.

The skill challenge is a black box.  Even with all my worst case claims presumed for sake of argument, a narrative which resolved the challenge exists at the end of the process.  And a good DM should absolutely keep that narrative im mind for future implications.  Whether the narrative resulted from the mechanics or it is a narrative which controlled the mechanics is not significant to that point.

Both of our black boxes should fit well in the larger story.  And they both are quite capable of that.  It is only the internal details of the black box that are a concern to me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 16, 2011)

BryonD said:


> To be clear, the root concept of skill challenges is really cool.  And I've been using things that would be seen as clearly cousins to the approach since long before 4E was heard of.
> 
> It is the preconceived mechanical determinism that I wish to avoid.
> 
> You could even reverse engineer a scenario in which the 4E approach fits perfectly.  But you would need to find a particular scenario that just happens to fit the model.  (Stopped clock happens to be right this time)




Yeah, I got that.

I was just trying to explain how (1) pemerton's examples leave me cold, (2) the Jester's example changes my thinking about how skill challenges could be run, and (3) I think you are right....all at the same time.  






(I mean, without mentioning my upcoming commitment to Arkham Asylum)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> But when you start a skill challenge, you know that the first character's action is not going to solve the problem.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But I absolutely claim they are significantly different.



I agree with this 100%. (There could be exceptions to the first sentence. Suppose, having encountered the water weird, the PCs all run away and just use rocks, bears, magic, etc to cave in the roof of the temple. That would end the threat of the weird without needint to succeed in a skill challenge - assuming that I didn't have any ideas on how to make an interesting challenge out of the cave-in plan - but it would also mean the PCs had essentially abandoned their goal in the scene, which was to extract some gold statues lying in the bottom of the water weird's pool.)

It doesn't therefore follow that the narrative is irrelevant. It just follows that it is not solely determinative.

_Why_, on my approach, is the first action not going to resolve the situation? Suppose the first action, as narrated, is manifestly not enough to resolve the situation - say, in a navigation challenge like the Jester's, the first action is simply pulling out an old journal and trying to correlate it's contents to the surrounding terrain - then the narrative itself explains why more skill checks are needed. Suppose, on the other hand, the first action, as narrated, does appear sufficient to resolve the situation - let's say the first action is to summon a genie from a bottle - then the narrative itself doesn't explain why more skill chekcs are needed. At that point, the GM's role (on my approach) is to inject complication. (Perhaps the genie is grumpy. Perhaps the site the PCs are looking for is magically warded against geneis. Perhaps the genie doesn't want to go there because of something that happened there in the past - and this gives the players a clue to pick up on for their further checks.)

Notice here that the _narrative is still very important_. The nature of the complication that the GM introduces is itself related to the ongoing narrative - both the fact that the PCs are trying to get somewhere, and that they have summoned a genie to try and get them there. It's just that the narrative is not _all_ that is going on. In Raven Crowking's terminology, it is not "fiction first" because something other than considerations of ingame causal logic are in play - namely, the GM is introducing complications out of metagame considerations.

(This post hasn't addressed at all why one might _want_ a game where metagame matters in ths way. Suffice it to say that some - including me - do.)



BryonD said:


> The narrative can control the mechanics or the mechanics can control the narrative.



You say this as if it is self-evidently true. But, as in many other systems, the interaction and mediation between components can be quite a bit more complex. I don't, and never have, denied that action resolution in 4e is very different from simulationist games. And of course it is connected, in part, to the relationship between narrative and mechanics. But your slogan doesn't capture what the difference is.

In particular, your slogan implies that in 4e the narrative is irrelevant. And I've given numerous examples that demonstrate the contrary. It's just that something can be relevant without being determinative.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Rather than think about what can be done to resolve the issue, the player thinks about what applicable skill will be the best to roll against in order to contribute toward winning the challenge.



Again, I just don't really feel the force of this. Are you really telling me that mine is the only group where, when I as GM describe a scene that the players are getting ready to engage with via their PCs, the players then look over their character sheets to see what sorts of resources - skills, spells, items, contacts, knowledge of backstory - that they might bring to bear?

Coming at it in another way - what is the difference between "thinking about what can be done to resolve the issue" and "thining about what applicable skill will be the best to roll against"? After all, the sole measure of _applicability_ here is _able to be used to resolve the issue_!


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> It doesn't therefore follow that the narrative is irrelevant. It just follows that it is not solely determinative.



As I said multiple times, you can veto and, though nothing you previously said suggest this, you can double count a cool action.  Aside from those, it has no further determinative power.




> _Why_, on my approach, is the first action not going to resolve the situation? Suppose the first action, as narrated, is manifestly not enough to resolve the situation - say, in a navigation challenge like the Jester's, the first action is simply pulling out an old journal and trying to correlate it's contents to the surrounding terrain - then the narrative itself explains why more skill checks are needed. Suppose, on the other hand, the first action, as narrated, does appear sufficient to resolve the situation - let's say the first action is to summon a genie from a bottle - then the narrative itself doesn't explain why more skill chekcs are needed. At that point, the GM's role (on my approach) is to inject complication. (Perhaps the genie is grumpy. Perhaps the site the PCs are looking for is magically warded against geneis. Perhaps the genie doesn't want to go there because of something that happened there in the past - and this gives the players a clue to pick up on for their further checks.)
> 
> Notice here that the _narrative is still very important_. The nature of the complication that the GM introduces is itself related to the ongoing narrative - both the fact that the PCs are trying to get somewhere, and that they have summoned a genie to try and get them there. It's just that the narrative is not _all_ that is going on. In Raven Crowking's terminology, it is not "fiction first" because something other than considerations of ingame causal logic are in play - namely, the GM is introducing complications out of metagame considerations.
> 
> (This post hasn't addressed at all why one might _want_ a game where metagame matters in ths way. Suffice it to say that some - including me - do.)



You have proven my point on two different levels.

First, you proved that the first action can not solve the problem.  You specifically brought up an example of a first action *CAPABLE* of solving the problem. It is critically important to note that I never said the first action could not be one that SHOULD be able to solve the problem.  I said it just can't actually do it.  And you proved that by admitting that you are now obliged to find a way to stop it, whether you want to or not.  (Obviously you could just throw the skill challenge out the window, but since the point here is skill challenges, I think that would be a losing position.)

So you have conceded and even demonstrated that no matter how excellent the first action may be, under a skill challenge it will not move the party to a condition of success.


Second, you proved that the narrative is the slave to the mechanics.  Why is the genie grumpy?  Why is the site warded?  These are details that you are suddenly required to invent (back to "pop quiz role playing") because you are out of compliance with THE MECHANICS if you don't.  In order to obey the decree of the mechanics your narrative must conform itself to the system's demands.

Yes, there are thousands of different narrative answers you could come up with.  But you seem to think that having a variety of options for following the mechanics means you are not following the mechanics.  
The narrative you just made IS NOT important to the mechanics.  Within the on-going event the narrative has close to no importance to the mechanical resolution of the situation. 



> You say this as if it is self-evidently true. But, as in many other systems, the interaction and mediation between components can be quite a bit more complex. I don't, and never have, denied that action resolution in 4e is very different from simulationist games. And of course it is connected, in part, to the relationship between narrative and mechanics. But your slogan doesn't capture what the difference is.
> 
> In particular, your slogan implies that in 4e the narrative is irrelevant. And I've given numerous examples that demonstrate the contrary. It's just that something can be relevant without being determinative.



My slogan means what it says, the mechanics control the narrative.  In your example the narrative you provided is clearly controlled by the mechanics.  You have demonstrated exactly what I am talking about.

Yes, it is complex.  I agree with that.  But in your example those complications are all within a narrative that obeys the mechanics.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> (This post hasn't addressed at all why one might _want_ a game where metagame matters in ths way. Suffice it to say that some - including me - do.)



I think I've made it clear on numerous occasions that I understand and even respect this.

You like your side of Rome, I like my side of Rome.
But when you tell me that the oranges in your side of Rome make just as good apple pie as the apples on my side, I'm going to disagree.
Your oranges are great.  I'm glad you enjoy them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 17, 2011)

BtronD, AFAICT and IMHO, your posts in this thread have been both clear and cogent.  Nor have your objections been answered.

(Although, again, I believe that the Jester's sc demonstrates that a form of sc can be contrived, where the mechanics are forced to follow the logic of the fictional space, instead of vice versa.)

RC


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> BtronD, AFAICT and IMHO, your posts in this thread have been both clear and cogent.  Nor have your objections been answered.



Thanks



> (Although, again, I believe that the Jester's sc demonstrates that a form of sc can be contrived, where the mechanics are forced to follow the logic of the fictional space, instead of vice versa.)
> 
> RC



Absolutely.  The beauty of narrative driven gaming is that the variations are limitless.  There is almost nothing that can not be done.  And on those events that a 4E style SC fits the narrative, then awesome.  

Of course if you have a narrative for which a SC works, but the only reason you have that particular narrative is because you went out of your way to think of something that fit, then the cart is again ahead of the horse.  (and, yeah, I know I don't need to tell you that....    )


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> It doesn't therefore follow that the narrative is irrelevant. It just follows that it is not solely determinative.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...





BryonD said:


> Second, you proved that the narrative is the slave to the mechanics.  Why is the genie grumpy?  Why is the site warded?  These are details that you are suddenly required to invent (back to "pop quiz role playing") because you are out of compliance with THE MECHANICS if you don't.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My slogan means what it says, the mechanics control the narrative.  In your example the narrative you provided is clearly controlled by the mechanics.  You have demonstrated exactly what I am talking about.



OK, I'm confused by your definition of "control".

Let me put it this way: Why is it _a genie_ that is grumpy? Why is it _this particular site_ that is warded? Because the narrative has established (i) that a genie is involved in the situation, and (ii) that the situation is one of trying to get to that particular site.

This is not control by mechanics alone. The mechanics dictate that a complication is to be introduced. The narrative determines the parameters of that complication. To me that looks like joint sovereignty. I'm not going to try to put a percentage weight on each sovereign's contribution, but experience tells me that neither is minimal.



BryonD said:


> you proved that by admitting that you are now obliged to find a way to stop it, whether you want to or not.



If I didn't want complications to occur in the PCs getting to the site, I wouldn't frame it as a skill challenge in the first place.

That's the point of the challenge - to distribute responsibility for introducing and resolving complications. (Not that the 4e rulebooks use this sort of language - I'm borrowing it from more complete presentations of comparable mechanics.)

As to the terminology of "pop quiz", I still think that that is needlessly derogatory. Suppose I'm playing Classic Traveller, and the PCs go to a planet that the GM has not developed beyond its place on the star map and a UPP, and then when they land, and the GM rolls an encounter using the rules in Book 3, the encounter entry says "Event". The GM has to come up with an interesting and plausible event. Is this "pop quiz" rolepalying?

Or, suppose I'm playing 1st ed AD&D. The PCs are on the 10th level. I, as GM, roll an encounter - and through an unlikely set of rolls it ends up being an encounter with a single 3rd level monster (I don't have the table memorised anymore, but let's say its an encounter with a single ogre). What is an ogre possibly doing on the 10th dungeon level? I have to come up with a story quick-smart. Is this "pop quiz" roleplaying?

The structure of a skill challenge is different from the structure of random encounters in those classic RPGs. But the fact that, from time to time, it requires the GM to come up with a story fast, the parameters of which are determined by the narrative, but the precise details of which are not, is hardly unique to skill challenges.



Raven Crowking said:


> Nor have your objections been answered.



What's the objection? Unless I've radically misunderstood him, BryonD is proposing a characterisation of skill challenges via his two slogans ("pop quiz roleplaying" and "mechanics determine narrative") and I'm the one who's objecting.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Nice try at imposing a false meaning that completely ignores the context of the statement.




On re-reading I see what you were trying to say.  What you are doing is taking a look at a building and saying it is hideously ugly - your proof that the building is ugly is that it's covered in scaffolding.  I'm saying that the building has been made faster and by less experienced workmen because the scaffolding is there.  And once you either look past the scaffolding or take it and the other game artefacts away it is almost indistinguishable from a building that was constructed without the use of scaffolding.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 17, 2011)

This is a fascinating discussion.


I do think there is a parallel to rolling for random encounters and random treasure in other editions.

I mean, yes, the narrative must follow the mechanics in a skill challenge. However, that has been the case for the above as well.


But here's my question: does the narrative then inform the future mechanics?

E.G.: I roll a random encounter while my players are travelling through a swamp. It's a black dragon. They then decide they want to find its treasure hoard. So then the adventure becomes to find the hoard and I develop an adventure related to that (large or small).

Skill challenge version: The players are attempting to, say, gain entrance to a forbidden city. First roll is to use stealth to sneak in, the roll is botched (first failure). The narrative says the guard catches the player. Now, the player was clearly sneaking in. Is the DC higher for the next roll when a player attempts to use bluff or diplomacy against the already suspicious guard? Might it even be impossible to do this at this point? If so, then the mechanics do follow the narrative. If not, then it seems more like the mechanics are the sole contributor to the situation, and the narrative is more "dressing up" of the mechanics.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> OK, I'm confused by your definition of "control".
> 
> Let me put it this way: Why is it _a genie_ that is grumpy? Why is it _this particular site_ that is warded? Because the narrative has established (i) that a genie is involved in the situation, and (ii) that the situation is one of trying to get to that particular site.
> 
> ...



And SCs use the mechanics to control the narrative so that the resposibility is distributed.

When you call it "joint sovereignty" I just have to give up and admit that you don't get the point.  There is nothing "joint" about it.  The mechanics say the narrative must comply with this.  The narrative makes no obligation on the mechanics.  The mechanics say "your narrative must land between A and C."  There is no sovereignty in picking from 1,000 options between A and C. It is an illusion of power.  If the mechanics had decreed you must choose something between A and B, then your options would be reduced and you would be required to accept that.  If it was joint the story could negotiate back and still pick something outsie of A to B and force the mechanics to change to fit to it.  This does not happen.  The SC makes the rule and then you choose from what is left.  Calling this joint doesn't accurately describe the relationship.

You have actively demonstrated my point, and yet you insist it isn't there.  So be it.



> As to the terminology of "pop quiz", I still think that that is needlessly derogatory. Suppose I'm playing Classic Traveller, and the PCs go to a planet that the GM has not developed beyond its place on the star map and a UPP, and then when they land, and the GM rolls an encounter using the rules in Book 3, the encounter entry says "Event". The GM has to come up with an interesting and plausible event. Is this "pop quiz" rolepalying?
> 
> Or, suppose I'm playing 1st ed AD&D. The PCs are on the 10th level. I, as GM, roll an encounter - and through an unlikely set of rolls it ends up being an encounter with a single 3rd level monster (I don't have the table memorised anymore, but let's say its an encounter with a single ogre). What is an ogre possibly doing on the 10th dungeon level? I have to come up with a story quick-smart. Is this "pop quiz" roleplaying?



In the first case, one could call it "pop quiz" since it is a highly open-ended term.  But it doesn't have the same point.  The reason is that you have to come up with a new narrative direction based on an unexpected narrative twist.  You could call that "pop quiz" and rather than being offended by the term, I'd reply "yeah, isn't it great."  Rolling with the STORY and unexpected "pop quiz" parts of the story are fun.

Narrative forced pop quiz: Good (IMO)

Now, your second case may have some differences from SCs, but I think it has the same "pop quiz" core.  Arbitrary mechanics are in control and you are forced to change your story to fit the mechanics.  That would not happen at any game I'm running because if I did have a mechanical result that contradicted the story, I'd throw out the mechanics.  If the setting is such a lone ogre could happen (and even better if it seems out of place) then excellent, lets enjoy this pop quiz and go.  But if isn't good, throw it away.  Re-roll, pick something, whatever.  

And, if I was running a SC and someone came up with a solution in one action, I'm not going to be a slave to the mechanics and start coming up new narrative elements that exist because the mechanics need them.  I'm going to throw the SC out and move on with the story.  But the very point of SC is to not do that, so obviously I should just not use them.

And, to be clear, I've never used a "10th level dungeon".  It ties back to the same root difference.  A location is what the narrative suggests the location is.  Mechanical expectations on how the location should be can behave themselves in line behind the story or they can get tossed out on their ear.  

But, I guess I've been chasing a red herring here.  When I say "pop quiz" in this context, I mean changing the story because the mechanics require it.  And, yes, my opinion of that is negative.

Mechanical forced pop quiz: Bad (imo)

Saying that you "wanted there to be complications" does not change the fact that the SC mechanics forced the narrative to behave in a compliant manner.
All you are telling me is you WANT the story to obey the mechanics.

Neither of the two reasons you listed in ANY WAY answer "why is the genie grumpy"?  The answer to the question is: because the genie could solve the problem and the SC mechanics say that can not happen yet.  The players have not collected enough check marks yet so ANY solution is obligated to be incomplete.  The narrative control to complete the solution is prohibited by the mechanics.  (Again, you could always just throw out the SC, but that doesn't defend SCs.)




> What's the objection? Unless I've radically misunderstood him, BryonD is proposing a characterisation of skill challenges via his two slogans ("pop quiz roleplaying" and "mechanics determine narrative") and I'm the one who's objecting.



I object to the claim that games based on SCs lead to the same Rome as games in which the narrative controls the mechanics.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> What's the objection? Unless I've radically misunderstood him, BryonD is proposing a characterisation of skill challenges via his two slogans ("pop quiz roleplaying" and "mechanics determine narrative") and I'm the one who's objecting.




I am using the term "objection" in a manner consistent with the debate rule that says, "To make a convincing argument, you must first understand and address the objections".  

Which is to say, if you don't understand and address the other point of view, your argument will always lack force to anyone who doesn't already share your point of view.

So, in this case, the "objection" is the gist of your opponent's argument.  AFAICT, neither you nor anyone else has addressed/answered it in any meaningful way.  ByronD can agree with everything else you say, but if what you say doesn't answer his objection/argument, he's still not going to agree with you.  And he will be right not to.

I don't think that I can rewrite ByronD's argument to make it any clearer, or any more forceful, than he has done.  That you continue to reinforce his argument without being aware of doing so (by using examples that demonstrate his argument, rather than which counter it), makes me believe that you are misunderstanding his position.

My best rephrasing is (and, please, ByronD, correct me if I am wrong):

When playing the game, both the mechanics and the fictional reality are important, and inform each other.  However, either the mechanics come before the fictional reality, or the fictional reality comes before the mechanics.  

Where the mechanics come before the fictional reality, the narrative must be made to fit the mechanics.  Where the fictional reality comes before the mechanics, the mechanics are dropped when they conflict with that fictional reality.

It is not important how the narrative is modified for this to be true.  That you have infinite ways to modify the narrative is not important, and does not disprove this assertion.

In your examples, you show how the mechanics take precedence over the fictional reality in skill challenges.

That a single "right" answer cannot resolve a skill challenge is, in itself, strong evidence that the skill challenge mechanic is one where the mechanics come before the fictional reality.

Regardless of preference, and without claiming that one is better than the other, games where the mechanics take precedence over the fictional reality are not the same as games where the fictional reality takes precedence over the mechanics.​
That isn't as well put, or as detailed, as ByronD's posts, but I think it is accurate.


RC


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Again, I just don't really feel the force of this. Are you really telling me that mine is the only group where, when I as GM describe a scene that the players are getting ready to engage with via their PCs, the players then look over their character sheets to see what sorts of resources - skills, spells, items, contacts, knowledge of backstory - that they might bring to bear?




Nope. I don't know enough about your group to make a guess about how you play. Based on the subordinate nature of the gameworld to the mechanics of the system though I can make an educated guess that the solution to the situation will never be decided by anything _not _on those sheets. 



pemerton said:


> Coming at it in another way - what is the difference between "thinking about what can be done to resolve the issue" and "thining about what applicable skill will be the best to roll against"? After all, the sole measure of _applicability_ here is _able to be used to resolve the issue_!




The difference is in looking down at your character sheet for an answer, and having it look right back at you and say " Don't look at me pal I just work here, its YOUR move." 



pemerton said:


> The mechanics dictate that a complication is to be introduced.




Simple question: Why?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Feb 17, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> E.G.: I roll a random encounter while my players are travelling through a swamp. It's a black dragon. They then decide they want to find its treasure hoard. So then the adventure becomes to find the hoard and I develop an adventure related to that (large or small).
> 
> Skill challenge version: The players are attempting to, say, gain entrance to a forbidden city. First roll is to use stealth to sneak in, the roll is botched (first failure). The narrative says the guard catches the player.




Wait there.  You've hardcoded more than either I would have or most narratives would force.  Botching the roll doesn't necessarily mean that the guard catches the character.  It means that the stealth goes wrong.



> Now, the player was clearly sneaking in. Is the DC higher for the next roll when a player attempts to use bluff or diplomacy against the already suspicious guard?




It depends how the situation plays out - but if you want to add a penalty.  There's even a specific option within skill challenges for using a hard DC check to negate a prior failure.

But honestly, if the attempt is now made for the PCs to bluff their way in, stealth having failed, the same DCs make for a harder challenge. The PCs get a total of three failures in a skill challenge.  But now they only have two left so just leaving the DCs the same leads to a lower probability of success.  So there is no actual need to alter the DCs to take the failure into account - the failure itself means you have less margin of error for subsequent mistakes.



> Might it even be impossible to do this at this point?




It might be.  DM's call.



> If so, then the mechanics do follow the narrative. If not, then it seems more like the mechanics are the sole contributor to the situation, and the narrative is more "dressing up" of the mechanics.




The DM controls the skill challenge and sets what's available and what the DCs are.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2011)

EW said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by pemerton View Post
> > The mechanics dictate that a complication is to be introduced.
> 
> 
> ...




The simple answer would be, because it would be fun.  Introducing complications leads to more game play and makes play more interesting.  Isn't that the goal, pretty much all the time?  Being able to press the "I win" button might be great the first time, but, it does pale after a while.

Gaming story.

In our current game, the DM ran a SC where we were organizing a group of refugees to fortify a position against an incoming (smallish) army.  During this, a number of bits of sabotage occured, which triggered another, nested, skill challenge - find the sabateur.

We realized, after some time, that the sabateur was a doppleganger (the enemy had used them before) and we set about tracking it down.  We actually failed and this resulted in some of our defenses being considerably weakened.

My immediete thought, though, was, "Wow, we really aren't playing 3e anymore.  We have a group with two full casters and a paladin.  In 3e, this would take all of 10 seconds to resolve - casters to the rescue, detect evil, dead doppleganger."  Instead, we had an interesting series of events spawned by the complications of our failure.

So, taking away the "Succeed on the first try" thing isn't so bad, IMO.

And, on that line of thought, I really have to question BryonD's assertiion that a SC actually removes the "Succeed on the first try"  thing.  The whole point of a SC is that you have an event that is complicated enough that there shouldn't be anything you can do to succeed on the first try.  If you could, then it wouldn't be a skill challenge.  It would be a straight up skill check.

In other words, I think BryonD is complaining about the removal of an element that never actually existed within the framework.  Because 4e removes most of the "I win" magic abilities from the characters, it becomes a lot easier to create situations where it will take more than a single action to resolve the issue.  No Zone of Truth spells mean that questioning people becomes a lot more problematic.  

I see what you're saying.  If the DM is on the ball and decides to call the situation a success or failure based on his own feelings and he's good at that, you have a scene that is going to play out better than a SC.  OTOH, if the DM isn't on the ball, if the DM doesn't have a really great sense of pacing, then you wind up with an awful lot of very unsatisfactory scenes that either get cut short before they get interesting or drag on FAR too long (IMO, the much more likely scenario).

It's the classic puzzle room scene.  The DM makes the group jump through hoop after hoop after hoop trying to answer the riddle of the door and whatnot.  Having a mechanical framework that says, "Ok, it's a hard challenge, 6/3" means that pacing is pretty solid. 

Again, it gets back to the idea that sure, a great DM doesn't need the framework.  Sure, I'll buy that.  But, the rest of us mere mortals sure appreciate having one now that I've seen SC's done right a few times.  And, hey, after you get used to using the framework, you can start experimenting a bit and growing the framework into new and interesting concepts.

Instead of expecting every DM to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The simple answer would be, because it would be fun. Introducing complications leads to more game play and makes play more interesting. Isn't that the goal, pretty much all the time? Being able to press the "I win" button might be great the first time, but, it does pale after a while.





If it would be fun then we we don't need mechanics to tell us this right? 
I also don't see how a particular situation must either be solved by an "I win" button or by some pre-conceived mechanical process.

Using a magical "I win" button is just as mechanically dull as a pace controlled SC IMHO. 



Hussar said:


> The whole point of a SC is that you have an event that is complicated enough that there shouldn't be anything you can do to succeed on the first try. If you could, then it wouldn't be a skill challenge. It would be a straight up skill check.




Yes. The mechanic exists to justify itself. 




Hussar said:


> I see what you're saying. If the DM is on the ball and decides to call the situation a success or failure based on his own feelings and he's good at that, you have a scene that is going to play out better than a SC. OTOH, if the DM isn't on the ball, if the DM doesn't have a really great sense of pacing, then you wind up with an awful lot of very unsatisfactory scenes that either get cut short before they get interesting or drag on FAR too long (IMO, the much more likely scenario).




Good point. Most players that favor heavy mechanics either have little to no experience in more freeform games or worse, really *bad *experiences with such games that shape their view of them. 




Hussar said:


> Again, it gets back to the idea that sure, a great DM doesn't need the framework. Sure, I'll buy that. But, the rest of us mere mortals sure appreciate having one now that I've seen SC's done right a few times. And, hey, after you get used to using the framework, you can start experimenting a bit and growing the framework into new and interesting concepts.
> 
> Instead of expecting every DM to reinvent the wheel.




Great DMs _are _mere mortals. They become great through experience.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The simple answer would be, because it would be fun.



Absolutely 100% correct.

It is a DIFFERENT Rome, but everyone should pick the Rome they find fun and there is no case to be made that this isn't fun.




> And, on that line of thought, I really have to question BryonD's assertiion that a SC actually removes the "Succeed on the first try"  thing.  The whole point of a SC is that you have an event that is complicated enough that there shouldn't be anything you can do to succeed on the first try.  If you could, then it wouldn't be a skill challenge.  It would be a straight up skill check.
> 
> In other words, I think BryonD is complaining about the removal of an element that never actually existed within the framework.  Because 4e removes most of the "I win" magic abilities from the characters, it becomes a lot easier to create situations where it will take more than a single action to resolve the issue.  No Zone of Truth spells mean that questioning people becomes a lot more problematic.



Wait, did it remove the "I win" button or did it never exist?  Which is it?

It is about narrative.  Even if I intend for one action to never be able to solve a problem, the players may think of something more clever.

And, more importatantly, even if the situation TRULY can't be solved in one action the narratibe should control that process.  There is a fundamental difference between having that outcome manadated by narrative based flow and by having it mandated by counting check marks.

If DM's work the way you suggest, then if a really good "I win" solution is brought up, then the DM should immediately discard the SC.  If SCs are in place as a contingency and that get tossed frequently, then that is a lot less bad.  Of course, why not just toss them altogether in that case?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Again, I just don't really feel the force of this. Are you really telling me that mine is the only group where, when I as GM describe a scene that the players are getting ready to engage with via their PCs, the players then look over their character sheets to see what sorts of resources - skills, spells, items, contacts, knowledge of backstory - that they might bring to bear?
> 
> Coming at it in another way - what is the difference between "thinking about what can be done to resolve the issue" and "thining about what applicable skill will be the best to roll against"? After all, the sole measure of _applicability_ here is _able to be used to resolve the issue_!




I think this comes back to my difference in thinking between "How can I exploit the situation?" and "What strength can I bring to bear?"

A situation could be handled in a variety of ways where the different tactics the player can choose from have levels of difficulty attached that are appropriate to that approach.

A player may have a terrrific ability in Intimidate, and a lesser ability in Diplomacy, but perhaps a gentler approach is simpler and more applicable.  Take the example of calming a fidgety child.  Both Intimidate (scaring the child into being quiet) and Diplomacy (distracting and soothing the child) are workable strategies.  The Intimidate has to hit just the right note or the child will start to bawl; the DC for the effective Intimidate is higher than the DC for Diplomacy.

Another example would be a chatty but attentive guard who knows a particular password and is guarding the safe containing the password notebook.  Thievery is a perfectly good tactic, but is much more difficult than worming the password out of the guard though a subtle conversation.

If the player looks to his sheet for what strengths can be brought to bear, he'll gravitate to to his area of speciality.  If the player tries to analyse the situation he'll look to a secondary ability as preferable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 17, 2011)

i have no real issue with SCs.

What I'm still not seeing, though, is how a SC- which to me seems to involve several rolls- is in any way superior to a _single_ roll against a DC with modifiers for "aid another" and RP.

And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 17, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What I'm still not seeing, though, is how a SC- which to me seems to involve several rolls- is in any way superior to a _single_ roll against a DC with modifiers for "aid another" and RP.




Because, generally speaking, having "single points of failure" tends to result in swingier results, and less capability to realize when something is or is not working and change your approach as required.  Consider the difference between D&D's ablative hit points and, say, a damage save system where a failed save knocks you out.  As combat progresses, D&D players can watch hit points (their own and their opponents') decrease and get a feel for how the combat is flowing, and whether they need to start tossing more spells or consider retreating.  In a damage save system, it's much harder to know "where you are" in the combat, as everyone tends to be fine-fine-fine-fine-KO'd.

Consider, additionally, save-or-die spells.  If you make your save, nothing happens.  If you fail your save, you die.  Everything comes down to a single die roll - and while you can try to stack the odds in your favor, you can still roll a 1 on that save.

Similarly, GMs have long been encouraged on this board to avoid "puzzle rooms" where there is a single solution that the players have to figure out or the adventure stalls or ends.

Moreover, you wouldn't routinely design combats where a single attack roll determines the entirety of the results - rather, you want combat to involve meaningful tactical challenges and multiple rolls spread around multiple players so that everyone is participating, and that "Just let the fighter handle all of it" is not a viable solution.

This is an outgrowth of that same philosophy: creativity, flexibility, and better progress tracking leading to better player involvement at all times at the table.



> And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?




Mathematically speaking, it's possible, sure.  Just like, say, everyone making Aid Another attempts to buff the fighter's first attack can, depending on the ACs involved, result in better average damage than everyone attacking individually.

It is, however, by no means a certainty, _especially_ if people tailor their interactions with the skill challenge to highlight their own strengths and the particular situation's weaknesses.

So, as a general rule, no, what you say is not a "feature" of skill challenges.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 17, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> i have no real issue with SCs.
> 
> What I'm still not seeing, though, is how a SC- which to me seems to involve several rolls- is in any way superior to a _single_ roll against a DC with modifiers for "aid another" and RP.
> 
> And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?




I think it really depends on the task at hand. If the situation could involve multiple ways to make progress toward the end goal with no single failure scotching the whole task, then I think skill challenges can work pretty well. The play example in *Galaxy of Intrigue* for SWSE comes to mind. The PCs are trying to escape the punishment detail in the mines. Various events happen in the process, some of which can contribute to the overall success of the escape task, and some of which can detract but not immediately end the attempt. Succeeding eventually leads PCs to a landing platform and a ship, enough failures and they're all caught, but each failure means they end up losing some of the rest of the miners they're escaping with.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> My best rephrasing is (and, please, ByronD, correct me if I am wrong)



One major error.

My name is Bryon.  

Other than that, it works for me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 17, 2011)

BryonD, sorry about the juxtaposition.  D'oh!

(It's....ah....because I think of you as a man of many talents.....like Lord Byron.....yeah....that's it.......)


RC


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Because, generally speaking, having "single points of failure" tends to result in swingier results, and less capability to realize when something is or is not working and change your approach as required.
> 
> ...  (snipped the rest, but this applies to all)



All of your points are fair and valid.
And if these things are important to you then the justification of SCs is absolutely established.

Three points:

1) These justify WHY mechanics controlling narrative is a good thing to some people.
2) Narrative controlling mechanics is more important, to me, than the sum total of the issues you identify, squared.  (But that is just my own personal preference and is not meant to be critical of anyone else.  I'll readily assume the disfunction is my own.)
3) Your D&D experience is in a completely different Rome than mine.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> BryonD, sorry about the juxtaposition.  D'oh!
> 
> (It's....ah....because I think of you as a man of many talents.....like Lord Byron.....yeah....that's it.......)
> 
> ...




Dude, no apology needed. Just blame my parents.  Seriously, I've been dealing with it all my life.  They even screwed it up on my Master's Degree diploma.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 17, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I object to the claim that games based on SCs lead to the same Rome as games in which the narrative controls the mechanics.



Who is making that claim?

It's not in dispute that 4e is a non-simulationist game, and is therefore different from simulationist games.

Your game is radically different from mine. But in my view you are not accurately capturing the nature of the difference.



ExploderWizard said:


> I don't know enough about your group to make a guess about how you play. Based on the subordinate nature of the gameworld to the mechanics of the system though I can make an educated guess that the solution to the situation will never be decided by anything _not _on those sheets.



You'll have to tell me more about what counts as a solution being decided by anthying not on a character sheet. Do you mean White Plume Mountain, and removing the doors to surf down the frictionless corridor? But even this can be affected by character sheets, it they tell us which PC is a better carpenter.

So I'm not really following here. Give me an example of what you mean be a situation where it would be irrelevant that two players have different information on their character sheets. 



ExploderWizard said:


> The difference is in looking down at your character sheet for an answer, and having it look right back at you and say " Don't look at me pal I just work here, its YOUR move."



This isn't helping me. If you're talking about removing doors, higher STR will help. If you're talking about surfing down the corridor, higher DEX will help. What have you got in mind that makes the character sheet irrelevant?



ExploderWizard said:


> Simple question: Why?



Hussar answered this. I'll add - it's somewhat like random encounters - its using the game rules to inject complications into the situation (I know that random encounters can do other stuff as well, like act as a contraint on the PCs' use of time - but introducing complication is one of the things they do).



Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, neither you nor anyone else has addressed/answered it in any meaningful way.  ByronD can agree with everything else you say, but if what you say doesn't answer his objection/argument, he's still not going to agree with you.  And he will be right not to.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Where the mechanics come before the fictional reality, the narrative must be made to fit the mechanics.  Where the fictional reality comes before the mechanics, the mechanics are dropped when they conflict with that fictional reality.



At this level of generality, random encounter checks are "mechanics before reality", because they dictate a change in the situation which results from a dice roll and not the internal logic of the narrative.

If your point is that a good GM will sometimes disregard a random monster check, then I reply that (i) a good GM will use similar discretion in adjudicating a skill challenge (as discussed, for example, in DMG2) and (ii) there are issues about good GMs disregarding or fudging die rolls. Too much generous discretion can undermine the point of random encounters. It can likewise undermine the point of a skill challenge.



BryonD said:


> The mechanics say the narrative must comply with this.



OK. I don't regard this as equivalent to "the mechanics determine the narrative". The difference between "setting parameters to be complied with" and "determining" is important in a lot of contexts. I think this is one of them.



BryonD said:


> The reason is that you have to come up with a new narrative direction based on an unexpected narrative twist.



But only because the random encounter mechanics told you so.

And are you suggesting that a skill challenge never arises because of an unexpected narrative twist? I only had to resolve a bear-taming skill challenge because the players decided they didn't want to kill the bear - something I hadn't expected.



BryonD said:


> I mean changing the story because the mechanics require it.  And, yes, my opinion of that is negative.



At this level of generalisation, I don't see how this isn't happening all the time in a typical RPG.

The dragon breathes on the fighter chained to a rock. It looks like the fighter is doomed. But the player successfully rolls the save, and the GM has to narrate how the fighter found a crack in the rock and successfully tucked in behind it. (The example is from the 1st ed DMG.)



Aberzanzorax said:


> I do think there is a parallel to rolling for random encounters and random treasure in other editions.



Agreed. As far as I can tell, here is the difference: in the ideal world of the "fiction first" side, those random rolls wouldn't be required. As BryonD put it, they are simply a way of handling an unexpected twist. They are a subsitute for prep, which is the ideal.

The "mechanics first" side, as it is being labelled, _wants_ the random rolls. Having noticed that some of the best RPGing happens when complications were unexpectedly injected into the situation, we actively embrace mechanics that are designed to produce this sort of result.

This goes back to my posts on the "Not as popular as it could have been" thread - it's part of the logic of 4e not to have a fully fleshed-out setting, because 4e is aimed at a type of play where developing and expanding on situations _in the real time of play_ is a virtue, not a mere necessity arising from the players doing something unexpected.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 17, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> i have no real issue with SCs.
> 
> What I'm still not seeing, though, is how a SC- which to me seems to involve several rolls- is in any way superior to a _single_ roll against a DC with modifiers for "aid another" and RP.




And it has the disadvantage that the narration can't be segmented when each section has a different mechanical resolution. 



> And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?




Big time. 

Joe has a +8 skill bonus. Jean has a +6.

Single check DC 20: Joe 45%, Jean 35%
Two checks, DC 16: Joe 42.25%, Jean 30.25%


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 17, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Big time.
> 
> Joe has a +8 skill bonus. Jean has a +6.
> 
> ...




Really?  That's what you're going with?

I mean, look, it's pretty clear you've got it out for skill challenges; that's cool, you don't have to like them.

But this is a bad faith, borderline insulting argument to make.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> OK. I don't regard this as equivalent to "the mechanics determine the narrative". The difference between "setting parameters to be complied with" and "determining" is important in a lot of contexts. I think this is one of them.



Did I ever say "determine"?  If I did it was sloppy.  

I wouldn't call it radically off base, but certainly a poor choice of term.  
"Determine" means it sets it exactly.  I don't *think* I used that word and I know that a reading of what I have explained in detail would make it clear that is not my intended meaning.

In your examples the mechanics always put limitations on the narrative and the narrative never trumps the mechanics.  The mechanics are in control.  Yes, you can still choose the specifics, but ONLY within the confines that the mechanics allow.  The single most important question is: where do we stand on 6/3?  



> But only because the random encounter mechanics told you so.



Right, and that is a bad mechanic.  
I use random encounter tables.  But there are major differences between how I use them and the scenario you defined.  First, I don't use mechanically defined "Level 10 Dungeons".  I might have a lair of an Ogre Lord, who happens to be CR10.  But the surroundings are not tied to CR10, they are tied to "what would be in this Ogre Lord's lair?".

Second, you presented your random encounter table in a vacuum.   We could go on a whole separate debate on how I think that is just as bad as skill challenges.  But I don't let the mechanics of a table control my narrative.  If I use a random table for the Ogre Lord's lair, it will be a random table FOR the Ogre Lord's lair.  



> And are you suggesting that a skill challenge never arises because of an unexpected narrative twist? I only had to resolve a bear-taming skill challenge because the players decided they didn't want to kill the bear - something I hadn't expected.



I am saying that any time the mechanics and narrative are in conflict, the narrative should win and the mechanics should be thrown out the window.



> At this level of generalisation, I don't see how this isn't happening all the time in a typical RPG.
> 
> The dragon breathes on the fighter chained to a rock. It looks like the fighter is doomed. But the player successfully rolls the save, and the GM has to narrate how the fighter found a crack in the rock and successfully tucked in behind it. (The example is from the 1st ed DMG.)



Well, I think the generalization exists mostly because you took the comment away from the broader context of the conversation.

However, I'll ignore that and I'll answer this at two different levels.  

First, there are sacrifices in rpgs.  At some point the narrative and the mechanics must meet and that is never perfect.  Making sacrifices when there is no truly better solution is no justification for giving up where there is no need.

Second, I disagree that the 1e DMG example maps to Skill Challenges.
The fighter's ability to avoid the dragon's breath is part of the narrative character of the fighter.  It is part of who he is.  It is part of the definition of him as "heroic" individual of some degree of power.  6/3 does not define anything.  It is a wholly arbitrary mechanical constraint.

Hit points would have been a better example.  Why can a Fighter 10 not die from a giant's smashing club that would turn a commoner to paste?  You need to roll with the narrative there.  But that narrative is all defined at its root by more narrative.  This guy is a "heroic" fighter and can avoid/deflect/absorb/roll with/whatever the giant's attack.  The HP mechanic, as clunky and problematic as it is, springs from a narrative goal.

Or, even better yet, you could have thrown my own words back at me for a much better example.  I've stated that whenever anyone makes a save vs. Medusa, I describe them as having not seen her.  So, right there, I have admitted to making up narrative to fit the results.  And, worse yet, I have admitted that avoiding the gaze should probably be a will save, and yet I am too lazy to stop just using Fort.  So, busted, I am using a mechanic that makes no sense and making up narrative to cover for it.  I plead guilty. 

But, I know one thing, I just reformed today.  Will saves it is from now on.  


But the important point is, hit points and saving throws and all sorts of mechanics tie back to a narrative foundation.  Skill challenges and 6/3 do not.  Yes, you can READILY build narrative to fit SCs, but their foundation is gamism and mechanics.  They have been defended that way.  They prevent "I win" buttons.  They force the scenario to persist, they make certain everyone is included.  All perfectly valid goals if they are important to you.  And thus all perfectly complete justifications for use of SCs by people who see it that way.  But, they are gamist and the mechanics are in control of the narrative.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 17, 2011)

Stepping back a second and I realize that this is a debate that has been going on in RPG's forever.  The basic argument is, "Mechanics get in the way of role play, therefore, mechanics are not needed."  And, you can see this argument all over the place. 

 People have argued that the inclusion of thief abilities limit role play - before you had to interact with the trap and solve it without using any character abilities, just your own smarts.  Then, you threw the thief at the trap.  Then, you have things like Take-20 checks to find the trap, no longer do you need any role play at all.

Or, look at combat.  People have argued (Hi RC) that the inclusion of more complex combat resolution mechanics leads to less role play.  That it's better to have a simpler system that allows the players greater flexibility in describing their actions and then reward that description by DM fiat.

Or look at social interactions.  Early D&D had very little in the way of social mechanics.  Very bare bones.  It wasn't considered needed, you just played out social interactions and relied on the DM to adjudicate.

Now, it's pointing fingers at the SC framework, saying that the mechanics are getting in the way of role play.

And, to some degree the arguements are very true.  Having trap resolution mechanics reduces traps from a role play situation to a bare dice roll in many cases.  Having more complex combat mechanics does slow down play.  Having social mechanics does mean you can simply state, "I bluff the guard, 25 vs insight." 

But, and you knew there had to be a but in here somewhere, there is the other side of the coin.  Sure, it removes those options of role play, but, it also removes the Mother May I situations that plagued early versions of D&D.  It means that the guy who's playing the Cha 6 half orc with no social skills cannot leverage his own personal gift of the gab to simply ignore his character sheet.  It means that groups don't wind up in arms races with DM's as they come up with ever lengthening lists of SOP's for dealing with traps.

Gaming story:  Way back in the day, my group always experimented with potions  IIRC, the 1e rules (or at least our understanding of them) said that if you took a sip of a potion, you had a chance to figure out what it was.  So, we would take a sip and then start going down the list - jump up and down, try lifting something, look at our cuts and bruises to see if they healed, that sort of thing.  

And we had fun with that.  3e totally does away with that with easy Identify spells.  4e goes a step further and doesn't even bother with Identify but rather just tells the DM to tell the players what they found.

I have to admit, I miss the testing.    But, I can totally see why they did it.

In any case, this is not a new discussion at all.  It's been framed differently at different times, but, it's essentially the same discussion.  Do you need mechanics to resolve X?  For some, it's yes, for others no.  Where you come down on on the issue is probably largely simply a matter of preference, rather than any objective value statement.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 17, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Really?  That's what you're going with?
> 
> I mean, look, it's pretty clear you've got it out for skill challenges; that's cool, you don't have to like them.
> 
> But this is a bad faith, borderline insulting argument to make.




Math is insulting?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2011)

BryonD said:


> /snip
> 
> I am saying that any time the mechanics and narrative are in conflict, the narrative should win and the mechanics should be thrown out the window.




This I would totally agree with.  And, I believe, that the intent, if not the actual stated point, of 4e would also agree with you.  If the players come up with something that totally short circuits a SC, then, roll with it.  (no pun intended)  After all, one of the primary, fundamental bits of advice in 4e is "Say Yes".  

So, if the players manage to brilliantly circumvent your SC?  Fantastic.  Count the SC as completed and move on.  This is totally in keeping with the intent of the rules.



> /snip
> But the important point is, hit points and saving throws and all sorts of mechanics tie back to a narrative foundation.  Skill challenges and 6/3 do not.  Yes, you can READILY build narrative to fit SCs, but their foundation is gamism and mechanics.  They have been defended that way.  They prevent "I win" buttons.  They force the scenario to persist, they make certain everyone is included.  All perfectly valid goals if they are important to you.  And thus all perfectly complete justifications for use of SCs by people who see it that way.  But, they are gamist and the mechanics are in control of the narrative.




Why don't they?  The SC should absolutely build off of the in game narrative.  The PC's want to befriend a bear.  The DM judges the difficulty as X (whether that's a static DC roll, a 6/3 SC or "Whatever I think is enough) and you move on from there.  

Or, put it another way, why is it so different that the scene is entirely controlled by DM fiat or by arbitrary mechanics?  Both are pretty much arbitrary limitations outside the control of the players.  I either play out the scene to the DM's satisfaction and pass/fail, or I play out the scene to the mechanics satisfaction as adjudicated by the DM and pass/fail.

I'm not really seeing a huge difference here.  The SC simply gives you a framework to work with, not a bound prison that you must not deviate from.  Just because you set the SC to 6/3 does not make it carved in stone any more than any other mechanic is carved in stone.

For some, morale should be a mechanic.  For others, a narrative element.  That doesn't mean that if you have a morale mechanic, you absolutely must abide by it, nor does it mean that the lack of a mechanic result in the DM never allowing random chance to cause the bad guys to run away.

Having a framework does not mean that that framework must be slavishly adhered to, any more than the wealth by level framework that is inherent in 3e must be slavishly adhered to.  The game will not break if I decide to end a SC early due to great role play, nor will the game break if I decide to up the difficulty in the middle because of some complication that came up later.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 18, 2011)

Hussar said:


> This I would totally agree with.  And, I believe, that the intent, if not the actual stated point, of 4e would also agree with you.  If the players come up with something that totally short circuits a SC, then, roll with it.  (no pun intended)  After all, one of the primary, fundamental bits of advice in 4e is "Say Yes".



Good.  But not using a SC is not a defense of SCs.  



> Why don't they?  The SC should absolutely build off of the in game narrative.  The PC's want to befriend a bear.  The DM judges the difficulty as X (whether that's a static DC roll, a 6/3 SC or "Whatever I think is enough) and you move on from there.



But that does not adequately describe SCs.

You could say that befriending a bear will take 6 successful handle animal checks, and three failures would tick it off.

But SCs say that while some actions may not apply, it doesn't tie to the nature of the bear.  It just says 6, and (barring "double credit") no fewer and also no more than 6 actions of any type.  The details are completely unknown and by the structure of the SC it does not matter.

It is a completely different approach.



> I'm not really seeing a huge difference here.  The SC simply gives you a framework to work with, not a bound prison that you must not deviate from.  Just because you set the SC to 6/3 does not make it carved in stone any more than any other mechanic is carved in stone.
> 
> For some, morale should be a mechanic.  For others, a narrative element.  That doesn't mean that if you have a morale mechanic, you absolutely must abide by it, nor does it mean that the lack of a mechanic result in the DM never allowing random chance to cause the bad guys to run away.
> 
> Having a framework does not mean that that framework must be slavishly adhered to, any more than the wealth by level framework that is inherent in 3e must be slavishly adhered to.  The game will not break if I decide to end a SC early due to great role play, nor will the game break if I decide to up the difficulty in the middle because of some complication that came up later.



If you are willing to jettison SCs whenever they get in the way of the narrative, then bravo.  But that does not make SCs themselves any better.

BTW, you are treading into the old "putting words in my mouth" territory.  If you want to discuss, please don't pursue that path.  You know I've walked away from conversations with you before over that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> > > And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?
> >
> >
> >
> ...




That isn't bad faith, that's statistics.

What is being shown is that if Joe has a +8 modifier to his roll, he will succeed at beating a single DC20 check 45% of the time, and Jean at +6 will succeed 35% of the time.

Using Joe's and Jane's same modifiers against a lower DC of 16, but requiring 2 checks, you actually decrease their odds of success.

And if you need 3 checks, you decrease them further.

But so far, the model may be incomplete.  SCs typically follow a format of "X successes before Y failures," at least IME.  This may jigger the odds a little...but my last stats course was in 2004.  And I'm more of a words & visuals than numbers guy.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But so far, the model may be incomplete.  SCs typically follow a format of "X successes before Y failures," at least IME.  This may jigger the odds a little...but my last stats course was in 2004.  And I'm more of a words & visuals than numbers guy.




Essentially, as long as you have failures left to burn, each step is just a slightly less bad version of what I posted above. As you can see, DCs would have to be very soft not to escalate difficulty sharply even with only a few trials.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 18, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Stepping back a second and I realize that this is a debate that has been going on in RPG's forever.  The basic argument is, "Mechanics get in the way of role play, therefore, mechanics are not needed."



I missed this before.

I **LOVE** mechanics.  

If I didn't want mechanics, I'd write fiction, or, just maybe, play total freeform role playing.

But I enjoy table top RPGs.  A big part of that is because I **LOVE** mechanics.

I need mechanics.  I want mechanics.

Mechanics get in the way of role play is really a completely different argument.

I can see both sides of the whole role play diplomacy vs. use a diplomacy skill argument.  THAT is the debate of "get in the way".

You could remove skill checks from Skill challenges and just have players describe their actions and let the DM judge whether they character should succeed or not.  Thus the role play elements would be completely unhindered by the mechanics.  However, if you still used the SC check mark counting mechanic for determining ultimate success, the narrative would be obeying the mechanics despite the fact that role play itself would be untouched.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That isn't bad faith, that's statistics.
> 
> What is being shown is that if Joe has a +8 modifier to his roll, he will succeed at beating a single DC20 check 45% of the time, and Jean at +6 will succeed 35% of the time.
> 
> ...




Here's the math comparison for 6:3 SC versus a single DC roll


```
Min roll
to succeed    Single Success	 6:3 Success
2            	95.00%            	98.32%
3            	90.00%               	93.00%
4            	85.00%               	84.39%
5            	80.00%               	73.40%
6            	75.00%               	61.18%
7            	70.00%               	48.82%
8            	65.00%               	37.24%
9            	60.00%               	27.06%
10            	55.00%               	18.65%
11            	50.00%               	12.11%
12            	45.00%               	7.34%
13            	40.00%               	4.10%
14            	35.00%               	2.07%
15            	30.00%               	0.91%
16            	25.00%               	0.34%
17            	20.00%               	0.10%
18            	15.00%               	0.02%
19            	10.00%               	0.00%
20            	  5.00%                0.00%
```

Requiring a 4 or better for each roll is the sweet spot where the chance is effectively the same.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2011)

So...if I'm reading that chart right, compared to a single roll, requiring 3 successes can really screw the players for challenges that are meant to be only moderately challenging.

(Could you post the formula for ENWorld's mathletes?)


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 18, 2011)

BryonD said:


> First, I don't use mechanically defined "Level 10 Dungeons".  I might have a lair of an Ogre Lord, who happens to be CR10.  But the surroundings are not tied to CR10, they are tied to "what would be in this Ogre Lord's lair?".



Ayup.


> I am saying that any time the mechanics and narrative are in conflict, the narrative should win and the mechanics should be thrown out the window.



Again ayup, with the exception that a very small % of the time a glance at mechanics might reveal the narrative to be completely inconsistent with what precedent suggests the game world can allow, meaning you'll have to do some fancy skating with the narrative to shoehorn it into line.


> Or, even better yet, you could have thrown my own words back at me for a much better example.  I've stated that whenever anyone makes a save vs. Medusa, I describe them as having not seen her.  So, right there, I have admitted to making up narrative to fit the results.  And, worse yet, I have admitted that avoiding the gaze should probably be a will save, and yet I am too lazy to stop just using Fort.  So, busted, I am using a mechanic that makes no sense and making up narrative to cover for it.  I plead guilty.
> 
> But, I know one thing, I just reformed today.  Will saves it is from now on.



It could still be a Fort. or a Con.-based save, however, if you start with the idea that sometimes one's body can innately resist becoming a rock.  Then you've got two options with the narrative: either you didn't meet her gaze at all, or you did but resisted the effect.

I can't give you experience points again yet, but you deserve some.

Lanefan


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So...if I'm reading that chart right, compared to a single roll, requiring 3 successes can really screw the players for challenges that are meant to be only moderately challenging.
> 
> (Could you post the formula for ENWorld's mathletes?)




I had an error in my original chart.  The corrected data set is below the explanation.


For a particular minimum roll to succeed R, probability of success s = (21 - R)  / 20; probability of faillure f = 1 - s.

The probabililty of getting N successes before M failures is the summation of
total successes plus failures k  (s^N * f^k * nCR( N + k - 1, k )) where k ranges from 0 to (M-1).

^ represents "to the power of"

nCR represents ordered combinations from the pool N + k - 1 in size choosing k elements. The pool size is the number of total rolls not counting the last position since it must be a success (that's why it's the final roll after all).

For 6 successes before 3 failures, where the player succeeds on a 7 or better, the probability of success is the sum of

(6 successes in a row)
(6 successes + 1 failure where the failure occurs anywhere except the final roll)
(6 successes + 2 failures where the failures occur anywhere except the final roll)


0.7^6 + (0.7^6*0.3*6) + (0.7^6*0.3^2*21) = 55.18%

Corrected results


```
Min Roll
to succeed		Single Success	6:3 Success
2	                95.00%             	99.42%
3	                90.00%             	96.19%
4	                85.00%             	89.48%
5	                80.00%             	79.69%
6	                75.00%             	67.85%
7	                70.00%             	55.18%
8	                65.00%             	42.78%
9	                60.00%             	31.54%
10	                55.00%             	22.01%
11	                50.00%             	14.45%
12	                45.00%             	8.85%
13	                40.00%             	4.98%
14	                35.00%             	2.53%
15	                30.00%             	1.13%
16	                25.00%             	0.42%
17	                20.00%             	0.12%
18	                15.00%             	0.02%
19	                10.00%             	0.00%
20	                  5.00%             	0.00%
```

edit -- Here's the breakdown for all possible outcomes 

Successes
6:0	11.76%
6:1	21.18%
6:2	22.24%

Failures
5:3	9.53%
4:3	9.72%
3:3	9.26%
2:3	7.94%
1:3	5.67%
0:3	2.70%
	100.00%


----------



## BryonD (Feb 18, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Again ayup, with the exception that a very small % of the time a glance at mechanics might reveal the narrative to be completely inconsistent with what precedent suggests the game world can allow, meaning you'll have to do some fancy skating with the narrative to shoehorn it into line.



I actually wrote a couple lines about how if I rolled a double zero I'd call that fate and roll with something crazy off the cuff.  But I decided to cut down the post a bit.

But, yes, I completely agree.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What I'm still not seeing, though, is how a SC- which to me seems to involve several rolls- is in any way superior to a _single_ roll against a DC with modifiers for "aid another" and RP.



Because it introduces a framework for the paced introduction of complications into the situation.



Nagol said:


> I think this comes back to my difference in thinking between "How can I exploit the situation?" and "What strength can I bring to bear?"
> 
> A situation could be handled in a variety of ways where the different tactics the player can choose from have levels of difficulty attached that are appropriate to that approach.
> 
> ...



I agree with you about the difference between "strengths" and "situational details". But in the sort of situation you describe, there's no reason why the DCs wouldn't be different.



BryonD said:


> But SCs say that while some actions may not apply, it doesn't tie to the nature of the bear.  It just says 6, and (barring "double credit") no fewer and also no more than 6 actions of any type.  The details are completely unknown and by the structure of the SC it does not matter.



BryonD, I don't know why you say "it doesn't tie to the nature of the bear" and "it does not matter". You're right about the need for a certain number of successes - that's the essence of a skill challenge - but I'm genuinely puzzled why you say that the nature of the bear and the details of the situation don't matter. They're crucial to setting DCs, to determining what is a viable action on the part of the PC, and to resolving the conequences of that action as part of reframing the unfolding situation in response to a skill check.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 18, 2011)

DCs for what?

You don't know because that is the nature of SCs.
Every challenge has a DC, but every skill in every way has the same DC?  And this is in some way "the nature of the bear?"

Now obviously, that is a root assumption of 4E.  DCs are based not on the nature of the item, but the challenge they are intended to represent.  So I guess if you can accept that determining how hard a lock is to pick depends on who is trying to unlock it and that a knight in armor and a bare chested pirate have approximately the same AC just because they are fighting the same level opponents, then having all aspects of a bear be defined by a single resistance number and a preconceived capacity is an easy next step.  (Heh, they are little skill capacitors.)

But the way I see the nature of a bear the DC that should be modeled onto them is going to vary wildly from skill to skill and the effectiveness of each skill is going to also vary wildly.  And far far FAR moreso for each creative application of each skill.  

Saying "Here, X, is the DC for all things. No matter what you do it will take 6 before 3 screw-ups. Presto, I just defined the nature of a bear." is HORRID.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 18, 2011)

For some folks who are worried about defending skill challenges, perhaps we could look at the attack matrixes of 1e for a while.

Within the framework of combat, once a player has committed to making an attack, the die rolls determine both whether or not the character hits, and how much damage he does.  The opponent's hit points determine the theshold of success in order to beat the challenge.  In this way, combat is very much like a skill challenge.

Moreover, when one ramps up the complexity of options (and there are many in 1e), one gets something analogous to primary and secondary skills in a skill challenge....different ways to reach the threshold, some of which are better than others, depending upon the exact nature of the challenge.

Within the framework of combat, 1e is "rules-first", in exactly the same way that skill challenges are "rules-first".  Or it would be, if there was not attempt at mitigation.

In the case of 1e, there are several attempts to mitigate this (i.e., to make it as mildly rules-first as possible, so that the fictional reality of the milieu, while perforce taking a back seat, doesn't have to sit far to the back):

(1)  There is more than one threshold.  Hit points represent the most obvious way to defeat the challenge a monster represents; there are other ways to do it.  In some cases, there are ways to do it that step outside of the mechanics-first framework entirely.

(2)  The values in the mechanics are intended to model the fictional reality of the milieu.  The X has Y hit dice because that is what Xs are like.  The Z has A armour class because that is what Zs are like.  IOW, even when the game is mechanics-first, the mechanics themselves are devised in such a way as to emphasize the fictional reality.

(1) and (2) actually walk hand in hand.  The fictional reality requires that things are the level of challenge they are, because that is the level of challenge that they should be for fictional, rather than mechanical, reasons.  Because nothing has to reach some exact measure of challenge, there can be easier and harder ways to deal with anything, just as in real life.

(3) Where the mechanics are deficient in modelling the fictional space, the DM is advised to alter the mechanics, rather than to alter the fictional space.

So, in 1e we have a combat system which is firmly rules-first, but which has tried to mitigate itself to be as fiction-first as possible.  

The problem with this, of course, comes into play when attempts to manipulate the fiction circumvent problems in ways that strain the fictional reality.  An editorial in Dragon comes immediately to mind, where a player convinces his DM to allow him to stab an opponent with a dagger, leave the dagger in the wound, and then _enlarge_ it, with the idea that this would be instantly fatal.  As a one-off, such an idea might work, but the rules of a fiction-first setting demand that what is possible, is possible.  Not "is possible once".

There are problems with this approach, therefore.  And it is experiencing these problems that leads to codifying a greater part of "what is possible" within a ruleset.  Which, in turn, has its own problems.  

The question is, what set of problems are you least bothered by?  And what set of problems are you best equipped to deal with?


EDIT:  The Jester's lake skill challenge impresses me because it seems to have this sort of mitigation built into it.  I found his swamp skill challenge, while superior to the vast majority I've read, offers less mitigation.  *It seems to me that the nature of the skill challenge system makes this sort of mitigation difficult to do well*.  Not impossible.  Just difficult.



RC


----------



## Hussar (Feb 18, 2011)

BryonD said:


> DCs for what?
> 
> You don't know because that is the nature of SCs.
> Every challenge has a DC, but every skill in every way has the same DC?  And this is in some way "the nature of the bear?"
> ...




Hang on a tick though.  That's a gross oversimplification.  For one, the DC's of actions are not necessarily defined solely by the level of the skill challenge.  There's absolutely no reason that some parts of the skill challenge might not have different DC's based on the in game situation.

If nothing else, modifiers based on the situation will change the DC (or give bonuses to the die roll, which is effectively the same thing).

Additionally, right in the skill challenge write-up, and this one is explicit, is the idea that you can tie various skills into the challenge that don't directly resolve the issue, but rather give bonuses to other rolls.  So, that intimidate check doesn't really calm the bear down but gives a +2 to Nature checks because it worked.

You've even admitted that you can double up on successes, so, the whole you must get 6 before 3 isn't true even by the explicit rules.

Yes, if you run a SC as a mindless check list, then sure, it's going to be boring as all get out and give wonky results.  The solution though, isn't to chuck the framework, it's to not run it like a mindless check list.  

In exactly the same way that a DM will ignore mechanics in any other edition that get in the way of a good narrative (Fonzie Bump anyone?  Can't do it in 3e unless you ignore the mechanics), why does running 4e suddenly mean that I am locked into a single stream straightjacket?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 18, 2011)

> I had an error in my original chart. The corrected data set is below the explanation.



So Nagol, those are your numbers, but what is your _evaluation_ of the SC from a purely mathematical standpoint?

(Side note- having never run a SC, I don't know: is 6 successes before 3 failures the standard SC structure?)


----------



## BryonD (Feb 18, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a tick though.  That's a gross oversimplification.  For one, the DC's of actions are not necessarily defined solely by the level of the skill challenge.  There's absolutely no reason that some parts of the skill challenge might not have different DC's based on the in game situation.
> 
> If nothing else, modifiers based on the situation will change the DC (or give bonuses to the die roll, which is effectively the same thing).
> 
> ...



None of these points address the issue.

The nature of "the bear" or whatever is defined as I described.  The fact that you may get a circumstance or aid another bonus doesn't nothing to change that.

The merits, and lack thereof, of "double credit" has already been well covered.

And again, if you are going to offer ignoring mechanics as a defense of the mechanics, then you are better off without the mechanic in the first place.

There is no gross oversimplification of the skill challenge mechanic itself.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So Nagol, those are your numbers, but what is your _evaluation_ of the SC from a purely mathematical standpoint?
> 
> (Side note- having never run a SC, I don't know: is 6 successes before 3 failures the standard SC structure?)





From a math perspective, I think the SC system is dangerous to design/run for people without experience since the probability of success suffers such a quick drop-off as the minimum success number rises.  People don't grok probability easily and most won't run the math to see what the expected success rate will be.

I haven't kept up on the errata to the skill challenge system, but I believe the 6:3 set is expected to be a "hard" challenge.  Depending on the table, aiming for the typical skill check to be around 9+ leads to less than a 1 in 3chance of eventual success and is probably a decent rate for a "hard" challenge with liberal opportunity to get bonuses from secondary sources.  If every check gets +2 the chance of success rises to just over 50%; a +4 on every check moves it up to 80%.

A consequence of this design is every point matters.  Never select a secondary ability unless you expect a bonus to the roll sufficient to raise it above your best ability.  If you don't have the highest effective ability, try to find some way to give a bonus to someone who does rather than taking a shot yourself.  The system penalises lower than maximal abilities harshly.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That isn't bad faith, that's statistics.
> 
> What is being shown is that if Joe has a +8 modifier




I understand the math that is being shown; it, however, has more than just a slight tinge of "lies, damn lies and statistics" about it.

The comparison is so facile as to be meaningless.



> But so far, the model may be incomplete.  SCs typically follow a format of "X successes before Y failures," at least IME.




Specifically, this, _and_ the fact that it is, at best, only sideways applicable to skill challenges.

Consider a 6-successes-before-3-failures skill check (which, BTW, isn't supposed to be an easy thing for the party to pull off).

The universe of successful results are, as Nagol states:



			
				Nagol said:
			
		

> (6 successes in a row)
> (6 successes + 1 failure where the failure occurs anywhere except the final roll)
> (6 successes + 2 failures where the failures occur anywhere except the final roll)
> 
> ...




... or, more simply, the total number of unique, successful combinations is the sum of:

No Failures: 6 choose 6
1 Failure: 7 choose 6 - 6 choose 6
2 Failures: 8 choose 6 - 7 choose 6

And the specific odds for any given combination coming up are pretty easy to calculate (e.g., an 8 choose 6 combination has a [Chance of Success]^6 * [Chance of Failure]^2 probability of occuring, and there are 21 unique 8 choose 6 combinations).

All this goes by way of saying that Nagol's second, corrected chart, is actually correct.

[sblock]
Further explanation:

There is one 6 choose 6 success - 6 successes in a row.

SSSSSS

There are actually seven 7 choose 6 success:

FSSSSSS
SFSSSSS
SSFSSSS
SSSFSSS
SSSSFSS
SSSSSFS
*SSSSSSF*

However, the bolded one is the same as the 6 choose 6 success, and therefore is discarded.  Thus, the total number of unique 7 choose 6 successes is 7 choose 6 - 6 choose 6.

You can also do this with counting failures, which are 3 choose 3, 4 choose 3, etc., up to 8 choose 3.[/sblock]

However, even _that_ doesn't really tell the whole story, because, just like in combat encounter design, you don't just look at "Total Monster HP / [Fighter Damage per Attack * Fighter Attacks per Round]" and say, "Yep, this combat will last 7 rounds."

It ignores the possibility for players to choose mechanically optimal actions - e.g., doing things like making secondary skill rolls, or using powers to gain automatic successes, or even tailoring their approach to highlight their own strengths and the weaknesses of the particular skill challenge.

In other words, this is, at best, an entry level tool, and presenting it as some sort of revelation is, at best, misleading.

And, again, it ignores the capability of players to _change their approach midstream_, just like in a combat scenario, players can elect to reposition themselves, close a door, expend additional spells, fight defensively, etc.

If a negotiation is resolved as a single die roll and some aid another attempts, then the players all make their rolls simultaneously (probably at the end), and the main roller rolls, and ... the end!  Either they succeed or they fail.  There is no opportunity to say, "Hmm - we started arguing with the Noble using tactic A, and he isn't buying it; maybe we should mention B, too?"  At that point in the one-die-roll method, it's too late.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 18, 2011)

Double post.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 18, 2011)

I was wondering if there is a pbp or two here on EnWorld where we might be able to read how some good skill checks went in actual play?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> I understand the math that is being shown; it, however, has more than just a slight tinge of "lies, damn lies and statistics" about it.
> 
> The comparison is so facile as to be meaningless.
> 
> ...




The assumption is the players always choose mechonically optimal choices, but that those choices involve a consistent expected minimum roll to succeed.  If multiple avenues exist with differing minimum rolls to succeed, the group is best served by concentrating only on those with the best return.

Changing your approach mid-stream only serves a purpose if the new approach has a better expected outcome (i.e. is more optimal).  If the effective chance per roll does not improve, changing your approach offers nothing to the challenge.

I expect the biggest revelation for most people is how non-linear the decay in ultimate success is compared to the linear decay in the the single-roll comparison.

As I wrote in the last message, the implication is to discover who has the best native chance and work to grant those people bonuses since attempting a sub-optimal gambit definitely reduces the overall success probability considerably.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 18, 2011)

Nagol said:


> The assumption is the players always choose mechonically optimal choices, but that those choices involve a consistent expected minimum roll to succeed.




I don't agree that this is the case - given the ability to vary the DCs on a skill-by-skill and attempt-by-attempt basis (e.g., "The first Stealth attempt is Easy; the 2nd is Moderate; and the 3rd is Hard" or "Only one Stealth check can provide a success," or "Stealth is Easy; Insight is Moderate; Intimidate auto-fails and makes NPC Y hostile in encounter Z later on").



			
				Nagol said:
			
		

> Changing your approach mid-stream only serves a purpose if the new approach has a better expected outcome (i.e. is more optimal). If the effective chance per roll does not improve, changing your approach offers nothing to the challenge.




Yes?  Is that not obvious?

The difference is that a skill-challenge (or, at least, a skill-challenge-like) framework is that it provides an opportunity for that to occur, which "Roll once, all in" does not provide.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 18, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> So, in 1e we have a combat system which is firmly rules-first, but which has tried to mitigate itself to be as fiction-first as possible.




Since I am calling my 4E hack "Fiction First" and I use skill challenges, I wonder what you think of how I use them:

First of all, I only use skill challenges in a few places.  So far those have been social conflicts and evasion/pursuit.

In a social conflict, it begins by encountering an NPC (of course).  Typically this happens when a wandering monster shows up.  When the DM does not know how the NPC is disposed to the PCs, he rolls on a table (called Reaction Roll, stolen from B/X; at the moment it's only modified by Charisma but a list of other suggested modifiers would make sense).

That roll determines the NPC's disposition and thus the number of successes that any type of social conflict will require.  Once again, this is only when the DM doesn't already know the NPC's disposition; he can set it as he chooses, based on the NPC's personality and such things.  Metagame concerns are already worked into the system, as of course they must be!

Players only make checks in social conflict when the actions they have described for their PC trigger an internal conflict within the NPC, as determined by the DM by his understanding and play of said NPC.  Checks resolve those actions, as normal checks do; the modifiers to the roll (Stat + ability modifiers + any other modifiers) are based on what the PC is doing.  DCs for checks are set by either a Defence of the NPC (AC, Fort, Ref, Will) or a passive skill modifier (10 + the NPC's relevant modifiers) based on the PC's action; usually this ends up being the NPC's Will Defence.

Checks are not required to acquire successes or failures.  Actions are what's important.  Sound argument (against rational opponents!) and "deals you can't refuse" can give you "successes", while the wrong words or actions can add up failures.  Once again, this depends on how the DM plays the NPC.

When the determined number of successes or failures have been met, this indicates that the NPC is done with the conflict, and whatever end state it's in at the moment is how things stand.  The idea of success or failure as a whole on the skill challenge has nothing to do with the game world; it's possible to get what you want and still "fail" a skill challenge, and not get what you want and "succeed".

Since the system only deals with conflict, it's possible that both parties can come to an agreement/resolve the conflict without making any checks, or decide that they can't reach an agreement/resolve the conflict without making any checks.  Whenever the conflict ends, it ends.

The set number of checks needed is a tool to help the DM play the NPC impartially, and by doing that they help generate unexpected results.


Evasion/pursuit works in a similar fashion.  The number of successes needed to evade pr catch NPCs is set by their persistence, determined by a morale check (if needed).  DCs are based on speed and terrain and other such factors.  I've only run three of these and the first one didn't work so well, so I have less to say on this as it hasn't been playtested that much.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> I don't agree that this is the case - given the ability to vary the DCs on a skill-by-skill and attempt-by-attempt basis (e.g., "The first Stealth attempt is Easy; the 2nd is Moderate; and the 3rd is Hard" or "Only one Stealth check can provide a success").
> 
> 
> 
> ...




One of my points is the group should be trying to use the optimal choice every round if the group has complete insight into the challenge (i.e. it is presented to them to read).  If the challenge is run 'blind', options that exist that aren't optimal and can lead to a failure are effectively a trap; they reduce the overall chance of success and the comparative difficulty may not be easily discernable by the group.  

Glancing at The Jester's "finding the white lake skill challenge" there are DCs ranging from 19 to 29 on actions the characters can attempt.  Assuming similar levels in the appropriate skills, the PCs should restrict themselves to the DC 19 checks.  If the PCs has a skill bonuses of +17, i.e. they fail on a 2 and they never gain a failure from the sodden ghouls, but don't take actions that cost time of resources (i.e. optimal play), then they have less than 2 percent failure chance.  If they gain one failure from the ghouls and blindly choose some other interesting sounding options, such as disbelief (DC 27) and use Perception to navigate instead of Nature (DC 23), their chance of success falls below 40%.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 18, 2011)

Nagol said:
			
		

> (i.e. it is presented to them to read)




Why on earth would you do that?  Do you hand over the monster's stat blocks and round-by-round tactics plans at the beginning of combat?  Do you let the players read the DM notes on which power groups are out to betray them?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 18, 2011)

I don't have time to dig the quotes up right now, but several SC GMs on this site have said they do challenges both ways -- as a disclosed mini-game and as a closed scenario.  Why they do it?  I don't know; I'm sure they have rationales.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 18, 2011)

BryonD said:


> DCs for what?
> 
> You don't know because that is the nature of SCs.
> Every challenge has a DC, but every skill in every way has the same DC?  And this is in some way "the nature of the bear?"
> ...



I see.

In 4e the DCs _may_ vary from skill to skill - examples of this are given in various pulished skill challenges. But they won't vary wildly. At 1st level, the suggested range is from 6 to 20, with most clustering around 10 to 14.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 19, 2011)

Ok, that is good to know and certainly reduces one of my concerns significantly.

The defining factors going in to the SC are more narrative based than I understood.  Obviously I could transition into the whole discussion about how DCs are set in the first place in 4E.  But that is really a 4E at large issue and not an SC issue.   So we will call that one for you.

Now, fix the issue of mechanics control the "pace" (to use your agreed to word) and I'll concede.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Changing your approach mid-stream only serves a purpose if the new approach has a better expected outcome (i.e. is more optimal).



I don't think this is true. Changing your approach might also serve a purpose if you think a different fictional end state would be better. For exmample, if you don't want to anger the bear, you might stop trying to intimidate, taking the view that it's better to risk failing to tame it then to risk it being enraged when you've failed to tame it.

And it is because these sorts of considerations are generally quite important that I find it a curious suggestion that the fiction doesn't matter in a skill challenge.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> And it is because these sorts of considerations are generally quite important that I find it a curious suggestion that the fiction doesn't matter in a skill challenge.



You keep changing this.
The fiction matters.  BUT the fiction is required to follow the mechanics and the mechanics will not follow the fiction.
No straw men please.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2011)

BryonD, with the DC issue cleared up I think we're not that far apart on our characterisation of skill challenges.



BryonD said:


> Now, fix the issue of mechanics control the "pace" (to use your agreed to word) and I'll concede.



Well, to my mind this is where the real difference in preferences is. Obviously I can't speak for you or for Raven Crowking. But it seems to me that the logic of the "fiction-first" approach is that pacing is a consequence of ingame reality.

The logic of skill challenges is that metagame pacing concerns are imposed on the ingame reality. If you don't like this I think you'll find it hard to like skill challenges. I think you'll also find it hard to like 4e combat, because 4e combat has taken out all the sorts of things RC referred to in his post upthread that meliorate the "mechanics first" in AD&D combat. In 4e combat, hit points, AC, to-hit bonuses and so in many ways resemble AD&D, but rather than an attempt to model the ingame reality they have been designed as pacing mechanics.

Healing surges are the same, in my view. The most distinctive thing about healing surges isn't that they come back after each day's rest - this could easily be houseruled without having much impact on the mechanical balance of 4e, although it would of course affect the strategic play of the game. The distinctive thing about healing surges is the effect they have on the pacing of combat - as the combat goes on, the players find ways to bring their reserve of surges into play, thereby getting the upperhand on the monsters, who run out of hp and can't replenish them.

4e is the first version of D&D, I think, where there has been deliberate effort made to tailor the mechanics so as to support particular metagame pacing goals.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't think this is true. Changing your approach might also serve a purpose if you think a different fictional end state would be better. For exmample, if you don't want to anger the bear, you might stop trying to intimidate, taking the view that it's better to risk failing to tame it then to risk it being enraged when you've failed to tame it.
> 
> And it is because these sorts of considerations are generally quite important that I find it a curious suggestion that the fiction doesn't matter in a skill challenge.




I can see pressure to change direction in a few situations:

1) the situation changes and you need to change your activity to respond.  The goal is to find a reaction to the change that offers the best chance to work toward your goal.

2) The PCs have rethought their strategy and want a different end state.  Unless the change allows you to "reset" some failures at the cost of successes, it is an  inherently more dangerous route to take if any failures are tallied (unless the successes are unaffected in which case how different a end state can you drive with the same successes and failures?).  If the difficulty is not the same, it becomes even more risky.

3) You discover a more optimal set of activities to drive towards the end state.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Since I am calling my 4E hack "Fiction First" and I use skill challenges, I wonder what you think of how I use them:





Your hack meets with my approval, for what very little that is worth.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> If you don't like this I think you'll find it hard to like skill challenges. I think you'll also find it hard to like 4e combat, because 4e combat has taken out all the sorts of things RC referred to in his post upthread that meliorate the "mechanics first" in AD&D combat.




Bingo.

While I believe 4e is D&D, the game is _*not*_ ze same.

Play the one you prefer, but don't assume that others are "wrong" not to prefer the same edition, or that they simply don't understand!

(And that last comment is a general one, and certainly not directed at pemerton, who has never needed anyone to tell him the same!)


RC


----------



## BryonD (Feb 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> The logic of skill challenges is that metagame pacing concerns are imposed on the ingame reality.



"Metagame" is a broad term.  But yes I agree.



> If you don't like this I think you'll find it hard to like skill challenges. I think you'll also find it hard to like 4e combat



Agreed.




> Healing surges are the same, in my view.



High on my list of "don't likes".



> 4e is the first version of D&D, I think, where there has been deliberate effort made to tailor the mechanics so as to support particular metagame pacing goals.



Perhaps.  But, my point remains.  Yes, you will choose a retro fit narrative that makes sense to the larger narrative.  I've never disputed that.  But, the imposing of the "pacing goals" means that the narrative still remains a at the mercy of the mechanics.  When the narrative and mechanics are in conflict the mechanics win.  I think every other edition has proactively worked to avoid this, and frequently have offered strong advice to DMs to do exactly the opposite of use mechanics to impose "pacing".  

Again, I'm not saying that makes it wrong.  It is a valid position to say "Finally they got it right."

But all that comes down to WHY the mechanics control the narrative.  They are good reasons for you and I respect that.  But if you still say it isn't true, then you just are not understanding narrative dominant approach I am advocating.  To hell with the mechanics.  To hell with "pacing".  

It is a difference in taste.  It is a difference in the games.

It is one of many reasons why all roads do not lead to Rome.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 19, 2011)

I think that other editions of the game had different ideas about what was happening in the "metagame" - which is to say, the decisions the players are making, and in my opinion the only game that is going on - and they were set up to emphasize certain types of decisions (and the information upon which those decisions were based).

AD&D and B/X (which I am familiar with) emphasized specific sorts of player decisions.  One big way was by making the fictional world very important; the point of which (as far as I can tell!) was to determine if the _player_ could overcome the challenge dreamt up by the DM, instead of the character.

I think that those editions were successful because the designers understood the metagame - the decisions they wanted the players to make - and designed for that.  In other words, very well-designed games.

As for 3.x, I think that the fact that it didn't (especially) emphasize specific sorts of player decisions, but instead created a lacuna where individual groups could assert their own "metagame" upon its structure, was a key point to its and the d20 system's success.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 19, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> Since I am calling my 4E hack "Fiction First" and I use skill challenges, I wonder what you think of how I use them:
> 
> First of all, I only use skill challenges in a few places.  So far those have been social conflicts and evasion/pursuit.



I'm not a fan of things like skill challenges to resolve social situations, as that's what talking is for.

However, one other situation where a skill challenge or similar mechanic can be useful is navigation; be it over open water, through a dense forest, in a sandstorm, or any other situation where you aren't sure which way to go.  Success means you get somewhere useful.  Failure means you're lost.  Big-time failure means you're lost and in danger.

Lanefan


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Yes, you will choose a retro fit narrative that makes sense to the larger narrative.  I've never disputed that.  But, the imposing of the "pacing goals" means that the narrative still remains a at the mercy of the mechanics.



BryonD, I'm not sure how much weight you place on the phrase "retro fit". Do you count the _genie_ examples from upthread as retro-fit?

The reason I ask is because, in practice, the fit is often not very _retro_ - from the player's point of view, they ask their genie to do something and it doesn't because it's grumpy - they just experience the world narrated to them by the GM. So as someone who plays in this mode, it is more like _being told to create a sub-component of the narrative that fits with what's gone before_ than _having a serious of mechanical events resolve at the table, and then have to retrospectively explain what is going on in the narrative_.

That's why I made the comparison to rolling on an encounter table for an undeveloped world in Traveller. In practical terms of what is going on at the table it really is a bit like that - the mechanics dictate that something has to be injected into the narrative that isn't known yet - _except_ that unlike the encounter table, the skill challenge result _isn't_ modelling the response of the environment to the passage of time and the presence of the PCs.


----------



## ferratus (Feb 19, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> I'm not a fan of things like skill challenges to resolve social situations, as that's what talking is for.




I'm not a fan of the Diplomacy skill because I think that is what talking is for.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 19, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I think that other editions of the game had different ideas about what was happening in the "metagame" - which is to say, the decisions the players are making, and in my opinion the only game that is going on - and they were set up to emphasize certain types of decisions (and the information upon which those decisions were based).
> 
> AD&D and B/X (which I am familiar with) emphasized specific sorts of player decisions.  One big way was by making the fictional world very important; the point of which (as far as I can tell!) was to determine if the _player_ could overcome the challenge dreamt up by the DM, instead of the character.



And I"m coming to feel more and more that, despite it's emphasis on _challenges for the PCs_, 4e is not about _challenges for the players_ in the step-on-up sense. The XP rules, the scaling, the mechanics that regulate pacing and the introduction of complications - I think it's about playing out "the story of D&D".

I remember some time ago (weeks, months?) you suggested that 4e is high-concept simulationist. I'm now getting a much better sense of why you suggested that. I feel that this might be another respect in which 4e falls victim to the "exercise in dice-rolling" criticism - roll the dice to find out what the story of your hero is!

As you know, I think there is a functional narrativist game in there, that is a bit more gonzo than Gloranthan HeroWars/Quest but that uses the backdrop of "the story of D&D" in something like the same way. But I wonder how many players have managed to extract it - or are even that interested in it?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 20, 2011)

pemerton said:


> And I"m coming to feel more and more that, despite it's emphasis on _challenges for the PCs_, 4e is not about _challenges for the players_ in the step-on-up sense. The XP rules, the scaling, the mechanics that regulate pacing and the introduction of complications - I think it's about playing out "the story of D&D".




Yes. I enjoy playing from a more "player first" perspective. I feel that 4E (and 3E) are more "character first" approaches to play. After all, a character is a fictional construct that serves as our proxy to interact with the game world. A fictional construct cannot actually be challenged. Players are challenged by situations that they face in the game. The satisfaction in overcoming these challenges is proportionate IMHO to the meaningful content of their own input. 

If the qualities of the playing piece matter more than the qualities of the player when deciding outcomes then the majoity of the magic that makes live tabletop play so special and compelling is diminished.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2011)

EW, I think that 4e is fairly easily playable from the "player perspective" - it's just that what the player is doing is not _beating challenges_, but _resolving thematic conflicts_.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2011)

On the idea that the game is not ze same.

Sure, totally agree.  But, that's true of every edition.  3e is not the same as what came before. 2e is different.  And so on.

What's your point RC?  No one is claiming that 4e is the same as what came before.  What is being reacted to is the idea that the changes are so radical that it no longer counts as D&D.  

There's criticism about the mechanical focus on the narrative structure in 4e.  And that's fair.  6/3 does impose a pretty stringent framework on the narrative - albeit one that can be varied from and one that is not quite as mechanically homogenous as previously though.

But, OTOH, 3e imposed major mechanical restraints as well.  You cannot open a lock using the Open Locks skill, without lockpicks, as a recent example.  You cannot play a diplomatic fighter without doing some serious backsprings around the mechanics (and possibly pulling a hammie ).  

Look at the long list of Agony Aunt style posts on En World of DM's trying to fit a low magic setting into the 3e mechanics.  Character wealth is tied into every single design presumption in the game.  

Want to break the CR system?  Take a 35 point buy value character, there, now CR doesn't work anywhere near as well as it can.

In 1e, try playing a wizard in armor.  Oh, wait, you can't.  B/E try playing a halfling cleric.  Oops, sorry.

Every edition imposes mechanical restrictions on the narrative.  Where they impose those mechanical restrictions might change, but, those restrictions are always there.

I'm failing to see how this is so radically different.  Instead of the narrative being limited at chargen, it's being limited in play.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, OTOH, 3e imposed major mechanical restraints as well.  You cannot open a lock using the Open Locks skill, without lockpicks, as a recent example.




Yes, you can. You take a -2 penalty.



> You cannot play a diplomatic fighter without doing some serious backsprings around the mechanics (and possibly pulling a hammie ).




Yes, you can. In fact, the iconic fighter, Regdar, is a diplomatic fighter. A few ranks of a cross-class skill and a feat or two, and anyone can beat standard Diplomacy DCs.



> Look at the long list of Agony Aunt style posts on En World of DM's trying to fit a low magic setting into the 3e mechanics.  Character wealth is tied into every single design presumption in the game.




I'm not all that familiar with those posts. There are numerous options for changing the wealth system, many of which are not all that complicated. Several published settings and mini-settings assume it, in fact. 



> I'm failing to see how this is so radically different.  Instead of the narrative being limited at chargen, it's being limited in play.




"Instead of taking a shower after you clean the barn, why don't you take it before? I don't see any radical difference."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> On the idea that the game is not ze same.
> 
> Sure, totally agree.




Cool.



> What's your point RC?  No one is claiming that 4e is the same as what came before.




Did you miss the WotC commercials?



> What is being reacted to is the idea that the changes are so radical that it no longer counts as D&D.




Ah, of course.

But when one says, "4e doesn't feel like D&D, to me", they mean that "I can't get to Rome via this route".  It might mean that their Rome is different than yours; it might mean that they are headed the same place by different means.

For me, a game that is "fictional reality first" and a game that is "mechanics first" are worlds apart, no matter how close they might otherwise seem to be.  It only takes one difference, if that difference is big enough.  That you fail to see it does not mean that it is not there.


RC


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I'm failing to see how this is so radically different.  Instead of the narrative being limited at chargen, it's being limited in play.



Hussar, I think Pawsplay's response to this captures the mood of a lot of those who don't enjoy 4e because of it's non-exploration aspects.

Here is a restatement of the point in your post (as I understand it):

*Many earlier games have metagame aspects to character creation (eg wizards can't use armour in order to balance them with fighters).

*Earlier editions had metagame encounter build guidelines and treasure-placement guidelines, although over the course of 3E and 4e these have become tighter and more integrated into the character creation rules.

*4e also adds metagame aspects to action resolution (especially out of combat), and integrates these tightly with the encounter-builiding guidelines.

As we go down this list, we hit stuff that is, apparently, more and more inimical to exploration-based play.

Whereas metagame at character build doesn't both exploration players so much - they're happy to roll 4d6 and assign, for example, because you as a player should _get to choose_ your exploration vehicle. (We could add more descriptors here - the sort of exploration in question is something like _gamist_ (in the Forge sense), that is, is challenge-focused exploration. Hence the desirability of getting to choose your vehicle. Whereas in a _purely _sim game like classic Runequest or Traveller, your character build isn't metagamed either.)

The role of metagame at the encounter-building stage is a subject matter of debate among proponents of the exploration game (this is part of what is going on in sandbox vs AP discussions). It's also interesting to notice how 2nd ed playstyles can more-or-less cohabit the same mechanics as this type of exploration-based play. Metagamed character generation, instead of building my exploration vehicle, instead becomes the building of my story vehicle. And encounter design, instead of becoming about the GM building a world of challenges to be explored, becomes the GM's contribution to the story building.

But metagame-heavy action resolution kills both playstyles dead. It is the deathknell to exploration, because suddenly the question of whether (for example) the river was hard or easy to cross depends not only on the nature of the river and the resources the PCs bring to bear, but _also_ on whether or not the skill challenge still has one more complication to be injected, or whether it's already been resolved (in which case the GM narrates the river running low, or a bridge having been recently repaired, or whatever).

And metagame-heavy action resolution also tends to kill of functional 2nd-ed style play - if the metagame power is in the players' hands (eg high powered action/fate points), then they can break away from the GM's story, while if the metagame power is in the GM's hands, then we have the worst sort of fudging-driven railroad.

So 4e is a modest change _only to those_ who are playing neither exploration challenge games nor 2nd-ed style "story" games.

Given that, in my impression, a good chunk of ENworld seems to think that these two approaches to play exhaust the space of RPGing (anything else is boardgaming, mini-skirmishing or WoW), it's no wonder that they see 4e as not only something they're not interested in, but as a radical departure from RPGing as such.

(And for the sake of clarity: I don't think either Raven Crowking or Pawsplay is unaware of other approaches to RPGing, even when they don't personally care for them. But sometimes on these boards it's like posting as if the only thing that happened in the past 15 years of RPG design is d20.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 21, 2011)

pemerton,

Good post.

A major caveat:

No one is saying that these approaches to play exhaust the space of RPGing; they are saying that killing these approaches make a game not partake of what they feel is the D&D experience.  

There is a big, big difference between these two statements.

One recognizes that, perhaps, all roads do not lead to Rome (or at least, to the same Rome).  The other paints those who disagree with one as merely ignorant.

I feel sure that last was not what you meant, and you will clarify accordingly.

Thanks,

RC


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Yes, you can. You take a -2 penalty.




Reread your 3.5 PHB.  You may not open a lock without a tool.  -2 is for an improvised tool, not no tool at all.  You must use a tool to use the open lock skill in 3.5.


> Yes, you can. In fact, the iconic fighter, Regdar, is a diplomatic fighter. A few ranks of a cross-class skill and a feat or two, and anyone can beat standard Diplomacy DCs.




Ahh, so, I can play a diplomatic fighter, so long as I'm willing to wait four or five levels and burn resources into it.  The fact that I can't out of the gate can be safely ignored.



> I'm not all that familiar with those posts. There are numrous options for changing the wealth system, man of which are not all that complicated. Several published settings and mini-settings assume it, in fact.




Yup, and look at those published settings.  Several hundred PAGES of text on how to change these assumptions.

4e, I can change from standard wealth to low magic in one sentence.  In 3e, it requires me to rejigger nearly every aspect of the game.  "Not all that complicated" is a bit of an understatement.



> "Instead of taking a shower after you clean the barn, why don't you take it before? I don't see any radical difference."




Non-sequitor.  In all games, the mechanics place limits on the narrative.  



Raven Crowking said:


> Cool.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you miss the WotC commercials?




Ahh, so we're basing opinions entirely on ad copy from two or three years ago and not basing opinions on anything to actually do with the games.  Ok.  



> Ah, of course.
> 
> But when one says, "4e doesn't feel like D&D, to me", they mean that "I can't get to Rome via this route".  It might mean that their Rome is different than yours; it might mean that they are headed the same place by different means.
> 
> ...




To me, you're making mountains out of molehills.  To me, D&D has ALWAYS been mechanics first.  The only real change is where the mechanics are used, rather than any substansive change.  Instead of the mechanics being located almost entirely in the setting and campaign design phase, they've now been moved into actual play as well.  

But, is that really a major change.  Instead of making all the changes up front and then playing, is it a major shift to allow changes to be made mid-stream?



pemerton said:


> Hussar, I think Pawsplay's response to this captures the mood of a lot of those who don't enjoy 4e because of it's non-exploration aspects.
> 
> /snippage of great stuff.
> 
> ...




Maybe that's the issue that I'm not seeing.  To me, I've never seen D&D played this way - you create a game world and that game world is now fixed in stone until that campaign ends.  D&D worlds have very often actually been reactive. 

 A 1st level module has 10 foot pit traps, a 10th level module has 50 foot pit traps with monsters at the bottom.  Why?  Because it's a 10th level adventure and not a 1st level one.  The mechanics define the game world.  For the same reason that 1st level characters fight goblins and 10th level characters fight giants.  Why?  Because the mechanics dictate that.

That's what's D&D has always been.  Module series get harder the higher level you are.  The Dungeon Level I random encounter table doesn't have dragons, but the Dungeon Level X (as in 10) random encounter table does.

Why?  Because the mechanics of D&D shape the narrative of the campaign.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> No one is saying that these approaches to play exhaust the space of RPGing; they are saying that killing these approaches make a game not partake of what they feel is the D&D experience.
> 
> There is a big, big difference between these two statements.
> 
> ...



Like I said in my post, I'm not suggesting that you or Pawsplay is ignorant. But to be perfectly honest, I feel that this is not true of everyone on ENworld. 

Without wanting to rudely name any names, I do think that there are some - even quite a few - posters on ENworld who do not have much familiarity with games that aren't either D&D in drag (choose a class or equivalent, choose a race or equivalent, and from all that derive some abilities that are then deployed in a more-or-less simulationist action resolution mechanic) or simulatonist-heavy points buy (HERO, GURPS etc).

Of course this wouldn't be an issue - no one is obliged to be informed about comparative trivialities like trends in RPG design and play! - except that the ignorance in question is from time to time manifested in threads about the problems with, or limitations of, 4e.

Because I don't want to name names, and also because this sort of impression is impossible to verify in the context of an online messageboard, I'll give a mechanics-focused example instead.

When I see critiques of healing surges in 4e, the _overwhelmingly_ common criticism is of the "regenerate overnight" aspect. But this is a completely trivial element of 4e, which could be houseruled away with basically no consequences except for the desired affect upon adventure pacing (ie recovery from hurt would take longer). Healing surges, considered in this sort of way, are no different from hit points in earlier editions - a resource that can be gradually worn away, and that - depending on the pace of recovery - has a greater-or-less effect upon the overall pace of the game. This role of "healing surges as hit points" is reflected in the healing surge consequences of some skill challenges - just like traps or environmental hazards in AD&D, healing surges are a resource that can be worn down by attrition.

If this was all there was to healing surges, then they would just be hit points by another name, and 4e - in this respect - would just be AD&D or 3E with rapid overnight healing built into the game. (There's also the fact that some magical healing draws on them - but that's a means to implementing the end of encounter pacing that is discussed in the next paragraph.)

What is actually _different_ about healing surges - what makes them not just hit points by another name - is the role they play in affecting the pace and dynamics of combat encounters. And this is where simulationist versus non-simulationist preferences come into play - compare second wind to the Raven Crowking alternative (sorry, my mind is going blank, but I think it's called "shrugging it off"). The RC approach prioritises simulation, with a possible payoff in drama and pacing. The 4e approach prioritises drama and pacing, while leaving the narrative to be worked around the mechanics as makes sense from time to time (there is an interesting sidebar on second wind in Primal Power, which talks about how second wind, for a Warden, represents the character's infusion by primal spirits - in the RC game, I assume that this would have to be a spell or some similar non-mundane ability - it is quite different from shrugging it off).

This is just one example where - in my view - unfamiliarity with a range of RPGs, their design, and the way those designs promote or inhibit various sorts of approaches to play, gets in the way of useful discussion about playing the game. Because in my view, that sort of discussion can happen _even among those who like to play in different ways_. But it helps if the possibility of different ways is at least acknowledged!

(Again - none of this is aimed at Raven Crowking - who, precisely through his approach to in-combat recovery in his game, shows that he _has_ seen where the real design action is in respect of healing surges.)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Maybe that's the issue that I'm not seeing.  To me, I've never seen D&D played this way - you create a game world and that game world is now fixed in stone until that campaign ends.  D&D worlds have very often actually been reactive.



At this point I can only speak from my own experience.

I started playing D&D towards the end of 1982 - Moldvay/Cook, then moving on to AD&D in 1984. Those rulebooks suggested that the game was about populating a cool dungeon/gameworld for the PCs to explore and loot. I also read a lot of Dragon magazines from around that period, as well as the Best of White Dwarf collections. These taught me two things: first, more simulation was better (I needed mechanics to handle clerical conversion, to make a fighter's number of troops at high level reflect the amount of territory cleared, to make falling damage more realistic, etc etc); second, that a dungeon should be built so as to reward operational play - so that divination, 10' pole use, etc, should all make a difference. Gygax's text in the PHB and DMG seemed to me to push in the same direction as this.

I tried this. My players played. But the operational play always seemed a bit dull, and the real pleasure in play seemed to come first from gonzo moments in combat, and later - as the campaign's story got more convoluted - from story choices the PCs made, like turning the enemies captured hideout into their own fortress (something I hadn't anticipated as a GM) and building up their own little teams of PC leader with henchmen followers.

By 1987, when Oriental Adventures came out, I had completely changed my style of play. World and culture simulation remained - if anything, increased - but with the function of providing a backdrop (i) to give the players resources to draw from in building their PCs, and (ii) to give the players something to push against or draw upon in engaging with situations. Operational play was dropped, but by 1990 I had moved on to Rolemaster, and so simulationist mechanics remained, performing the same two services as world and culture simulation.

Over the past 10 years - in part out of dissatisfaction with some aspects of RM, in part out of reading stuff online - I've learned techniques for achieving (i) and (ii) without relying upon simulationist mechanics, or a highly pre-built gameworld, for support. And I think 4e is great for this sort of play, for the reasons I was suggesting in Mercurius's "Not as popular as it could be" thread.

But it's a pretty long way from the sort of play that was the mainstream in the mid-1980s Dragon magazine.



Hussar said:


> That's what's D&D has always been. Module series get harder the higher level you are. The Dungeon Level I random encounter table doesn't have dragons, but the Dungeon Level X (as in 10) random encounter table does.
> 
> Why? Because the mechanics of D&D shape the narrative of the campaign.



I don't think it's about the gameworld being "fixed", or about tailoring challenges to levels. It's about "freeing up" the gameworld to be narrated _as part of the process_ of action resolution. The examples you give don't touch on this - they are at the stage of encounter building (the GM's equivalent to the players' character building).

How many ENworld GM's think that a GM changing an NPC's motivation behind the screen, or changing the layout or detail of the terrain the party is in, is somewhat equivalent to fudging a die roll? My guess would be - many! Even those who are happy designing level-scaled encounters. In fact, I think you'll get a number who tell you that this is railroading, because vitiating players' choices. And then, when you try to explain that, in your view, there is a big difference between _changing previously-revealed gameworld facts_ and changing backstory that has not yet been revealed in order to drive the game, you'll open up an even bigger can of worms! (For example - like Lewis Pulsipher said back in the early days of the game - by changing these unrevealed facts, you're making it at least somewhat irrelevant that the players chose not to use divination magic to discover them. Of course, this line of though presupposes that the main dimension of "meaningfulness" is "contributes to solving the puzzle and revealing the backstory so as to overcome the challenges" - but that's likely to be presupposed as a given by most of these GMs.)

But this sort of world-creation-on-the-fly is just the sort of thing that has to take place if skill challenges are to work as written (of course they can be tweaked, like LostSoul has tweaked them for social encounters, for example, making them something like a method for the PCs to hack through an NPC's "stubbornness" hit points).

Anyway, this post is long enough, and hopefully I've made my point. The short version - the radicalness of the change is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. For someone whose conception of the game is AD&D as presented in the mid-80s Dragon (and to which 3E in many respects seemed to hark back) or even 2nd-ed style story-telling, the change to metagame heavy action resolution really is pretty radical. And pointing out that D&D always had metagame heavy encounter building guidelines won't reduce the force of this perception, I don't think.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 21, 2011)

I guess my problem Pemerton, is that I look at a number of these claims and I'm just not seeing the issue.

For example, earlier on, BryonD (see, I can spell it right. )  mentioned that his random encounter table in a giants lair would be chosen from elements that make sense in a giant's lair.  Ok, fair enough and I think most people would do the same.

But, I wonder how many giant rats would appear on that random table?  After all, giant rats make sense in a giant's lair, but would be an incredibly boring encounter for the level of characters we're talking about.  Or a humanoid zombie.  Again, a bit of restless undead wouldn't be out of line.  

My guess is that everything on that random encounter table would fit within the giant's lair and also be within 3 or 4 EL's of the party's level, either up or down.

Again, the mechanics control the narrative.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 21, 2011)

Hussar, I think random encounter tables are the place to try and make your case!

As well as your argument, I tried an argument in reverse direction upthread - namely, that some games (like Traveller or Rolemaster) have "specials" results on their encounter tables, which basically require the GM - assuming that s/he wasn't expecting it and has nothing ready-to-hand - to make something up when that result comes up. Of course a good GM will make something up that is consistent with the rest of the narrative, but this is essentially (as far as I can see) mechanices shaping narrative - the GM introduces a new and unexpected complication _because prompted to by the dice_.

BryonD's response distinguishes between "pop quizzes" that are forced by the narrative and those that are forced by the mechanics. The "on the fly" special is meant to be an example of the former. (Whereas having to encounter for the presence of a low level monster on a deep dungeon level, due to the vagaries of the 1st ed DMG Appendix C tables, is an unhappy instance of the latter.) I don't fully follow the distinction, and so don't know whether and how it might be applied to deal with your example.

I don't know if you remember the "players roll all the dice option" (from 3E's Unearthed Arcana?). Maybe skill challenges should have been presented as "the players roll the random encounter dice - fail your skill check and the GM thinks up something bad that happens to you". I don't know - would that would have made the pitch any easier?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> My guess is that everything on that random encounter table would fit within the giant's lair and also be within 3 or 4 EL's of the party's level, either up or down.
> 
> Again, the mechanics control the narrative.



No, the mechanics do not control the narrative.

Now, the thing is, mechanics are dumb.  They don't know if they are trying to control the narrative or not.  So it is the responsibility of the DM to keep the mechanics in line.

To me, part of that is limited and considered use of random encounter tables.  There are certainyl times when they apply and they certaintly add value in giving the narrative an organic feel.  

But if they are designed with "what should be in the ogre's" lair in mind, not "what EL fitting encounters should be in an ogre's lair".  If I were forcing "good fights" as defined by the game system, then you would have a point.  I don't do that.


If it turns out that the party going after the CR10 Ogre Lord happens upon an EL16 group of visiting stone giants, then they will need to escape the situation, be it through diplomacy, magic, rapidly placing one foot in front of the other, whatever.  If they encounter a group of giant rats, then it may simply be a purely narrative, mood-setting encounter.  

Now, to be clear, I do not use random encounter tables on a highly recurring basis, and these types of encounters (in particular the very high danger encounters) are not high probability on them.  So this conversation has turned very hypothetical.  But the point is, the mechanics will not control the narrative.

Now clearly, just rolling on a table is a mechanic and if I roll rats the narrative which follows will be decidedly different than if I roll stone giants.  So one could argue that is mechanics controlling narrative.  But I think anyone who understands the point will see how that is not a meaningful conclusion.  Every item on the list has been validated against the narrative first.  The narrative is the foundation.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Non-sequitor.  In all games, the mechanics place limits on the narrative.



True, but the DM puts limits on the mechanics.  And if the mechanics are first limited in such a way that there are prohibited from being the master of the narrative, then all is well.




> To me, D&D has ALWAYS been mechanics first.



That is a shame.

If we were comparing 1E to 3E, I'd, by and large, be making the same complaints.  Certainly the details would be radically different.  But, relatively speaking, I think that in 1E the mechanics control the narrative too much for my preference.  So there is some basis for your claim bases on looking historically at the RAW systems.  

And yet, if you time traveled back to when I was running 1E, I would not have agreed to that.  The game was no different, but my mindset was to tell stories and I did the best I could with the tools that were available.  And 1E is quite famous for being house ruled into unique games by more groups than not.  I'm sure my house rules would have been in the narrative first bent.

But, then I found better games and moved on.

But the point is, even when I was using "mechanics first" systems, I was always striving for narrative first gaming.  And as game systems came along that catered more directly to narrative first play, my experiences improved.

Now, you say it has always been mechanics first to you.  That tells me that you were not oushing against those boundaries.  Which is fine, I'm not saying you should have been, or that you didn't have an awesome time or anything remotely critical.  

But, and this is not the first, third, or fifth time this conclusion has been reched between you and I, it is clear that you and I may both sit at tables and play tabletop roleplaying games, possibly even called "Dungeons and Dragons", but we were not seeking or experiencing the same activity any more than a chess fan and a monopoly fan.  We were both doing what we wanted and having fun.  But comparing the two becomes quite difficult.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 21, 2011)

pemerton said:


> When I see critiques of healing surges in 4e, the _overwhelmingly_ common criticism is of the "regenerate overnight" aspect. But this is a completely trivial element of 4e, which could be houseruled away with basically no consequences except for the desired affect upon adventure pacing (ie recovery from hurt would take longer).



My personal list of issues with 4E is pretty long.

And every single item on it could be house ruled away.

Or I can play a game I like better.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Ahh, so we're basing opinions entirely on ad copy from two or three years ago and not basing opinions on anything to actually do with the games.  Ok.






So, because you mentioned lockpicking in 3e, all of your arguments are based on 3e lockpicking, and you have nothing more substantial to offer?



Way to miss the forest for a branch!  



> To me, you're making mountains out of molehills.  To me, D&D has ALWAYS been mechanics first.




So the only question is, are you so stuck in that viewpoint that you are unable to see people outside of it?  I can see you standing in there.  Hi!  Can you see me standing out here?


RC


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 21, 2011)

BryonD said:


> pemerton said:
> 
> 
> > When I see critiques of healing surges in 4e, the _overwhelmingly_ common criticism is of the "regenerate overnight" aspect. But this is a completely trivial element of 4e, which could be houseruled away with basically no consequences except for the desired affect upon adventure pacing (ie recovery from hurt would take longer).
> ...



Ya, not to criticize specifically pemerton (whose post was very thoughtful, well-written, balanced and respectful), but the 'could be houseruled away' is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.

If one has a complaint about a certain game rule, chances are that you disagree with the design philosophy behind that troublesome rule. Yet that same troublesome design philosophy will inform countless other game rules in that book and all other books and supplements in that system. In that case, changing one rule is just a band-aid solution.

I also don't like how 'just houserule it' puts the entire onus on the complainee. There was a WoTC series of articles introducing Essentials, and IIRC, the author (Mearls perhaps?) acknowledged the frequent 'in 4E, everything is the same' complaint, and that the new Essentials classes was going to help address that. If that's true (I've been out of the scene for a while, so I'm not sure), then Essentials evolved from feedback (i.e., "whining" or "complaining") from fans. If WoTC had instead countered with 'if you don't like it, houserule it!', then maybe we wouldn't have Essentials (which may be a blessing or a curse, depending on your own POV).

So between the issue of a systemic design philosophy, personal time constraints and game balance, the advice to 'stop complaining, just houserule it, dude!' is not the way to build a road to Rome.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 21, 2011)

Arriving late to the discussion, I choose to offer the following observation: that this discussion boils down to the single, eternal question: What is the Soul of D&D?

Edit: Forked to discuss elsewhere.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 21, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Reread your 3.5 PHB.  You may not open a lock without a tool.  -2 is for an improvised tool, not no tool at all.  You must use a tool to use the open lock skill in 3.5.




You said lockpick. Obviously, you need a "simple tool." It's not like you are going to pick a lock with the _power of your mind_. Fortunately, failing the availability of of some kind of sharp, pointy metal object on your person, you can always fall back on battering down the door.



> Ahh, so, I can play a diplomatic fighter, so long as I'm willing to wait four or five levels and burn resources into it.  The fact that I can't out of the gate can be safely ignored.




That is not what I said. Distorting someone's viewpoint, then attacking the caricature of that viewpoint, is known as the strawman fallacy.

In fact, Regdar, the 1st level fighter, is not only an example of a 1st level diplomatic fighter, but the example of a 1st level fighter. According to one version of him, he has Cha 13, 2 ranks of Diplomacy, and the Negotiator feat, giving him a bonus of +5. That gives him even odds to turn an Unfriendly NPC to an Indifferent one, and he has a 1 in 4 shot at turning a Hostile NPC into an Unfriendly one. At DC 15, he has even odds of turning a given Indifferent NPC into a Friendly one, which is pretty good diplomacy.



> Yup, and look at those published settings.  Several hundred PAGES of text on how to change these assumptions.




I think you're going to have to provide examples. I'm pretty sure I can do it in much fewer ("Give out less wealth and let the PCs level slower" being the most obvious). 



> 4e, I can change from standard wealth to low magic in one sentence.  In 3e, it requires me to rejigger nearly every aspect of the game.  "Not all that complicated" is a bit of an understatement.




The authors of the Pathfinder RPG seem to think they can get away with about one paragraph.



> Non-sequitor.  In all games, the mechanics place limits on the narrative.




You're claiming all limits are equivalent. That's the non sequitur.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 21, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> That is not what I said. Distorting someone's viewpoint, then attacking the caricature of that viewpoint, is known as the strawman fallacy.



mmmmm

mmmmmm

mmmmmmmmmm

no comment


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 21, 2011)

BryonD said:


> mmmmm
> 
> mmmmmm
> 
> ...




Oh, but I think you did.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 21, 2011)

After being away from the thread for a few days and just catching up on the last several pages of the thread, I have a few thoughts. First, whether you like or dislike Skill Challenges I am struggling to see how they can keep someone from feeling like 4e is D&D. Every edition has had some rules or guidelines for the GM to create a probability for success so the players can make a roll to determine outcome. It ranges from the loose "make up a success chance" DM fiat of OAD&D to the very crunchy (though differing methods) of 3e and 4e. Everyone who plays has their own preferences on that continuum. Again, I have trouble understanding how antipathy for one of those methods negates the D&D experience.

Secondly, moving back to the thread subject. If a game calls itself D&D by right of ownership and it has character design based on pick a class and race both of which determine the essential abilities of the character; and it uses a very abstracted method of combat resolution involving HP and AC, it is D&D. For me, no more is required to define a recognizable D&D game. I have my preferences among the published editions but would never fall into the trap of characterizing someone else's preference of edition as "not D&D".

Lastly, I think discussions of mechanics vs. narrative (and which should be preeminate) are issues of table style and preference. I personally don't feel that any edition of D&D has been great for narrative first gaming, but then I have used all of them that way at my own table. If I were to pick one that best met my preference for character driven campaigns I would choose 1e because it never tried to give hard rules for a broad range of situations, leaving me free to make a decision on the fly without arguing with some rules player about what the book said. That's just me, though. As always your mileage almost certainly varied.

Good gaming, everyone.


----------



## avin (Feb 21, 2011)

I don't see skill challenges as an issue.

This mechanic was largely ignored on my games, 90% of the time. We used it only on long physical tasks.

In fact, skill challenges can be easily used on 3.5 games. I had some "chase in the forest" that would work smoothly on 3.5 with a hidden skill challenge... or an open one, to add some fun


----------



## BryonD (Feb 21, 2011)

Gryph said:


> I am struggling to see how they can keep someone from feeling like 4e is D&D.



I agree with Avin, this is a tangent (and has gone fairly well into derail).

I have used very "skill-challenge-like" devices in multiple systems.  But the specifics of 4E skill challenges reflect one aspect of the overall design/approach/"feel" of 4E.  

Certainly SCs alone don't remotely change the feel.  But, without the existing "feel", SCs may bot be quite what they now are....


----------



## Gryph (Feb 21, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I agree with Avin, this is a tangent (and has gone fairly well into derail).
> 
> I have used very "skill-challenge-like" devices in multiple systems. But the specifics of 4E skill challenges reflect one aspect of the overall design/approach/"feel" of 4E.
> 
> Certainly SCs alone don't remotely change the feel. But, without the existing "feel", SCs may bot be quite what they now are....




Thanks for that. I think that part of the discussion did go off the rails. I apologize for having helped take it of track earlier in thread.

I quite agree that the design feel (some of which I am not thrilled with) of 4e permeates the SC mechanics. With mixed results, in my experience.

I would like you to expand on the ellipsis, if it isn't too much of an aside. I am honestly puzzled at what you are hinting at in your last sentence.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 21, 2011)

I'm hinting that robots designed 4E, not humans, because clearly 4E has no heart....

Or, maybe I just meant to type "not".  


I think SCs are a result of:
-easy to run on the fly is important
-easy for new DMs is important
-the math works is important
-overall gamist approach


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

BryonD said:


> No, the mechanics do not control the narrative.
> 
> Now, the thing is, mechanics are dumb.  They don't know if they are trying to control the narrative or not.  So it is the responsibility of the DM to keep the mechanics in line.
> 
> ...




So, you actually would put CR 16 and CR 1/2 encounters on a random encounter table in a EL 10 adventure?

Again, I'm failing to see a huge difference here. 

Any randomly determined event in D&D is always controlled by the mechanics.  Full stop.  Whether it's how far your character can jump, what pieces of history you know, how well you swing your sword or any other mechanically determined even, it is always, always, the mechanics that determine the narrative.

Otherwise you have a situation where you either ignore the mechanics and simply dictate the results, or you have to retcon the narrative to fit the mechanics.

So how are SC's any different?  

Pawsplay - I stated that you cannot OPEN a lock without tools.  You stated that you could.  You were wrong.  Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

- I stated that you cannot play a diplomatic fighter in 3e.  That's pretty much true.  It takes a pretty far out reading of the game to decide that a 1 in 4 chance of succeeding with someone who actually wasn't hostile to begin with as a "successful diplomat".  But, hey, I'm just building strawmen over here.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> So the only question is, are you so stuck in that viewpoint that you are unable to see people outside of it? I can see you standing in there. Hi! Can you see me standing out here?




Well, from my point of view, I see a bunch of people staking flags on very shifty ground, so, I don't think you are actually outside of my viewpoint.  "No, it's totally different!" isn't really all that helpful without any actual examples of how its different.

If every single mechanically determined event in D&D is mechanics first, then how is adding in a SC so radically different?  At no point in D&D can you narrate before you know the results of a mechanically determined event.  So, adding in a framework where you have a mechanically determined method for resolving complicated events, a framework, by the way, that is not simply limited to 6/3, but to any number of successes/failures, where you can end the SC early BY THE RULES and where the chances of success are determined by the in game fiction.

Where's the problem?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, from my point of view, I see a bunch of people staking flags on very shifty ground, so, I don't think you are actually outside of my viewpoint.





Well, then, I take it that you can't see anyone out here.  Or, if you see us, you fail to do so clearly.

Don't worry; happens to the best of us.  There are things I fail to see clearly, too.


RC


----------



## Gryph (Feb 22, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I'm hinting that robots designed 4E, not humans, because clearly 4E has no heart....
> 
> Or, maybe I just meant to type "not".
> 
> ...




Batteries are expensive, robots need work too. 

Thanks for the clarification. For what its worth, I agree with all 4 points. 

Back in the late 70's Gygax made a conscious decision to split D&D from AD&D and to use D&D as the entry point for new gamers into the hobby. I think if a similar decision had been made early in the design sessions for 4e we might be in a better place now with D&D. 

With the bewildering assortment of powers, builds, feats and classes reduced to a manageable size; 4e has a nice gamey experience at the table. Well suited, I think, to introducing new players to the hobby. 

At this point though as a DM, I feel burdened with too many player rules on a system that feels built on a bike with training wheels. The granularity in character build options is at odds with the structure of encounter resolutions and play time keeps getting bogged down in minutia and decision paralysis.

And now I've gone off track for the thread. <shrug>


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Feb 22, 2011)

anyone seen that movie Joe Dirt?
with the part when he goes to his old house and the guy with the heavy accent means to say "home is where you make it" but Joe doesn't understand?
D&D is what you make it, in fact, the name pretty much says what it is, sometimes there are dungeons and other times there are dragons

thats about all you need for D&D
the edition number is just rules and publications, for making money, thats all they are

granted 2e to 3e was a big jump in understanding, I do fondly remember flipping through my fathers 1e books he still has and getting adventure ideas (INSIDE THE BLACKMOOR BOOK IS A COMPLETE ADVENTURE I STOLE! MWHAHAHAHAHAA! thats a DC 13 forgery check for all you 3.5ers out there)

also,
i did not update to 4e for 7 reasons:
1. my group didn't want to
2-6. I did not have the money
7. 3.5e was great, why mess with perfection?


4e just made D&D for a new branch of people, its meant to be easier so new players can pick it up

theyre taking marketing ideas from MTG (magic: the gathering)
not a bad thing....unless you are a seasoned player

D&D is not about the number before the 'e' on the book, 

D&D is about being heroic, about going into a dungeon and fighting a dragon, looting his corpse as all lawful good paladins are taught to do and then using said gold to fund more adventures


and if anyone has a problem with what I said, I do have improved initiative...just sayin, watchyoself


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, you actually would put CR 16 and CR 1/2 encounters on a random encounter table in a EL 10 adventure?




Yep, my last session had an EL 6 encounter in an EL 17 adventure.

I've had EL 1/4 encounters in an EL 10+ adventure.  I've had EL 20+ encounters in an EL 9 adventure.  Stuff is where stuff should be.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, you actually would put CR 16 and CR 1/2 encounters on a random encounter table in a EL 10 adventure?



Who says I make adventures with an EL?



> Any randomly determined event in D&D is always controlled by the mechanics.  Full stop.  Whether it's how far your character can jump, what pieces of history you know, how well you swing your sword or any other mechanically determined even, it is always, always, the mechanics that determine the narrative.



To me, the fact that this requires explaining says volumes about the differences in where we are coming from.

Yes, if the fighter swings at the Ogre and misses the narrative is different than if the fighter swings and hits.

But, the mechanics DO NOT determine how far your character can jump.  Who your character IS determines how far your character can jump.  
In 3.5 you don't end up with a bunch of ranks in jump because the mechanics said so.  You end up with a bunch of ranks in jump because you see the character that way and built him to reflect the way he is.  The narrative tells the mechanics what to do.

In 4E they replaced ranks with everyone gets 1/2 level.  Relatively speaking the mechanics tell the narrative how your wizard will be defined in terms of his ability to jump (and everything else) vastly more than 3.5 does.

The fact that you then use the mechanics to define specific events does not remotely mean that the mechanics are in control of anything.  Those mechanics can and should be defined by the narrative in the first place.  Full stop.

The chance that a fighter may hit or miss is defined by who that fighter is and is translated into the mechanical system.  Now, he isn't narratively defined as "I always hit ogres" or as "I always miss ogres".  So each actual time he tries, it needs to be determined.

Honestly, if you can't grasp this distinction, then so be it.  Good gaming.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But, the mechanics DO NOT determine how far your character can jump. Who your character IS determines how far your character can jump.
> In 3.5 you don't end up with a bunch of ranks in jump because the mechanics said so. You end up with a bunch of ranks in jump because you see the character that way and built him to reflect the way he is. The narrative tells the mechanics what to do.




Really?  So, that -6 I take to jump checks for having a base 20 movement is narratively determined?  That -8 I take for wearing plate mail is narratively determined?  The fact that I can only spend X ranks in jump dependent on my level is narratively determined?  The bonus I get to my jump check based on my Str is narratively determined?

Really?  Plus, when I actually try to jump, how far I jump is based on any narrative I the player make?  Or, is it entirely determined by the mechanics of the game?

Sure, I can determine if I'm good at jumping or not.  That's part of the character building mechanics.  But, whether or not I am good at jumping, how far I can jump is entirely mechanically determined.  

In the same way, all good trippers must have a base Int of 13 (Combat Expertise feat requires an Int of 13).  How is that narratively determined?  Anyone who is good at tripping must be of above average intelligence.

The vast majority of D&D is not narratively determined.  If you want narratively determined mechanics, there are excellent games out there that do this.  Spirit of the Century immedietely jumps to mind here, where the fact that you are good at something flows from the character narratives.  3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars also allows for all sorts of narrative control in the game. 

D&D?  Not so much.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 22, 2011)

As far as I remember, you still have to make a die roll to see if you succeed at jumping... and to see how far it is that you can jump.  So yeah... mechanics still affect the narrative.  All the ranks do is help mitigate failure at the die roll.  A player can put a bunch of ranks into a Skill and still fail.

So... yeah...  mechanics help determine the narrative.  That's not to say that you can't do things to the narrative without making a die roll, but we're using Jump as an example...  so yeah...  failing that die roll changes everything.  Especially if you're attempting to jump across a 100 foot chasm.

I just played in a session where it was almost totally roleplaying.  The session didn't really advance the narrative all that much, but it was a hell of a lot of fun to play.  We did make the occasional die roll to determine if what our characters were doing was actually effective or not... and the effect of those die rolls changed the narrative... and our roleplaying.  As an aside, we were playing 4e.

I don't understand what is so controversial about that.  Mechanics do, in fact, affect the narrative.  How much they affect the narrative is up to your group.  The DM decides when a roll is appropriate.  I don't see how this is different through any of the editions of D&D.  It's still D&D...  each edition I've played has warts as far as I'm concerned (I've been playing since 1981), but I consider them all D&D.  I also don't understand what is so controversial about that.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

Lalato - this is nicely putting the point I've been trying to make.

Just a minor nitpick - you cannot actually fail a jump check in 3e.  Your distance jumped is entirely determined by your die roll+mods, even if you roll a 1, you still jump 1 foot + mods.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really?  So, that -6 I take to jump checks for having a base 20 movement is narratively determined?



Yes, you are slower so you can not jump as far.  Would more degrees of detail be even better, sure.  But the penalty is defined as a representation of the description of a slower character.



> That -8 I take for wearing plate mail is narratively determined?  The fact that I can only spend X ranks in jump dependent on my level is narratively determined?  The bonus I get to my jump check based on my Str is narratively determined?



Are these honest questions?



> Really?  Plus, when I actually try to jump, how far I jump is based on any narrative I the player make?  Or, is it entirely determined by the mechanics of the game?
> 
> Sure, I can determine if I'm good at jumping or not.  That's part of the character building mechanics.  But, whether or not I am good at jumping, how far I can jump is entirely mechanically determined.
> 
> ...



Yep, you don't get it.  I can't make you understand.  I fail.  

Good gaming to you.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Lalato - this is nicely putting the point I've been trying to make.



Your point is completely understood.  That is what is so boggling to me.  Your point is trivially easy to understand.  And if you understood *my* point, you would see how yours is completely resolved.

But, I've explained it a few times now and you show no comprehension.  I don't what else to say.

But, I assure you, you made your point perfectly well and I fully understand it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

See, BryonD, understanding what you say and agreeing with what you say aren't the same thing.  I understand what you're saying.  You're claiming that the mechanics flow from the narrative choices that the player has made during character generation.

My point is that the mechanics determine how effective those choices are.  It's almost a chicken or the egg situation.  You want to make a good jumper, so you use the mechanics to build a good jumper.  The mechanics determine how good of a jumper you actually are.

Again, I think we're simply looking at the same picture and seeing either the old woman or the young woman.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Like I said in my post, I'm not suggesting that you or Pawsplay is ignorant. But to be perfectly honest, I feel that this is not true of everyone on ENworld.
> 
> Without wanting to rudely name any names, I do think that there are some - even quite a few - posters on ENworld who do not have much familiarity with games that aren't either D&D in drag (choose a class or equivalent, choose a race or equivalent, and from all that derive some abilities that are then deployed in a more-or-less simulationist action resolution mechanic) ...



I am such a one.

As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't D+D it might as well not exist.    I'm too lazy to learn other systems; that and I think I spend enough time and effort trying to stay at least vaguely familiar with the 4 D+D's.


> Of course this wouldn't be an issue - no one is obliged to be informed about comparative trivialities like trends in RPG design and play! - except that the ignorance in question is from time to time manifested in threads about the problems with, or limitations of, 4e.



When I talk about 4e - or any other e - my frame of reference is the other editions of D+D plus my own houserules and ideas.  That's it.  And to talk about D+D that *should* really be all I need.

I don't care about trends in RPG design, I care about the game I play and about what's being presented to the masses as D+D; and about the ever-widening gulf between the two.

Lan-"now to catch up with the rest of this thread"-efan


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> > I don't understand what is so controversial about that. Mechanics do, in fact, affect the narrative. How much they affect the narrative is up to your group. The DM decides when a roll is appropriate. I don't see how this is different through any of the editions of D&D. It's still D&D... each edition I've played has warts as far as I'm concerned (I've been playing since 1981), but I consider them all D&D. I also don't understand what is so controversial about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Lalato - this is nicely putting the point I've been trying to make.



Well, I couldn't disagree more. I think it's the *intent* behind the mechanics that has changed most drastically between editions.

Between all those checks and balances of finding the right sweet spot between mechanics and narrative, I just feel that 4E is the most gamist for prioritizing metagame rules over roleplaying narrative.

If that is perceived to change the feel of the D&D game, then that would be controversial.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by such a controversy, as there must be hundreds of threads about this over the last several years.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

Lanefan - while I don't actually play a lot of other RPG's (barring a brief stint in the last year where I tried a few) I've found that reading other RPG's really gives a window into design decisions.  I picked up the Haiti Aid package back a couple of years ago from RPG drivethru and it has really opened my eyes to a bunch of options that D&D really doesn't cover.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> If every single mechanically determined event in D&D is mechanics first, then how is adding in a SC so radically different?  At no point in D&D can you narrate before you know the results of a mechanically determined event.  So, adding in a framework where you have a mechanically determined method for resolving complicated events, a framework, by the way, that is not simply limited to 6/3, but to any number of successes/failures, where you can end the SC early BY THE RULES and where the chances of success are determined by the in game fiction.
> 
> Where's the problem?



Step back a tick and take a broader look, then ask:

1. Is the game-mechanic you're using the right tool for the job? 
1a. Is there another tool (including no tool at all) that could do it better?
2. Do all these events need to be mechanically determined at all?  
2a. In other words, is the tool being used as a crutch?

If the answers you get are 'yes'-'no-'yes'-'no' in order then proceed.

But it never hurts to stand back and ask these questions now and then.

Lanefan


----------



## billd91 (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really?  So, that -6 I take to jump checks for having a base 20 movement is narratively determined?  That -8 I take for wearing plate mail is narratively determined?  The fact that I can only spend X ranks in jump dependent on my level is narratively determined?  The bonus I get to my jump check based on my Str is narratively determined?




Yes, they are. You have to look at why the mechanics are as they are. If the mechanics generated the narrative, the character would pick or pay for the mechanic they wanted and then come up with a justification for it in the narrative. But that's not what we have here. Characters who wanted to be in the best protective armors have hampered jump checks - makes sense for that to be the case doesn't it? That a character in heavy, somewhat restrictive armor would be worse at jumping than a guy just wearing normal clothing? The mechanics follow choices the player/character has made. Admittedly, the min-maxing player may have made his choices because of the mechanics, but they may have all come from the narrative-oriented choices made by the player.



Hussar said:


> Really?  Plus, when I actually try to jump, how far I jump is based on any narrative I the player make?  Or, is it entirely determined by the mechanics of the game?
> 
> Sure, I can determine if I'm good at jumping or not.  That's part of the character building mechanics.  But, whether or not I am good at jumping, how far I can jump is entirely mechanically determined.




If I have chosen, through the story, to be lugging around a lot of loot - it will affect my jumping ability (being encumbered may slow me or impact my jump check). If I choose to make a running jump, it will improve my check. My narrative choices can affect my jump. The end result is determined by the mechanics used to model my jumping ability (which may also have been established by choices made to fuel the narrative) - as modified by choices I'm making at the time I jump.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> Well, I couldn't disagree more. I think it's the *intent* behind the mechanics that has changed most drastically between editions.
> 
> Between all those checks and balances of finding the right sweet spot between mechanics and narrative, I just feel that 4E is the most gamist for prioritizing metagame rules over roleplaying narrative.
> 
> ...




Me, I think there's far more difference between groups than between editions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> See, BryonD, understanding what you say and agreeing with what you say aren't the same thing.




True.



> I understand what you're saying.




Erm....I'm not convinced that this is true.

Your paraphrase shows that you understand part of what BryonD is saying, but that you are missing crucial parts as well.

Let me try:

There are two views of mechanics.  

In one case, the mechanics are an attempt to model the fictional reality of the imagined game space, and, wherever and whenever they fail to do so, the mechanics are replaced either by GM judgement or some other mechanic.  I.e., the fictional reality defines the mechanics used.

In the second case, the mechanics constrain the imagined game space, effectively becoming the physics of that fictional reality.  In this case, the mechanics cannot fail to model the fictional reality, because the mechanics define the fictional reality.  

So, in BryonD's case, the mechanics flow from the narrative choices that the player has made during character generation, but only determine how effective those choices are so long as the result is sensible within the context of the fictional reality.  Where a dissonance occurs, the fictional reality wins.  Every time.

Both views on mechanics say "You want to make a good jumper, so you use the mechanics to build a good jumper."  The first case says, if the mechanics fail, we'll use some other means to model the fictional reality.  The second case, and only the second case, says that the mechanics determine how good of a jumper you actually are.

1st case:  Come and Get It doesn't affect all kinds of creatures, because it doesn't make sense within the fictional reality for them to be affected.

2nd case:  Come and Get It affects all creatures, 'cause that's what the rules say.

1st case:  A really clever idea resolves the situation.

2nd case:  The situation cannot yet be resolved because the number of successes over failures has not yet been reached.

All games are part the first case and part the second case, but where your emphasis lies drastically changes the experience and outcome of game play.  

4e emphasizes the 2nd case (attempting to use it in the 1st case gimps classes like the fighter, but you could make your own fiction-first hack to do so, or borrow LostSoul's).  

1e emphasizes the 1st case, both explicitly in the rules, and through the presentation of rules that the DM must choose between when adjudicating what is applicable in a given situation.  You could run 1e using the 2nd case, but I think you'd have to houserule even more heavily than you would to run 4e in the 1st case.​
As always, BryonD is welcome to correct me if I misunderstand his point.

You like to call yourself a "Big Tent Kind of Guy", Hussar.  

C'mon.  Expand your tent a little.  You don't have to want to play in case 1 to understand it!  


RC


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Yes, they are. You have to look at why the mechanics are as they are. If the mechanics generated the narrative, the character would pick or pay for the mechanic they wanted and then come up with a justification for it in the narrative. But that's not what we have here. Characters who wanted to be in the best protective armors have hampered jump checks - makes sense for that to be the case doesn't it? That a character in heavy, somewhat restrictive armor would be worse at jumping than a guy just wearing normal clothing? The mechanics follow choices the player/character has made. Admittedly, the min-maxing player may have made his choices because of the mechanics, but they may have all come from the narrative-oriented choices made by the player.
> 
> 
> 
> If I have chosen, through the story, to be lugging around a lot of loot - it will affect my jumping ability (being encumbered may slow me or impact my jump check). If I choose to make a running jump, it will improve my check. My narrative choices can affect my jump. The end result is determined by the mechanics used to model my jumping ability (which may also have been established by choices made to fuel the narrative) - as modified by choices I'm making at the time I jump.




But all of the modifiers are mechanically determined.  How restrictive is the armor?  Well, it depends on where the designers pegged the advantages and disadvantages of the armor.  Move the slider up on the AC and move the slider down on armor check penalties.

How much your encumberance affects your jumping ability is entirely mechanically determined.  How much a running jump effects is entirely mechanically determined.  Push the right button and you get the bonus.  The player's narrative actually makes very little difference here.  I can narrate that I'm doing a ballet leap over the pit or I am cannonballing over, but, I still get a specific modifier for jumping that pit.

In other words, so long as I move a specific distance (10 feet in 3e) I gain access to specific jump mechanics.  My in game narrative doesn't change that one whit.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

RC said:
			
		

> 1st case: A really clever idea resolves the situation.
> 
> 2nd case: The situation cannot yet be resolved because the number of successes over failures has not yet been reached.




But, this isn't true.  That's the whole problem in a nutshell.  Your second case is actually factually false.  Nothing in the skill challenge make-up actually states this.  For one, you can adjudicate that a success counts as more than one success, for another, all of the DM advice in 4e says that simply tallying up numbers is BORING and shouldn't be done.

If you want to pull a SC out of context and ignore the rest of the DMG, fine.  But, let's actually discuss facts.  BryonD talked up thread about how an armored knight and a bare chested pirate would have the same defenses if they are the same CR.  That is false.

An armored knight would be a soldier and a bare chested pirate would be a skirmisher.  Different hit points, different defenses, different capabilities, even though they would have the same CR.  Even within a given CR, different creatures of the same type (soldier, artillery, etc) will have different defenses and hit points and capabilities, although, to be fair, they'll be close.

Pretty much exactly the same way that two similar creatures in earlier editions would have very similar stats - an orc and a goblin aren't too far apart.  

Why?  Because the in game narrative is more believable?  Maybe.  Or could it be that game designers, looking at two similar monsters, give them similar stats because they are similar challenges?

Chicken or the egg?

To me, the only difference between the 4e decision process and earlier editions is that the decision process is transparent.  We KNOW why a CR X creature has Y defenses - it's spelled out very clearly in the monster creation rules.  There's a reason why monster creation rules in earlier editions were so opaque - most of the decision processes were not transparent.  They were based a lot on, "Well, an ogre is about this big, we need something between an ogre and a giant, well, let's make a troll fit that spot."

There's no narrative reason why an troll is bigger than an ogre and smaller than a giant.  A troll is there because you need a big, tough bruiser for PC's to beat on that fits in the 5th level character range.

Now, I'm sure there are monsters out there that were created in the other direction - let's figure out a fictional background for the monster and then make mechanics for it.  Sure.  But, most of the time, those mechanics are going to be informed by the design space around that monster, not by the narrative.

Thus, medusas gazes are savable.  Unlike the narrative, you can have staring contests with D&D medusas.  Because it's a mechanical construct, not for narrative purposes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, this isn't true.  That's the whole problem in a nutshell.  Your second case is actually factually false.  Nothing in the skill challenge make-up actually states this.




The example need not be true in 4e; it need only be hypothetically true, in some hypothetical game, in order to illustrate Case 2.  

The goal is not to denigrate skill challenges (the Jester's examples seem, to me, to show that they can work in some cases even for my playstyle), but to illustrate the difference between Case 1 and Case 2.

Just grok the difference, and we can have an intelligent conversation about how the design philosophy of a ruleset informs its rules.  Seeing the difference doesn't make 4e "not D&D" or change what you enjoy.  It just allows us to talk.

C'mon.  Take the plunge.  Embrace the big tent.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

So, we've gone from actually talking about real games to some fictional game that only exists in your mind RC?

Sure, you can play games where slavish adherence to the letter of the mechanics would entirely determine the in game reality.  I'm not entirely sure I'd enjoy such a game, but, I'm quite sure some exist.

What's your point then?  That some game that no one actually plays does this?  So what?

And, please, stop with the ad hominem.  It's tiresome.  In actual fact, my games probably look exactly like yours at the table - with the player's narrative informing the flow of play.  The only difference here is that I'm freely admitting that this is a concious choice on the part of me and my players, not something that has anything to do with what the mechanics say.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> > _Well, I couldn't disagree more. I think it's the *intent* behind the mechanics that has changed most drastically between editions._
> >
> > _Between all those checks and balances of finding the right sweet spot between mechanics and narrative, I just feel that 4E is the most gamist for prioritizing metagame rules over roleplaying narrative._
> >
> ...



Between groups of what?


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

Nowayjose - groups playing the game.  There's a larger difference between two groups playing the same edition, quite often, than between two editions.

RC - I would say that 4e actually takes a 3rd approach from the 2 you outlined.  Instead of powers being in game constructs, they are entirely meta-game constructs that aid the players in creating the in game narrative.  Thus, Come and Get It affects everyone, not because it suddenly invades the mind of a giant slug, but because CaGI is a meta-game construct.

This would likely lead to the perceived difference between editions more than anything.  Previously, all those meta-game considerations were handled away from the table - chargen primarily and the leveling mechanics.  3e was already well on the way towards this kind of structure in later supplements though - the Knight from PHB 2, Bo9S is chockablock with this sort of thing.  Action points mechanics from Eberron is another example.  I can spend an Action Point and gain access to a feat!  How's that for mechanics dictating narrative - spend a completely meta-game resource to gain an ability that I previously didn't have for six seconds and I will promptly forget how to do it immedietely afterward.

But, as far as differences between your examples 1 and 2, I honestly think they're far more in the eye of the beholder.  I don't narrate the fiction and become better at jumping, at least, I don't have to.  I can simply move 10 feet and jump further.  How I narrate that doesn't actually matter to the mechanics.  The mechanics dictate the narrative, in this case.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But all of the modifiers are mechanically determined.  How restrictive is the armor?  Well, it depends on where the designers pegged the advantages and disadvantages of the armor.  Move the slider up on the AC and move the slider down on armor check penalties.
> 
> How much your encumberance affects your jumping ability is entirely mechanically determined.  How much a running jump effects is entirely mechanically determined.  Push the right button and you get the bonus.  The player's narrative actually makes very little difference here.  I can narrate that I'm doing a ballet leap over the pit or I am cannonballing over, but, I still get a specific modifier for jumping that pit.
> 
> In other words, so long as I move a specific distance (10 feet in 3e) I gain access to specific jump mechanics.  My in game narrative doesn't change that one whit.




Just how much of an impact are you expecting your narrative to have? Determine it completely? If not, how do you expect it to be operationalized? Give you some kind of enhancement to the mechanics... in which case then the mechanics determine how far you jump or if you succeed?

Frankly, I think you're just trying to block any statement that narrative matters in D&D by refusing to look at the source of the mechanics and what they are intended to model.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really?  So, that -6 I take to jump checks for having a base 20 movement is narratively determined?  That -8 I take for wearing plate mail is narratively determined?




Yes, yes it is. Codified, but narrative: if you are moving slowly, you don't jump as far. I feel this conversation may be sliding into the trap of thinking that, because narration is conducive to seat-of-the-pants rulings, that narration means primarily making stuff up, when in fact, it means relating events that happen in the imaginary world. It doesn't matter if it's specified under the Jump rules or the GM decrees it based on your encumbrance, it comes down to the penalty being a reasonable result of being overburdened/slow.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, we've gone from actually talking about real games to some fictional game that only exists in your mind RC?




I was about to give up, but this gives me some hope:



Hussar said:


> RC - I would say that 4e actually takes a 3rd approach from the 2 you outlined.  Instead of powers being in game constructs, they are entirely meta-game constructs that aid the players in creating the in game narrative.  Thus, Come and Get It affects everyone, not because it suddenly invades the mind of a giant slug, but because CaGI is a meta-game construct.




Okay, stop here for just a second.

How would you define "in game constructs"?  How would you define "entirely meta-game constructs"?

You seem to be specifying two types of mechanics here.  Please define them, as carefully and as accurately as you can.  Worlds may yet collide!  


RC


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> I am such a one.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't D+D it might as well not exist.
> 
> ...



And also - unless I've missed it - you don't post that 4e isn't an RPG. You don't project your preferences onto others. Quite the opposite - otherwise we could never have compared notes on running Night's Dark Terror!

What sometimes frustrates me is other posts - again, it would be rude to name names - who sometimes do seem to infer that, because a design doesn't seem to look like the sort of RPG they're familiar with, therefore it's not an RPG, or will spell the death of all serious RPGing.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> In the second case, the mechanics constrain the imagined game space, effectively becoming the physics of that fictional reality.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 2nd case:  Come and Get It affects all creatures, 'cause that's what the rules say.



I wanted to follow up a bit on Hussar's post #427.

I think that to say, in a game like 4e, that the mechanics become the physics of the fictional reality is a little unfair - it's hard to find a non-tendentious analogy, but I'll try - at least some practitioners of formalist or non-representationalist styles of art might reject an attempt to characterise what they're doing as just some special variant on representationalism - perhaps the representation of certain abstract concepts. The artists have set out to repudiate representation, not to represent strange things in a strange way, and a description of what they're doing that already seems to introduce the judgment that they have failed might be one they reject.

Likewise, for those who see the mechanics as primarily operating at a metagame level, and setting constraints on permissible narration of what is happening in the fictional reality, it is a bit tendentious to say (in simulationist fashion) that their mechanics are the physics of that fictional reality. Because what those players tried to do is have a game where the physics of the ingame world are whatever they are, and the players have a duty to fit their narrations to those physics, but the players _also_ have a duty to fit their narration within the parameters determined by the mechanics.

(Is there a mutually acceptable, non-tendentious way of describing differing play styles? I would like to think so, but it's certainly not a given. Anymore than we can take it for granted that there is some non-tendentious way of describing what it is that a modernist likes about modernism and what it is that a romantic likes about romanticism.)

Can the sort of RPG design I have tried to describe above cause problems if the two sets of constraints come into conflict? Of course. But two factors mitigate the practical consequences of this: (i) the causal constraints on any imagined fictional situation are normally pretty loose, allowing a lot of free narration to plug any gaps - for example, it is almost always feasible to narrate an unexpected gust of wind to explain a surprsing outcome of an attempt to jump, because in most cases the imgained fictional situation doesn't have its details specified to a degree of precision that would exclude wind gusts; (ii) if the action resolution and encounter building guidelines of the ruleset are well-integrated, then comparatively few situations will be ones where corner cases will arise (in 4e, for example, the game _simply takes for granted_ that epic tier demigods will not be enaged in life or death situations involving ordinary orcs, mundane locks or 10' wide chasms).

As for Come and Get It, that power tells us nothing about the physics of the gameworld. What the power does is give the fighter player a 1x/encounter token that says "When you play this token, all the foes within 3 squares move adjacent to your PC. You and/or your GM are free to work out whatever story explains this." It's like a Fate Point or Hero Point or Luck Point that exists in many games.

Typically, when the polearm fighter in my game uses this power he chooses to narrate some story about his deft use of his polearm and/or the biting character of his insult of the gnoll warrior ancestors. When something tricker is required I'm happy to help him out with his story. But his repeated use of Come and Get It doesn't reflect on the physics of the gameworld. It's a metagame technique.

(EDIT: I don't know if this is quite what Hussar means by a metagame construct. I think it is, though. Where I think I differ from Hussar is this: while I agree with Hussar that spotting the difference, at the table, between a metagame heavy game and a simulationist game might be hard - the two games might look very similar - I nevertheless think that the difference in the purposes and self-conception of the players is a real one. And conversations like this - where, rather than playing, we try to bring to mind our purposes and our self-conceptions as RPGers and explain them to our fellows - make those differences in experience become all the more salient. This is what I was getting at upthread when I said that the move from metagame heavy encounter desing to metagame heavy action resolution might be one step too far for many ENworlders.)

(BONUS EDIT: If you stumble into a recitation of the "what a piece of work is man" soliloquy from Hamlet, it might sound the same whether it is part of a very sincere and purposeful performance of the play, or is instead the ironic culmination to a story (at least arguably) about an aspiring actor wasting his life, as in the movie Withnail and I. The fact that you can't tell, just from experiencing the recitation, which purpose it was serving, doesn't make it unimportant either to the performer, or to the other members of the audience, that it was one thing and not the other. In my view the same point, mutatis mutandis, applies to episodes of play in an RPG.)


----------



## Beginning of the End (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, you actually would put CR 16 and CR 1/2 encounters on a random encounter table in a EL 10 adventure?




I realize this is a tangent, but...

This used to happen all the time.

For example, D1 was designed for 9th-10th level characters. In 3E terms, the first twelve entries on the random encounter table breakdown like this:

- EL 8 to 9
- EL 8 or EL 12
- EL 5 to EL 11
- EL 5 to EL 11
- EL 3 or EL 1/2 to EL 2
- EL 8 to EL 9
- EL 8 to EL 9
- EL 13 or EL 1/2 to EL 2
- EL 10 to EL 12
- EL 4 or EL 1/2 to EL 2
- EL 6 to EL 10 or EL 1/2 to EL 2
- EL 8 to EL 11

The highest level encounters in the adventure look like they're hitting the EL 14-15 range.

Encounters used to have a much wider dynamic range. And most of the problems people ascribe to the 3rd Edition ruleset actually derive primarily from abandoning this dynamic encounter range and replacing it with My Precious Encounters design.


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> And also - unless I've missed it - you don't post that 4e isn't an RPG. You don't project your preferences onto others. Quite the opposite - otherwise we could never have compared notes on running Night's Dark Terror!
> 
> What sometimes frustrates me is other posts - again, it would be rude to name names - who sometimes do seem to infer that, because a design doesn't seem to look like the sort of RPG they're familiar with, therefore it's not an RPG, or will spell the death of all serious RPGing.





Hold on here. Are people saying 4e isn't "an RPG"? 

I mean, I've seen it "isn't D&D" and I've seen "it doesn't feel like D&D".

Do people actually claim it isn't an RPG?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Hold on here. Are people saying 4e isn't "an RPG"?
> 
> I mean, I've seen it "isn't D&D" and I've seen "it doesn't feel like D&D".
> 
> Do people actually claim it isn't an RPG?




There were historical claims during 4e's release that it was just a tactical skirmish game and it had lost its RPG lustre.

I haven't seen any such in a long time though.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

As for fiction-first through metagame resolution, I find them easy to spot.

In fiction-first, the players and by extension the PCs, rely on what they believe plausible and likely to happen based the current environment and previous experience with the described game reality and campaign history.

In mechanical resolution, the players rely on the rule description and the PCs effects manifest in the specified way inside the world.

In metagame resolution, the players rely on the rule description and have to come up with a narrative manifestation inside the game world that matches that effect.

Let's look at Lightning Bolt to see the difference

In fiction first (1e), a Lightning Bolt bounced when it couldn't penetrate a barrier, turned into a globe of destructive energy underwater, and generally interacted with the game world as the creator's/DM's believed electricity would including suggestions to reduce saving throws if the party is standing in water, etc.  The Lightning bolt is a manifestation in the world as is affected by the world as much as it affects the world.

In mechanical play (3e), a Lightning Bolt is a line of damage that stops at a barrier, and is unaffected by water or generally any other effect not specific to affecting the spell.  The Lightning Bolt is a manifestation in the world but not really affected by the world.

In a more narrative game, a player uses a power that causes damage to a fixed area in a line extending from the PC.  The player decides the PC shot a lightning bolt from his hand into the enemy.  Later, the same player activates a power that stuns all creatures in a circle around his PC.  Since he's standing knee deep water at the time, the player narrates using the same lightning bolt to shock everyone in the water.  The lightning bolt has become a special effect for powers activated by the player rather than being a resource of the character.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I think that to say, in a game like 4e, that the mechanics become the physics of the fictional reality is a little unfair




It isn't a criticism.  

As physics are a model for our expectations in the real world, based on past observation, so the mechanics form our basis for expectations in the fictional world.  I've been on record before that, where mechanics are consistently used, they may be treated as the physics of the game world.  I hold this true for any edition.

The only time that this doesn't hold true is when the mechanics are not consistently used, either because the players and/or GM fail to understand the mechanics, they fudge, or they grant authority to override the mechanics in order to more closely simulate some other "physics".



> at least some practitioners of formalist or non-representationalist styles of art might reject an attempt to characterise what they're doing as just some special variant on representationalism - perhaps the representation of certain abstract concepts.




Hey, that's cool.  Really.  

But anyone doing so already sees the difference, and my post was an attempt to help someone who does not see the difference to see it.  One can go on and on about all of the possible flavours of ice cream, but if someone thinks it is all vanilla, it is sometimes better to get them to grok one exception before trying to pile on all those others.



So, I was just offering a way to look at things which might make the difference transparent.  It isn't the only way.  I thought it might be the easiest.

I think that what Hussar is calling "metagame constructs" are mechanics where the mechanic is applied, and then the narrative is then shaped to fit.  IOW, the same thing (or closely akin to) what I am calling "rules-first" mechanics.  The converse would be where the narrative is applied, and then the mechanic is chosen which best fits the narrative, or no mechanic is used if the players/GM don't deem it necessary.



RC


EDIT:  Really good post, Nagol.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Hold on here. Are people saying 4e isn't "an RPG"?
> 
> I mean, I've seen it "isn't D&D" and I've seen "it doesn't feel like D&D".
> 
> Do people actually claim it isn't an RPG?




I wouldn't make that claim, but I would make the claim that, if you remove enough "gamist" features (in the Forge sense, via pemerton's post) that the term "game" ceases to apply in the way it is typically used in the term "role-playing game".

IMHO, not all entertainments are games.  A game has a win condition (or, in the case of an rpgs, a series of subjective and/or mutable win conditions related to the scenario or session, and/or the long-term goals of the PCs), elements of player skill (i.e., the choices of players must affect the outcome), and the outcome of the win condition must not be known aforehand (which, IMHO, is also necessary for there to be elements of player skill).

I'll freely grant that this is not the only possible definition of game.  It is, however, what I mean by the "game" in rpg.  And 4e does qualify.

Whether/how the "meta-game constructs"/"rules-first elements" interfere with role assumption is another question, but I believe that 4e easily passes the test here as well.

There are things people call "games", though, that I would not.  Snakes & Ladders springs swiftly to mind.  Give each player 2+ tokens, and allow them to determine which to move on each roll, and S&L becomes a game (as I am using the term).  With a single token, there is no element of player skill.

(Many "games" designed for small children are like this -- they teach the child how to follow the rules, while making it equally likely that the child, who is presumably less skilled than his/her parents and/or older sibs, has an equal chance of winning, because the "players" contribute no meaningful decisions to the outcome.  

This is useful when teaching good sportsmanship, and is far less frustrating for the child.  However, IMHO and IME, for most adults, meaningful contribution to the outcome is a mandatory feature for actual games.  Most children IME rapidly outgrow Snakes & Ladders.

There is an interesting aside to be made about entertainments like Snakes & Ladders and some forms of gambling, though, such as playing slot machines.)

Likewise, some things that might look on the surface as if they have no win conditions, actually do.  It is possible to both win or lose at Spin the Bottle.  A game might have a mutable win condition of "sustain this narrative thread as long as possible", where the length that the narrative thread is sustained determines the degree of success (and the satisfaction of the players).

Anyway, all IMHO.  YMMV.

People have made that claim.  I have defended their right to judge whether or not something is a game based on its perceived merits (rather than what is on the tin).  This may be what pemerton is referring to.


RC


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 22, 2011)

Nagol said:


> In fiction first (1e), a Lightning Bolt bounced when it couldn't penetrate a barrier, turned into a globe of destructive energy underwater, and generally interacted with the game world as the creator's/DM's believed electricity would including suggestions to reduce saving throws if the party is standing in water, etc. The Lightning bolt is a manifestation in the world as is affected by the world as much as it affects the world.
> 
> In mechanical play (3e), a Lightning Bolt is a line of damage that stops at a barrier, and is unaffected by water or generally any other effect not specific to affecting the spell. The Lightning Bolt is a manifestation in the world but not really affected by the world.
> 
> In a more narrative game, a player uses a power that causes damage to a fixed area in a line extending from the PC. The player decides the PC shot a lightning bolt from his hand into the enemy. Later, the same player activates a power that stuns all creatures in a circle around his PC. Since he's standing knee deep water at the time, the player narrates using the same lightning bolt to shock everyone in the water. The lightning bolt has become a special effect for powers activated by the player rather than being a resource of the character.



Not sure that's a fair or accurate example.

In real life, lightning bolts don't bounce. They move through conductive materials. Then again, in real life, lightning bolts don't appear like magic from an outstretched hand. Does a magical lightning bolt act exactly like a real-life natural lightning?

Re-doing your example:
1) Fiction first: Let's design a new spell that is fun and cool for wizards! OK, what should it be? How about a lightning spell? OK, cool, should that be like Dark Jedi lightning, or a lightning blast? And what happens when it hits water or a wall? Are we trying to simulate real-life or just a basic suspension of disbelief? Hey, are there any other lightning spells already, because it would be inconsistent if magical lightning spread through water in one spell but not with another. Then, what spell level is this? Does it work with game balance?

2) Mechanics first: Let's design a new Controller class! Cool, so obviously, we need a damage + push spell. OK, um, how about Lightning Ram -- a blast of lightning pushes you 3 squares. So, um, do we have to worry about the lightning ram reflecting off walls and water? Do we have to worry about consistency with other lightning spells? Silly, of course not! We decided we need a Controller because the supplement needs more controllers. Controllers need a damage + push spell for this level slot. The fluff is irrelevant, let the DM and players figure it out. We'll tell them something like 'The game is yours, YOU decide if it's lightning ram or football ram or whatever, use your imagination!'

Fiction first --> what can we add to make the narrative more fun and fantastic, then see how it fits the rules and game balance.

Mechanics first --> what can we add to game mechanics and tactics, then let the people reverse-engineer the fluff and narrative.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 22, 2011)

NowayJose - my response to all that, and I largely agree, is that the end result is largely indistinguishable.  In both cases, you wind up with some sort of ability that shoots lightning and has specific in-game results that are largely dictated by the mechanics.

While the route might be different, what you end up with is generally pretty close.  Yes, a square fireball is wonky - but, in play it's largely indistinguishable from a round (or pixelated) fireball since it's extremely rare that round or square will actually matter one whit.  You cast fireball, you blow up a group of baddies - and it will be a very blue moon event that being round or square actually matters.

Granted it mattered a lot more when you had blowback on fireballs.  



			
				RC said:
			
		

> I think that what Hussar is calling "metagame constructs" are mechanics where the mechanic is applied, and then the narrative is then shaped to fit. IOW, the same thing (or closely akin to) what I am calling "rules-first" mechanics. The converse would be where the narrative is applied, and then the mechanic is chosen which best fits the narrative, or no mechanic is used if the players/GM don't deem it necessary.




I would largely agree with that.  The question I would ask though, is that if an event does not require any mechanics to resolve, (unless you're outright free forming), then the outcome of that event is predetermined.  Trying to bluff the guard in 1e was an exercise in free-form gaming, fair enough.  But, we've already struck that off the table though.  I've been told that free form isn't the goal.  BryonD clearly stated that he likes mechanics, but, he wants the mechanics to be informed by the narrative.

My point is that its circular.  When you invoke mechanics to resolve an event, that event cannot be narrated without the mechanics, thus the narrative is largely shaped by the mechanics.  Which comes first?  IMO, who cares.  The end result is largely the same - do you move slower in plate mail than in chain mail because it makes narrative sense to do so, or because there should be a mechanical trade off for having a higher AC?  

IMO, the question is largely irrelavent - the point is that you arrive at the same end destination.

Getting away from hypotheticals for a second.  Here's a situation from the session we played today.  Now, I was a player, not the DM.  In the scenario, we were defending a ruined keep from a large invading force.  The large force had a bullette ridden by a hobgoblin that battered down the gate.  Ok, no problem so far.

Once they entered the gate, we, the PC's, smoked the hobgoblin rider quite quickly.  My eladrin warlord's turn came up.  Now, my character is narrated as being a knightly sort, horse, lance, the whole bit.  So, I fey step from the back of my horse to the back of the now riderless bullette in an attempt to take control of it.

Short conversation with the DM later and we decide that Athletics is the applicable skill (although Nature certainly was a contender here).  I make my roll and the DM tells me that I can control where the bullette goes, but, that's about it.  I can't order it to attack my enemies nor not attack my allies.

Now, here's my question to all of you.  How would this be resolved in an earlier edition and what are the differences in how that would be resolved?  After all, it's been repeatedly stated that 4e is completely different from any other edition, so, it stands to reason that this sequence should be resolved in completely different ways from what came before.  So, how would taking control of the bullette be resolved in pre-4e D&D?


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 22, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> Re-doing your example:
> 1) Fiction first: Let's design a new spell that is fun and cool for wizards! OK, what should it be? How about a lightning spell? OK, cool, should that be like Dark Jedi lightning, or a lightning blast? And what happens when it hits water or a wall? Are we trying to simulate real-life or just a basic suspension of disbelief? Hey, are there any other lightning spells already, because it would be inconsistent if magical lightning spread through water in one spell but not with another. Then, what spell level is this? Does it work with game balance?
> 
> 2) Mechanics first: Let's design a new Controller class! Cool, so obviously, we need a damage + push spell. OK, um, how about Lightning Ram -- a blast of lightning pushes you 3 squares. So, um, do we have to worry about the lightning ram reflecting off walls and water? Do we have to worry about consistency with other lightning spells? Silly, of course not! We decided we need a Controller because the supplement needs more controllers. Controllers need a damage + push spell for this level slot. The fluff is irrelevant, let the DM and players figure it out. We'll tell them something like 'The game is yours, YOU decide if it's lightning ram or football ram or whatever, use your imagination!'
> ...



Having re-read this, I do regret my polarizing tone, which I didn't intend that way.

I do criticize 4E for being so outwardly gamist IMO, but earlier editions of D&D are far from perfect.

It's just that on a scale of 100% fiction first (=fantasy novel) to 100% mechanics first (=abstract board game), I feel 4E is a matter of degrees higher towards nakedly obvious mechanics first.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

[aside]AFAICT, lightning can indeed bounce off of trees and buildings[/aside].

Fiction-first:  the player has his PC use a resource to create a new effect in the game world.  That effect will affect and be affected by the current situaiton of the world.  The effect as written occurs in the typical environment, but it can be more effective in an ideal environment (like targets standing knee-deep inwater), less effective in a difficult environment (like target levitating), or an entirely different effect in a unusual environment (like being converted to a globe underwater).

Rules-first: the player has his PC use a resource to create a new effect in the game world.  That effect will affect the current situation of the world as the rules describe.  The new effect will only be affected by other items in the environment that are designed to affect it (like a Globe of Invulnerability).

Meta-game: the player uses a resource to create a new effect in the game and the players build an in-game rationale to explain that effect.  The in-game rationale may involve the player's PC using a resource or not.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> NowayJose - my response to all that, and I largely agree, is that the end result is largely indistinguishable. In both cases, you wind up with some sort of ability that shoots lightning and has specific in-game results that are largely dictated by the mechanics.
> 
> While the route might be different, what you end up with is generally pretty close. Yes, a square fireball is wonky - but, in play it's largely indistinguishable from a round (or pixelated) fireball since it's extremely rare that round or square will actually matter one whit. You cast fireball, you blow up a group of baddies - and it will be a very blue moon event that being round or square actually matters.



I agree that there will be a lot of overlap, and we can produce many examples of game elements that end up to be similiar despite the differing intent.

Yet there are many contrary examples. In 4E, the sum total of all the nakedly incongruent narrative elements pops out at me like no other previous edition.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> I agree that there will be a lot of overlap, and we can produce many examples of game elements that end up to be similiar despite the differing intent.
> 
> Yet there are many contrary examples. In 4E, the sum total of all the nakedly incongruent narrative elements pops out at me like no other previous edition.




Yeah, in 1e, the focus of advice was mostly on fiction-first.  Some elements were written in a rule-first fashion and meta-game was almost non-existent (the only thing I can think of that was meta-game was one of the artefact side-effects of limited omniscience where the player could ask one question of the DM each game week and get a truthful answer).

3e removed a bunch of fiction-first adjustments from the advice and rulings section and became more rules-first in style (not completely, just a stronger focus from what I could tell).

4e introduced a much tighter rules-first focus with the exception-based design for powers and started into a meta-game design for the Martial classes particularly.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 22, 2011)

Nagol said:


> [aside]AFAICT, lightning can indeed bounce off of trees and buildings[/aside].



Not at 90 or 180 degree angles?



> Fiction-first: the player has his PC use a resource to create a new effect in the game world. That effect will affect and be affected by the current situaiton of the world. The effect as written occurs in the typical environment, but it can be more effective in an ideal environment (like targets standing knee-deep inwater), less effective in a difficult environment (like target levitating), or an entirely different effect in a unusual environment (like being converted to a globe underwater).
> 
> Rules-first: the player has his PC use a resource to create a new effect in the game world. That effect will affect the current situation of the world as the rules describe. The new effect will only be affected by other items in the environment that are designed to affect it (like a Globe of Invulnerability).
> 
> Meta-game: the player uses a resource to create a new effect in the game and the players build an in-game rationale to explain that effect. The in-game rationale may involve the player's PC using a resource or not.




OK, so then...?

1) fiction first: I decide to jump and my PC eyes the gap. Does my PC think he can make it across? What's the rule for jumping?

2) rules first: I decide to jump because I know the jump rules and I know the gap distance = exactly 30 feet. In-game, my character also decides to jump, but my knowledge of the rules and the map is really the primary motivator.

3) meta-game first: I decide to jump because I have a jump card which I can use 3 x day and I still have one left. After I use that last jump card, I'm not going to be able to jump like that again, regardless of endurance or circumstance. In-game, I have no idea if my character thinks about jumping or not. I can attempt to justify that incongruity with some half-baked narrative, which may or may not succeed at suspending disbelief, but ultimately, it doesn't really matter because I don't have any jump cards left.

I think 3E and 4E might be at least equally "guilty" of #2 (rules first), but 4E is usually more "guilty" of #3 (metagame first).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I would largely agree with that.




Then we seem to be getting somewhere.



> The question I would ask though, is that if an event does not require any mechanics to resolve, (unless you're outright free forming), then the outcome of that event is predetermined.




You forgot to ask the question!  



> My point is that its circular.  When you invoke mechanics to resolve an event, that event cannot be narrated without the mechanics, thus the narrative is largely shaped by the mechanics.




Okay.  Keep in mind, as I said upthread or elsethread or both, that all games have fiction-first and rules-first elements.  They have to.  

"I charge!" is a fiction-first narrative that then engages the mechanics, and causes the mechanics to come into play.  Indeed, that piece of fiction selects which mechanics come into play.

"I rolled six points of damage!" is a rules-first construct that the narrative must then conform to (i.e., whatever that damage means in that context delimits what happens in the narrative).

And there is circularity.  One does play into the other.  "I swing my sword at him!" is fiction-first that engages the mechanics.  "I hit, and do six points of damage" is rules-first and re-engages the narrative ("The ogre still lives, and he swings his massive club at you!").

So, in this case, you are right.  But let's take a step back, shall we?

In Game 1, those rules are an attempt at verisimilitude.  The mechanics for the ogre (AC, hit points, chance to hit, etc.) are an attempt to model what an ogre should be like (in the view of the game designer and/or the GM).

In Game 2, those rules are a meta-game construct.  The mechanics for the ogre are instead an attempt to model what should be a good challenge for the PCs (again, in the view of the game designer and/or the GM).

In Game 1, the ogre is the same whether the party is 1st level or 20th level.  In Game 2, the ogre presents the same challenge whether the party is 1st level or 20th level.

Can you see how approach affects outcome in this hypothetical example?  Because, if you can see the difference in this more extreme example, we can begin to break the difference down into more granular examples.  I accept that your threshold of granularity is different than mine (or others'); I am certain that there is a threshold where you cannot see a difference that I do.  I am just not certain that you are absolutely unable to do so.  

As far as your bullette example goes, that seems to be fiction-first.  But then, no one to my knowledge has said 4e is "completely different" from earlier editions.  I, for one, have explicitly and repeatedly said that all games have elements of both "rules-first" and "fiction-first" mechanics.

There is a lot of granularity involved, and different folks are going to have different thresholds as to where that granularity matters.  This discussion isn't a zero-sum game.



RC


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

For fiction-first you could also go with

I need to jump this chasm that looks like it might be 25-30'.  I can't make in armour so I'll strip down, get a running start and the Magic-User will cast _Gust of Wind_ at the right moment to help push me across.  The spell doesn't say that'll help with jump distance, but it only stands to reason that if it can move a ship...


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 22, 2011)

Nagol said:


> For fiction-first you could also go with
> 
> I need to jump this chasm that looks like it might be 25-30'. I can't make in armour so I'll strip down, get a running start and the Magic-User will cast _Gust of Wind_ at the right moment to help push me across. The spell doesn't say that'll help with jump distance, but it only stands to reason that if it can move a ship...



Sure, although this leaves all the adjucation to the DM, and the game may suffer from a lack of consistency.

Player: "Why did the Gust of Wind carry me across the gap last year, but today, it won't work?"
DM: _oh ya, I forgot about last year_ "Um, because the moon is full and affects the magic tides..."

So I assume 3E codified the rules beyond the subjectivity of DM and players for the sake of consistency. And 4E took it one step further. Somewhere there, D&D may have lost its "soul" depending on your point of view.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

It might be clearer to examine another rpg, such as a supers rpg.

Fiction-First:  The Human Torch's powers are fire-based, and so might be hampered by lack of oxygen or being doused with water, even if that is not explicit in the rules.  The logic and experience of the players in the real world applies, with a few possible explicitly codified exceptions, to the fictional world.

Rules-First:  The Human Torch's powers are not explicitly affected by lack of oxygen or being doused with water, so they are not in the game.  The logic and experience of the players in the real world does not necessarily apply to the fictional world, except where the fictional world is explicitly not codified.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> Sure, although this leaves all the adjucation to the DM, and the game may suffer from a lack of consistency.
> 
> Player: "Why did the Gust of Wind carry me across the gap last year, but today, it won't work?"
> DM: _oh ya, I forgot about last year_ "Um, because the moon is full and affects the magic tides..."
> ...




And that's the big difference I see in fiction-first and rules-first.  The play group has more adjudication to perform in fiction first because no game model is extensive enough to cover all the corner cases and special circumstances that arise to achieve versimilitude.

Rules-first removes a lot of the adjudication to instill consistency in play even if that consitency comes at a cost in versimilitude.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 22, 2011)

I think that Bryon and Hussar have very different internalized meanings of Narrative. Hussar's definition seems (I may be wrong) to be a plain english meaning of a narrative as the recounting of a story. With an implication that it is most concerned with the detailed events of play. From that context his examples and objections make sense to me. When telling the story or narrative of a game session, mechanics first or fiction first are nearly impossible to unentangle.

On the other hand, Bryon seems (again, I may be wrong) to be using a more specialist definition of narrative. One akin, if not identical, to the usage on the Forge. This meaning is more concerned with game design and game mastering style. As I understand that meaning, narrative means a style or design element that seeks to preserve logical internal consistency in the game world. Typically it starts from some kind of first principles used in world building. So, for example, magic is very powerful but difficult to master, therefore magic users can only use a limited number of spells per day and they require a large investment of time to prepare. So the Vancian magic system is mechanically built to emulate the world building principle.

Personally, for Bryon's meaning of narrative I prefer the term Naturalistic.

That's how I "C" it.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 22, 2011)

Nagol said:


> > _Sure, although this leaves all the adjucation to the DM, and the game may suffer from a lack of consistency.
> >
> > Player: "Why did the Gust of Wind carry me across the gap last year, but today, it won't work?"
> > DM: oh ya, I forgot about last year "Um, because the moon is full and affects the magic tides..."
> ...



Well, it's a very interesting issue with no easy answer. I also truly appreciate that this is one of few times where I've felt that I've been able to cut through into the heart of the matter with someone else on a D&D forum, rather than get sidetracked by a multitude of mini-debates.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 22, 2011)

Aberzanzorax said:


> Hold on here. Are people saying 4e isn't "an RPG"?
> 
> I mean, I've seen it "isn't D&D" and I've seen "it doesn't feel like D&D".
> 
> Do people actually claim it isn't an RPG?



Here's a link to a recent post that describes 4e as a "tactical skirmish platform". Here's another post by the same poster that describes non-exploration play as "a game of random encounters strung together" that is "not the purpose of D&D".



NoWayJose said:


> meta-game first: I decide to jump because I have a jump card which I can use 3 x day and I still have one left. After I use that last jump card, I'm not going to be able to jump like that again, regardless of endurance or circumstance. In-game, I have no idea if my character thinks about jumping or not. I can attempt to justify that incongruity with some half-baked narrative, which may or may not succeed at suspending disbelief, but ultimately, it doesn't really matter because I don't have any jump cards left.



Why would you possibly say that "it doesn't really matter"? Or talk about "justifying the incongruity with some half-baked narrative"?

If you are playing a role playing game (as opposed, say, to a skirmish game) then the narrative should be _crucial_.



Raven Crowking said:


> Rules-First:  The Human Torch's powers are not explicitly affected by lack of oxygen or being doused with water, so they are not in the game.  The logic and experience of the players in the real world does not necessarily apply to the fictional world, except where the fictional world is explicitly not codified.



I know you are providing an under-specified hypothetical here. But to what extent is it meant to bear on the difference between 4e and AD&D? In 4e, I would expect that an attempt by a player to douse a fire elemental in water would be resolved differently from an attempt by a player to douse a fire elemental in oil (page 42 sketches the relevant resolution parameters).

This also bears on Nagol's example of a lightning bolt:



Nagol said:


> In mechanical play (3e), a Lightning Bolt is a line of damage that stops at a barrier, and is unaffected by water or generally any other effect not specific to affecting the spell.  The Lightning Bolt is a manifestation in the world but not really affected by the world.



Assuming that those at the table are interested in verisimilitude, and if the issue became salient, then the description of the fictional reality might be amplified to include an explanation of the behaviour of the rules manifestation.

A concrete example from actual play: as I posted not too long ago, the wizard PC in my game used Twist of Space (a level 7 encounter teleport attack) to free a person trapped inside a magical mirror. The resolution followed the guidelines on page 42 of the DMG. What should I infer from this about "rules/metagame first" vs "fiction first"?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I know you are providing an under-specified hypothetical here. But to what extent is it meant to bear on the difference between 4e and AD&D? In 4e, I would expect that an attempt by a player to douse a fire elemental in water would be resolved differently from an attempt by a player to douse a fire elemental in oil (page 42 sketches the relevant resolution parameters).




Crom's Beery Breath, man!  

I am trying to establish a major difference to someone who claims that he can see none at all.  The hypothetical is being used to up the level of granularity to make the difference more obvious.

Because a specific game doesn't use that same level of difference doesn't mean that there is no difference at all.  

If one cannot see the stones on the beach, one might yet be able to see the boulders on the cliffs!


RC


----------



## Gryph (Feb 22, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Crom's Beery Breath, man!
> 
> I am trying to establish a major difference to someone who claims that he can see none at all. The hypothetical is being used to up the level of granularity to make the difference more obvious.
> 
> ...





Raven, you're using the same alphabet but I don't think you're talking the same language.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Why would you possibly say that "it doesn't really matter"? Or talk about "justifying the incongruity with some half-baked narrative"?
> 
> If you are playing a role playing game (as opposed, say, to a skirmish game) then the narrative should be _crucial_.



I find your question perplexing, to be honest. I agree that the narrative should be crucial (although that's not a universal sentiment, some players just like to fight and get treasure and don't care about the story, but I'm not one of them).

But when I have 3 "jump" cards (as per the highly theoretical example being referenced, although I admit it's a terrible example for carrying the entire weight of this argument), where the number 3 is based on codified metagame priorities with no direct fictional correlation, and I have to reverse-engineer that into a plausible narrative (every single time, I may add, for every single incident of every single metagame rule), then how can it be anything but half-baked?

I thought those implications were crystal-clear for anyone who followed those series of posts between me and Nagol?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2011)

Gryph said:


> Raven, you're using the same alphabet but I don't think you're talking the same language.




Maybe.  

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
  The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
  And burbled as it came!​


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

pemerton said:


> <snip>
> 
> A concrete example from actual play: as I posted not too long ago, the wizard PC in my game used Twist of Space (a level 7 encounter teleport attack) to free a person trapped inside a magical mirror. The resolution followed the guidelines on page 42 of the DMG. What should I infer from this about "rules/metagame first" vs "fiction first"?




Primarily fiction-first since the resolution was an adjudication of what effect the in-game object expression would have on other in-game objects that was not supported by the base rules.

Fiction-first/rules-based/meta-game don't necessarily share the same axis as narrative-first since the the former are methods for the group to adjudicate in-game result and the latter is a method of injecting new situations into the game environment.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 22, 2011)

I think a lot of folks are talking about how they play the game... not necessarily what the rules are as written.  I agree that how we play the game in our own groups is probably going to differ.  I also agree that how we interpret the rules may also be different.  I don't think I agree that just because we interpret the rules differently or because we have different playstyles we are somehow playing something other than D&D.

In every version of D&D my characters have killed stuff and taken their loot.  In every version of D&D my characters have explored the world in every form or fashion I could imagine.  In every version of D&D my characters have leveled up and become more powerful.  In every version of D&D I as a player have used metagame knowledge in order to affect an in-game outcome.  In every version of D&D I as a player have roleplayed.  In every version of D&D I've played with folks that are rules lawyers who tried to find every rules advantage they could find.  In every version of D&D my characters have done things that are outside of the rules framework and required a ruling from the DM.

Granted I've not played OD&D or Holmes so it's possible that there is a version of D&D that I couldn't do any of the above.  If that version of D&D exists, please let me know.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 22, 2011)

Lalato said:


> I think a lot of folks are talking about how they play the game... not necessarily what the rules are as written.  I agree that how we play the game in our own groups is probably going to differ.  I also agree that how we interpret the rules may also be different.  I don't think I agree that just because we interpret the rules differently or because we have different playstyles we are somehow playing something other than D&D.
> 
> In every version of D&D my characters have killed stuff and taken their loot.  In every version of D&D my characters have explored the world in every form or fashion I could imagine.  In every version of D&D my characters have leveled up and become more powerful.  In every version of D&D I as a player have used metagame knowledge in order to affect an in-game outcome.  In every version of D&D I as a player have roleplayed.  In every version of D&D I've played with folks that are rules lawyers who tried to find every rules advantage they could find.  In every version of D&D my characters have done things that are outside of the rules framework and required a ruling from the DM.
> 
> Granted I've not played OD&D or Holmes so it's possible that there is a version of D&D that I couldn't do any of the above.  If that version of D&D exists, please let me know.




But none of that expereince is unique to D&D.  You've just described my expereinces with _Chivalry and Sorcery_, _Tunnels and Trolls_, _Fantasy Wargaming_, and if I change 'leveled up" to "advanced" I can include _Runequest_, _Ars Magica_, _Fantasy Hero_, _Harn_, _Pendragon_, and a host of others in that umbrella.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

And my response to that is... "So What!"

Does it matter that there are other RPGs that share the same underlying concepts as D&D?  Why on earth do I care if these other games are similar to D&D?  Are we discussing these other games?  No!  We're discussing D&D.

All of these things I described I can do in D&D... and have done in every single version of D&D that I've ever played (going back to 1981).  Either you agree that I can do all those things in each version of D&D or you don't agree.  Which is it?  It doesn't matter whether I can do those things elsewhere.  We're talking about D&D.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> /snip
> 
> It's just that on a scale of 100% fiction first (=fantasy novel) to 100% mechanics first (=abstract board game), I feel 4E is a matter of degrees higher towards nakedly obvious mechanics first.




With apologies, but, could I change that last bit from "nakedly obvious mechanics first" to simply transparent and unapologetic? 

Because, honestly, I think that's a major sticking point with some people.  It's not so much that it's radically different than what came before, but rather it's very, very in your face about it.  There's no attempt to dress up the mechanics at all.  We know that monster X looks the way it does because of the mechanics.  I would argue that earlier editions try to gloss over a lot of this by dressing it up as fiction first but not really making major substantive decisions based on narrative rather than mechanics.

In the cases where narrative first was the design decision, it largely failed - broken mechanics, restrictions that were largely ignored (time based training for entry into PrC's and the like are a prime example here - either the PrC was ignored, or the restriction was), that sort of thing.

That might just be my personal biases intruding though.  



Nagol said:


> And that's the big difference I see in fiction-first and rules-first.  The play group has more adjudication to perform in fiction first because no game model is extensive enough to cover all the corner cases and special circumstances that arise to achieve versimilitude.
> 
> Rules-first removes a lot of the adjudication to instill consistency in play even if that consitency comes at a cost in versimilitude.




This I think is spot on.  100% true and well put.



			
				Nagol said:
			
		

> But none of that expereince is unique to D&D. You've just described my expereinces with Chivalry and Sorcery, Tunnels and Trolls, Fantasy Wargaming, and if I change 'leveled up" to "advanced" I can include Runequest, Ars Magica, Fantasy Hero, Harn, Pendragon, and a host of others in that umbrella.




I think that trying to find a definition that includes D&D and only D&D is doomed to failure.  Considering how much D&D has influenced so many other games, in particular anything published pre-1990, it's innevitable that many of the elements one finds in D&D are also going to be found in other RPG's.

I think it's very telling that you name a number of games that share a similar time frame to D&D for their first entrance into the hobby.  D&D set the stage for RPG's and for a very long time, a game could be judged by how much it was like D&D or how much it tried to be different from D&D.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> But none of that expereince is unique to D&D.  You've just described my expereinces with _Chivalry and Sorcery_, _Tunnels and Trolls_, _Fantasy Wargaming_, and if I change 'leveled up" to "advanced" I can include _Runequest_, _Ars Magica_, _Fantasy Hero_, _Harn_, _Pendragon_, and a host of others in that umbrella.




Call me a heretic, but ...

So what?

What is so damn important about separating us D&D players over here from those Harn players over there?

I mean, hell, I've played Runequest (briefly), MERPS, GURPS, Ars Magica, Shadowrun, Star Wars (in 3 flavors), barely missed a Savage Worlds game, etc., _and_ 5 flavors of D&D.

They prety much all look like part of the Empire from where I'm sitting; sure, maybe one's more Gallic and the other is Germanic, but there's aqueducts, olive oil, and legionaires patrolling.

Is it _really_ that important to draw all these lines between us?  I mean, when you come right down to it, we're all of us pretty far out on the margins.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Frankly, I agree that separating the experience found by D&D players from the rest of the RPG poplation is exceedingly difficult if at all possible.

The thread began with the premise of seeking the "soul" of D&D.

I'm still seeking to see if anyone can present something -- anything -- that would represent such a essence that is a univeral D&D experience that only applies to D&D.

So far no luck.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> 
> I think that trying to find a definition that includes D&D and only D&D is doomed to failure.  Considering how much D&D has influenced so many other games, in particular anything published pre-1990, it's innevitable that many of the elements one finds in D&D are also going to be found in other RPG's.
> 
> I think it's very telling that you name a number of games that share a similar time frame to D&D for their first entrance into the hobby.  D&D set the stage for RPG's and for a very long time, a game could be judged by how much it was like D&D or how much it tried to be different from D&D.




That's just me showing my age.  I could just as easily said the Eldritch Roleplaying System and (to a lesser extent) Desolation.

Eldritch RPG
Desolation, A Post-Apocalyptic Fantasy Roleplaying Game from Greymalkin Designs


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> And that's the big difference I see in fiction-first and rules-first.  The play group has more adjudication to perform in fiction first because no game model is extensive enough to cover all the corner cases and special circumstances that arise to achieve versimilitude.
> 
> Rules-first removes a lot of the adjudication to instill consistency in play even if that consitency comes at a cost in versimilitude.




That's not necessarily true. For instance, a rules-first system can require a lot of adjudication if the game events aren't successfully operationalized. As an example, 3e specifies that you can make a melee attack against an opponent up to 5 feet away. Imagine you are fighting an opponent who has a 15 ft. reach with his tail. If you ready an attack, can you attack the opponent when they attack you? A lot of people assume, yes; if the opponent attacks you, they are within 5 feet. On the other hand, other people took this to mean 5 feet from their square, not their appendage. 

On the other hand, a fiction-first approach can yield superior results to rules-first games in scnerios where the rules don't work very well. For instance, in almost any game system every published, a fiction-first approach will yield more easily adjudicated results than a rules-first approach when a normal human is at ground zero of a nuclear blast. It is likely to be uncontrovertible that someone at ground zero is dead. Attempting to use any mechanical system to determine that fact, however good the mechanics are, opens up the possibility of ambiguity, however small that possibility.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> That's not necessarily true. For instance, a rules-first system can require a lot of adjudication if the game events aren't successfully operationalized. As an example, 3e specifies that you can make a melee attack against an opponent up to 5 feet away. Imagine you are fighting an opponent who has a 15 ft. reach with his tail. If you ready an attack, can you attack the opponent when they attack you? A lot of people assume, yes; if the opponent attacks you, they are within 5 feet. On the other hand, other people took this to mean 5 feet from their square, not their appendage.




I'd argue that determining how an rule ambiguity will be resolved isn't fiction-first; it's removing an ambiguity in a poorly word rule.



> On the other hand, a fiction-first approach can yield superior results to rules-first games in scnerios where the rules don't work very well. For instance, in almost any game system every published, a fiction-first approach will yield more easily adjudicated results than a rules-first approach when a normal human is at ground zero of a nuclear blast. It is likely to be uncontrovertible that someone at ground zero is dead. Attempting to use any mechanical system to determine that fact, however good the mechanics are, opens up the possibility of ambiguity, however small that possibility.




And that's why many people like fiction-first; it increases their feeling of versimilitude.  

One particularly infamous session in an _Aftermath_ campaign I ran had all the PCs in the primary damage zone of a defensive grenade.  A lot of the enemy were in the secondary zone.  The damage was sufficent to kill the PCs, but the game system offers a 10% chance of turning that damage into a flesh wound.  _All 6 PCs made that roll -- in the open with everyone watching._  Every enemy went down.

Villains and Vigilantes nukes were particulaly silly with a large nuke doing 4d100 damage.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> I'd argue that determining how an rule ambiguity will be resolved isn't fiction-first; it's removing an ambiguity in a poorly word rule.




Every rule is poorly worded for some case.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Let's look at Lightning Bolt to see the difference
> 
> In fiction first (1e), a Lightning Bolt bounced when it couldn't penetrate a barrier, turned into a globe of destructive energy underwater, and generally interacted with the game world as the creator's/DM's believed electricity would including suggestions to reduce saving throws if the party is standing in water, etc.  The Lightning bolt is a manifestation in the world as is affected by the world as much as it affects the world.



Also, the interaction could take place over there; the Bolt didn't have to start at the caster but could start anywhere within range and extend from there directly away from caster.



> In mechanical play (3e), a Lightning Bolt is a line of damage that stops at a barrier, and is unaffected by water or generally any other effect not specific to affecting the spell.  The Lightning Bolt is a manifestation in the world but not really affected by the world.



And by RAW has to start at the caster; thus making the globe-in-water interaction somewhat self-defeating to said caster. 

Fireball is another good example of how interactions have changed; IMO not for the better.

Lan-"33 10x10x10' cubes is a surprisingly large volume"-efan


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Frankly, I agree that separating the experience found by D&D players from the rest of the RPG poplation is exceedingly difficult if at all possible.
> 
> The thread began with the premise of seeking the "soul" of D&D.
> 
> ...




Why does it have to ONLY apply to D&D.  This makes no sense.  Something can both be universal to D&D and just happen to encompass games that aren't D&D.  That doesn't mean that they aren't representative of a D&D experience.  I think all you're doing is moving the goalposts.  Every time someone describes something that is a part of D&D, some folks just keep trying to find a way that it isn't ONLY D&D.

That, to me, makes the whole endeavor an exercise in futility.  As has been noted before.  D&D was the Alpha of the RPG movement.  There have been many copycats (some more blatant than others).  Does the fact that there are copycats somehow make the D&D experience less real for the rest of us?

There is NO aspect of any version D&D that isn't similar to some other game.  That doesn't mean that we can't describe D&D and say... "Yes, that's D&D."  We don't live in a perfect world of absolutes.  Everything I noted about my experience of D&D is probably true of everyone's experience with D&D no matter what version they have played (I'm sure there is someone that never played with a rules lawyer out there... if so raise your hand so we can note how the exception proves the rule).

As for seeking the soul of D&D.  That's part of what I was describing.  The soul of D&D doesn't have to be something super specific.  It can be universal... but it seems that some people don't want to accept that for some unknown reason.  Everything needs to be super-defined to the nth degree... just so they can say... "Ha! This version is NOT D&D!"

Well, if that's what floats your boat, then fine.  But it seems pointless to me.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> With apologies, but, could I change that last bit from "nakedly obvious mechanics first" to simply transparent and unapologetic?
> 
> Because, honestly, I think that's a major sticking point with some people.



Sure, but you know how when you're playing an RPG video game and your character comes up to some boulders at the edge of the screen? No matter how much you climb and jump, your can never, ever pass that barrier. Now I don't fret over that limitation, because I know I'm playing a software game and there's nothing on the other side. So I appreciate the visual barrier and not just a cheesy 'you have reached the end of the universe' fence, but there's no BSing that the barrier exists, first and foremost, to delineate the play area. The boulders are simply a facade.

Well, that's a video game...

In a tabletop RPG, I don't want the naked underpinnings of the game thrust into my face. It makes it feel like a video game or board game. It may be "honest" in its transparency, but it distracts from my immersion, from the versimilitude (as you've already acknowledged to Nagol) and worst of all, it often sets arbitrary limits on the narrative (as described in previous pages -- you disagreed, indicating that the end result is often the same but I challenge that there are too many contrary examples).

Note that I don't have a problem with something like hit points. As an abstract measure of physical wounds, stamina, willpower, luck, and heroism, there need be no incongruity with fictional narrative and versimilitude, because it's flexible and accomodating enough to allow for almost any in-game narrative. I only have a problem with the other nakedly gamist mechanics that are incongruous with in-game potential and enforce arbitrary limits that make no fictional sense.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> Note that I don't have a problem with something like hit points. As an abstract measure of physical wounds, stamina, willpower, luck, and heroism, there need be no incongruity with fictional narrative and versimilitude, because it's flexible and accomodating enough to allow for almost any in-game narrative. I only have a problem with the other nakedly gamist mechanics that are incongruous with in-game potential and enforce arbitrary limits that make no fictional sense.




But... every version of D&D has something like this.  You've just decided that the version you like does it in a way that you can accept.  That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still playing D&D... or that I'm still playing D&D with some other version.  I fail to see how the incongruity you describe due to mechanics somehow makes the overall experience of D&D less universal.  In fact, I would say that since it's something that happens in every version, that it's probably part of the mythical soul of D&D.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 23, 2011)

Lalato said:


> But... every version of D&D has something like this. You've just decided that the version you like does it in a way that you can accept. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still playing D&D... or that I'm still playing D&D with some other version. I fail to see how the incongruity you describe due to mechanics somehow makes the overall experience of D&D less universal. In fact, I would say that since it's something that happens in every version, that it's probably part of the mythical soul of D&D.



To clarify, there is no single version of D&D that I "like" as being even close to perfect, only that 4E bothers me for being gamist. Also, I never claimed that any older edition has more "soul" than 4E (I'm keeping my personal opinion to myself), but in all fairness, there has been a confusing mismash of posts so far by different authors all arguing from different angles.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2011)

Pawsplay - I'm not sure if your example fits your idea of "a lot of adjudication".  You're positing a pretty corner case example, although one that can come up, and calling that a lot of adjudication.  How often does a PC ready an action against an opponent with a 15 foot reach?  I'm going to say that's not a frequent occurance, certainly not something that's going to come up all the time.

Although, your point is well taken.  Heck, the whole "go swimming in lava" thing irks some people to no end, despite the fact that, well, how often does lava actually feature in a D&D game...  

RC - I was cogitating your Human Torch example and I realized something.  Both approaches can give the same results and frequently will.  For example, in your example, the Fiction First ruling is that the Human Torch goes out if he's doused in water because that speaks to a certain level of verisimilitude.  A Mechanics First approach could come up with the same result, although for different reasons - The Human Torch's power's are pretty powerful - flight, including extremely fast flight, nova blast, the ability to turn off his powers, etc - so the water limitation is simply a balancing element to bring it in line with the rest of the Fantastic Four.

Conversely, you could argue that lots of things actually do burn underwater, so, why not the Human Torch?  So, you have a Fiction First approach that lets him burn underwater, for a certain level of verisimilitude, and a Mechanics First approach that says that his powers are in line with the rest of the FF and thus don't need to be restricted.

Granted, this doesn't cover lack of oxygen - but then, dying from lack of oxygen is likely a bigger worry than not being able to light a fire.   

My point is, just like the thread title says, if all roads lead to Rome, does it matter how you got there?  And, beyond that, even if it does matter, can you tell the difference after the fact?

Are the Human Torch's limitations fiction first or mechanics first?  I don't know.  You can make a pretty good argument either way.  AFAIC, since it could go either way, what difference does it make?

In other words, I don't really care about how you got to the end point, it's the end point that matters and since you cannot reverse engineer the decision process after the fact, it doesn't really matter.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> I find your question perplexing, to be honest.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> But when I have 3 "jump" cards (as per the highly theoretical example being referenced, although I admit it's a terrible example for carrying the entire weight of this argument), where the number 3 is based on codified metagame priorities with no direct fictional correlation, and I have to reverse-engineer that into a plausible narrative (every single time, I may add, for every single incident of every single metagame rule), then how can it be anything but half-baked?



I don't mind your "jump card" example at all. It boils things down nicely. But I don't see why you say it would have to be half-baked.

I mean, maybe it will be half-baked because no one at the table has the energy or enthusiasm. When the polearm fighter in my game uses Come and Get It I'm generally able to say something about deft halberd work and then move on with things - there's no greater need to dwell on it than on what goes on when the archer-ranger shoots four arrows in 6 seconds (Twin Strike + action point + Twin Strike). Of course, sometimes it comes up - perhaps there's a 10' pit between the fighter and one of the targets of Come and Get It, in which case deft footwork on it's own mightn't do the job. Sometimes something more elaborate is canvassed, sometimes we fudge it a bit and move on.

But when resolving a skill challenge, for example, where each new skill check requires the player to understand the evolving situation with which s/he is engaging, then being clear about what is happening in the fictional situation is pretty important. And as GM I try pretty hard to make it clear and evocative. I don't think I'm superlative by any means, but I think it's often at least a little more than half-baked.

As to the Jump card - maybe one time the player describes a gust of wind. Another time powerful muscles. Another time nature spirits help carry the PC over the gap (a la BMX Bandit and the summoned angels). There's stuff here for the GM to hang complications on - especially if the player is somewhat consistent in how s/he narrates what is going on. I don't see this as half-baked at all - to me it looks like playing an RPG!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2011)

> As for seeking the soul of D&D. That's part of what I was describing. The soul of D&D doesn't have to be something super specific. It can be universal... but it seems that some people don't want to accept that for some unknown reason. Everything needs to be super-defined to the nth degree... just so they can say... "Ha! This version is NOT D&D!"



As I said upthread, my soul is unique to me, as is the soul of each poster is unique to them.  If presented with 2 things designated souls, you find yourself unable to distinguish between them, then you are not truly perceiving souls.

That's not about "super-definition," that's proper identification.

It's not about some kind of "gotcha!" moment.  If you can't distinguish between the "soul of D&D" and the "soul of Harn," then you are not looking at the "soul" of either.  At best you might be able to say you've seen the "soul of FRPGs."


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Primarily fiction-first since the resolution was an adjudication of what effect the in-game object expression would have on other in-game objects that was not supported by the base rules.
> 
> Fiction-first/rules-based/meta-game don't necessarily share the same axis as narrative-first since the the former are methods for the group to adjudicate in-game result and the latter is a method of injecting new situations into the game environment.



Thanks for the reply.

This, plus another conversation we had (on which thread? they all blur together!) about metagaming fighters versus non-metagaming wizards in 4e, is making me think more about that aspect of 4e. I've never been of the view that "all 4e classes play basically the same", but I think I'm getting a clearer sense of one further respect in which they differ.

Combining this (inchoate) thought with my response to your lightning bolt example: the player of a wizard in 4e has both a certain number of "metagame tokens" - eg when they use lightning bolt underwater they are entitled to play a "metagame token" to ensure that the spell behaves as per its rules parameters, getting to narrate (or have the GM narrate) what it is about the fictional situation that brings about this result. But the player of the wizard also has fictional tools to leverage, as in my Twist of Space example.

The player of the fighter - depending somewhat on build - probably leverages more metagame tokens more often (did anyone say "Come and Get It") but has, on the whole, fewer fictional levers. Especially because the fighter is less likely to have access to skills like Arcana and Religion, that tend to provide open-ended fictional levers when compared to skills like Athletics and Endurance.

So maybe wizards still are king in 4e! (Hopefully I'll be getting more experimental data this Sunday.)


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> For instance, in almost any game system every published, a fiction-first approach will yield more easily adjudicated results than a rules-first approach when a normal human is at ground zero of a nuclear blast. It is likely to be uncontrovertible that someone at ground zero is dead. Attempting to use any mechanical system to determine that fact, however good the mechanics are, opens up the possibility of ambiguity, however small that possibility.



Just for the record - in Andy Slack's "Expanded Universes" supplemental rules for Traveller in an early White Dwarf, the nuclear weapon mechanics included "ground zero: dead". I think the same is true for Meson Accelerators in Book 4: Mercenary.

More generally, the point is well-taken. The way that HeroWars/Quest responds to this issue is via the scene-framing rules - the GM has final authority over scene-framing, and if a player wants his/her PC to do something which the GM is sceptical of (such as surviving a ground zero nuclear burst) the burden is on the player to explain how this is genre-appropriate. Only once it's clear what the player envisages happening in the situation, and how it can work within the (genre-appropriate) reality of the gameworld, are the action resolution mechanics then able to be engaged.

I think that page 42 of 4e's DMG depends upon some sort of similar constraint, although the rules text doesn't clearly articulate it.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As I said upthread, my soul is unique to me, as is the soul of each poster is unique to them.  If presented with 2 things designated souls, you find yourself unable to distinguish between them, then you are not truly perceiving souls.
> 
> That's not about "super-definition," that's proper identification.
> 
> It's not about some kind of "gotcha!" moment.  If you can't distinguish between the "soul of D&D" and the "soul of Harn," then you are not looking at the "soul" of either.  At best you might be able to say you've seen the "soul of FRPGs."




While there may be fifteen bajillion different words that mean "a shade of red" there is actually no point where you can definitively state red becomes orange.

Does that invalidate the definition of red?

We can look at some things and definitely say, "that is NOT D&D" - If I'm playing golf for example, I'm not playing D&D.  But, the closer we get to the point where we're sitting around a table pretending to be a fictional character in a fantasy world, those lines get a whole lot blurrier.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

OK.  So why argue about the so called gamist aspect of 4e in this thread at all?  This thread, from what I've gathered, is about what is universal to all versions of D&D.  Not what is different about each version.

For some reason people decided that instead of picking out the thousands of things that are similar across all versions of D&D and the experience of playing D&D they would rather point out the things they don't or do like about version x or version y.

I guess that's fine in a thread about the differences between each version.  But why bother in a thread that is about the similarities?  I acknowledge that you have preferences for the style of play that you enjoy.  I acknowledge that you have preferences for the way you adjudicate things in your game.  I have preferences too.  Now lets talk about what is similar between your style and mine.

I think that was part of the intent of the OP.  Unfortunately, it seems to have devolved into a competition on how to define some very specific thing that is D&D.  Or some esoteric conversation about how version x does this and I don't like it.  To that I say...  poppycock!  There are a thousands of things that make up what is D&D.  And you know what... it's OK if some or even most of them happen to also define some other activity or other game.  It's also OK if some things are different between versions.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2011)

> While there may be fifteen bajillion different words that mean "a shade of red" there is actually no point where you can definitively state red becomes orange.
> 
> Does that invalidate the definition of red?




Excellent point.

To which I respond that the definition of red is not invalidated, but just as in gaming, at best, the definition of red is vague at the edges.*

But if you're talking about the _soul_ or _definition_ of red- or D&D- you're not talking about the periphery, you are talking about it's core.  IOW, not where there is a blurring or overlap, but rather where the distinction is clear.

After all, one could say that my soul is similar to that of my father's or mother's- or even some if my friends'- but what makes it _my_ soul is different from all of those.  Or anyone else's.  And that isn't at the edges of my being, but my very center.




* This is all assuming, of course, that science hasn't specified to the wavelength what constitutes red and each and every other color out there.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As I said upthread, my soul is unique to me, as is the soul of each poster is unique to them.  If presented with 2 things designated souls, you find yourself unable to distinguish between them, then you are not truly perceiving souls.
> 
> That's not about "super-definition," that's proper identification.
> 
> It's not about some kind of "gotcha!" moment.  If you can't distinguish between the "soul of D&D" and the "soul of Harn," then you are not looking at the "soul" of either.  At best you might be able to say you've seen the "soul of FRPGs."




Well, if you want to get right down to it.  D&D has no soul.  Why?  It's a game.  You, Danny, are not a game.

I'm not the one that claims that there is something unique about D&D.  Personally, I don't think there is anything you can find in D&D that you can't find in some other RPG.  Then again, D&D came before any other RPG... so all of those are really derivative in some form or fashion (even if they have radically different mechanics).  So for you to ask for a definition of the soul of D&D strikes me as just that... a gotcha.

Just because D&D shares a lot of similarities with other RPGs doesn't make it any less D&D.  Those other RPGs are derivative works.  Of course they're going to be similar to D&D.  To say otherwise would be stupid on my part.

So yeah... you may not feel like admitting it, but there are thousands of similarities between editions of D&D.  That you choose to focus on this definition has little bearing on whether or not the similarities are there...  and honestly it really doesn't matter one bit whether those similarities are also shared by derivative works.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> My point is, just like the thread title says, if all roads lead to Rome, does it matter how you got there?  And, beyond that, even if it does matter, can you tell the difference after the fact?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> In other words, I don't really care about how you got to the end point, it's the end point that matters and since you cannot reverse engineer the decision process after the fact, it doesn't really matter.




I think that it does matter to the people playing the game.  I suspect that the decisions made by the players in the game are going to be different.  The end result - that is, what the players have determined is happening in the game world - may be the same, but the decisions made to get to that point are different.  

I think that's where the line is drawn; I may be wrong.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2011)

I agree with LostSoul (as per my post #432 upthread).

That's also why I'm hestitant to try and identify a "soul" or unifying feature of D&D: different players are looking for pretty different things out of the game. Some therefore prefer different mechanics. Some use the same mechanics to different ends - for example, are random encounter tables (i) an abstraction of the habitation of and movement through the gameworld of variuos sorts of creatures, or (ii) a mechanicsm for the GM to use to introduce complication into the ongoing situation?

Even if everyone's playing a game where (from time to time) elves and dwarves enter caverns and kill things, what's going on at the table might still be pretty different.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

pemerton, I agree that the style of play is different for each group. The mechanics one group loves will be despised by another group.  Even if both groups are playing the same edition.  

But that doesn't change the fact that it's all still D&D.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Lalato said:


> pemerton, I agree that the style of play is different for each group. The mechanics one group loves will be despised by another group.  Even if both groups are playing the same edition.
> 
> But that doesn't change the fact that it's all still D&D.




Exept when it's not, of course.  Again, a whole lot of FRPGS and some non-F versions give an indistinguishable underlying experience.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Combining this (inchoate) thought with my response to your lightning bolt example: the player of a wizard in 4e has both a certain number of "metagame tokens" - eg when they use lightning bolt underwater they are entitled to play a "metagame token" to ensure that the spell behaves as per its rules parameters, getting to narrate (or have the GM narrate) what it is about the fictional situation that brings about this result. But the player of the wizard also has fictional tools to leverage, as in my Twist of Space example.




Does the Wizard have the option to NOT play the token when firing the Lightning Bolt underwater and having a metagame event happen or is he effectively restricted to rules-first adjudication in that instance?  Could the Wizard state "I cast Lightning Bolt, but I'd like it to be a (choose one from each group) (Globe/Cone/Spread) and (damage everything/stun everything) because we're in water?  

Your game sounds like it introduces a large amount of fiction-first/metagame situational resolutions as your Twist of Space and Come Get It examples show.  That's not particularly surprising since your situation style is narrative-first.  Its much easier to resolve the personal situations if the players have tools to interact with them.  From memory of 4e, it isn't the suggested play.



> The player of the fighter - depending somewhat on build - probably leverages more metagame tokens more often (did anyone say "Come and Get It") but has, on the whole, fewer fictional levers. Especially because the fighter is less likely to have access to skills like Arcana and Religion, that tend to provide open-ended fictional levers when compared to skills like Athletics and Endurance.
> 
> So maybe wizards still are king in 4e! (Hopefully I'll be getting more experimental data this Sunday.)




And the fighter faces more metagame restrictions since his power recharge mechanic is wholly metagame in origin.  The Wizard has a fiction-first recovery of his dailies, but the poor fighter can't understand why his many and varied opponents only ever offer one special move opening each extended rest!


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 23, 2011)

Lalato said:


> Well, if you want to get right down to it. D&D has no soul.




Every day, countless games of D&D are played without soul. Won't you please help, give generously so that these games can become a useful part of entertainment society. 

This has been a public service announcement.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> RC - I was cogitating your Human Torch example and I realized something.  Both approaches can give the same results and frequently will.  For example, in your example, the Fiction First ruling is that the Human Torch goes out if he's doused in water because that speaks to a certain level of verisimilitude.  A Mechanics First approach could come up with the same result, although for different reasons - The Human Torch's power's are pretty powerful - flight, including extremely fast flight, nova blast, the ability to turn off his powers, etc - so the water limitation is simply a balancing element to bring it in line with the rest of the Fantastic Four.




Sure....they could come up with the same results if (and only if) the game designer is as or more flexible and clever when designing the game as every player is while playing the game.

I have never seem an example where this is the case.  Consequently, I've never seen an example where the results were the same.  Or even close to the same.

YMMV, though, depending upon how your experience varies.



RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2011)

> Well, if you want to get right down to it. D&D has no soul. Why? It's a game. You, Danny, are not a game.



Yes, in the truest sense of the word, you are correct.  That doesn't invalidate the quest.  Call it what you will, the "Rome," "D&D Experience" or this latest metaphor, "soul," what people are looking for is some kind of meaphysical, unique identifying essence.  And we commonly say that such an attribute exists even in nonliving things...

The question is whether D&D has such a thing apart from it's mechanics & fluff.



> But if you're talking about the soul or definition of red- or D&D- you're not talking about the periphery, you are talking about it's core. IOW, not where there is a blurring or overlap, but rather where the distinction is clear.




To..._amplify_...this point, I use another metaphor.  Blues is a well established genre of music which has grown to cover a lot of ground, and is one of the genres that helped create rock & roll.

But if I were to ask you to search for the "soul" or "essence" of blues, would you look most carefully at bands like Led Zeppelin, or Stevie Ray Vaughn, or B.B. King, or Leadbelly, or Robert Johnson?

My guess is that, despite the unquestioned blues aspects of all the others, you'd look at Johnson or Leadbelly more than the others.  You'd focus on the base, not the artists whose accretions expanded the genre.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Does the Wizard have the option to NOT play the token when firing the Lightning Bolt underwater and having a metagame event happen or is he effectively restricted to rules-first adjudication in that instance?



Now that is an interesting question, which I was wondering if anyone would ask!

I think the best answer is "yes, but  . . ." - this would be a page 42 matter, with the player of the wizard having to make a skill check (presumably Arcana as the default, but it might depend on the details of the fictional situation) to vary the spell in this sort of way.

I'll concede that it's a curious form of "metagame token" that by default you're obliged to play.



Nagol said:


> From memory of 4e, it isn't the suggested play.



I fluctuate between confidence and confusion in my conceptoin of the suggested play for 4e. I don't think it's fully fiction first, but it has elements of fiction first (because I don't see how page 42, together with associated commentary such as creative use of cantrips, could work otherwise). But as the above discussion of the mandatory metagame token shows, it has a strong metagame dimension which can push in the direction of rules-based - I'm not sure I'm getting your terminology quite right, but I would say that to the extent that 4e is rules-based, it's rules-based with an expectation that an explicating narrative of the relevant fictional causes will be provided - I'm not sure if this makes sense in your schema, or if I've just describe metagame-based rather than rules-based.

As for the overall orientation of play - if it's not meant to be narrative first, then I'm not sure what it is for. In spite of some superficial appearances, I don't think that 4e suits challenge/"step on up" play all that well, although I know some other posters around here think differently. And it doesn't really seemed aimed at exploration - or rather, if you use it as an exploration vehicle (letting the GM and the setting - which would have to be considerably enriched compared to the core books - do all the narrative/thematic work) then the dice-rolling objection is going to rear its head again. Because the players won't have much that is meaningful to do other than roll their dice and add a little bit of colour and characterisation.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 23, 2011)

Lalato said:


> OK. So why argue about the so called gamist aspect of 4e in this thread at all? This thread, from what I've gathered, is about what is universal to all versions of D&D. Not what is different about each version.



Fiction first: Because mechanical gamism eats away at the imaginative soul of D&D and roleplaying as we know it will be replaced by a fake simulacrum, like cheap paint covering a dead rigid mannequin

Truth first: Honestly, I don't know, I didn't read the whole thread. I responded to someone's post on page twenty-something. 

Metagame first: I have used up my Well of Infinite Patience power for the week, all that I have left is a Sarcasm/Parody at-will power.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sure....they could come up with the same results if (and only if) the game designer is as or more flexible and clever when designing the game as every player is while playing the game.
> 
> I have never seem an example where this is the case.  Consequently, I've never seen an example where the results were the same.  Or even close to the same.
> 
> ...




Champions can become very close to the same as the players gets a cost reduction for limitations like "Power requires air to work (-1/4)".  This encourages the players to exercise creativity in initial design.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> As to the Jump card - maybe one time the player describes a gust of wind. Another time powerful muscles. Another time nature spirits help carry the PC over the gap (a la BMX Bandit and the summoned angels). There's stuff here for the GM to hang complications on - especially if the player is somewhat consistent in how s/he narrates what is going on. I don't see this as half-baked at all - to me it looks like playing an RPG!



I have no problem with that kind of narrative at all. But in this example, I was referring to the arbitrary limitation of have 3 Jump cards.

How often will a player ever attempt to narratively in-game jump a 4th time that day? Even though he is mechanically doomed to failure, because he had only 3 Jump cards and he used them all up? Why bother narrating a hopeless outcome? And, in-game, why is he doomed to failure anyway, since he's at full health and could feasibly jump a 4th time if he attempted to. Any explanation is half-baked.

In 3E, are there powers that are arbitrarily limited to 3 x day for no in-game fictional reason? Yes. Does 4E have *more* obvious and systemic examples of powers with such gamist limitations? I think yes.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Now that is an interesting question, which I was wondering if anyone would ask!
> 
> I think the best answer is "yes, but  . . ." - this would be a page 42 matter, with the player of the wizard having to make a skill check (presumably Arcana as the default, but it might depend on the details of the fictional situation) to vary the spell in this sort of way.
> 
> I'll concede that it's a curious form of "metagame token" that by default you're obliged to play.




Which makes it rules-based, but the DM is open to meta-game play.




> I fluctuate between confidence and confusion in my conceptoin of the suggested play for 4e. I don't think it's fully fiction first, but it has elements of fiction first (because I don't see how page 42, together with associated commentary such as creative use of cantrips, could work otherwise). But as the above discussion of the mandatory metagame token shows, it has a strong metagame dimension which can push in the direction of rules-based - I'm not sure I'm getting your terminology quite right, but I would say that to the extent that 4e is rules-based, it's rules-based with an expectation that an explicating narrative of the relevant fictional causes will be provided - I'm not sure if this makes sense in your schema, or if I've just describe metagame-based rather than rules-based.
> 
> As for the overall orientation of play - if it's not meant to be narrative first, then I'm not sure what it is for. In spite of some superficial appearances, I don't think that 4e suits challenge/"step on up" play all that well, although I know some other posters around here think differently. And it doesn't really seemed aimed at exploration - or rather, if you use it as an exploration vehicle (letting the GM and the setting - which would have to be considerably enriched compared to the core books - do all the narrative/thematic work) then the dice-rolling objection is going to rear its head again. Because the players won't have much that is meaningful to do other than roll their dice and add a little bit of colour and characterisation.




Early roleplaying games kept the players out of the metagame as much as possible since actions taken there don't represent actions the PC can engage in.  It was the purview of the DM.

Later games explicitly place some elements of the metagame into player hands for pre-play / advancement options for the characters.  Champions, GURPS and other toolbox games let the players dabble in the metagame attached to their characters.

A lot of non-RPG games allow both parties to dabble in the metagame since they are usually more explicitly games.  Several add-ons to games like Whimsy Cards, allow the player to affect the metagame.

Some of the more narrative focused games allow the players into the metagame space during play.   

I think 4e works as a narrative-first design game though if it were designed as such, it is poorly explained and only partially complete since it doesn't offer player inducement to include narrative hooks into the character typical of other narrative-first games (back story, personailty traits, flaws, etc.).  I got the feeling the expected design was more fiction-first in that the players would be dropped in a large adventure path and expected to act through it.

I think the expected play is more around creating the story of particular heroes from the intial scene to their final scene since they strip out most of the rewards available for challenge-play and they didn't include much to hook other play styles.  The primary hook for player interest seems based upon the tactical play and the options surrounding it.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Exept when it's not, of course.  Again, a whole lot of FRPGS and some non-F versions give an indistinguishable underlying experience.




And again, I say... SO WHAT!

Who gives a flying fart if other FRPGs and other RPGs share characteristics of D&D.  Those other games are ALL derivative works in some sense.  I challenge you to find something that is so unique to ANY edition of D&D that you can't find some version of that thing in either another edition of D&D or another RPG.

What I am saying is...  there is far more common between ALL versions of D&D than there are differences.  I little bit upthread I pointed out some things that I found were the same with all versions of D&D that I had played.  Again, I challenge to find more of those things instead of continually moving the goalposts so that no one can come to any conclusion.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yes, in the truest sense of the word, you are correct.  That doesn't invalidate the quest.  Call it what you will, the "Rome," "D&D Experience" or this latest metaphor, "soul," what people are looking for is some kind of meaphysical, unique identifying essence.  And we commonly say that such an attribute exists even in nonliving things...
> 
> The question is whether D&D has such a thing apart from it's mechanics & fluff.
> 
> ...





That's all fine and good.  Personally, I would include all examples of something, even derivative works, to help me define a thing.  And I would gather all the qualitative data points instead of trying to quantify it some futile effort to define its "essence."

That said, as I have stated above, I don't think there is a SOUL...  or an ESSENTIAL anything to D&D.  Why?  Because whatever was unique about D&D in 1974 has been co-opted by every other derivative work.

You want to know the only unique thing about D&D?  It was the first successful game of its type (RPGs).  Wait, I thought of another one.  It is the most successful TTRPG ever.  Woohoo!  Yay... there's your essence of D&D.  Now you can get to the really hard work of saying stuff like... "This is how I experience D&D..."

Because honestly, that's what really matters.  Tell me how you experience D&D.  Don't ask me to help you define it.  You'll help me define by telling me about your experience.  But I guess instead you... and others... want to play this futile cat and mouse game of someone defining something... and then  pouncing on them for it not accurately describing your personal experience.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Lalato said:


> That said, as I have stated above, I don't think there is a SOUL...  or an ESSENTIAL anything to D&D.





It is strange to me how snarky you are toward someone you are agreeing with.  Maybe I just don't get it.   

Do you just dislike his method of reaching the same conclusion?


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Lalato said:


> And again, I say... SO WHAT!
> 
> Who gives a flying fart if other FRPGs and other RPGs share characteristics of D&D.  Those other games are ALL derivative works in some sense.  I challenge you to find something that is so unique to ANY edition of D&D that you can't find some version of that thing in either another edition of D&D or another RPG.
> 
> What I am saying is...  there is far more common between ALL versions of D&D than there are differences.  I little bit upthread I pointed out some things that I found were the same with all versions of D&D that I had played.  Again, I challenge to find more of those things instead of continually moving the goalposts so that no one can come to any conclusion.




My goal posts have never shifted.  Any essence specific to D&D as postulated in the OP needs to be differentiated from things that are not D&D.  If you don't like the original premise, so be it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> My goal posts have never shifted.  Any essence specific to D&D as postulated in the OP needs to be differentiated from things that are not D&D.  If you don't like the original premise, so be it.




Yep.  That's the only goalpost that I've seen anyone posting about.

(Of course, it is possible that I missed something.......?  I'd be happy to say I'm wrong if someone shows me the post!)

R - Still stealing Lanefan's sig - C


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Excellent point.
> 
> To which I respond that the definition of red is not invalidated, but just as in gaming, at best, the definition of red is vague at the edges.*
> 
> ...




But, instead of color, how about forest?  At what point do you have a forest.  We all know what a forest looks like and I imagine we've all been in a forest at least once in our lives.

Now, define forest in such a way that it excludes all other groups of trees.

Even using your example, it would be virtually impossible to define Danny Alcatraz in such a way that it excludes all other people on the planet.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> My goal posts have never shifted.  Any essence specific to D&D as postulated in the OP needs to be differentiated from things that are not D&D.  If you don't like the original premise, so be it.




Actually, it has been long enough that I had to go back and read the OP.  

And, funnily enough, he doesn't actually state that there is any essence specific to D&D other than it's an experience we all like to have.  Or, to sum up in the final point in the OP



			
				Mercurious said:
			
		

> It is all the D&D Experience, and I love the fact that there are literally countless ways to get there.




So, Lalato isn't actually too far off the OP really.  The point isn't there is some specific Platonic form of D&D out there that we all strive toward that is the "perfect D&D experience".  It's that we arrive at the experience of doing something we enjoy in a number of different ways (as evinced by this thread) and we all call it "playing D&D".

It's quite possible that what I'm calling D&D is a rather off shade of vermillion, and what you're calling D&D is closer to crimson, but, we are both in a close enough ball park that despite the differences, there are far more similarities between what we call D&D than, say, that throbbing purplish thing over there.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> It is strange to me how snarky you are toward someone you are agreeing with.  Maybe I just don't get it.
> 
> Do you just dislike his method of reaching the same conclusion?




Sorry that you find my posts snarky.  I find your posts snarky too.  Yay... we agree on something.  Woohoo. Let's all play Kumbaya on the ukulele.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Lalato said:


> Let's all play Kumbaya on the ukulele.




Alas, I have no musical talent.  The only way I can carry a tune is if it's on a recording device.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Actually, it has been long enough that I had to go back and read the OP.
> 
> And, funnily enough, he doesn't actually state that there is any essence specific to D&D other than it's an experience we all like to have.  Or, to sum up in the final point in the OP
> 
> ...




EXACTLY!!!!!!  Go read the OP.  It wasn't until other people tried to impose the strawman of "defining D&D" that you guys started getting into this cat and mouse.  All I'm saying is if one wants to talk about the D&D experience... Talk about your experience of D&D.  We won't get anywhere by talking about some platonic ideal of what is D&D.

But I guess some folks would rather talk about fiction-first and rules-first and gamist and a lot of other semantic gobbledygook instead of actually finding common ground.  Why?  I have no idea, but it seems like a useless and futile exercise. I'm just pointing that out.  Apparently, some folks don't agree with me.  That's fine by me, but it has little, if anything, to do with the OP.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Alas, I have no musical talent.  The only way I can carry a tune is if it's on a recording device.




Me too.  

But hey, now we have three things in common.  We play RPGs, we're both snarky, and we both can't carry a tune.

My long lost brother!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2011)

> EXACTLY!!!!!! Go read the OP. It wasn't until other people tried to impose the strawman of "defining D&D" that you guys started getting into this cat and mouse. All I'm saying is if one wants to talk about the D&D experience... Talk about your experience of D&D. We won't get anywhere by talking about some platonic ideal of what is D&D




I read it again, but went further: "Rome" is a *specific* place- and Mercurius over the next few responses brings up the Platonic ideal of D&D, and the "universal" but "specific" experience language to clarify the OP.






 R -even stealing Lanefan's sig in XP posts -C


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Lalato said:


> Me too.
> 
> But hey, now we have three things in common.  We play RPGs, we're both snarky, and we both can't carry a tune.
> 
> My long lost brother!





I don't think you understand.  I was at work last week, and the radio was on.  It was a song I liked.  Without thinking about it, I sang along.

When I glanced at my co-worker, _*his ears were bleeding*_.












Now, admitedly, it was because he stabbed them with pencils to stop the awful sound, but really now.  He's never been the same since.





Even with the medication.

R - Don't get me singing; you wouldn't like me when I'm singing - C


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I read it again, but went further: "Rome" is a *specific* place- and Mercurius over the next few responses brings up the Platonic ideal of D&D, and the "universal" but "specific" experience language to clarify the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I get that, but I think that stuff was prompted by you... and what I'm saying is that going down that path is unnecessary... and, in fact, futile.  Why you choose to continue down it is a mystery to me... since you, yourself, noted in a post upthread that you didn't think a definition could be made... so you wouldn't even make an attempt.

So... if you don't think a definition is impossible, why keep clamoring for it.  Why keep trying to find loopholes as to why something is or isn't D&D?  Seems to me like that's quite a gotcha feedback loop you got there.  Just because Mercurius fell for the trap, doesn't mean that's the only way to discuss this topic.

As I asked above.  Tell us about YOUR D&D experiences instead of asking others to define YOUR D&D experiences in a pithy statement (that you think is impossible to do in the first place).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Lalato said:


> I get that, but I think that stuff was prompted by you...




I don't think so.  It is inherent in the idea that there is a shared experience.  All Dannyalcatraz did was make explicit that assumption.

And there is value in doing so for at least three reasons:

(1)  Any investigation into whether or not all roads really do lead to Rome must begin with whether or not there is a Rome to be led to.

(2)  Blind acceptance of the idea that there is a "core D&D experience" leads eventually to a point where someone's concept of the D&D experience, because it differs from that accepted "core D&D experience", is wrong.

Note please that I do not think that this is the intent of Mercurius' threads on the topic, but it is a very real potential outcome.

(3)  Blind acceptance of the idea that there is a "core D&D experience" of which ever edition of D&D partakes, regardless of other qualifiers, leads eventually to a point where an edition's concept of the D&D experience, no matter how much it differs from one's understanding of the "D&D experience", is right.

Note please that I do not think that this is the intent of Mercurius' threads on the topic, but it is a very real potential outcome.  And it may be part of what Mearls' blog post was attempting to establish, if there is a major shake-up coming.



> Tell us about YOUR D&D experiences instead of asking others to define YOUR D&D experiences in a pithy statement (that you think is impossible to do in the first place).




I am not sure that it is impossible to do, although I am skeptical of that possibility.  That I consider 4e D&D, despite how I define D&D, and despite the magnitude of change I believe exists, makes me uncertain that there is not a core experience, even if it is not something I can articulate.  That's something I am still pondering.

Certainly, however, if one postulates a "core D&D experience" (and wishes to convince others of the same), the onus lies on that person, and not the skeptics.

And that is another value, to me at least, of the skeptical position.  Without the skeptical position being articulated, it is hard to determine whether that position disproves the original premise, or merely renders it unproven.

In this case, I would say it remains unproven.


R - glad Lanefan's a good sport about this - C


----------



## Gryph (Feb 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I don't think so. It is inherent in the idea that there is a shared experience. All Dannyalcatraz did was make explicit that assumption.
> 
> And there is value in doing so for at least three reasons:
> 
> ...





Interesting,

After days and a some heat from the flames the thread seems to be distilling down to something meaingful about the essence of D&D. Like some internet-born alchemical process. 

Now my engineering driven brain wants to define test cases and begin to peel the onion. Several posters have made solid points to the commonality of all FRPG experiences. So I posit that the onion is the entirety of the FRPG experience (maybe exempting F.A.T.A.L). Danny and RC made points of the usefulness of defining a soul or core experience that is unique to D&D. I agree, so I'm going to start peeling.

I'm going to start by throwing out a data point. Let's see if anyone can shoot this down as part of our test cases. Characters are defined by Class. The class determines abilities of the character. Progression of the character over time is also determined by the class. The classes represent a fantasy archetype.

Gry - its a revolution in here - ph


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Gryph said:


> Interesting,
> 
> After days and a some heat from the flames the thread seems to be distilling down to something meaingful about the essence of D&D. Like some internet-born alchemical process.
> 
> ...




_Tunnels and Trolls_, _Chivalry and Sorcery_, _Fantasy Wargaming_, and _Traveller T20_ all define characters by class or classes.  admittedly, Traveler T20 isn't a fantasy archtypes for all its classes (it has Barbarian).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Gryph said:


> I'm going to start by throwing out a data point. Let's see if anyone can shoot this down as part of our test cases. Characters are defined by Class. The class determines abilities of the character. Progression of the character over time is also determined by the class. The classes represent a fantasy archetype.




I think that is several data points, but I agree with them all.



> Gry - its a revolution in here - ph




Lanefan is going to kill me.  


R - it started as a little joke, but it turns out that it is both fun and addictive - C


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> _Tunnels and Trolls_, _Chivalry and Sorcery_, _Fantasy Wargaming_, and _Traveller T20_ all define characters by class or classes.  admittedly, Traveler T20 isn't a fantasy archtypes for all its classes (it has Barbarian).




Yes, but blue and green are both colours, and that doesn't stop "it is a colour" from being a data point in defining "red".

If the totality of data points still seems to define much more than D&D, then there may be a problem.  Or it may be that (in essence) these other games are forms of D&D.

In either event, it should be an interesting exploration, no?


R - needs to go to Copying Lanefan's Sig Anonymous soon - C


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

Nice post, Raven Crowking.  However, I think you and others are looking at it in a way that makes it impossible to define any kind of core experience.

For some reason there are people in this thread that seem to believe that just because D&D shares things with other RPGs that it somehow invalidates that there are things that are shared across all versions of D&D.

I ask you to relate YOUR experiences because the only way I'll know for sure whether there is a common thread is if a lot of people open up and share what they've experienced.  As I've noted above... I don't think that there is anything in any version of D&D that you can't find elsewhere.  I've also noted a couple of things that I've found to be true for all versions of D&D that I have played.  I'm sure I could come up with a lot more.  How about you?

Unfortunately, those on the "skeptics" side of the fence aren't willing to share their experiences.  Is it for fear to find that we all do have something in common?  Maybe... maybe not.  But the silence on this topic is... deafening.  I ask for experiences and all I get is... but... but... but...


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Yes, but blue and green are both colours, and that doesn't stop "it is a colour" from being a data point in defining "red".
> 
> If the totality of data points still seems to define much more than D&D, then there may be a problem. Or it may be that (in essence) these other games are forms of D&D.
> 
> ...




The goal is to reduce the counter-examples as more data points are assigned. If the counter-examples aren't reduced, the new data point may be unnecessary. Once all counter examples are gone then you may be getting close.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

OK, here's a data point for you:

There needs to be a Dungeon Master.

[MENTION=9171]Lalato[/MENTION]:  I'm not at all certain that I accept your premise that no one who is skeptical of a universal "D&D Experience" is willing to share their experiences of D&D.  Certainly, many of them have in many, many threads.  

I do think that your posit that a "gotcha" moment might occur is valid, though.  EN World certainly has a plethora of members who, intentionally or not, will take parts of a post out of context to bolster their point.  While it is never my intention to do so, I am dead certain that I have done so many times in the past.  So this is not an unreasonable concern.

And, again, the onus is not on the skeptics.  Unless, of course, they want to convince you to be skeptical.  In which case, the onus is on them.

The only reason I haven't thrown a hat into the ring of defining what links all editions of D&D (really, of trying to define why I think 4e is D&D, despite what I feel are large differences between it and earlier editions) is because I don't have anything intelligent to say on the topic at this time.  

I really don't know why I believe 4e is D&D.

But I am trying to figure it out.  And when I have at least a bit of it figured out (enough to say something worth reading), I'll share it.

Part of that process, I think, is going to come from reverse engineering another 4e module, which I intend to do over the weekend (if partner and children permit me the time).


R - editting to fix my sig - C


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2011)

Others that use classes: almost all of the D&D clones, Palladium RPG has O.C.C.s, Talisanta uses "archetypes," Earthdawn has "disciplines," all of which determine PC abilities.

In addition, toolbox systems such as HERO may be able to do "classes" as part of their standard set of campaign frameworks.  This is NOT a modification if the game, merely one way of using the standard rules.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> OK, here's a data point for you:
> 
> There needs to be a Dungeon Master.
> 
> <snip>




I don't think this data point is central as all counter-examples (and in fact almost all RPGs) require someone in that role -- unless you are suggesting the title is important as many use Gamemaster, Storyteller, et al.

I'd hate to think we're hanging the D&D experience on trade dress titles though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 23, 2011)

Nope.  I'm trying to put a delimit on future editions.  If no one is in that understood role, I will not agree that it is D&D.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Nope.  I'm trying to put a delimit on future editions.  If no one is in that understood role, I will not agree that it is D&D.




What about those few solo adventures issued by TSR?


----------



## Gryph (Feb 23, 2011)

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] and @RC: We're in agreement here I think. Other FRPG's certainly use class the same way D&D does. They are "deeper in the onion" as it were.

[MENTION=5875]dan[/MENTION]ny: I only partially agree with you re. HERO. You certainly can do it that way, but it is a limiting effect on the system and I think you are being arbitrary in application of XP if you have class emulation drive character progression. HERO is a great toolbox, I love it for a lot of genres including fantasy; but I don't think you can fairly say it is a class based system.

How about I slightly amend the data point to state that class is the primary and most important method of defining a character?

@RC: I agree with a GM led game being a core data point.

I propose another data point. Combat resolution is highly abstract and the many factors that might represent a characters ability to continue to fight are represented by a single mechanical factor, Hit Points.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 23, 2011)

Mercurius said:


> In the context of my thread title, D&D is Rome. What are the roads, you say? The infinite ways to play D&D, and that includes not only the canonical editions but the countless house rules and fantasy heartbreakers, from slight tweakings to major revisionings.
> 
> The beauty of this framework--that D&D is Rome and all editions and variations are different roads "to" Rome, or "ways to get there"--is that it takes away _any_ edition from being D&D; editions are ways to "get to" D&D, to play and invoke the D&D experience. So _no _edition is "true D&D", yet _all _editions - and all variations - are valid and legit ways to invoke that experience, although there is no one size fits all. We all have our own, unique configuration. Different variations will speak to each of us, well, differently. We don't need to say "4E isn't D&D to me" because it isn't D&D to _anyone, _but it is a way to _play _D&D that _some _find adequate to invoking the D&D experience (and some don't).




I agree there are some commonalities across all forms of D&D. Let me pose a question. I feel Pathfinder is "more D&D" than 4e is, to me. Is Pathfinder Rome?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2011)

> That's all fine and good. Personally, I would include all examples of something, even derivative works, to help me define a thing. And I would gather all the qualitative data points instead of trying to quantify it some futile effort to define its "essence."




By doing so, you do a disservice to the meaning of "definition." Certainly, SRV, King and Zep are part of the blues tradition.  They do not define it's core, however- what makes the blues the blues- as opposed to blues with some R&R thrown in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2011)

> You certainly can do it that way, but it is a limiting effect on the system and I think you are being arbitrary in application of XP if you have class emulation drive character progression.




No, you're not.  It's part of the core game concepts & base mechanics.  They first showed up formally as "package deals" in either the Adventurer's Club periodicals- their equivalent to Dragon- or HERO 3rd or 4Ed, but that was just giving a name to one way of using the rules.

A "class" in a HERO D&D sim is no more arbitrary than any other package deal in the game, like "policeman," "reporter," "scientist," "elf," "werewolf" or what have you- which you can see in the core handbook.  Each package deal is a set of defined skills, powers, limitation and whatnot that you improve upon by spending XP on within the package.  

The only real diffference is that you'd be limiting _when_ players could spend XP to improve their PCs, since the default is that you can spend them anytime between adventures.

IOW, it is not a class based system, but contains within it the ability to be run as such.

In addition, I'm surprised that Mercurius hasn't squawked on this- one key contention of his was that the essence wasn't dependent upon mechanics.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2011)

> I propose another data point. Combat resolution is highly abstract and the many factors that might represent a characters ability to continue to fight are represented by a single mechanical factor, Hit Points.




You might want to rephrase that in the light of 4Ed's Healing Surge mechanic, unless you just view that as a shift from casters to all classes of the ability to heal.

On the whole, though, I don't see how that's going to weed out a lot of RPGs.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No, you're not. It's part of the core game concepts & base mechanics. They first showed up formally as "package deals" in either the Adventurer's Club periodicals- their equivalent to Dragon- or HERO 3rd or 4Ed, but that was just giving a name to one way of using the rules.
> 
> A "class" in a HERO D&D sim is no more arbitrary than any other package deal in the game, like "policeman," "reporter," "scientist," "elf," "werewolf" or what have you- which you can see in the core handbook. Each package deal is a set of defined skills, powers, limitation and whatnot that you improve upon by spending XP on within the package.
> 
> The only real diffference is that you'd be limiting _when_ players could spend XP to improve their PCs, since the default is that you can spend them anytime between adventures.




OK, I see where you are coming from there. I don't really see the package deals being a good analog to classes for a couple of reasons. First, there isn't really a progression built into most of them. Some have optional points that could be spent later but that isn't universal or definitive. Second, I don't really think they qualify as archtypes. Policeman, reporter, and such are bundles of skills that represent a job not a character type. 

Perhaps it is my own bias, because I reach for HERO when I want a game that is distinctly not D&D; but I don't believe point based systems, even in emulation mode, make the core D&D experience.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You might want to rephrase that in the light of 4Ed's Healing Surge mechanic, unless you just view that as a shift from casters to all classes of the ability to heal.
> 
> On the whole, though, I don't see how that's going to weed out a lot of RPGs.




A large number of RPGs split hit points into two factors, a quick recovery section variously termed Vitality, Fatigue, Stun, Exhaustion etc. and a slow healing factor name Hits, hit points, Body, etc.

I'm uncertain if it is a good axis to use since a lot of published alternative rules for D&D offered the same split and the newest version of D&D does something somewhat similar with Healing Surges and hit points where healing surges take longer to recover and hit points are the temporary pool and the ability to convert from surge to hit points.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You might want to rephrase that in the light of 4Ed's Healing Surge mechanic, unless you just view that as a shift from casters to all classes of the ability to heal.
> 
> On the whole, though, I don't see how that's going to weed out a lot of RPGs.




I guess I would classify Healing Surges as a recovery mechanic since they require some event to access them, even if its just a short rest after combat.

It weeds a handful that use split vitality/endurance type structures; HERO, the old DragonQuest, SAGA, for example.

[MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]: This might cause some squawking, but I am comfortable with the notion that alternate rules that replace core D&D pieces rather than adding to them, even when they come from the publisher, moves the game out of the core experience.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 23, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I agree there are some commonalities across all forms of D&D. Let me pose a question. I feel Pathfinder is "more D&D" than 4e is, to me. Is Pathfinder Rome?




In a discussion of the "soul", "feel", or "core" D&D experience, I doubt that I would exclude any of the direct clones. So OSRIC, C&C, Pathfinder, maybe others I haven't read. 

They wouldn't satisfy a legal definition of D&D, but their stated purpose is to replicate a D&D experience from a specific time period of the hobby.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 23, 2011)

Can you die if you still have healing surges?  


I guess my question is if all other things are equal, would playing or running a game NOT be D&D if two consumable traits need to be tracked rather than one.

For the previous filters (Class as a defining factor, requires a DM) I can see that even if all other factors were the same, the game would feel different.  I'm not sure that hit points being the singular consumable is sufficiently defining.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 23, 2011)

Nagol said:


> Can you die if you still have healing surges?
> 
> 
> I guess my question is if all other things are equal, would playing or running a game NOT be D&D if two consumable traits need to be tracked rather than one.
> ...




Absolutely, my last game as a player we lost 2 party members in a very brutal fight. They both had more than half of their surges left.

As for the consummable, I may retract it. I wasn't reaching for HP in the consummable sense as much trying to exclude wound track, death spiral type systems from consideration and the body/fatigue systems. What I am reaching for is a good statement of abstraction in combat resolution. The more crunchy, simulation bits you add to combat (wound penalties, hit location rules, armor as damage reduction, etc.) the further you move out of the core.

Let me ask this, Is there a difference between a significantly house ruled D&D game and a fantasy clone for purposes of this discussion?


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

double post!


----------



## Lalato (Feb 23, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I agree there are some commonalities across all forms of D&D. Let me pose a question. I feel Pathfinder is "more D&D" than 4e is, to me. Is Pathfinder Rome?




I don't see why not.  Pathfinder is one of the more blatant derivative works you can find.  It is, in essence, 3.5 D&D with a few tweaks.  I bet there are people with more jarring houserules for 3.5 than you'll find in Pathfinder.  That's part of the reason Pathfinder is marketed as backward compatible with 3.x.  Because, it is, at its heart just another version of D&D 3.5.

--sam


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 23, 2011)

> First, there isn't really a progression built into most of them. Some have optional points that could be spent later but that isn't universal or definitive.




Which makes them not unlike 3-5 level PcCls.



> Second, I don't really think they qualify as archtypes. Policeman, reporter, and such are bundles of skills that represent a job not a character type.




Depends on the package deal.  Most of the package deals for creature types are clearly archetypal.  And the police, etc., are just the ones provided as exemplars in the main book, which is edited to give you everything you need for a modern/spy/supers game.  Look in Fantasy HERO and you'll find more.

Don't get me wrong- I don't want to include D&D sims in HERO as part of D&D.  But if we can' eliminate it- as Mecurius wants, on non-mechanical grounds- we have to question the nature of what we're calling a "unique and universal D&D experience."


----------



## Gryph (Feb 23, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which makes them not unlike 3-5 level PcCls.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Fair enough. I disagree with Mercurius though, mechanics have too much impact on the experiential feel of a play session to be eliminated from this kind of discussion. We are talking about games here and games have rules. Rules affect play experience. I think it is a chimera to pursue a mechanics free Rome.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2011)

Lalato said:


> EXACTLY!!!!!!  Go read the OP.  It wasn't until other people tried to impose the strawman of "defining D&D" that you guys started getting into this cat and mouse.  All I'm saying is if one wants to talk about the D&D experience... Talk about your experience of D&D.  We won't get anywhere by talking about some platonic ideal of what is D&D.
> 
> But I guess some folks would rather talk about fiction-first and rules-first and gamist and a lot of other semantic gobbledygook instead of actually finding common ground.  Why?  I have no idea, but it seems like a useless and futile exercise. I'm just pointing that out.  Apparently, some folks don't agree with me.  That's fine by me, but it has little, if anything, to do with the OP.




Now, this I disagree with.  A lot of useful stuff has come out of this thread which has remained surprisingly congenial overall.  

Discussing these things allows me to refine my own understanding and to question my assumptions, which is always a good thing.  I might not admit even to myself that a viewpoint has changed within the thread, since I'm too busy typing to actually think, but, later on, down the road, I've certainly felt that my opinions have shifted on a number of issues.

On a side note, this is why I almost never drag in ancient history posts into a new thread.  I don't assume that people carve their opinions in stone.  Dragging in an off the cuff comment from four years ago isn't productive IMO.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2011)

DannyA - Considering the depth and breadth of the Hero system, it would be virtually impossible to come up with a definition of ANY role playing game that could specifically exclude Hero on a mechanical level.

I would exclude Hero a different way though.  The basic function of the Hero system is that it is a generic system.  That's the way it's presented.  Granted, you can then go on to make that generic system emulate D&D, but, you can also emulate Traveller or Battletech too if you wanted.  The Hero system, at its base, is not D&D because D&D is not a generic game.

Which nicely excludes GURPS too.  Sure, I can emulate D&D using GURPS, but, at that point, all I've done is turn a generic system into a clone of another system.  At that point, it becomes D&D, but, the basic game isn't.

D&D, as far as people have agreed with is:

A class based system
A system which presumes the presence of a DM (although it doesn't necessarily require it as evinced by solo modules.)

I would add that D&D is not a generic system.  The basic presumption of the game is that you will be playing a certain kind of game (heroic - in the sense that you start weak and gain power in a sort of Cambellian Hero's Journey) in a certain genre (fantasy).

So, if we go with those three elements: class based, with a DM to adjudicate, and non-generic fantasy based, that excludes most other activities.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> DannyA - Considering the depth and breadth of the Hero system, it would be virtually impossible to come up with a definition of ANY role playing game that could specifically exclude Hero on a mechanical level.
> 
> I would exclude Hero a different way though.  The basic function of the Hero system is that it is a generic system.  That's the way it's presented.  Granted, you can then go on to make that generic system emulate D&D, but, you can also emulate Traveller or Battletech too if you wanted.  The Hero system, at its base, is not D&D because D&D is not a generic game.
> 
> Which nicely excludes GURPS too.  Sure, I can emulate D&D using GURPS, but, at that point, all I've done is turn a generic system into a clone of another system.  At that point, it becomes D&D, but, the basic game isn't.




I don't see how it excludes either. Not all GURPS or Hero games are "D&D," but some of them are. In fact, in the mid 90s, I participated in a Hero conversion of D&D with some adapted Palladium material. I assure you, it was very D&D. Probably moreso, IMO, than most games of 4e. You didn't have healing surges and "sliding" and tieflings as a core race, and so forth. You have people rolling to hit, doing damage, casting spells, getting loot, slaying monsters, etc.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2011)

But, that's precisely my point Pawsplay.  You took a system and then adapted it to emulate another system.  You did so successfully, so that the emulated system feels the same as the base system.

However, that doesn't mean that the base system presumes that you are going to do that.  Just because I can drive my sports car cross country does not make it an off road vehicle.  It just means that through my own perserverence, I can use one tool to do the same thing as another tool.

Perhaps a better analogy.  I can play MAME ROMs on my PC but that does not mean my PC is an Atari console, despite the fact that I can have a one button joystick and play Space Invaders quite well on my PC.  All that means is that I can emulate an Atari console on my PC and do so quite well.

And, as a side note, can we please stop with the cheap shots?  "Moreso than most games of 4e"?  How many games of 4e have you played/observed?  How much information are you actually basing this on?  Or is it just enough to keep somehow scoring points in a game that no one else is interested in playing?

--------------

On a side note, I had a fantastic D&D moment in the last session we played in.  We were defending a ruined fort from invading goblinoid cultists.  Having a blast.  One of our NPC allies was a badly damaged warforged engineer (as in the siege type) who was manning (droiding?) our lone catapult.  Near the end of the battle, the bad guys having broken into the fortress and things were hanging in the balance, and the catapult out of ammunition, the warforged launches himself from the catapult and aims for the leader of the opposition.  

Sails through the air.

Rolls a natural 20, critting the leader and killing it outright.

If that's not D&D, I have no idea what is.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now, this I disagree with.  A lot of useful stuff has come out of this thread which has remained surprisingly congenial overall.
> 
> Discussing these things allows me to refine my own understanding and to question my assumptions, which is always a good thing.  I might not admit even to myself that a viewpoint has changed within the thread, since I'm too busy typing to actually think, but, later on, down the road, I've certainly felt that my opinions have shifted on a number of issues.
> 
> On a side note, this is why I almost never drag in ancient history posts into a new thread.  I don't assume that people carve their opinions in stone.  Dragging in an off the cuff comment from four years ago isn't productive IMO.





Fair enough.  I agree that it can be an interesting exercise to work through some of these issues.  I'm not convinced how worthwhile it will ultimately be.  However, I reserve the right to call shenanigans when someone is being purposely obtuse or comes into this with what appear to be ulterior motives.  It's one thing to be a skeptic.  It's another to have an agenda.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 24, 2011)

> I would exclude Hero a different way though. The basic function of the Hero system is that it is a generic system. That's the way it's presented. Granted, you can then go on to make that generic system emulate D&D, but, you can also emulate Traveller or Battletech too if you wanted. The Hero system, at its base, is not D&D because D&D is not a generic game.



While I'm in accord with Pawsplay about the feel of D&D emulation- after all, I brought it up- I think you may have something here.

Again, though, it is somewhat based in mechanics and not the metaphysical, so I don't know how that will be accepted.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, that's precisely my point Pawsplay.  You took a system and then adapted it to emulate another system.  You did so successfully, so that the emulated system feels the same as the base system.
> 
> However, that doesn't mean that the base system presumes that you are going to do that.  Just because I can drive my sports car cross country does not make it an off road vehicle.  It just means that through my own perserverence, I can use one tool to do the same thing as another tool.




The "base system" doesn't do anything at all. Hero is not a sports car going off road, it's a a kit that can turn your vehicle into a sports car or an off road vehicle. Once you D&D-ize Hero, it's no longer Champions, or Star Hero, or whatever.



> Perhaps a better analogy.  I can play MAME ROMs on my PC but that does not mean my PC is an Atari console, despite the fact that I can have a one button joystick and play Space Invaders quite well on my PC.  All that means is that I can emulate an Atari console on my PC and do so quite well.




That's probably not a good analogy, since we are talking about a game spanning four "consoles" with several chipsets in each generation of console, plus third party products that will play the original ROMs. Hero System is not an emulation; if you configure it to do D&D, it is a D&D game, based in Hero mechanics. 



> And, as a side note, can we please stop with the cheap shots?  "Moreso than most games of 4e"?  How many games of 4e have you played/observed?  How much information are you actually basing this on?  Or is it just enough to keep somehow scoring points in a game that no one else is interested in playing?




That's not a cheap shot. I specifically noted "IME" which should make it clear I am talking only about games of Hero and 4e of which I have direct knowledge or reliable second accounts. 

Perhaps if you are perceiving me as trying to "score points" you should consider examining your own motivations. It may be that your own priorities are coloring how you perceive my posts.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> Iwas referring to the arbitrary limitation of have 3 Jump cards.



But why is it arbitrary? It's not arbitrary that a 1st level AD&D mage has only 1 sleep spell per day. That's a part of the game balance (and then we tell a story about the ingame capacity of the mage's brain).

Dishing out 3 jump cards is the same. It's just that instead of telling the ingame story at the start, as a story about the capacity of the PC's leg muscles, we instead tell the story each time the possibility to jump a chasm comes up during play.



NoWayJose said:


> How often will a player ever attempt to narratively in-game jump a 4th time that day? Even though he is mechanically doomed to failure, because he had only 3 Jump cards and he used them all up? Why bother narrating a hopeless outcome?



Well, you might get such a narration - for example, if the player thinks that (for whatever reason) it is better to fall down the chasm then stay on one side of it (maybe a Balor is coming!). Or maybe the player knows (or hopes) that another player's PC will do something like cast a feather fall spell.



NoWayJose said:


> And, in-game, why is he doomed to failure anyway, since he's at full health and could feasibly jump a 4th time if he attempted to.



In game, he's not doomed to failure. It's just that we, the real world players, know what the outcome will be. It's as if the GM has an "unluck" card that s/he's obliged to play if the player's PC tries to jump (sort of the opposite of a "fate" card that - in some games at least - a player can play to make his/her PC's attempt an automatic success).



NoWayJose said:


> Any explanation is half-baked.



Well, I've just given some examples of how it might play out. I don't see why it's any more half-baked than the story AD&D tells about the size of a young wizard's brain.



NoWayJose said:


> In 3E, are there powers that are arbitrarily limited to 3 x day for no in-game fictional reason? Yes. Does 4E have *more* obvious and systemic examples of powers with such gamist limitations? I think yes.



I don't think anyone disputes that 4e has more mechanics that require the narrative explanation to be introduced _during the course of play_, rather than being worked out before play. As a result, the correlation between mechanics and ingame causal logic is a lot more relaxed (as Hussar has pointed out upthread).

All I'm disagreeing with is the suggestion that a story to explain a mechanical limitation becomes more half-baked when it's told at the time of action resolution, rather than at the time of character building.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 24, 2011)

Nagol said:


> What about those few solo adventures issued by TSR?



If you're thinking of the various adventure modules written for play by a solo character, those still required a DM.  If you're thinking of the choose-your-own-adventure paperbacks, to me those aren't D+D.

Lan-"you kill the Hobgoblins.  Turn to page 10."-efan


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2011)

Nagol said:


> I think 4e works as a narrative-first design game though if it were designed as such, it is poorly explained and only partially complete since it doesn't offer player inducement to include narrative hooks into the character typical of other narrative-first games (back story, personailty traits, flaws, etc.).



I agree that the explanations are poor. But I put this down to the sorts of weaknesses in RPG rules-writing that Ron Edwards has been talking about for some time now.

Your point about lack of player inducements is more interesting. I see 4e character building as being permeated with flavour that is _more than just colour_, because it has implications for the play of the PC and the thematic consequences of the game. And for me, _this_ is where the player incorporates narrative hooks. The DMG builds on this with it's discussion of player-designed quests. I agree it is all a bit understated. But I don't think it's unintended. Worlds and Monsters, for example, makes it clear that the design team was looking at all this flavour stuff with a very keen eye on the contribution that it makes to play. (The first time, I think, that D&D world design has been approached in this sort of way, as opposed to a "what would a cool fantasy world look like?" sort of way.)



Nagol said:


> I think the expected play is more around creating the story of particular heroes from the intial scene to their final scene since they strip out most of the rewards available for challenge-play and they didn't include much to hook other play styles.  The primary hook for player interest seems based upon the tactical play and the options surrounding it.



I certainly agree it can read this way, especially at first blush, and this is strongly reinforced by the published modules (but not by supplements like Underdark or The Plane Above).

I'm personally not very interested in this sort of play - it fits my description upthread of being degenerate dice rolling play where the PCs add a bit of characterisation and a bit of colour and not much else. I personally had enough of this in 2nd ed.


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 24, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I agree there are some commonalities across all forms of D&D. Let me pose a question. I feel Pathfinder is "more D&D" than 4e is, to me. Is Pathfinder Rome?



It's a suburb, an independent municipality that owes its existence to Rome and shares a common border with it.  It is often difficult to even notice said border when crossing it.

Amalgamation talks are ongoing.

Lan-"does that make 4e a new subdivision in downtown Rome"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2011)

Gryph said:


> Characters are defined by Class. The class determines abilities of the character. Progression of the character over time is also determined by the class. The classes represent a fantasy archetype.



Is this really true of 3E?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I agree there are some commonalities across all forms of D&D. Let me pose a question. I feel Pathfinder is "more D&D" than 4e is, to me. Is Pathfinder Rome?



I would have thought so. Is there anyone who doesn't think of Pathfinder (and C&C, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, OGL Conan etc) as D&D variants every bit as D&D-ish as (for example) later 3.5, and moreso than (perhaps) late 2nd ed (with points-buy classes and races)?

And if the answer to my rhetorical question is Yes, there are such people, then for them surely D&D is just a brandname, and the emotion/nostalgia/etc that they attach to that brand.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> OK, here's a data point for you:
> 
> There needs to be a Dungeon Master.
> 
> [MENTION=9171]Lalato[/MENTION]:  I'm not at all certain that I accept your premise that no one who is skeptical of a universal "D&D Experience" is willing to share their experiences of D&D.  Certainly, many of them have in many, many threads.




I'm not talking about other threads from the last 9 years I've been on ENWorld, I'm talking about this thread.  Oh... and nothing wrong with being a skeptic.  Heck, I'm skeptical of this whole process.

Thanks for the data point.  I agree with it.  And no, solo adventures don't make this data point invalid.  In a solo adventure the DM is played by the solo player as guided by the module, or one might say the author of the module is the DM.  (eagerly awaiting the but... but... but...). That said, a single data point doesn't say much.  Surely you have more.

Here's a couple from me...  In every edition of D&D that I've ever played, I rolled 3d6 or 4d6 (drop the lowest) for my character ability scores.  Yes, even 4e.

In every version of D&D that I've ever played, there were living oozes that could kill you!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2011)

Lalato said:


> I guess some folks would rather talk about fiction-first and rules-first and gamist and a lot of other semantic gobbledygook instead of actually finding common ground.  Why?  I have no idea



In my case, because I hope that by explaining how I play the game will help others see that even though I'm not playing quite like them, I'm still RPGing and not just playing a skirmish game, or Monopoly with a bit of irrelevant characterisation, or . . .



Lalato said:


> Unfortunately, those on the "skeptics" side of the fence aren't willing to share their experiences.



I like to use actual play examples in my posts whenever I can. And I have two recent actual play threads (here and here) that I'd love you to go and resurrect - comment on my experiences or share some of your own! A lot of what I know about running my game I've learned from actual play posts on these boards (I'll call out LostSoul for special mention, but he's by no means the only one).


----------



## Nagol (Feb 24, 2011)

Gryph said:


> <snip>
> 
> As for the consummable, I may retract it. I wasn't reaching for HP in the consummable sense as much trying to exclude wound track, death spiral type systems from consideration and the body/fatigue systems. What I am reaching for is a good statement of abstraction in combat resolution. The more crunchy, simulation bits you add to combat (wound penalties, hit location rules, armor as damage reduction, etc.) the further you move out of the core.
> 
> Let me ask this, Is there a difference between a significantly house ruled D&D game and a fantasy clone for purposes of this discussion?




There has to be a limit on house-ruling as I could turn D&D into rummoli with enough house rules.  A fantasy clone, especailly one specifically constructed as such, can be incredibly close to D&D -- the only difference is a bit of trade dress.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Is this really true of 3E?




I think so.  Granted, late 3.5e had archtypes separated by a knife's edge and PCs could be more like mutts than pure-breds..  I think it's less true of late 2e after Skills and Powers, but that was optional.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I agree that the explanations are poor. But I put this down to the sorts of weaknesses in RPG rules-writing that Ron Edwards has been talking about for some time now.
> 
> Your point about lack of player inducements is more interesting. I see 4e character building as being permeated with flavour that is _more than just colour_, because it has implications for the play of the PC and the thematic consequences of the game. And for me, _this_ is where the player incorporates narrative hooks. The DMG builds on this with it's discussion of player-designed quests. I agree it is all a bit understated. But I don't think it's unintended. Worlds and Monsters, for example, makes it clear that the design team was looking at all this flavour stuff with a very keen eye on the contribution that it makes to play. (The first time, I think, that D&D world design has been approached in this sort of way, as opposed to a "what would a cool fantasy world look like?" sort of way.)
> 
> ...




I look at the two preview books as a statement of ambition, similar to the hype released prior to a MMORPG, if you'll excuse the analogy.

The hype offers a glimpse as to what the developers want to do.  The game offers what the developers were able to do.  Often there is a wide gulf.

I never hold developers accountable for where the actuality fails to live up to their initial vison, but judge the game separate from it.

Although character design decisions can offer a small glimpse into player preference and a potential glimpse into character background, I think it'd be tough to build a lot of world hooks around it.

If a player chooses something that lets his character kill orcs more easily, does that mean he wants to fight more orcs or that he wants fights with orc over more quickly so he can get to someting interesting?  Or is his choice just the best choice of the limited options available based on player expectation of campaign content and the player is completely ambivalent to orcs?  Does it mean the character fears orcs or that he has encountered them in the past and developed techniques as he overcame them?  Perhaps the character actually likes orcs and his study and insight gives him an edge?  Perhaps the training was the only one avaialble to the PC and he has it because that's what he was taught and he is ambivalent to orcs.

The character design is too mechanical to pin much in the way of motivation - either for the character or the player.  Contrast this with say Pendragon where the character has a family history, the virtue/vice character traits and passions that inflame his ability or Hero Games where the character has a set of Perks and Disadvantages that describe the character's personality and place in the world.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 24, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> If you're thinking of the various adventure modules written for play by a solo character, those still required a DM.  If you're thinking of the choose-your-own-adventure paperbacks, to me those aren't D+D.
> 
> Lan-"you kill the Hobgoblins.  Turn to page 10."-efan




Thanks.  It saved me digging them out.  For some reason I thought the "challenge of" series was a solo like the Tunnel and Trolls solo adventures i.e. choose-your-own adventures.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2011)

Nagol said:


> What about those few solo adventures issued by TSR?




As Lanefan said.  No DM's role, and I do not agree it is D&D.



Gryph said:


> [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]: This might cause some squawking, but I am comfortable with the notion that alternate rules that replace core D&D pieces rather than adding to them, even when they come from the publisher, moves the game out of the core experience.




I would agree.



Hussar said:


> A class based system
> A system which presumes the presence of a DM (although it doesn't necessarily require it as evinced by solo modules.)




Again, for me, no DM, no D&D.



pemerton said:


> But why is it arbitrary? It's not arbitrary that a 1st level AD&D mage has only 1 sleep spell per day. That's a part of the game balance (and then we tell a story about the ingame capacity of the mage's brain).
> 
> Dishing out 3 jump cards is the same.




No.

The rules for any magical system are modelling a fantasy, and therefore can be devised however you like.  The rules for modelling real-world physical systems should model real-world physical systems at least to some playable degree.  Limitations on how many times you can jump, or swing a sword, are arbitrary in ways that limitations on magic (which brings no real world expectations) are not.



Lanefan said:


> Lan-"you kill the Hobgoblins.  Turn to page 10."-efan




Thanks for being such a good sport when I was stealing your sig yesterday.

It was fun.



RC


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> But why is it arbitrary? It's not arbitrary that a 1st level AD&D mage has only 1 sleep spell per day. That's a part of the game balance (and then we tell a story about the ingame capacity of the mage's brain).



Although I have my own POV (which I've kept to myself), I don't think I argued about the arbitrariness of the mechanics. I believe all my posts on this thread referred to jumping 3 x day as being arbitrary in-game/fictionally/narratively.

By default, it would have been arbitrary that a mage has only 1 sleep spell per day. However, early D&D created the in-game/fictional/narrative Vancian system to mesh with the mechanical rules. Not everyone accepts the Vancian system mechanically, but I think everyone accepts the Vancian system fictionally, it's such a common fantasy D&D trope.

4E is too lazy/uncaring to do the same for many new 4E mechanics, particularily those that tend to clash with versimilitude, leaving the narrative burden almost entirely on the players and DM.



> Dishing out 3 jump cards is the same. It's just that instead of telling the ingame story at the start, as a story about the capacity of the PC's leg muscles, we instead tell the story each time the possibility to jump a chasm comes up during play.



With all due respect, how about you attend a gym class in real-life. When the gym instructor asks you to jump a 4th time, you tell him "Sorry, I can only jump 3 times a day".



> Well, you might get such a narration - for example, if the player thinks that (for whatever reason) it is better to fall down the chasm then stay on one side of it (maybe a Balor is coming!). Or maybe the player knows (or hopes) that another player's PC will do something like cast a feather fall spell.



What do these oddball scenarios have to do with the unlikelihood of players commonly attempting to roleplay a a 4th jump attempt narratively when they only have 3 jump cards mechanically?



> In game, he's not doomed to failure. It's just that we, the real world players, know what the outcome will be. It's as if the GM has an "unluck" card that s/he's obliged to play if the player's PC tries to jump (sort of the opposite of a "fate" card that - in some games at least - a player can play to make his/her PC's attempt an automatic success).



If you have 3 jump cards mechanically, you cannot successfully jump a 4th time, period. Narratively and mechanically, you ARE doomed to failure. Yes, the player "know what the outcome will be" and that is failure.



> Well, I've just given some examples of how it might play out. I don't see why it's any more half-baked than the story AD&D tells about the size of a young wizard's brain.



With all due respect, these examples don't work for me... at all... whatsoever. Spell runes fading from a spellbook... I dig it. The jumping stuff is inconsistent and incoherent.



> I don't think anyone disputes that 4e has more mechanics that require the narrative explanation to be introduced _during the course of play_, rather than being worked out before play. As a result, the correlation between mechanics and ingame causal logic is a lot more relaxed (as Hussar has pointed out upthread).
> 
> All I'm disagreeing with is the suggestion that a story to explain a mechanical limitation becomes more half-baked when it's told at the time of action resolution, rather than at the time of character building.



OK, fine. Keep going to gym class and keep trying to explain a new excuse why you can jump 3 x day, every day, 365 days a year. It doesn't matter whether you're refreshed or exhausted, sick or healthy. It doesn't even matter if your leg capacity still allows you to do cartwheels, jumping jacks, squats and run a marathon -- you will never successfully jump a 4th time that day. I'm so sure everyone will buy your every excuse as being completely plausible all the time every time.

Somehow, perhaps after all that sarcasm, it's not half-baked to you, but I call that delusional. Fictionally, that character is a freak, unable to live life to the fullest. It's a pity that he got his prescription from a surrealist doctor obsessed only with rules and balance and without a care for the "reality" of the gym environment.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 24, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> 4E is too lazy/uncaring to do the same for many new 4E mechanics, particularly those that tend to clash with verisimilitude, leaving the narrative burden almost entirely on the players and DM.



I think that's one of the reasons 4e really works for my group. What you're calling the 'narrative burden' is viewed by us as an opportunity to be creative. We provide the narrative that describes/explains/positions the mechanics within the in-game fiction. We prefer to do this, mainly because we prefer the shi stuff we make up ourselves over that of some game designer who doesn't share our influences, sense of humor, and naked, adulterated brilliance !

For example, in the absence of a satisfying explanation of how the 4e paladin's marking/divine challenge worked, I added/substituted my own, which was clever, vulgar, and wholly inappropriate for publication in a game aimed, at least in part, at kids. And thus one of our campaign's great running jokes was born, not to mention the part of the characterization of an entire race and culture.

In this way, D&D 4e resembles the HERO system. Powers are described almost entirely in mechanical terms; the fiction is up to the players. In HERO, the rocket launcher used by an insurgent and the boomerang used by Captain Koala --which hits every target in a radius-- could have the exact same mechanical description. Their difference would reside entirely in how they were described, ie in the mechanics attached to the fiction at run-time. This is a plus in my book, not laziness or lack of concern. It's a smart and deliberate choice.

I like systems that leave room for the player's fiction. They're more flexible.


----------



## Mallus (Feb 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Is this really true of 3E?



Not really.

In 3e, classes became packages of abilities. Some mapped pretty closely to fantasy fiction archetypes, others did not, particularly Prestige Classes, which strayed quite far from archetypal, unless you use 'archetypal' to mean something it does not. And a lot of people, primarily those not playing full spell progression casters, mixed and matched classes to create their own take on the fantasy archetypes. Playing the 'character-building mini-game' was one of the great pleasures of the system. The close mapping between class and archetype pretty much bit the dust.

3e also, probably more so than any other edition, created new archetypes thanks to quirks in the system, like the dreaded CoDZilla.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 24, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I think that's one of the reasons 4e really works for my group. What you're calling the 'narrative burden' is viewed by us as an opportunity to be creative. We provide the narrative that describes/explains/positions the mechanics within the in-game fiction. We prefer to do this, mainly because we prefer the shi stuff we make up ourselves over that of some game designer who doesn't share our influences, sense of humor, and naked, adulterated brilliance !
> 
> For example, in the absence of a satisfying explanation of how the 4e paladin's marking/divine challenge worked, I added/substituted my own, which was clever, vulgar, and wholly inappropriate for publication in a game aimed, at least in part, at kids. And thus one of our campaign's great running jokes was born, not to mention the part of the characterization of an entire race and culture.



I don't mean any offense when I say that not everyone is as creative as you. If 4E offered a default narrative for all/most mechanics, then you have 3 choices:
1) use the default fluff (especially, if you're not as creative as Mallus)
2) ignore the default fluff and substitute your own (if you're like Mallus)
3) ignore all fluff and play mechanically/tactically

These 3 choices would not be *worst* than the status quo. The qualifier, however, is that WoTC's official default fluff should satisfying and effective for in-game versimilitude. I can say that some of the default fluff in 4E powers is ridiculous to me, so that precedent worries me.


> In this way, D&D 4e resembles the HERO system. Powers are described almost entirely in mechanical terms; the fiction is up to the players. In HERO, the rocket launcher used by an insurgent and the boomerang used by Captain Koala --which hits every target in a radius-- could have the exact same mechanical description. Their difference would reside entirely in how they were described, ie in the mechanics attached to the fiction at run-time. This is a plus in my book, not laziness or lack of concern.



That's fine as long as its fun and easy and plausible to reconcile or "marry" the 4E mechanics with in-game fiction/narrative. Since that can be quite difficult (as I have maintained over many, many posts), I think that 4E designers realized it was just too difficult and thus I must continue to assume that 4E is too lazy/uncaring and prefers to offload the burden of the narrative on DMs and players.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Is this really true of 3E?




I wondered when someone would point this out. I think the 4e designers took out the multi-class rules and prestige classes because they lose the archtypal nature of the class system in all other versions. 

It is a question that everyone will have to answer for themselves.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> As Lanefan said.  No DM's role, and I do not agree it is D&D.




It may or may not be D&D, but solo adventures do have a DM. That task is distributed between the module writer and the player. Since the job of the DM is to adjudicate, and solo modules require adjudication, you are DMing yourself.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 24, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I think that's one of the reasons 4e really works for my group. What you're calling the 'narrative burden' is viewed by us as an opportunity to be creative. We provide the narrative that describes/explains/positions the mechanics within the in-game fiction. We prefer to do this, mainly because we prefer the shi stuff we make up ourselves over that of some game designer who doesn't share our influences, sense of humor, and naked, adulterated brilliance !
> 
> For example, in the absence of a satisfying explanation of how the 4e paladin's marking/divine challenge worked, I added/substituted my own, which was clever, vulgar, and wholly inappropriate for publication in a game aimed, at least in part, at kids. And thus one of our campaign's great running jokes was born, not to mention the part of the characterization of an entire race and culture.
> 
> ...




I basically agree with you on this, Mallus, so the rest of the post may seem needlessly nitpicky. If so I apologize in advance.

It seems to me there is an important difference in what you describe as your groups experience with 4e and how HERO system works. HERO system is often called a toolbox or toolkit game, I use the term myself, but I think of it as a big box of parts. Parts I use to model the various parts of the world we're going to play in. The books urge and offer lots of advice on how to start with a description of the power or effect in a fictional form and then use the parts to build it.

In other words I start with "the rebels have rocket launchers that cause a large explosion that can throw people through the air like a Micheal Bay movie", then I grab an RKA add an explosive aoe advantage and some extra knockbock to figure the cost.

I will freely admit that sometimes I approach it the other way and build the mechanics of the explosion first and then add the description. Largely, I go at it fiction first so I understand some of the posters difficulty in accepting the gamist design of 4e powers. I don't share their bias but I understand it.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 24, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> It may or may not be D&D, but solo adventures do have a DM. That task is distributed between the module writer and the player. Since the job of the DM is to adjudicate, and solo modules require adjudication, you are DMing yourself.





Interesting point, I need to think about that a second. It does neatly seperate solo module play from, say, using the random tables in the 1e DMG to solo play a dungeon crawl. An activity that always seemed to be very thin gruel at best.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> It may or may not be D&D, but solo adventures do have a DM. That task is distributed between the module writer and the player. Since the job of the DM is to adjudicate, and solo modules require adjudication, you are DMing yourself.




Sorry, but that falls off the radar of my definition of D&D.

I don't mind if it is D&D *to you*, though.


----------



## Nagol (Feb 24, 2011)

Mallus said:


> <snip>
> In this way, D&D 4e resembles the HERO system. Powers are described almost entirely in mechanical terms; the fiction is up to the players. In HERO, the rocket launcher used by an insurgent and the boomerang used by Captain Koala --which hits every target in a radius-- could have the exact same mechanical description. Their difference would reside entirely in how they were described, ie in the mechanics attached to the fiction at run-time. This is a plus in my book, not laziness or lack of concern. It's a smart and deliberate choice.
> 
> I like systems that leave room for the player's fiction. They're more flexible.




The powers are defined in appearance and attached to the fiction (special effect in Hero terms) at design time (power/character design) by and large.  There are a few routes to add the special effect during play, there is generally a charge for that feature since adjusting special effect is advantageous as you can take advantage of circumstances and limit the amount others can take advantage of yours.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> <snip>
> The rules for any magical system are modelling a fantasy, and therefore can be devised however you like. The rules for modelling real-world physical systems should model real-world physical systems at least to some playable degree. Limitations on how many times you can jump, or swing a sword, are arbitrary in ways that limitations on magic (which brings no real world expectations) are not.
> RC




This right here is as concise a summation as I have ever seen. I couldn't XP you again but this is really good.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2011)

Gryph said:


> This right here is as concise a summation as I have ever seen. I couldn't XP you again but this is really good.




Thank you.  As I've often demonstrated, "concise" is not usually my forté.



RC


----------



## Gryph (Feb 24, 2011)

Hussar said:


> <snip>
> D&D, as far as people have agreed with is:
> 
> A class based system
> ...




I think Lan-"does that make 4e a new subdivision in downtown Rome"-efan neatly defined another data point, at least by implication. It doesn't have to say Dungeons & Dragons on the cover for a game to share the D&D soul.


----------



## Gryph (Feb 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Thank you. As I've often demonstrated, "concise" is not usually my forté.
> 
> 
> 
> RC




I won't use my _Blind Squirrel Summoning I_ then .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 24, 2011)

> Raven Crowking
> <snip>
> The rules for any magical system are modelling a fantasy, and therefore can be devised however you like. The rules for modelling real-world physical systems should model real-world physical systems at least to some playable degree. Limitations on how many times you can jump, or swing a sword, are arbitrary in ways that limitations on magic (which brings no real world expectations) are not.
> RC




That paragraph deserves to be in the FRPG Designer's Bible.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 24, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> > The rules for any magical system are modelling a fantasy, and therefore can be devised however you like. The rules for modelling real-world physical systems should model real-world physical systems at least to some playable degree. Limitations on how many times you can jump, or swing a sword, are arbitrary in ways that limitations on magic (which brings no real world expectations) are not.
> 
> 
> 
> That paragraph deserves to be in the FRPG Designer's Bible.



I completely agree.

But I would like to embellish that even magical systems can suffer from arbitrariness, in-game and meta-game.

* * *

Welcome to the Dr Phyl Show! Today, we have a very special guest. He is a "living spell". Ladies and gents, please put your hands together for 'Beguiling Strands'.

Dr Phyl: So Beguiling Strands, you describe yourself as "strands of subtle magic that weave through your foes like a spider’s web".

BS: Yes, Dr Phyl, that's absolutely right. With all my scintillating colors and gleaming lights, I can really confuse people, you know? I can hurt them mentally, and they move away from me.

Dr Phyl: I see. Yet your first name is 'Beguiling', right? The definition of beguile is to deceive or charm. Yet you hurt and push people away from you. Don't you think your parents misnamed you?

BS: Now look here, I won't stand here idly while you criticize my parents. So maybe they misnamed me, so what?

Dr Phyl: Well, is that fair to you? When you introduce yourself, you're already giving the wrong impression. One might call them 'careless' in the way they named you.

BS: Careful, Phyl. I might just push you away.

Dr Phyl: Yes, let's discuss that-- your nature to always push people away from you. Now I've had flashlights shined in my face before. I've seen incoming car headlights. I might step back. I may cover my eyes and be dazzled for a moment. I might cower. I might run off the left or the right. Why is that you only and always feel the need to move people away from you? Why don't they react in other ways to your confusing lights?

BS: Are you calling me a one-trick pony!?

Dr Phyl: I don't know, ARE you a one-trick pony? I'm trying to visualize this, and I just don't understand it. Realistically, people have different reactions to the same stimuli. Yet you're the exception... have you met other magic lights before? Are they also so single-minded in their effects?

BS: I don't know. I never met any other lights, mundane or magical.

Dr Phyl: I see. So you're parents named you 'Beguiling' even though you're really not. They only taught you to do one single thing, over and over. And they never really compared you to other lights to see if you were reaching your natural potential. Is that a fair assessment?

BS: Hmm...

Dr Phyl: Is it possible to meet your parents and ask them why did this to you, why they put in this straightjacket, so to speak?

BS: No, you can't meet my parents. They are unreachable, and they are protected by a loyal legion of fans. I've never heard them acknowledge that kind of criticism.

Dr Phyl: That is unfortunate. I would like to free you from this self-constrained limitation. You have so much more in you to give to the world! You could move people up and down and left and right, if you just let yourself!

BS: NO! no! NO! All I can do is hurt and push. Hurt and push! That's all I want to do. That's all I will ever doooooooo....!!!!! [runs away, crying blue droplets of light]

Dr Phyl: That's it for today. Next time, I will interview another living spell, 'Hypnotism'. Hypnotism can seize momentary control of peoples' mind. You'd think that Hypnotism would revel in his almost unlimited potential. And yet, when Hypnotism invades someone's mind, he likes to do only one of exactly two things: attack somebody, or move. Why isn't Hypnotism more creative than that? Didn't his parents teach him to explore his full potential as an hypnotic power, or did they raise him to do only two arbitrary tasks? Is he misnamed? Is he a robot? I will try to find out!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> I completely agree.
> 
> But I would like to embellish that even magical systems can suffer from arbitrariness, in-game and meta-game.




Amusing.

And, yes, your point is granted.


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 24, 2011)

Good stuff!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> With all due respect, how about you attend a gym class in real-life. When the gym instructor asks you to jump a 4th time, you tell him "Sorry, I can only jump 3 times a day".



If you are playing a game which imposes metagame restrictions on the PC's actions, and you then play out those restrictions by putting statements of the metagame restrictions in the mouths of the PCs, then _yes, you will get a silly game_. Does anyone actually play this way?



NoWayJose said:


> If you have 3 jump cards mechanically, you cannot successfully jump a 4th time, period. Narratively and mechanically, you ARE doomed to failure. Yes, the player "know what the outcome will be" and that is failure.



The player knows what the outcome will be. THe player does not. The first "you" in your first sentence denotes the player. What about in the second sentence "you cannot"?

In a game with metagame mechanics, it can be true both that _in the gameworld, something is possible_ and that _as the game is resolved, that thing will not happen_, because some metagame constraint restricts what will happen in the fiction.

It doesn't both me that you don't want to play this sort of game. It does both me when you say that any playing of the game this way must be half-baked.



NoWayJose said:


> Keep going to gym class and keep trying to explain a new excuse why you can jump 3 x day, every day, 365 days a year. It doesn't matter whether you're refreshed or exhausted, sick or healthy. It doesn't even matter if your leg capacity still allows you to do cartwheels, jumping jacks, squats and run a marathon -- you will never successfully jump a 4th time that day. I'm so sure everyone will buy your every excuse as being completely plausible all the time every time.



First, if jumping comes up so often in the game, it might be bad game design to issue only 3 "jump" tokens.

Second, if the players and GM aren't interested in coming up with narrations that explain why, in game, things are happening as they are, maybe they shouldn't play a game with metagame mechanics.

Also, with all due respect: I'm not the one who said you should enjoy the way I play. Rather, you're the one who said that the way _I_ play must involve half-baked narration. It's _your _claim about the way _I_ play that I'm disputing.



NoWayJose said:


> Somehow, perhaps after all that sarcasm, it's not half-baked to you, but I call that delusional. Fictionally, that character is a freak, unable to live life to the fullest.



And now you're telling me that as well as half-baked, I'm delusional in thinking that I can play a game in which there is a separation between gameworld and metagame, and between PC and player, such that metagame constraints simply _are not interpreted_ as reflecing particular facets of the ingame physics.

I suppose all the players of The Burning Wheel (with it's "let it ride" rule), HeroWars/Quest (which, like 4e, involves metagame constraints and requires interpretation of mechanical outcomes to be settled from moment to moment in play), Maelstrom Storytelling, etc, etc are delusional too!

Obviously the only non-delusional players are those who play with hard-core simulationist mechanics!


----------



## pemerton (Feb 24, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> The rules for any magical system are modelling a fantasy, and therefore can be devised however you like.  The rules for modelling real-world physical systems should model real-world physical systems at least to some playable degree.  Limitations on how many times you can jump, or swing a sword, are arbitrary in ways that limitations on magic (which brings no real world expectations) are not.



Are you really saying, then, that there _cannot be_ a viable RPG that uses metagame mechanics to govern physical interaction?

Or by _should_ do you mean _should, if I'm going to play it_?

And how much weight should I put on the word "model"? Obviously, a game which handles jump checks by issuing "jump" tokens has already decided _not to have mechanics that model ingame physical systems_, and instead to resolve jump checks by instead using a metagame mechanics to distribute the right to narrate whether or not any successful jump actually happens in the gameworld.

I'm pretty sure that you're not meaning to deliberately beg any questions or denigrate my playstyle. But this is a thread in which I'm being told that I'm delusional in thinking I can play a game with metagame mechanics that isn't half-baked in its narration!


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Are you really saying, then, that there _cannot be_ a viable RPG that uses metagame mechanics to govern physical interaction?




He never said that, only that your metagame mechanics should not violate the physics you imagine for your game world.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 24, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> He never said that, only that your metagame mechanics should not violate the physics you imagine for your game world.




Yep.

The degree to which this is not true is, by and large, the degree to which the players have to make decisions *in spite of* their roles, rather than _*because of their roles*_.  I.e., they have to step outside of their role-based view of the game milieu and into the meta-game view in order to act in accordance with the rules.


RC


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 24, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm pretty sure that you're not meaning to deliberately beg any questions or denigrate my playstyle. But this is a thread in which I'm being told that I'm delusional in thinking I can play a game with metagame mechanics that isn't half-baked in its narration!



Pemetron, perhaps you extrapolated "delusional" to reflect on your entire 4E game, but I was referencing the jumping scenario only. I wrote earlier that I thought '3 jumping cards' was a bad example for carrying the entire weight of the argument, but you vouched for it, so I went with it all the way. Now I think it's falling apart over red herrings. Perhaps you should tackle the Beguiling Strands post instead? Also, please don't polarize the issue as either 4E-as-is or "hard-core simulationist mechanics". Nobody framed it that way.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 25, 2011)

Can someone please explain to me where this jumping scenario comes from?  This has me utterly confused.

As for Beguiling Strands.  "A strand of scintillating colors and gleaming lights clouds your enemies minds and forces them to move away."  That's the description in the compendium.  The crunchy part of is that the enemies are pushed 3 squares and take some minor psychic damage.  

I've always seen it as the enemies are so entranced by the strands that they follow it for a short distance.  But the effect isn't powerful enough to lead them very far away.  When they snap out of the trance, there is a psychic backlash that causes them to take a minor amount of damage.

I don't see what the problem is here... or why you bring it up as an example (of what?).


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 25, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I think that's one of the reasons 4e really works for my group. What you're calling the 'narrative burden' is viewed by us as an opportunity to be creative. We provide the narrative that describes/explains/positions the mechanics within the in-game fiction. We prefer to do this, mainly because we prefer the shi stuff we make up ourselves over that of some game designer who doesn't share our influences, sense of humor, and naked, adulterated brilliance !



Absolutely.   Designers build the framework.  The finishing and decoration are all yours.

That said, if a given set of mechanics are forcing me to dream up more narrative and-or more detail than I or my group really want, I'm going to end up either ditching those mechanics or bailing on the narrative details.

Lan-"journeyman D+D mechanic"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 25, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> It may or may not be D&D, but solo adventures do have a DM. That task is distributed between the module writer and the player. Since the job of the DM is to adjudicate, and solo modules require adjudication, you are DMing yourself.



However, if you include real-time real-space physical interaction with at least one other human being as part of the definition of D+D (or any RPG for that matter), the above fails.

Lan-"virtual gaming of any kind is at best on the fence for me"-efan


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 25, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Are you really saying, then, that there _cannot be_ a viable RPG that uses metagame mechanics to govern physical interaction?



When it comes to physical interactions, either with the game world or with individuals in it, without doubt there have to be some concessions made to game-mechanics.  Hell, the combat rules for any edition are more than enough proof of that.

But where such game mechanics are demonstrably unnecessary and outright get in the way of (or contradict) our own physical reality* then I maintain the game mechanics must give way.

* - unless there is a valid in-game reason for it e.g. a normal person *can* jump 20' in the air because the game world's gravity is only 1/5 that of Earth.



> And how much weight should I put on the word "model"? Obviously, a game which handles jump checks by issuing "jump" tokens has already decided _not to have mechanics that model ingame physical systems_, and instead to resolve jump checks by instead using a metagame mechanics to distribute the right to narrate whether or not any successful jump actually happens in the gameworld.



Having a mechanic to determine whether a jump is successful is fine.  But an arbitrary mechanical limitation on how many times in a day a given character can jump using no more than her own physical abilities (Str., Dex. etc.) is unnecessary, and blatantly gets in the way of reflecting reality.  So, out it goes; and I start looking more carefully at how the rest of the game works for such things...

Note that I'm not even getting into narration here, just mechanics.

Lan-"will they take a jump token on the subway?"-efan


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 25, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> However, if you include real-time real-space physical interaction with at least one other human being as part of the definition of D+D (or any RPG for that matter), the above fails.
> 
> Lan-"virtual gaming of any kind is at best on the fence for me"-efan




Sure, and if you include using miniatures to represent characters, other things fail to meet a different definition of D&D. The original D&D was "playable with paper and pencil and miniature figures." If you use a laptop, DDI, and no miniatures, you are definitely not playing that version of D&D, at least as it was presented.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 25, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> On the other hand, a fiction-first approach can yield superior results to rules-first games in scnerios where the rules don't work very well. For instance, in almost any game system every published, a fiction-first approach will yield more easily adjudicated results than a rules-first approach when a normal human is at ground zero of a nuclear blast. It is likely to be uncontrovertible that someone at ground zero is dead. Attempting to use any mechanical system to determine that fact, however good the mechanics are, opens up the possibility of ambiguity, however small that possibility.




Meh. I've written rules for nuclear weapons with explicit damage. They work when you apply a context for the GM and group to carry over. They're in Ascension, the mast book for the old Mage.

Thing is, a lot of you are basically judging rules as if the role of RPG players is to sit around like an imbecile, interpreting what the rules output as simply as possible. This is not desirable behaviour in the players, and it isn't possible to design well for these theoretical imbeciles.

If there is a choice between an absurd and non-absurd interpretation of what a game system does, you should obviously choose the non-absurd unless you're in it for comedy. If you have three jump cards per day, then this obviously refers to the number of times you can successfully jump challenging distances in situations that matter to the story. If you roll 4 on 4d100 for a nuke, it means the nuke acted strangely.

If you cannot take this basic imaginative step, then you suck at playing RPGs, and you will never be happy with them.

That said, there is some responsibility on the part of the game to help you get there, by explaining how to interpret this sort of thing. This is where 4e has faltered. Many fighter exploits obviously represent not just a technique, but a combination of technique, focus and opportunity that only comes up every once and a while, where the players get to decide when that "stroke of luck" might occur, and die rolls determine if it actually does. This is elegant in play and fits cinematic conventions, but it's a bit convoluted to actually describe.

Then again, so are 1 minute rounds, and I use those in my current game.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2011)

Mallus said:


> I think that's one of the reasons 4e really works for my group. What you're calling the 'narrative burden' is viewed by us as an opportunity to be creative.



I buy that 100%.  

However, one reason 4E fails for my group (and many others) is that this "opportunity" is not a new addition to the game, so tying it to the "narrative burden" parts of the game is not accurate.  (For us)

There is nothing that can be created or described in 4E that can not be created or described in 3E.  

And to be clear, I have heard people slam 4E as being a mini combat game and "not a role playing game".  I disagree with that by largely the same reasoning.  There is nothing you can role play in 3E that you can't role play in 4E.

But, if you see "opportunity" in 4E, then that says to me that you were just missing out in whatever game you are comparing it to.

3E will readily allow the players at the table to get into a "swing/hit/damage/swing/miss/swing/miss/swing/hit/damage" rut.  No doubt about it.  4E comes with the "burden" which serves as a muse, if not an outright driver to be descriptive along the way.  So if you were not doing this in 3E, you ARE now in 4E.  And your game experience will be better on that front.

To put a bit of a different spin on eyebeams statement, if you can't take this narrative step on your own, you are going to limited in your experience in RPGs.  4E takes that step for you.

So a bad game of 4E will be much better than a bad game of 3E.  

But, if you already have this in 3E, then the muse just becomes a "burden" and a requirement on the narrative which must be complied with.  

A good game of 3E is much better than a good game of 4E.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2011)

eyebeams said:


> If you roll 4 on 4d100 for a nuke, it means the nuke acted strangely.



What if you roll 2d100 + 25*[1/2 level of the guy who pushed the button]?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 25, 2011)

eyebeams said:


> If there is a choice between an absurd and non-absurd interpretation of what a game system does, you should obviously choose the non-absurd unless you're in it for comedy.




Oh, I agree.  And I would take this a step farther:  If there is a choice between a mechanic that causes absurd results, and one that does not do so, you should obviously choose the least absurd unless you're in it for comedy.

Because an absurd mechanic, sooner or later, leads to absurd interpretation simply because, if the mechanic is absurd, all of the non-absurd interpretations rely on things such as unlikely coincidence, which become absurd as they pile up.

Every reader knows when the author is piling on the BS just to make his story work.  "It doesn't feel natural," we say, or "I don't believe he would do that".  We mock films that pile on this sort of schmalk unless they're doing it for comedy, and rightly so.  "How is it possible that she doesn't know he's the murderer?"  "Maybe she's used up all of her Deduction Cards!"  



> If you have three jump cards per day, then this obviously refers to the number of times you can successfully jump challenging distances in situations that matter to the story.




Which is absurd.

The point of role-assumption is not to make choices on the basis of an over-arching narrative, but to make choices based upon the role assumed.  

Whenever a player is asked to come up with reasons why he should not have his character do whatever the character would naturally do within any given situation, it removes the player from the role of that character and into the role of the author.  An author who is, at this point, adversarial to the goals of the character.

The end result might not be like a bad novel, but I believe it is far more likely to be like a bad novel/film than otherwise.

So, again, if there is a choice between a mechanic that causes absurd results, and one that does not do so, you should obviously choose the least absurd unless you're in it for comedy.



RC


----------



## Lalato (Feb 25, 2011)

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]...  As long as you put... In my experiences as a qualifier there, sure.

However, in my experience, I've played plenty of good games in 3.x and I've played plenty of good games in 4e.  They all felt like really good games, and some in both felt like GREAT games.  And I didn't see a difference in the way I felt about the good games in 4e vs 3.x.  So your assertion that a good game in 3.x is somehow better than a good game in 4e doesn't jibe with my experience.

If, however, you're speaking for everyone... I call shenanigans.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 25, 2011)

Lalato said:


> > Welcome to the Dr Phyl Show! Today, we have a very special guest. He is a "living spell". Ladies and gents, please put your hands together for 'Beguiling Strands'.
> >
> > Dr Phyl: So Beguiling Strands, you describe yourself as "strands of subtle magic that weave through your foes like a spider’s web".
> >
> ...



On a special webisode of the Dr Phyl Show, I meet with 'Ota Lal', a professional Dungeon Master who often hires living spells like Beguiling Strands.

Dr Phyl: When you met Beguiling Strands for the first time, how did he describe himself?

OL: He implied that people are hurt and reel away from him, their minds clouded, and they move back. He was very specific that his lights never dazzle, blind, stun, or do anything other than move people back. 'Hurt and push' he kept saying over and over.

Dr Phyl: And how do you employ him?

OL: I instructed him to entrance people into moving away, with a psychic backlash as a side-effect.

Dr Phyl: So you employ him in way that might reinterpret his original job description.

OL: I guess so.

Dr Phyl: But he's only able to entrance people away, never entrances them to stop in their tracks or move otherwise.

OL: Correct.

Dr Phyl: Is your interpretation better? Does his original job description make sense to you?

OL: That's just his suggested default behavior. The way *I* employ Begui--

Dr Phyl: Yes, I understand. But what do you think was the intention behind the way Beguiling Strands was originally conceived? Was it willy-nilly? Poorly explained? Badly-conceived in the first place?

OL: [silence]

Dr Phyl: Other Dungeon Masters have been known to criticize people who lack imagination to employ living spells narratively. Yet you felt the need to change or clarify Beguiling Strands' original method. So, do you criticize the original creators for a lack of imagination? Or is there a double standard here?

OL: [silence]

Dr Phyl: How about that other living spell, Hypnotism?

OL: [silence]

Dr Phyl: OK, do you think that the creators of Beguiling Strands and Hypnotism and others could and should have conceived these living spells differently? Do you feel that they have unfairly burdened employers like you to fix up any deficiencies or incongruities?

OL: Hey, I enjoy the "burden" as you call it. I like to do extra work!

Dr Phyl: How about other Dungeon Masters who don't have the time and inclination to take on the burden of rebooting multiple spells. Don't they have the right to criticize the original conception of Beguiling Strands and other living spells?

OL: I don't care about other Dungeon Masters! I only talk about MY game. My game! I don't see what the problem is here... or why you bring it up as an example (of what?). [puts hands over ears] La, la, la, la, la...

Dr Phyl: Well, folks, it seems that I'm no closer to understanding the reasoning behind the original conception of Beguiling Strands, Hypnotism, and other straight-jacketed spells. Tune in next time, when I waste more time on loyal legions of fans that don't understand the problem.

* * *

1. From WoTC article "Wizard Preview: Ampersand Special: The Essential Classes" Originally crafted by eladrin wizards of the Feywild, this spell creates strands of subtle magic that weave through your foes like a spider’s web. Reeling from your attack, your enemies move away from you... _A strand of scintillating colors and gleaming lights clouds your enemies’ minds and forces them to move away."_


----------



## Umbran (Feb 25, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> Dr Phyl: Well, folks, it seems that I'm no closer to understanding the reasoning behind the original conception of Beguiling Strands, Hypnotism, and other straight-jacketed spells. Tune in next time, when I waste more time on loyal legions of fans that don't understand the problem.




First off, it isn't as if 'Dr. Phyl" failing to understand things is at all a grand argument.  It isn't like the icon you're invoking is recognized for his depth of understanding, comprehensive analysis, or the like.

Far more importantly, sarcasm is a thoroughly ineffective tool for getting someone who doesn't already agree with you to listen and understand. Mockery may be fun for you, personally, but it is not constructive in the conversation.  Please stop.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 25, 2011)

eyebeams said:


> Meh. I've written rules for nuclear weapons with explicit damage. They work when you apply a context for the GM and group to carry over. They're in Ascension, the mast book for the old Mage.
> 
> Thing is, a lot of you are basically judging rules as if the role of RPG players is to sit around like an imbecile, interpreting what the rules output as simply as possible. This is not desirable behaviour in the players, and it isn't possible to design well for these theoretical imbeciles.
> 
> ...




There are many, many contexts in which a nuke fizzling out will seem absurd. If the game is designed such that a nuke might fizzle, and the game setting is such that absurdity will result, and absurdity is not desired, then the game is improperly designed. 

It's true, I didn't really account for a fizzle. But if a nuke does a tremendous amount of damage, and yet doesn't kill a normal human being, noting that the nuke "behaved strangely" doesn't really help me intepret what has happened. Obvious, something strange has happened; that is the problem with the resolution. So, you are incorrect, I am not judging the rules as if they were written for imbeciles. I am judging them according to their usefulness.

It's easy to handle a nuke that fails to destroy anything. It's easy to handle a nuke that destroys everything. It's taxing to narrate how a nuke is going to destroy buildings, yet spare some living creatures in ground zero.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 25, 2011)

Take it to PM or e-mail, please.   ~Umbran


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 25, 2011)

Baaad decision.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 25, 2011)

Little more cogitation on the whole Hero thing.

Maybe we're going about this backward.  If the definition of the "core" experience of D&D encompasses games whose goals are to capture that core, even if they aren't specifically Dungeons and Dragons games, is that failure of the definition or a success of the emulation?

If you've taken a system and recreated D&D, doesn't that mean that it will be captured by any definition of Rome?


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 25, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Baaad decision.



I'm not so sure. I have a wife, a job, and so much more to do. D&D forums are a huge distraction. Getting banned would be a blessing in disguise. Oh General Ooombran, take me now! I [insert a comment about somebody's mother]

*Mod Edit:  Do not taunt Happy Fun Moderator.  Stick by the rules, please.   ~Umbran*


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2011)

Lalato said:


> [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]...  As long as you put... In my experiences as a qualifier there, sure.
> 
> However, in my experience, I've played plenty of good games in 3.x and I've played plenty of good games in 4e.  They all felt like really good games, and some in both felt like GREAT games.  And I didn't see a difference in the way I felt about the good games in 4e vs 3.x.  So your assertion that a good game in 3.x is somehow better than a good game in 4e doesn't jibe with my experience.
> 
> If, however, you're speaking for everyone... I call shenanigans.



Call whatever you want.

With regard to the whole narrative burden / "opportunity" aspect of the debate of the topic, I think it is simply a matter of inspection to come to my conclusion.

But that doesn't need to be the focus of what you find fun.

I will readily concede that 4E is a great game.  But Texas Hold'em is also a great game.  4E and 3E have a hell of a lot more in common with each other than they have with Texas Hold'em.  And if this specific topic is not important to you then the differences that do exist are not important. 

I don't doubt for a second that 4E fans have awesome experiences playing 4E.  Only an idiot would suggest that other people are not having fun doing something they choose to do for fun.  Your 4E games are great.

But your great 4E games are not as great at certain things as my 3E games are at those things.  And, no less true, my 3E games are not as great at certain things as your 4E games are at those things.  They have different strengths and weaknesses.  

But if you want to say that every strength of 3E is equally present in 4E, then that would just tell me that you are unaware of what you are missing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 25, 2011)

> I have a wife, a job, and so much more to do.




Which makes you absolutely, 100% not unique.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 25, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which makes you absolutely, 100% not unique.



Never said I was, Danny, never said I was...


----------



## Lalato (Feb 25, 2011)

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]...  I wasn't trying to suggest that there aren't differences between 3.x and 4e.  All I'm saying is that I get the same level of satisfaction from playing in both systems.  In the post that I was responding to, you weren't making the distinction that the systems were different... you were saying that the experience of playing with one was better than playing with the other.  That's subjective...  and that's all I was saying.

[MENTION=84810]NoWayJose[/MENTION]...  I got nothing for you.  Thanks for showing your true colors though.  Now I know I can ignore you for the rest of this conversation.


----------



## NoWayJose (Feb 25, 2011)

Lalato said:


> @NoWayJose... I got nothing for you. Thanks for showing your true colors though. Now I know I can ignore you for the rest of this conversation.



You know, that's totally understandable and I regret and apologize that my parody/satire went too far towards satire, and I never actually intended to single you out specifically. It was meant to be more of a wide area bomb. It reflects my frustration with the process, but that's my personal problem.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2011)

Lalato said:


> [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]..you were saying that the experience of playing with one was better than playing with the other.  That's subjective...  and that's all I was saying.



Experience is subjective.

Within the specific context that I was speaking, the differences are specific and objectively observable.

That does not mean you don't have a great time and it doesn't mean 4E isn't good at what it set out to do.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 25, 2011)

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]... Actually... no.  You said it was better... full stop.  

Both 3.x and 4e set out to make a fun D&D experience (whatever that is  ).  Sure, they may arrive at the experience in slightly different ways, but they set out to do the same thing.  It's subjective whether or not one arrives at the "fun" part for sure... and that's where a qualifier of "in my experience" comes in. A qualifier of "at what it set out to do." does not make sense in this context.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 25, 2011)

I am not at all convinced that 3.x and 4e set out to give players the same experience.

I am not at all convinced that 1e and 2e do so, or 2e and 3e.

It seems to me that a driving goal of edition change is also a desire to present a different form of experience.  The core strengths of various editions point toward attempting to drive particular experiences, IMHO.

Saying that 3e and 4e are both good games doesn't mean the experience is the same.  It might be, if you play(ed) one of them in a way not consistent with its core strengths.  I.e., if you played 3e like you play 4e, they provide the same experience.  But the core strength of 3e is different than that of 4e, and you probably didn't get (and maybe didn't want) the best of what 3e has to offer.

Likewise, if you play 4e like 3e, you probably aren't getting the best of what 4e has to offer.

IME, people switch editions because they want a new experience, something that isn't fully supported in the game they are currently playing.  And no game can fully support everything!


RC


----------



## Mallus (Feb 25, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> That said, if a given set of mechanics are forcing me to dream up more narrative and-or more detail than I or my group really want, I'm going to end up either ditching those mechanics or bailing on the narrative details.



Sounds perfectly reasonable. FYI... the level of narrative gloss applied to power use varies quite a bit in my group; it all depends on people's mood and energy level. Sometimes we just use straight power names and numbers, other times we dress the raw mechanics up with a good bit of fiction. 

Even when we're tired we usually manage _something_ to tie the mechanics to the game's fiction, even if it's little more than a character's catch-phrase, like when our Communist Avenger --who's Avenger powers are powered by something called "Dialectical Materialism"-- declares an opponent "an enemy of the people".



BryonD said:


> But, if you see "opportunity" in 4E, then that says to me that you were just missing out in whatever game you are comparing it to.



Missing out in what way?



> So if you were not doing this in 3E, you ARE now in 4E.



Oh no, we did the same thing in our 3e campaign; attached our own fiction to the official game mechanics. All the time. In great, heaping bushels. Of fiction. The only difference was in our 3e campaign we were usually replacing the fiction which was already attached to the mechanics, whereas in 4e we were usually _attaching_ fiction to mechanics which didn't have any, or at least enough.

In both games we made a lot of our shi stuff up (and ran with it). In neither game was this seen as burdensome. 



> A good game of 3E is much better than a good game of 4E.



For you, sure. For us, I'd say it's a wash. The truth is our 3e and 4e games are very similar; the focus is on bold, outlandish, and more-or-less morally indefensible characters exploring and working their will on detailed fantasy worlds which sit right on the (disputed) border between homage and parody (and satire and surrealism).



Raven Crowking said:


> Likewise, if you play 4e like 3e, you probably aren't getting the best of what 4e has to offer.



Like I said to BryonD, my group is playing 4e a lot like the way we played 3e... could you go into a bit more detail? (did I just RC to _expound_ on something??!!??)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 25, 2011)

From the sounds of it, Mallus, you were trying to get (from 3e) a play experience that 4e offers in spades.  So, of course you are going to be happy with 4e.  For your playstyle, you get more out of it.

OTOH, would you be surprised if other playstyles get more out of 3e, because 3e is designed with those playstyles in mind?  Likewise, I feel sure that you can see how AD&D 1e is designed with different play assumptions than 2e, or 3e, or 4e.

Assuming a successful game design, the closer your playstyle matches the design assumptions of the game, the more you will get out of that particular game.  It simply facilitates your needs better.

(Going through the really long, long process of redesigning ground-up from the SRD has, if nothing else, made me think a lot about how expected playstyle informs game design, and how game design can facilitate or hinder particular types of play!)

IOW, that quoted bit is supposed to mean, "If you play 4e using the playstyle expectations designed into 3e......" rather than how you, personally, played the game.  I hope that makes sense.

RC


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2011)

Lalato said:


> [MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]... Actually... no.  You said it was better... full stop.
> 
> Both 3.x and 4e set out to make a fun D&D experience (whatever that is  ).  Sure, they may arrive at the experience in slightly different ways, but they set out to do the same thing.  It's subjective whether or not one arrives at the "fun" part for sure... and that's where a qualifier of "in my experience" comes in. A qualifier of "at what it set out to do." does not make sense in this context.



I certainly don't agree with your characterization.

They both set out to make a fun table top fantasy role playing experience and they went about it in VASTLY different ways with vastly different priorities.  And as a result they produce significantly different experiences.

They set out to do very different things.  They are alike in that they are table top fantasy role playing games.  But they remain very different.  Just as baseball and basketball are alike in that they are both physical sports, and yet they are very different.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 25, 2011)

NoWayJose said:


> I was referencing the jumping scenario only. I wrote earlier that I thought '3 jumping cards' was a bad example for carrying the entire weight of the argument, but you vouched for it, so I went with it all the way. Now I think it's falling apart over red herrings. Perhaps you should tackle the Beguiling Strands post instead?



Lalato already handled Beguiling Strands - the target is entranced, wanders away and has his/her mental resolve weakened (ie takes psychic damage).

As for the jump cards, they're still a fine example. And Eyebeams handled it upthread - in a game in which a player has 3 jump cards, his/her PC can't overcome challenges in the game by jumping more than 3 times a session. Why would you have such a mechanic in your game? Perhaps to force some diversity (this is part of the rationale of 4e's encounter powers). Assuming the game is one with a lot of chasms, then some time the player with the 3 jump cards is going to have to have his/her PC use a rope, or fly, or something else.

And if you can't come up with ingame reasons why jumping won't work - the chasm's too wide, the wind too strong, the ground too slippery, the PC's legs too tired, etc, etc - then you probably shouldn't be playing that game.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 25, 2011)

Lalato said:


> I don't see what the problem is here... or why you bring it up as an example (of what?).



Great reply - sorry I can't XP you again yet.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2011)

Mallus said:


> Missing out in what way?



Creativity without the "narrative burden".



> Oh no, we did the same thing in our 3e campaign; attached our own fiction to the official game mechanics. All the time. In great, heaping bushels. Of fiction. The only difference was in our 3e campaign we were usually replacing the fiction which was already attached to the mechanics, whereas in 4e we were usually _attaching_ fiction to mechanics which didn't have any, or at least enough.
> 
> In both games we made a lot of our shi stuff up (and ran with it). In neither game was this seen as burdensome.
> 
> ...



I already said I believe you play 4E exactly the way you played 3E.  I strongly believe that 3E supports 4E style play, if desired.  

I don't know if you truly can't see the difference, or for argumentative purposes you simply refuse to admit it.  It really makes no difference.

But you are the one that used the term "creative opportunities".  If that is an addition you are receiving from 4E that you did not have in 3E, then in 3E you were missing out.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2011)

Mallus said:


> _expound_ on something??!!??)




And you know, being asked to explain it to you for the 28th time now so that next week you can again claim that the point has never been made gets really old.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 25, 2011)

pemerton said:


> And if you can't come up with ingame reasons why jumping won't work - the chasm's too wide, the wind too strong, the ground too slippery, the PC's legs too tired, etc, etc - then you probably shouldn't be playing that game.



True.

Also, if you want the mechanics to do what the narrative says and not be required to make up narrative to do what the mechanics say, then, this also is a very good reason not to play that game.

A lot of people make this very sound choice.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 25, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> He never said that, only that your metagame mechanics should not violate the physics you imagine for your game world.





Raven Crowking said:


> Yep.
> 
> The degree to which this is not true is, by and large, the degree to which the players have to make decisions *in spite of* their roles, rather than _*because of their roles*_.  I.e., they have to step outside of their role-based view of the game milieu and into the meta-game view in order to act in accordance with the rules.





Raven Crowking said:


> If there is a choice between a mechanic that causes absurd results, and one that does not do so, you should obviously choose the least absurd unless you're in it for comedy.
> 
> Because an absurd mechanic, sooner or later, leads to absurd interpretation simply because, if the mechanic is absurd, all of the non-absurd interpretations rely on things such as unlikely coincidence, which become absurd as they pile up.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what is being asserted here. The most natural reading, for me, entails that HeroWars/Quest, or even The Riddle of Steel, is not a RPG, or is at odds with the point of a RPG. Is that's what is intended?

Why do I say that this entailment holds? Because in both those games, in a swordfight, how well a PC does against an NPC will depend, in part, on the relationship (emotional/spiritual/political/etc) between PC and NPC. And not because the designers of the game think that, _in the world according to its physics_, connections produce toughter sword swings. It's because part of the point of both games is to reflect the significance of emotional/spiritual/political stakes directly in the mechanics.

On the issue of absurdity - there is nothing absurd about 3 jump cards. It is completely conceivable that an adventurer might succeed at overcoming only 3 challenges per day/session/encounter/etc by jumping - because all the other chasms are too big, or too wet on the approach, or the adventurer is too fatigued, or whatever. In a game based on jump card, _part of the point of the game_ is to require players and GM to produce narrations that explain these ingame constraints that bring the world of the game into conformity with the metagame-determined possibilities. This applies equally to narrating the relationship-influenced swordfight described above - in a fight in which the PC is doing better because of the augment provided by relationship attributes (in HeroWars/Quest) or by Spiritual Attributes (in TRoS), the ingame situation has to be described as one in which that PC strikes truer, or harder, or luck turns against the foe and the NPC slips, or fails to parry, or . . .

And yes, this may require the player to adopt the position of author rather than actor (for anyone interested in a sophisticated discussion of various stances in an RPG, and how they related to immesion, see here). But it doesn't follow from that that the game is absurd or not a RPG.

That's why I asked earlier, when it was said that a RPG _should_ do this or that, the assertion was that it should do this, _if Raven Crowking (or Pawsplay, or whomever)_ is to enjoy it - which I have no reason to doubt is true - or if the assertion was that if it doesn't do this it is failing as a RPG - which I have no reason to suppose is true, given that many great RPGs don't handle physical interactions in the gameworld by using mechanics that model those interactions, but instead by using mechanics that set the constraints of narrating ingame events.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 25, 2011)

BryonD said:


> True.
> 
> Also, if you want the mechanics to do what the narrative says and not be required to make up narrative to do what the mechanics say, then, this also is a very good reason not to play that game.
> 
> A lot of people make this very sound choice.



BryonD, I've never said that your game is half-baked or that you're delusional in thinking it can deliver a satisfying RPG experience.

I'm not saying that now.

I'm just trying to defend _my game_ against the accusation that it is half-baked or that I am delusional.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 25, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I'm not sure what is being asserted here. The most natural reading, for me, entails that HeroWars/Quest, or even The Riddle of Steel, is not a RPG, or is at odds with the point of a RPG. Is that's what is intended?




No.



> Why do I say that this entailment holds? Because in both those games, in a swordfight, how well a PC does against an NPC will depend, in part, on the relationship (emotional/spiritual/political/etc) between PC and NPC. And not because the designers of the game think that, _in the world according to its physics_, connections produce toughter sword swings. It's because part of the point of both games is to reflect the significance of emotional/spiritual/political stakes directly in the mechanics.




And there's your physics. As long as it produces the intended results, you're golden.



> On the issue of absurdity - there is nothing absurd about 3 jump cards. It is completely conceivable that an adventurer might succeed at overcoming only 3 challenges per day/session/encounter/etc by jumping - because all the other chasms are too big, or too wet on the approach, or the adventurer is too fatigued, or whatever.




It's absurd because the ease of jumping depends on how many times you do it. It would not be absurd of the number "jump cards" somehow scaled to your character's narratively-presumed ability or deservingness. The limited number of jump cards in a narration-heavy game is problematic for the exact same reason that a flat 50% chance for everyone to make a jump is problematic in a simulation-test-heavy game; the chance of success doesn't have to do with... anything. Except some arbitrary notion arrived at by the designer.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 26, 2011)

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]:  Pawsplay has already covered this pretty well, but I would like to add that your "most natural reading" seems to indicate something to do with the correspondence between *role assumption* (what I wrote about) and whether or not something is a* role-playing game*.

You seem to be inferring that if a game has elements that interfere with, or counter, role-assumption, that it is not or cannot be a role-playing game.  You then seem to wish to shift that inference on to others (myself in particular).

But that inferrence is your own, sir.

As far as mechanics which lead to absurd results ("That's the fifth nuke this week that's acted...strangely!"), I fully stand by my statement.  IF your goal is not comedy, THEN you should avoid them.  You may not be able to for other reasons; for example, playability might force you to accept a degree of potential absurdity.  You might also be going for comedy (Toon, Paranoia, some beer & pretzels D&D), or you might disagree that being able to jump successfully only three times per day is absurd.


RC


----------



## BryonD (Feb 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> BryonD, I've never said that your game is half-baked or that you're delusional in thinking it can deliver a satisfying RPG experience.
> 
> I'm not saying that now.
> 
> I'm just trying to defend _my game_ against the accusation that it is half-baked or that I am delusional.



How does this respond or in any way relate to what I said?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> On the issue of absurdity - there is nothing absurd about 3 jump cards. It is completely conceivable that an adventurer might succeed at overcoming only 3 challenges per day/session/encounter/etc by jumping - because all the other chasms are too big, or too wet on the approach, or the adventurer is too fatigued, or whatever. In a game based on jump card, _part of the point of the game_ is to require players and GM to produce narrations that explain these ingame constraints that bring the world of the game into conformity with the metagame-determined possibilities.



I have negative interest in playing in a game that works the way you describe here.  You like it.  That is cool.


"Absurd" is kinda a loaded word.  But will you at least agree that this is a perfect example of the narrative being forced to obey the mechanics?

Why are there three cards?  Because of some narrative basis?  No, the premise of the discussion is that this is a mechanical constraint.

What if a character spends twenty consecutive days in a hilly, region with lots of chasms.  And every day he finds the need to jump over chasms frequently.  Would it not get funny to you that it always becomes impossible to jump after three successes?  If you were reading a book or watching a show and that pattern appeared, would you not find that odd?  

What if someone needed to jump the same two chasms five times a day for twenty days?  Does being forced to invent a constant reasons why not ever start to seem contrary to the point of a role playing game?  

It does to me.  It does in a real hurry.  If there IS a reason, then cool, there is a reason.  But running out of cards which have zero implicit narrative meaning being a justification becomes, in my view, something that could reasonably be called absurd.

If you were going to write a novel, would you put this kind of constraint on the action?

I guess "absurd" strongly depends on context.  If you WANT to play a game with this type of constraint, then NOT using them would be absurd.  But if you want to play a narrative dominant RPG, then forcing this kind of mechanical dominance onto it would be absurd.  The two sides can both exist.

I see you saying it is ok because there *could* be reasons why someone couldn't jump more than three times.  But, no one is disputing that there could be reasons.  (And you keep suggesting the problem is related to having trouble making up reasons.  I assure you that is way off the mark.  I am quite confident that pawsplay and RC could give you a list of 100 unique reasons for not being able to jump if they felt motivated, and I know I could.)

But, the thing is, just as there *could* be reasons that no more than three occur in a specific given day, there *could* also be reasons that four, or eight, or nineteen are possible in that day.  We are not saying that a limit of three can't happen.  But you are saying that any number exceeding three can't happen.  You are the one eliminating possibilities and saying that no justification which *allows* jumping more than three times may be included.  We have all of the above, lets see what makes sense at the time.  You have a prejudged absolute of three before your players ever open their mouths.

We don't look at the world as arbitrarily deterministic.  

There is the old, very basic concept.  You flip a normal coin three times and get heads all three times.  What is the odds of getting heads on the fourth flip?  The correct answer is 50%.  In your game the odds of a fourth heads is 0% because you have used up the three heads for the day.  You can make up reasons why it keeps landing on tails the rest of the day.  I can too.  But I REALLY don't want to.  

And just as each coin flip is independent, it is very rational for each jump to be independent.  A guy jumps four times in a row and you want to declare him too tired on the fourth.  Cool.  A guy jumps three times in a row, rests for five hours and tries to make an easier jump.  Your system demands that he can't.  Yes, you can invent a reason.  But the reality of your system is that that events are not independent.  You are making up a reason NOT because your understanding of the narrative makes that right, but because this coin flip is not independent of the three other, otherwise remote and unrelated coin flips.

Your correct claim that non-absurd narrative justifications can be shoe-horned back onto the mechanical demands does nothing to change that the non-independence of events carries a level of absurdity with it.

Again, if you WANT that game experience, then for THAT game experience there is nothing absurd about it.  Your approach is absolutely a role playing game experience.  Immersion is absolutely possible by your approach.  
But I don't buy the idea that arbitrary mechanical dominance provides the same opportunity for quality of narrative experience.    If narrative immersion was the true top goal, then forgetting mechanics as much as possible would be a key part of pursuing that goal.  That is NOT a claim that narrative immersion over mechanics is better, more fun, or any of that.  But it is a claim that you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 26, 2011)

I still don't understand what all this talk regarding jump cards is about.  Seems like a great debate about nothing.  Are the jump cards supposed to represent Vancian magic?  If so, then I guess I'm getting it.

If someone could actually talk about the thread topic... that would be great.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 26, 2011)

BryonD, I think that's a good summation of why someone would avoid a game like Prime Time Adventures.

For me, I can see why having a "Jump x 3" resource would work for a specific game, and why it wouldn't work at all for another game.  I changed Martial Encounter Powers to work off of fictional triggers instead of once per encounter in my 4E hack because I wanted a specific sort of game.  I can see why once per encounter can work better for the assumed game play of 4E.

I guess that's why I think that mechanics should satisfy one goal: forcing players to make the kinds of choices that the game is about.  Fictional triggers do that in my game.  They wouldn't in another.  

That's also why I think talk about "metagame" mechanics is kind of pointless; all mechanics work at the player - the metagame - level.  Mechanics enable players to make choices that have different values.  The key is to make sure that your mechanics allow players to make the kinds of choices that they want to make.  I think all successful RPGs do this; AD&D is full of these kinds of mechanics, as is PTA and Star Wars d6 and Mage (some games I've had experiences with).

edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to ask!  ByronD, I have a lot of trouble understanding your posts - a failure of mine, I think because what we want from RPGs is fundamentally different.  (RC has no problem understanding your posts, and his explanations of your posts clear up everything to me - but that might be because I've met RC in real life, and I know where he's coming from.  Discussion over the internets is difficult!)  

My question is simple: I'm not sure what you mean by "narrative".  How does that work in terms of an RPG?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> You are the one eliminating possibilities and saying that no justification which *allows* jumping more than three times may be included.  We have all of the above, lets see what makes sense at the time.  You have a prejudged absolute of three before your players ever open their mouths.
> 
> There is the old, very basic concept.  You flip a normal coin three times and get heads all three times.  What is the odds of getting heads on the fourth flip?  The correct answer is 50%.  In your game the odds of a fourth heads is 0% because you have used up the three heads for the day.  You can make up reasons why it keeps landing on tails the rest of the day.  I can too.  But I REALLY don't want to.



Can someone clarify one little point for me:

I've been reading all this as though, to use the coin analogy, you only got three flips for the day regardless of outcome - three uses of the 'jump' ability whether successful or not.

The way you put it here, you can flip (or jump) to your heart's content but only until you succeed three times, after which you can still try it but you have to fail.

Which is it?

Lan-"jumping all over the place"-efan


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 26, 2011)

> I still don't understand what all this talk regarding jump cards is about. Seems like a great debate about nothing. Are the jump cards supposed to represent Vancian magic? If so, then I guess I'm getting it.
> 
> If someone could actually talk about the thread topic... that would be great.




I think- but I'm not sure- that this is a side discussion about mechanics & logic.  A mechanic for physical acts that limits something simple in a seemingly arbitrary fashion would presumably be a bad thing.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 26, 2011)

Lalato said:


> I still don't understand what all this talk regarding jump cards is about.  Seems like a great debate about nothing.



I don't agree with this. A PC in my 4e game, for example, has a power that lets him perform a Mighty Sprint (or Climb, or Jump) once per encounter. It's excatly like the hypothetical "jump cards" being discussed. So the discussion of jump cards has direct implications for how my game plays, and how it's play is to be understood.

Skill challenges are also like this, because after 1 use of a skill the DC increases for that PC using that skill again. So each PC only has one solid chance at gaining a success using a given skill. This is something like a "jump card".



pawsplay said:


> And there's your physics. As long as it produces the intended results, you're golden.



Except that it's not physics. It's not part of the physics of Conan's world that combats are almost the most dramatic at the culmination of the story - that's a stylistic phenomenon of a story, not a physical fact about the Hyborian age. Likwise for HW/Q or TRoS.



pawsplay said:


> It's absurd because the ease of jumping depends on how many times you do it.



You seem unwilling to distinguish between the probability of something happening in the gameworld, and the probability of it happening at the game table. Never once at my game table has the issue of defecation come up for a PC. Does it follow that the probability of defecation in my gameworld is zero? I don't think so.

On the other hand, the PCs in my game always bump into old friends or foes, or other exciting scenarios. Why? Because the likelihood of unusual things happening, while low in the gameworld, is high at the table. This tells us nothing about the physics of the gameworld. The Shaman has encounter tables especially designed to produce these coincidences, as part of a genre replication technique. It doesn't mean that it's part of the physics of The Shaman's semi-fictional France that coincidences are actually not coincidences at all!




BryonD said:


> But the reality of your system is that that events are not independent.



In the fiction they are independent. At the gametable they are not. Like The Shaman's coincidences.



BryonD said:


> What if a character spends twenty consecutive days in a hilly, region with lots of chasms.



In a game with limited jump cards, you might avoid setting encounters in hills, or at Olympic athletics competitions. Alternatively, you would look for ways to compress multiple actual jumps in the gameworld into a single skill check, or focus on only one or two crucial scenes in the overall 20 day episode. (I've posted on this before - that with these sorts of mechanics, one might look at multiple ways to resolve a given situation. And Eyebeams also mentioned this upthread.)



BryonD said:


> "Absurd" is kinda a loaded word.  But will you at least agree that this is a perfect example of the narrative being forced to obey the mechanics?



I don't at all dispute that it's a non-simulationist mechanic - which is how I prefer to describe what I think you mean by "narrative being forced to obey the mechanics". That's the point of a mechanic which (as I put it upthread) _places parameters on the narrative of the fictional situation_.

Like Hussar, I tend to feel that your way of describing it elides the contrast with other mechanics, which also constrain what can be narrated (eg in AD&D, if I roll a 1, I'm obliged to say that my PC didn't hit the enemy). For maximum clarity: I'm not disputing the contrast, and never have, and have spent over two years on these boards asserting it. I'm just saying that I don't feel that the description you are using gets at the contrast. That's why I prefer my description. In the sort of game with "jump cards", _the mechanics are not a model of the physics of the gameworld_. Rather, _they allocate and constrain the power to describe what is happening in the gameworld_ in a way that is _independent of the ingame, fictional physics_ but is responsive to _some other aesthetic desire of those playing the game_. In the case of the "jump cards", part of that aesthetic desire might be a view that too much solving of problems by jumping makes for a boring game.



LostSoul said:


> That's also why I think talk about "metagame" mechanics is kind of pointless; all mechanics work at the player - the metagame - level.



LostSoul, that's fair enough. I guess by metagame mechanics I mean mechanics (i) that aren't purist-for-system simulationist, in the sense that they don't express or model ingame causality, and also (ii) that can't be implemented in actor stance.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In the fiction they are independent. At the gametable they are not. Like The Shaman's coincidences.



No.  If you wrote short stories based on your adventures and some one read them all, had never heard of RPGs, and paid attention, they would eventually realize that no character in your stories could ever jump more than three times per day.  It would become jarring and bizarre.  And since we at the table KNOW that is the reason and don't have to look for the pattern, it becomes jarring and bizarre from the first time it happens.

Your fiction is not remotely independent.  You are back-filling the narrative in ways which are intended to disguise the dependence.  But pointing at your disguises does nothing to remove the fact that the absolute dependence exists underneath.

And when you are persistently forced to put these disguises on, and everyone at the table knows they are disguises, then the disguises start looking like a bad plastic spiderman mask with an elastic cord.

Yes, you have other alternates such as hand-waving that I jumped ten times and that was represented by three checks.  You can absolutely do that.  You can force the scene to change.  But now you have just traded the spiderman mask for a batman mask.  And it is bossy and has cracks in it.  The point is, everyone at the table knows it is a cover.

Even if you decide that jumping is boring, the idea that you can decide before sitting down to the table that three is the correct number before boredom sets in is bizarre to me.  In a narrative first game, you always have options for dealing with what is happening at the moment and moving things along.  I'd rather adapt to deal with something that is starting to get dry than retrofit the narrative to comply with a preconceived mechanical demand.


No one is disputing that you enjoy this style of play.  

But you seem to have a need to insist that using narrative devices to hide the fact that the game forces narrative dependence is no less "fiction first" than truly having no narrative dependence.  You provide example after example, and seem to truly think you have made your case, and yet we are reading them and seeing proof after proof that you are NOT putting fiction first.  You are constantly putting your thumb in leak after leak.  That you can keep up with the leaks does not equate to not having to deal with the leaks.


----------



## Than (Feb 26, 2011)

For me the "D&D experience" is best served with any system that is fantasy based, has distinct classes that are really distinct in the way they work not just in the "flavour text".

So for me this would not be 4th edition but would be amongst others systems like:-

AD&D, 2nd ed D&D, 3 and 3.5 ed D&D, Pathfinder, Cosmothea, Castles and crusades.

Well thats the ones i've played and I know there are lots of others.

But 4th edition although it gives an experience in the same genre as D&D, in that it is closer to D&D than say the traveller system perhaps, it does not give a close enough experience to D&D as the others I mention do.

And the reason 4th edition to me does not give a close D&D experiance is the classes are too samey.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 26, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> BryonD, I think that's a good summation of why someone would avoid a game like Prime Time Adventures.
> 
> For me, I can see why having a "Jump x 3" resource would work for a specific game, and why it wouldn't work at all for another game.



In other words, all roads do not lead to Rome.



> I changed Martial Encounter Powers to work off of fictional triggers instead of once per encounter in my 4E hack because I wanted a specific sort of game.  I can see why once per encounter can work better for the assumed game play of 4E.



Can't say much based on this little bit, but that certainly sound like an improvement.





> edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to ask!  ByronD, I have a lot of trouble understanding your posts - a failure of mine, I think because what we want from RPGs is fundamentally different.  (RC has no problem understanding your posts, and his explanations of your posts clear up everything to me - but that might be because I've met RC in real life, and I know where he's coming from.  Discussion over the internets is difficult!)
> 
> My question is simple: I'm not sure what you mean by "narrative".  How does that work in terms of an RPG?



I think the problem may be that your calibration is off.  My name is Bryon.  
(just kidding, no actual offense taken or intended and no complaint)

The ideal of the perfect game would be like being inside a book or movie as it happens and the next paragraph has not been written yet.

This "perfect" game would have no mechanics at all and yet would remain consistent and reliable and mutually understood by everyone at the table.  

I am an environmental engineer.  I specifically do a large portion of my work directing groundwater remediation projects.  Groundwater models are a common element of these projects.  The ideal perfect model would be able to tell you that if a benzene molecule starts "here" it will travel to "there" in X time and then it will degrade, get sucked out of well, enter a river, whatever.  

The subsurface is vastly complex and there is never enough data.  The model provides a mathematical simulation of the subsurface and behavior of the benzene.  The mathematical simulation includes estimates and approximations.  It includes a lot of them.  But the goal of a good model is to always shave those away and go back and shave them some more.  The perfect model would be no model, it would just be knowledge of the behavior of the benzene.  Any change to the model that increases the influence of the model's approximations is considered a bad thing.  The results of the model will be somewhere between a total default rule of thumb approximation and and actual description of what happens.  All changes must push toward the latter.  In the mean time, the benzene has no idea that anyone is running a model.  It just does what it does.  Anything in the model that doesn't reflect that is error in the model and reality won't change to come to it.  It is just error.

Game systems are mathematical models.  They give both all the players an even understanding of how a reliable representation of a story should happen and they give all the systems within the game model a reliable system for interaction.  When you say that a fireball deals 7d6 damage, you have introduced a mathematical approximation and there is error in that.  When you read a fantasy novel, even a D&D-specific novel, the quantified damage or dice of damage of a fireball is nowhere to be seen.  Any changes should work to make the players less aware of the 7d6 and more aware of just the story.

If three jumps and then no more jumps is the rule, the story is out the window and we are all about the approximation side of the model.
If you disguise that by saying that ten jumps happened, but three jump checks "represented" those ten jumps, you have sacrificed granularity, you have error in your system.

A perfect model is a model that no one knows exists.  It is just the story - the narrative.  3E does not achieve that.  But 4E moves explicitly in the direction of being in your face and saying "Hey, remember the model, this model itself is part of the fun. It protects you from the boredom of a fourth jump.  It protects you from too much prep time, It makes certain that the math always works."  None of these are goals that you would consider if you sat down to write a story.  And, for me, they should not have any more attention than is absolutely required when making a game that is intended to be dominated by the story over all else.

Are we moving toward the being inside a totally game-less story end of the spectrum, or are we moving toward the rule of thumb mechanical approximations with narrative connections end?


----------



## BryonD (Feb 26, 2011)

To be pithy:

3E tries to be a system for getting to the fun.
4E tries to be a system that IS the fun.


----------



## Than (Feb 26, 2011)

H'mmm everyone's idea of what is fun is different though.

For me after the roleplay/combat the great distinctiveness of the classes in AD&D to 3.5 and other similar games were what enhanced the fun.  4th Ed classes samey, at least to me, so less fun.

Having said that with good players and a good DM a 4th edition game can still be good, so i'm not trying to knock it too much.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 26, 2011)

Than said:


> H'mmm everyone's idea of what is fun is different though.



Agreed, but my pithy line does not presume any certain idea of fun.  Whatever your idea of fun is, there is a difference between a system that tries to get you to it and a system that tries to BE it.

Even if someone's idea of fun IS exactly what 4E tries to be, that difference still exists.  Obviously that person won't care.  All they care about is that the system IS the fun they want.  But the difference exists and that all gets back to not everyone trying to get to Rome.

"Everyone's idea of what is fun is different" is just another way of saying all roads do not lead to Rome.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 26, 2011)

Than said:


> Having said that with good players and a good DM a 4th edition game can still be good



Absolutely 100% true.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> To be pithy:
> 
> 3E tries to be a system for getting to the fun.
> 4E tries to be a system that IS the fun.




Can you elaborate on what getting to the fun in 3e looks like?  And please contrast that with what is fun about the 4e system.


----------



## Lalato (Feb 26, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think- but I'm not sure- that this is a side discussion about mechanics & logic.  A mechanic for physical acts that limits something simple in a seemingly arbitrary fashion would presumably be a bad thing.




Thanks, Danny.  Then I guess I wasn't getting it at all.  Shouldn't this be a discussion for a different thread?  If that is what it's really about, then I fail to see how it is germane to the topic of this thread.  

It's a weird example anyway as no edition of D&D uses jump tokens or cards or what-have-you.  As far as I remember...  jumping has never been limited in the way that others are talking about so I guess I'm still a little confused on this one.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 26, 2011)

You guys are getting bogged down in fairly trivial aesthetic preferences. All game systems are arbitrary to some degree, all of them influence the narrative, and all of them make statements about the story world, whether they intend to or not.

This is what I mean:

1) Arbitrariness means that something other than what seems logical, reasonable or good will come out of any game system for no other reason than some structural outcome. D&D4 power use frequency leads to examples of this, where the "powerup" period can lead to various silly events. It is impossible to design a game system that doesn't do this, but it is possible to try and heavily indoctrinate a community to ignore these issues. Thanks to D&D's current instability, many people are now waking up from this indoctrination.

2) All game systems engage the story on a narrative meta-level as well as simulating physics or whatever. The popular notion of a divide between these things is false. That's because even a game that tries to be about fantasy physics must dwell on things that matter to the story (no "bathroom break frequency" rules!) and tune them for a desired effect, and games that are highly "meta" about conflict and story must eventually be rendered as *things* in a self-consistent fashion.

3) Game systems impart meaning to the world of the story because they provide our way in. We really cannot ignore the idea that the rules are a machine that makes the world happen, even if the game isn't intended to do that. This is part of our nature as en emotional, symbol-manipulating species. We do not have hard and fast "simulation" and "narrative" boxes.

One of piece of marketing indoctrination WotC pushed was that game design was a technology that objectively improved and definitively solved problems. This worked for 3e, because it was an update of a game that had not experienced a major design overhaul since the late 70s/early 80s (2e does not really mess with the fundamentals established by 1e). Then 4e came around, WotC pushed the same message, and you guys sensed something was up. Around the same time, the OSR established that the doctrine of progress was meaningless to them.

I think that in any mature consideration of what RPGs mean to us, we must admit that there are problems that *can't be solved* outside of the specifics of one's own table. A designer or design team can tell you what the rules are supposed to mean, and how they are supposed to work, but past a certain point they *cannot* help you. They can develop alternatives that you might not have the time or skill to create yourself, but they can't make you ignore 4e's arbitrary bits, or the weird feeling that a narrative rule makes a statement about the underlying nature of the game world. You can say, "This is how we assume you'll interpret the rules," and talk about tricky points, alternatives and so on, but you absolutely cannot make RPGs drop the three properties I listed above.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't agree with this. A PC in my 4e game, for example, has a power that lets him perform a Mighty Sprint (or Climb, or Jump) once per encounter. It's excatly like the hypothetical "jump cards" being discussed. So the discussion of jump cards has direct implications for how my game plays, and how it's play is to be understood.




Let's not be too hasty here. From the context, it looks like some people see the 3-limit jump cards as the chances to jump 3 times - an act that normal people in real life can do all day. But with something like "Mighty" attached to the front of it, that sounds more like being able to exceed normal ability or perhaps achieve an auto-success a limited number of times per day. There's a world of difference between the two and, I'd say, many games including previous editions of D&D embrace the latter. 
The reason there's a world of difference between the two is because the former is artificially limiting, mechanics running roughshod on narrative, while the latter sounds empowering, boosting normal abilities.
For the purpose of this discussion - which do you really mean and which do other people mean? If you're referring to the different varieties, you're talking past each other and not to each other.




pemerton said:


> In a game with limited jump cards, you might avoid setting encounters in hills, or at Olympic athletics competitions.




And that's exactly what I mean by being artificially limiting. Suppose the PCs *want* to go adventuring in the craggy hills or compete in an athletics tournament? What then?


----------



## pemerton (Feb 26, 2011)

Lalato said:


> It's a weird example anyway as no edition of D&D uses jump tokens or cards or what-have-you.  As far as I remember...  jumping has never been limited in the way that others are talking about so I guess I'm still a little confused on this one.



Well, I gave two examples upthread of how it _is_ limited in 4e.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 26, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Let's not be too hasty here. From the context, it looks like some people see the 3-limit jump cards as the chances to jump 3 times - an act that normal people in real life can do all day. But with something like "Mighty" attached to the front of it, that sounds more like being able to exceed normal ability or perhaps achieve an auto-success a limited number of times per day. There's a world of difference between the two and, I'd say, many games including previous editions of D&D embrace the latter.



Bill91, thanks for a thoughtful response.

I'm assuming that - as eyebeams suggested upthread - when we're talking about playing "jump cards" we're not talking about a PC jumping over a dog turd so as to keep his boots clean walking down the city street. I assume that we're talking about using a jump to resolve some dramatic situation in the game.



billd91 said:


> Suppose the PCs *want* to go adventuring in the craggy hills or compete in an athletics tournament? What then?



4e's partial solution to this problem is the retraining rules (ie buy more "jump cards). But - to tie this point back to 4e as an example system, and thinking of "jump cards" just as a placeholder for more general mechanical features of the game - 4e is limited in the genres of RPGing that it will support. As has often been noted, for example, it won't work very well for a game that is mostly about the PCs setting up a business enterprise and engaging in mundane commerce.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 26, 2011)

eyebeams said:


> You guys are getting bogged down in fairly trivial aesthetic preferences.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think that in any mature consideration of what RPGs mean to us, we must admit that there are problems that *can't be solved* outside of the specifics of one's own table. A designer or design team can tell you what the rules are supposed to mean, and how they are supposed to work, but past a certain point they *cannot* help you.



Eyebeams, another interesting post.

I think the 4e books could have done a much better job thatn they do of telling us what the rules are supposed to mean, and how they are supposed to work. I think part of why these aesthetic preferences keep getting debated is that the failure of the 4e designers to do that has left a bit of a vacuum, where 4e players repeatedly find themselves being told that they are not _really_ roleplaying.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 26, 2011)

BryonD said:


> 4E tries to be a system that IS the fun.



I don't know what this means. The fun for me in playing 4e comes from participating in creating a story of heroic fantasy adventure with strongly (and growing) mythic overtones. The system is a means to this end.



BryonD said:


> Game systems are mathematical models.



You assert this as if it is self-evidently true. When in fact I can name a number of influential RPGs the systems of which are _not_ mathematical models of anything: HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Maelstrom Storytelling, Nicotine Girls.

Not to mention The Shaman's encounter tables, which aren't models of anything, but rather techniques for injecting genre-appropriate coincidences into the game.



BryonD said:


> If you wrote short stories based on your adventures and some one read them all, had never heard of RPGs, and paid attention, they would eventually realize that no character in your stories could ever jump more than three times per day.



No. At most, they might realise that no character _does_ ever jump more than three times per day. You would need to know a lot more than that to actually make an inference to the physics of the world - _assuming that wondering about the physics of the world was even a salient issue!_ - which for those playing a _non-exploration_ based game it probably is not!

Here is somf of what the HeroQuest 2nd ed rulebook has to say about the relationship between physics of the gameworld and the action resolution mechanics:

Pages 7-8

In a traditional, simulative game, you'd determine how hard [an action] is based on the physical constraints you've described [as obtaining in the fictional situation] . . . In _HeroQuest_, you start not with the physical details, but with the proposed action's position in the storyline.

Page 36

Your resolution point score tells you how well you're doing [in an extended contest], relative to your opponent . . . However, the exact physical harm you've dished out to him [in a combat resolved via extended contest] remains unclear until the contest's end. . . In interpreting the results . . . (1) No consequence is certain until the entire extended contest is over [and] (2) When a character scores points, it can reflect any positive change in fortunes, not just the most obvious one.

Page 74

The process of deciding whether a proposed outcome is possible is called a *credibility test*. . . As Narrator, you are never obliged to allow a contest just because two characer's  have abilities the can be brought into conflict. If the character's proposed result would seem absurd, you disallow the contest, period. . . Players are typically as attuned to common sense narrative realit as you are, and wil not routinely propose patently absurd actions. You'll find that they do almost all of your credibility testing for you. [This if followed by a discussion of varying thresholds of credibility across settings and genres.]​
This is a RPG sytsem that is _not_ a mathematical model.


----------



## eyebeams (Feb 26, 2011)

pemerton said:


> I don't know what this means. The fun for me in playing 4e comes from participating in creating a story of heroic fantasy adventure with strongly (and growing) mythic overtones. The system is a means to this end.
> 
> You assert this as if it is self-evidently true. When in fact I can name a number of influential RPGs the systems of which are _not_ mathematical models of anything: HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Maelstrom Storytelling, Nicotine Girls.




All of those *are* models, however, and all of them say something about the internal logic of the worlds they create, regardless of whether the designer wants you to pay attention to those things. It doesn't really matter if these things fall under the framework of "physics" or "narrative." The difference between the two is arbitrary.

HeroQuest is pretty straightforward, as one could advance an argument that Glorantha is pretty effectively simulated by the rules, as gods and the assumption of mythic roles is embedded into Glorantha's world logic. In the case of Nicotine Girls, we learn about the dynamics of a very constrained world based on what a middle class man believes about poor women.

(Note: This kind of analysis isn't going to make you any friends.) 

These models cover some things, but not others, and players will eventually find the constraints of each. Now if you're an indie type person, this is where you start spouting about "social contracts" and advocate doctrinaire obedience to keep the game working. In Mike Mearls' conception of D&D, this force is rendered subtly around what he at one time called D&D's "core story" and which has now developed into the notion of an "essence" -- the idea that there is a set thing D&D is about.

The problem is that there really is no "essence." Game designers find it useful to have a structured set of ideas about what games are and aren't, but players don't. It's popular to pretend that they ought to, but this is really a sort of self-serving argument from game designers. Players pursue various impulses that change from game to game and moment to moment, and frequently contradict each other.

There's no real fix here. We just need to accept that there are limits to how satisfying a game design can be, and take responsibility for our relationship with the game. The best game designers can do is explain what they want to do, and take into account the reality that people will want to do something different.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 26, 2011)

eyebeams said:


> 1) Arbitrariness means that something other than what seems logical, reasonable or good will come out of any game system for no other reason than some structural outcome. D&D4 power use frequency leads to examples of this, where the "powerup" period can lead to various silly events. It is impossible to design a game system that doesn't do this, but it is possible to try and heavily indoctrinate a community to ignore these issues. Thanks to D&D's current instability, many people are now waking up from this indoctrination.




I agree that arbitrariness is inevitible, I do not agree that significant indoctrination is the only antidote. As long as the game is somewhat self-correcting, by design or during play, the arbitrariness does not have to be battled consciously as all times.



> 2) All game systems engage the story on a narrative meta-level as well as simulating physics or whatever. The popular notion of a divide between these things is false. That's because even a game that tries to be about fantasy physics must dwell on things that matter to the story (no "bathroom break frequency" rules!) and tune them for a desired effect, and games that are highly "meta" about conflict and story must eventually be rendered as *things* in a self-consistent fashion.




Agreed. I think this viewpoint is congruent to what I said about jump cards being equivalent to arbitrary mechanical resolutions in that either is arbitrary and does not serve story. I distinguish between narration and resolution, but as with thought and emotion, one never occurs without the other.



> 3) Game systems impart meaning to the world of the story because they provide our way in. We really cannot ignore the idea that the rules are a machine that makes the world happen, even if the game isn't intended to do that. This is part of our nature as en emotional, symbol-manipulating species. We do not have hard and fast "simulation" and "narrative" boxes.




You make a good point. As human beings we are always seeking a unified logos. It doesn't work unless we contact it internally, probably strongly related to what is sometimes called immersion.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2011)

Eyebeams, thanks for the reply.



eyebeams said:


> All of those *are* models, however, and all of them say something about the internal logic of the worlds they create
> 
> <snip>
> 
> HeroQuest is pretty straightforward, as one could advance an argument that Glorantha is pretty effectively simulated by the rules, as gods and the assumption of mythic roles is embedded into Glorantha's world logic. In the case of Nicotine Girls, we learn about the dynamics of a very constrained world based on what a middle class man believes about poor women.



I agree that the resolution mechanics point you towards the narrative or thematic logics of the worlds that these games create. But I still want to assert that they don't do this by modelling the ingame physics of those worlds. Without some sort of contrast like this, I don't know how to capture the difference between (for example) RuneQuest and HeroQuest.



eyebeams said:


> (Note: This kind of analysis isn't going to make you any friends.)



Clearly. Though I think it is interesting to see a RPG try to make class a focus of the game.



eyebeams said:


> In Mike Mearls' conception of D&D, this force is rendered subtly around what he at one time called D&D's "core story" and which has now developed into the notion of an "essence" -- the idea that there is a set thing D&D is about.



I didn't know Mearls had said this. I've posted frequently that 4e seems designed to produce a game that "tells the story of D&D" - the effect of scaling across character build and encounter design, combined with the Monster Manuals as written, is to give a game that starts with goblins and kobolds and proceeds via drow and mind flayers to conclude with Lolth and Orcus. And the epic level demigods who confront Lolth and Orcus won't be worrying about mundane locks or 10' deep pits.

I think that the more you try to depart from this, the more you'll bump into the limits of the system. (I don't know if this counts as advocating obedience. I do think it's a realistic observation.)



eyebeams said:


> Players pursue various impulses that change from game to game and moment to moment, and frequently contradict each other.
> 
> There's no real fix here. We just need to accept that there are limits to how satisfying a game design can be, and take responsibility for our relationship with the game. The best game designers can do is explain what they want to do, and take into account the reality that people will want to do something different.



This is all true. I think it's especially true of a (relatively) mass-market game like D&D that people will try and to very different things with it. But I'm not sure what you think designers should be doing to take account of that reality (eg produce variant subsystems?; produce modules and worlds that can support varying playstyles?)


----------



## BryonD (Feb 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> No. At most, they might realise that no character _does_ ever jump more than three times per day. You would need to know a lot more than that to actually make an inference to the physics of the world - _assuming that wondering about the physics of the world was even a salient issue!_ - which for those playing a _non-exploration_ based game it probably is not!



You are just wrong here.  As I readily admit, it may take a great deal of exposure for a reader to catch on to the pattern, but given a large enough exposure it WOULD emerge.

But that misses the point I was making.  The point is, the relevant audience is the players at the table.  And they ALREADY know.  So regardless of your argument about how easily you think a reader would catch on.  The players at the table have caught on before play begins.



> Here is somf of what the HeroQuest 2nd ed rulebook has to say about the relationship between physics of the gameworld and the action resolution mechanics:
> 
> BLAH BLAH BLAH



First, unless Heroquest is more popular than 4E and I just missed it, it is not meaningful to bring it up.  I don't dispute that games on this end of the spectrum exist.  Hell, I'm actively describing 4E that way.  Are you trying to bring me around to understanding that 4E exists?  Because, if you are, congratulations, you win.

My point is not that they don't exist, but that they are demonstrably different
in way with more significance than you seem willing to accept.  And the sense that "this ain't Rome" comes from those significant differences.  (And variations in overall popularity does as well.)  But I certainly could not and would not argue these points if I didn't think they existed.  I'm afraid you wasted a chunk of typing on a wild goose chase.

But, as a second point, you have still described a mathematical model.
Certainly it is very different than 3E, but we already agree on that.
I'm not familiar with the system, all I have to go by is what you posted.  But you have starting point A and an ending point Z and a lot of B, C, D,... in between.

Certainly 3E takes the approach of calculating B1, B2, B3,... and then C1, C2, C3,... and on and on until Z is reached.
As you describe this system it appears to be here is A, now we directly calculate Z.  Everything else in between is interprelated at the player's discretion.  So, there is little to no math on THAT part.  But it is still a mathematical model.  It is just way far out on the approximations and rules of thumb end of the spectrum.


Interestingly, this sounds far better to me than 4E or your three jump cards systems because it seems to strongly describe a system in which the mechanics are submissive to the narrative.  

Say a character needs to jump over a ten foot chasm.  In both HeroQuest, as I understand it from the above, and in 3E you simply look at the challenge and at the nature of the jumper.  It sounds like the nature of the jumper is more qualitative in HeroQuest, but it is still his nature that counts.  

In the three jump cards system the first deciding factor is, does he have any jump cards left.  

4E, in this particular example, is not too bad.  Certainly the process looks nearly exactly like 3E: D20 + bonus, compare to target.  But in 4E all 12th level characters, regardless of concept, with have a "math works" +6 bonus, and all 22nd level characters, regardless of concept have an arbitrary +11 "math works" bonus.  So instead of looking at the narrative nature of the character, 4E looks at the mechanics demands.  So it is less bad than jump cards, but still falls short of good.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Bill91, thanks for a thoughtful response.
> 
> I'm assuming that - as eyebeams suggested upthread - when we're talking about playing "jump cards" we're not talking about a PC jumping over a dog turd so as to keep his boots clean walking down the city street. I assume that we're talking about using a jump to resolve some dramatic situation in the game.




Regardless of whether it's to resolve a dramatic situation, if the jump is something the character should be reasonably capable of on any routine jump attempt, I would consider an artificial limit on his jumping to be reason to throw the game system in the recycle bin. I would accept an arbitrary limit only for going above and beyond the call with the character's capability. Whether a jump happens to resolve some dramatic situation or not seems immaterial to me. What I'm concerned with is results beyond the character's reasonable capabilities.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 27, 2011)

Hussar said:


> While there may be fifteen bajillion different words that mean "a shade of red" there is actually no point where you can definitively state red becomes orange.




Actually there is. 580 - 620 nanometers is orange. So when light's wavelength shortens from 621 nm to 620 nm, it turns from red to orange.



Hussar said:


> But, instead of color, how about forest?  At what point do you have a forest.  We all know what a forest looks like and I imagine we've all been in a forest at least once in our lives.
> 
> Now, define forest in such a way that it excludes all other groups of trees.




It's done all the time. Ask the USGS or other country's equivalents. Now, they all have differeing definitions regarding density, size, cover, tree height, etc, but the definitions are all clear.



Hussar said:


> Even using your example, it would be virtually impossible to define Danny Alcatraz in such a way that it excludes all other people on the planet.




Honestly? Developing a completely unique definition for a specific individual person is trivial.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 27, 2011)

Krensky said:


> Actually there is. 580 - 620 nanometers is orange. So when light's wavelength shortens from 621 nm to 620 nm, it turns from red to orange.




Spectral orange is not the same as visual orange.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 27, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Spectral orange is not the same as visual orange.




Yes it is. You can argue what color an object is, until someone pull out a spectrophotometer and gets the wavelength of the light reflecting off the object. If the light reflecting off an object is between 580 - 620 nm, the object is orange. People may still insist it's some other color due to the faults of the human eye or visual cortex or orneriness, but it's still orange.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 27, 2011)

> it would be virtually impossible to define Danny Alcatraz in such a way that it excludes all other people on the planet.




BWAH-HA-HA-hahahahaaaaaaa!

I'm undefinable!

(Those who have assembled my FBI file might beg to differ...)



> Developing a completely unique definition for a specific individual person is trivial.




Yeah, between my fingerprint, my DNA sequence, my medical history and my degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon alone, I'd be surprised if there are more than 2 of me.  (No, I don't have any implants- OF ANY KIND- that are traceable.)

Then there are all the other little (and big) things that make me me.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 27, 2011)

Krensky said:


> Yes it is. You can argue what color an object is, until someone pull out a spectrophotometer and gets the wavelength of the light reflecting off the object. If the light reflecting off an object is between 580 - 620 nm, the object is orange. People may still insist it's some other color due to the faults of the human eye or visual cortex or orneriness, but it's still orange.




Wikipedia says you're wrooooong....



			
				http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color said:
			
		

> The color of an object depends on both the physics of the object in its environment and the characteristics of the perceiving eye and brain.




Just in case you're interested in making a rebuttal, I should warn you that I was a teaching assistant in a class on human perception for a semester.

Also, if the "light reflecting off an object is between 580 - 620 nm," the object is probably the mirror of a laser or something, because most objects scatter across a wide variety of spectra.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 27, 2011)

pemerton said:


> LostSoul, that's fair enough. I guess by metagame mechanics I mean mechanics (i) that aren't purist-for-system simulationist, in the sense that they don't express or model ingame causality, and also (ii) that can't be implemented in actor stance.




Yeah - in other words, rules that explicitly ask the players to step out of role assumption.  This can be good, depending on your game's goals, or it can be bad.

I should note that these types of mechanics don't necessarily mean you're no longer _advocating_ for your character.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 27, 2011)

LostSoul said:


> I should note that these types of mechanics don't necessarily mean you're no longer _advocating_ for your character.



Agreed.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 27, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Wikipedia says you're wrooooong....




Really, your quote is perfectly in line with what I said.



pawsplay said:


> Just in case you're interested in making a rebuttal, I should warn you that I was a teaching assistant in a class on human perception for a semester."




And? 



pawsplay said:


> Also, if the "light reflecting off an object is between 580 - 620 nm," the object is probably the mirror of a laser or something, because most objects scatter across a wide variety of spectra.




And a spectrophotometer tells you what wavelength of light a sample reflects or emits. Once you have that measurement you know what color the object is. It's the same as the arrow illusion. A ruler tells you they're the same length despite what the eye and brain says.

Back to the point, though...

D&D 4e is objectively D&D. It says so on the cover.

Without a agreed upon definition for what the subjective 'D&D experience
contains or is, this whole debate is pointless because one person is arguing that it's rolling a d20, someone else is saying it's orcs and elves, and a third person is claiming it's Vancian magic and beholders.

Maybe they're all right or maybe their all wrong. Without an agreed upon working definition with objective, measurable qualities we're all wasting our time.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 27, 2011)

Krensky said:


> Really, your quote is perfectly in line with what I said.




You claimed it is based only on the wavelength. The quote says, no, it is based on the light energy and the perceiving eye.



> And?




I just thought it would save time to let you know that really simplistic statements based on thin knowledge would be swiftly demolished, so you would prepare your arguments appropriately.



> And a spectrophotometer tells you what wavelength of light a sample reflects or emits. Once you have that measurement you know what color the object is.




Almost. A spectrophotometer tells you what wavelengths of light a sample reflects. Unless your sample is composed only of one substance, at one density, and relatively in the same position, you will get more than one wavelength, likely outside humanocentrically-defined "color" ramges. That's why it's called a _spectro_photometer.

Human color vision involves perceiving multiple wavelengths as a single color. Think of how a television works, or a color printer. A spectrophotomer will not tell you what color something; it will identify bands of electromagnetic spectra, nothing more. Tell me how a spectrophotometer would detect the color brown.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 27, 2011)

Returning to this post.



Krensky said:


> Actually there is. 580 - 620 nanometers is orange. So when light's wavelength shortens from 621 nm to 620 nm, it turns from red to orange.




As I noted above, this is incorrect. For one thing, you've misidentified the problem. "Orange" covers a lot more than monochromatic orange. Second, this just shifts the definition problem from the human eye to the detecting device. What about something at 620.1 nm?



> It's done all the time. Ask the USGS or other country's equivalents. Now, they all have differeing definitions regarding density, size, cover, tree height, etc, but the definitions are all clear.




Simply because the definition is clear does not mean the threshold clear. You have baldly ignored the problem here. No real measuring system for a real forest is going to yield absolute answers. Also, areas of forest obviously give way to areas of non-forest. Suppose you analyze a region between an area of forest and an area of non-forest, overlapping them. it is strange that the region will have a different classification, despite having the same trees.



> Honestly? Developing a completely unique definition for a specific individual person is trivial.




Please explain your process, that we may finally have the answer to a question that has eluded philosophy since the beginning. 

The reason I am returning to this is because the problem of identity is NOT a settled one, and the difference between a measured or identified thing and the ideal of that thing was an issue explored in depth by Plato. Even in the binary logic of a computer, seemingly binary events are epiphenomenal of a micro-proess that is not, that in fact is stubbornly analog.

The reason it is important is because introducing your fallacies to this argument is unhelpful. You are making it harder, rather than easier, for people to arrive at a consensus, or several of them, because your criteria for truth are unworkable.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 27, 2011)

> Please explain your process, that we may finally have the answer to a question that has eluded philosophy since the beginning.




I can't speak for him, but if you look at the top of this page, I used 4 parameters to define myself that would probably ascertain my identity beyond 1 in 10 billion, and I didn't even get into cool stuff.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 27, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I can't speak for him, but if you look at the top of this page, I used 4 parameters to define myself that would probably ascertain my identity beyond 1 in 10 billion, and I didn't even get into cool stuff.






> my fingerprint,




Fingerprints are accurate, but not definitional. They involve measurement, and in fact, the science of distinguishing one fingerprint from another is still advancing. If you mean in some absolute sense, then it is very easy to prove that you are not you, since your fingerprint is different after a long bath than before. Also, it implies I could make you not you by burning off your fingertips with acid.



> my DNA sequence,




That won't successfully distinguish between you and your socks. It also means that your own red blood cells are not you.



> my medical history and my degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon alone




History pertains to things in the past, in this case, a past you. Taking your medical history as an example, how much substance do you think you have in common with your six-year-old you? Don't you find it curious that the overwhelming amount of "you" that has ever been you is scattered all over the Earth and not in your physical person? Supposing for a moment that "you" is some sort of immortal soul residing inside of you. In that case, it is easy to demonstrate that your memories don't belong to "you" since they can be destroyed through damage to the brain. Descartes made a really good go of entangling this one; nonetheless his approach has been considered incomplete in that regard.

Defining "you" depends on aggregating a number of factors. It includes inclusion as well as exclusion. Consider this argument:

1. Birds can fly.
2. An ostritch cannot fly.
3. Therefore, an ostritch can fly OR an ostrich is not a bird.

So for instance, if I define D&D as a "among other things, a game that has orcs," then a campaign set in Krynn or mythic Greece immediately becomes not-D&D. On the other hand, if D&D is defined as "that which is legitimately branded with the D&D trademark," then D&D becomes whatever WotC say it is. Even if it looks suspiciously like Clue with a warhammer instead of a lead pipe.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 27, 2011)

> Defining "you" depends on aggregating a number of factors. It includes inclusion as well as exclusion.




Taken as an aggregation, those factors will distingush me from your counterexamples...and the rest of humanity.  My socks, for instance, are at least one degree of separation greater from Kevin Bacon than I am, have no fingerprints, and are not hypertensive.

I had hoped you understood that by parameters, I wasn't saying that each one _individually_ made me unique because that would make me an idiot.  Do you think I'm an idiot?



> Consider this argument:



There's not a biologist out there that would say "birds can fly" is a defining feature of birds when trying to construct a syllogism about birds.  They KNOW better; they know that is a false statement which could lead to a flawed conclusion- as you do here.  They would probably mention something about the underlying anatomical features common to functioning and non-functioning and differently functioning wings (covering not just finches, but ostriches & penguins as well).


----------



## Mournblade94 (Feb 27, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> There's not a biologist out there that would say "birds can fly" is a defining feature of birds when trying to construct a syllogism about birds.  They KNOW better; they know that is a false statement which could lead to a flawed conclusion- as you do here.  They would probably mention something about the underlying anatomical features common to functioning and non-functioning and differently functioning wings (covering not just finches, but ostriches & penguins as well).



Or perhaps Bats are birds.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 27, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> As I noted above, this is incorrect. For one thing, you've misidentified the problem. "Orange" covers a lot more than monochromatic orange. Second, this just shifts the definition problem from the human eye to the detecting device. What about something at 620.1 nm?




It's red. There is no definition issue. You don't see astronomers or astrophysicists or paint mixers arguing over what color something is once it's measured. That's a problem unique to philosophers.




pawsplay said:


> Simply because the definition is clear does not mean the threshold clear. You have baldly ignored the problem here. No real measuring system for a real forest is going to yield absolute answers. Also, areas of forest obviously give way to areas of non-forest. Suppose you analyze a region between an area of forest and an area of non-forest, overlapping them. it is strange that the region will have a different classification, despite having the same trees.




Dude, it's done all the time. Go look at a USGS map. All those green blobs with forest markings are forest. All the bits that aren't, aren't. The USGS definition specifies density, canopy cover, root density, tree size, and distance between trees. It also includes bits about whether or not an area denuded or thinned is still a forest or not and if two areas separated by such an area are a single forest, or two forests.[/quote]



pawsplay said:


> Please explain your process, that we may finally have the answer to a question that has eluded philosophy since the beginning.




That's because philosphers get paid to argue over questions, not answer them.

My nickname on this board is Krensky, my real name is X. I was born on [Month] [Day], [Year] by the United States Civil Calender, at HH:MM Eastern Standard Civil Time to [Mother] and [Father]. I grew up in [town], and attended [Elementary, Junior High, High School, and College]. I truthfully identify myself as such, and I have official, legitimate documentation that demonstrates it.

That in itself identifies me uniquely. Unless you want to claim that there is another human being in the history of the species that shares those quantities.

Add in the elements of my DNA, my facial structure, my dental records, my distinguishing scars, my fingerprints, etc you get a pile of features that narrow me down to being 1 in several billion. Heck, from the ones I listed I'm fairly confident it's 1 in more then all the humans who ever lived.



pawsplay said:


> The reason I am returning to this is because the problem of identity is NOT a settled one, and the difference between a measured or identified thing and the ideal of that thing was an issue explored in depth by Plato.




Because the people working on the problem have a vested interest in not solving it. Like consultants.



pawsplay said:


> The reason it is important is because introducing your fallacies to this argument is unhelpful. You are making it harder, rather than easier, for people to arrive at a consensus, or several of them, because your criteria for truth are unworkable.




There is no consensus to be reached. You're (not you specifically) arguing over an inherently subjective topic while steadfastly refusing to develop an objective, working definition. In fact, I doubt you could even do that since not everyone involved is rational (not that anyone is crazy or inferior, that's not the meaning of rational being used here) and is operating using different criteria and with different priors. Truth in any sense other then not false is meaningless construct. My sole criteria for truth is the boolean one.

If one person wants to say all RPGs are D&D and another wants to say that only OD&D is D&D and I want to say that 4e (while objectively D&D) doesn't feel like D&D are any of us wrong? No. In fact we're all correct because we're all (assumedly) honestly relating the results of our purely subjective classification systems.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 27, 2011)

I am going to posit that it is possible to create a new game out of 4e that, to an outsider, might look an awful lot like 4e, but which, to someone who really understands and enjoys what 4e has to offer, might feel substantially different.  Or even limiting.  Possibly even so limiting that using this new system might be difficult (or very difficult) for some current 4e group’s playstyle.

I will further posit that it is possible to create such a game that actually models the way some people play 4e _*right now*_.  And it might actually facilitate what they want out of the game. To them, it will seem like a true evolution from 4e.

To many people playing 4e now, I would posit that the change and level of change might seem obvious.  I would also posit that, for those people to whom the new game seems like a true evolution, the change and level of change might not be so obvious.  They might blame 4e players for having a narrow perspective, for not understanding other games, which the new game borrows ideas and mechanics from.  They might even argue that there is no real change.

Finally, I am going to posit that this has already happened.  More than once.  Except the game being changed wasn’t 4e.

Yet.


RC


(Sorry about posting this thought in more than one thread.)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 27, 2011)

Mournblade94 said:


> Or perhaps Bats are birds.




Bats are bugs.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 27, 2011)

Krensky said:


> It's red. There is no definition issue. You don't see astronomers or astrophysicists or paint mixers arguing over what color something is once it's measured. That's a problem unique to philosophers.




I take it you've never mixed paint. Also, I feel the need to point out that astronmers deal almost entirely in multiple spectra, in addition to having some serious red-shift issues to look at.



> Dude, it's done all the time. Go look at a USGS map. All those green blobs with forest markings are forest. All the bits that aren't, aren't. The USGS definition specifies density, canopy cover, root density, tree size, and distance between trees. It also includes bits about whether or not an area denuded or thinned is still a forest or not and if two areas separated by such an area are a single forest, or two forests.




Well, you've proven one thing: You didn't read a single bit of what I wrote in that paragraph.



> That's because philosphers get paid to argue over questions, not answer them.




That's actually not true. 



> My nickname on this board is Krensky, my real name is X. I was born on [Month] [Day], [Year] by the United States Civil Calender, at HH:MM Eastern Standard Civil Time to [Mother] and [Father]. I grew up in [town], and attended [Elementary, Junior High, High School, and College]. I truthfully identify myself as such, and I have official, legitimate documentation that demonstrates it.
> 
> That in itself identifies me uniquely. Unless you want to claim that there is another human being in the history of the species that shares those quantities.




There are thousands. I can identify another human being who has those identical characteristics, yet shares no more than a handful of molecules in common with you. Go back about three years and find the person living under your identity, and you will discover an entirely different physical being with all of those characteristics.

Atomic Tune-Up: How the Body Rejuvenates Itself : NPR



> Add in the elements of my DNA, my facial structure, my dental records, my distinguishing scars, my fingerprints, etc you get a pile of features that narrow me down to being 1 in several billion. Heck, from the ones I listed I'm fairly confident it's 1 in more then all the humans who ever lived.




What if I remove your fingerprints and scars, then clone you from some of your DNA? Wouldn't that make the clone "you" and the current you no-longer-you?



> Because the people working on the problem have a vested interest in not solving it. Like consultants.




You have a very strange understanding of what philosophy is for. For instance, the people writing the DSM-V, which defines mental illness and will affect billions of people to the tune of trillions of dollars, are faced with countless really difficult philosophical questions which must be answered to some satisfactory degree for them to finish. The Supreme Court has a vested interest in solving philosophical problems, such as what defines a human being.



> There is no consensus to be reached. You're (not you specifically) arguing over an inherently subjective topic while steadfastly refusing to develop an objective, working definition. In fact, I doubt you could even do that since not everyone involved is rational (not that anyone is crazy or inferior, that's not the meaning of rational being used here) and is operating using different criteria and with different priors. Truth in any sense other then not false is meaningless construct. My sole criteria for truth is the boolean one.




"There is no consensus to be reached" is not only logically impossible (otherwise we couldn't agree that we couldn't agree) but can be empiracally be demonstrated to be false, since several people in this discussion have agreed on many things.

"Boolean truth" is a nonsense phrase. Boolean logic produces the same kind of truth as any other kind of logic. 



> If one person wants to say all RPGs are D&D and another wants to say that only OD&D is D&D and I want to say that 4e (while objectively D&D) doesn't feel like D&D are any of us wrong? No. In fact we're all correct because we're all (assumedly) honestly relating the results of our purely subjective classification systems.




How is that everyone can be correct but no one can be wrong? What if one of us believes the others are wrong, are they also correct? Radical subjectivism is a failed approach to truth. 

Also, Boolean logic doesn't allow for more than one truth. 

You're using "subjective" in an unprecise way. You are implying that because we each have subjective opinions, talking about those opinions is subjective. But actually, we can verify with each other that we hold those opinions. Wittgenstein's later theory talked about the idea of a "private language" and concluded there is no such thing. 

I'm pointing these things out in order to be informative, perhaps to spur others to read up on these topics, perhaps even so you can reflect later on what I have said and consider whether there may be some value in it. At this point it appears to me you are mainly interested in squelching dissent and have little real interest in what I have to say. Since you're intent on polluting the discussion and I can't stop you, I'm pretty much done for now.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 27, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I had hoped you understood that by parameters, I wasn't saying that each one _individually_ made me unique because that would make me an idiot.




I do understand. Do you understand that you are defining your identity based on a number of factors that individually are mutable and non-exclusive? 



> There's not a biologist out there that would say "birds can fly" is a defining feature of birds when trying to construct a syllogism about birds.  They KNOW better; they know that is a false statement which could lead to a flawed conclusion- as you do here.




I didn't say it was a defining feature. I just said it was true. Do you want to claim it is not true that birds fly?

It's not a false statement, any more than it's a false statement what you claimed above about how you can be distinguished from other beings. You aren't _wrong_ but the logical components you are using to prove that you are you are not sufficient. Which should not be surprising, since as I've pointed out, the smartest people in history have not been able to come up with any approaches to answering such questions outside of very narrow contexts.



> They would probably mention something about the underlying anatomical features common to functioning and non-functioning and differently functioning wings (covering not just finches, but ostriches & penguins as well).




If I cut off a bird's wings, does it stop being a bird?


----------



## Lanefan (Feb 27, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> I am going to posit that it is possible to create a new game out of 4e that, to an outsider, might look an awful lot like 4e, but which, to someone who really understands and enjoys what 4e has to offer, might feel substantially different.  Or even limiting.  Possibly even so limiting that using this new system might be difficult (or very difficult) for some current 4e group’s playstyle.
> 
> I will further posit that it is possible to create such a game that actually models the way some people play 4e _*right now*_.  And it might actually facilitate what they want out of the game. To them, it will seem like a true evolution from 4e.
> 
> ...



A rather obvious example is the 0e-1e-2e progression.  At the time those looked like huge leaps and changes in game design from the perspective of someone playing any of them; hindsight tells us they weren't that big at all compared to what has come since.

Lan-"I thought 'orange' was a fruit that does d2-1 temp. damage when thrown"-efan


----------



## Krensky (Feb 27, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I take it you've never mixed paint. Also, I feel the need to point out that astronmers deal almost entirely in multiple spectra, in addition to having some serious red-shift issues to look at.




No, I just maintain the fancy devices and computer systems used to do so. The people behind the counter may disagree between themselves and with their clients about whether two paint batches match, but not about what color they are. Well, the disagree with customers a lot, but they do it quietly when the customer isn't around.

And you're confusing two different types of spectrometry. I am not referring to emission spectra used to determine a star's composition, but the color value used in stellar classification.



pawsplay said:


> Well, you've proven one thing: You didn't read a single bit of what I wrote in that paragraph.




I did read it. I disagreed with it because it's patently false. I then explained why it's false. You're claiming that no definition of forest will be sufficient to actually define what a forest is. The USGS disagrees. So do I.



pawsplay said:


> That's actually not true.




Yeah, couldn't resist. As we all know philosophers don't actually get paid. 

My two friends with philosophy degrees who work in call centers and the third with a bachelors and masters in in who works as a policeman are cases in point.



pawsplay said:


> There are thousands. I can identify another human being who has those identical characteristics, yet shares no more than a handful of molecules in common with you. Go back about three years and find the person living under your identity, and you will discover an entirely different physical being with all of those characteristics.




And me three years ago is still me. What's your point?



pawsplay said:


> What if I remove your fingerprints and scars, then clone you from some of your DNA? Wouldn't that make the clone "you" and the current you no-longer-you?




No. It wouldn't have my experiences, and it would not have been born to my mother. It certainly wouldn't have the chosen or earned elements of my identity. It would not have eaten at my mother's table, or my grandmothers'. It would not be me.



pawsplay said:


> You have a very strange understanding of what philosophy is for. For instance, the people writing the DSM-V, which defines mental illness and will affect billions of people to the tune of trillions of dollars, are faced with countless really difficult philosophical questions which must be answered to some satisfactory degree for them to finish. The Supreme Court has a vested interest in solving philosophical problems, such as what defines a human being.




I have a minor in the topic and it's one of the preferred topics when it comes time to shoot the breeze with my friends. As for the other two, commenting on them violates the politics rule.



pawsplay said:


> "There is no consensus to be reached" is not only logically impossible (otherwise we couldn't agree that we couldn't agree) but can be empiracally be demonstrated to be false, since several people in this discussion have agreed on many things.




So show me where people with two different priors in the conversation have been swayed to change their opinion, or to synthesis their's with another's rather then just constantly repeating the same points over and over with a few tweaks or nudges. 

Since almost everyone here has a different set of priors and most of us aren't particularly rational on the topic. This, like the other threads are most just people trying to rationally explain an irrational preference. I don't like 4e. I don't find it fun or satisfying. I have no rational explanation for it, because there is none. 4e is a perfectly fine game, which I do not like.

No matter what arguments or explanations are made, my preference will not change, nor will a fan of 4e's change. Part of this is because our priors are different. Part of it is because neither of us are purely rational about it.



pawsplay said:


> "Boolean truth" is a nonsense phrase. Boolean logic produces the same kind of truth as any other kind of logic.




As I said. True is not false. False is not true. That's it. Anything else is a meaningless construct.



pawsplay said:


> How is that everyone can be correct but no one can be wrong? What if one of us believes the others are wrong, are they also correct? Radical subjectivism is a failed approach to truth.




Because there is no Truth or Falsehood to any of those positions.

As a very simplistic analogy, which of the following is true?

2+2=4
2+1+1=4
2+2=1+3
2+2!=5
2+2=sqrt(16)

The same thing applies to all of the arguments in all of these threads. Bob says A, Jim says B, Doug says C, and then Helen says not D. They're all right because none of them can be wrong about their subjective preferences (baring insanity or self-deception). Since those preferences form their priors, as long as they limit their argument to A, B, C, and D they will not come to an agreement because, even if they are perfectly rational, their starting conditions are so different they can not converge as long as their priors are still valid for them.



pawsplay said:


> Also, Boolean logic doesn't allow for more than one truth. [/spoiler]
> 
> Again, you're assuming I mean truth in some universal, Platonic way.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lalato (Feb 27, 2011)

Thanks, Kresnky...  for pointing out the futility of this thread.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 28, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I do understand. Do you understand that you are defining your identity based on a number of factors that individually are mutable and non-exclusive?



If you look at a real object- even a human being- as having the 3 traditional physical dimensions plus a fourth, existing in time, the paradox resolves.  The past is not mutable, and depending on your personal views of time, the future may not be either.




> I didn't say it was a defining feature. I just said it was true. Do you want to claim it is not true that birds fly?



In the context of constructing a valid syllogism, its not exclusive & absolute enough to be used as a true statement.  It is falsifiable- see the Ostritch and Penguins- which means it must be discarded and/or revised.




> If I cut off a bird's wings, does it stop being a bird?



Nope- and if you wanted to account for dismembered birds or those with birth defects (which I didn't) in the syllogism, all you'd need to do is add a phrase like "would normally have" or "-barring injury or birth defect-" before describing the structure of an avian's wings.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> If I cut off a bird's wings, does it stop being a bird?



No, but if you say "think of a bird" most people will assume wings.



Separately,

It may stop being a "bird which is capable of providing function X".



I guess by the same token, Rome was still Rome, even after it burned to the ground....


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 28, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you look at a real object- even a human being- as having the 3 traditional physical dimensions plus a fourth, existing in time, the paradox resolves.  The past is not mutable, and depending on your personal views of time, the future may not be either.




Actually, it's the fourth dimension that's the tricky end. You replace upwards of 90% of the molecules in your body every year of your life. If you're thirty years old, picture a succession of twenty or thirty physical "you"s, or to put the fourth dimension back in the picture, imagine yourself as being part of the housedust in your house, biological matter in your plumbing, particles of oxygen the present "you" has yet to breathe. Identity vanishes.



> In the context of constructing a valid syllogism, its not exclusive & absolute enough to be used as a true statement.  It is falsifiable- see the Ostritch and Penguins- which means it must be discarded and/or revised.




I am not actually trying to prove that ostriches can fly. I am generating an argument against the ability to treat many symbols in natural language as categoricals. 

Compare:

Birds can fly.
D&D has orcs.

Both are true. Both are inadequate to be categorical. And that is my point. I am not trying to generate a syllogism, but refuting any categorically-based way of defnining what is or isn't D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Feb 28, 2011)

billd91 said:


> Regardless of whether it's to resolve a dramatic situation, if the jump is something the character should be reasonably capable of on any routine jump attempt, I would consider an artificial limit on his jumping to be reason to throw the game system in the recycle bin.



Well, in a d20-ish game the way that this sort of case is handled is by taking 10.

It's pretty easy to envisage a game in which, instead of rolling d20 every time a jump is made, we work out how far the PC can jump based on taking 10 with Athletics/Jump skill, and then when the PC wants to jump further - ie a non-routine or dramatic jump - the player of the PC has to play a "jump card". A "jump card" might be defined as allowing a jump equivalent to a roll of 20 on the skill check.

You may or may not care to play such a game - it would be even more different from core 3E than is 4e, because 4e also allows rolling a d20 and trying to score higher than 10, at the risk of scoring less than 10 - but I don't think it's obviously an unplayable game that will produce absurd or half-baked action resolution.



billd91 said:


> I would accept an arbitrary limit only for going above and beyond the call with the character's capability. Whether a jump happens to resolve some dramatic situation or not seems immaterial to me. What I'm concerned with is results beyond the character's reasonable capabilities.



Fair enough. I've sketched above how such a system might work, building on d20 as a starting point.

In a system like HeroWars/Quest or Maelstrom Storytelling you might want something a bit different. Maelstrom, for example, has this to say about resolving a jump check:

[F]ocus on the intent behind the scene and not on how big or how far things might be. If the difficulty of the task at hand (such as jumping across a chasm in a cave) is explained in terms of difficulty, it doesn't matter how far across the actual chasm spans. In a movie, for instance, the camera zooms or pans to emphasize the danger or emotional reaction to the scene, and in so doing it manipulates the real distance of a chasm to suit the mood or "feel" of the moment. It is then no longer about how far across the character has to jump, but how hard the feat is for the character. ... If the players enjoy the challenge of figuring out how high and far someone can jump, they should be allowed the pleasure of doing so - as long as it doesn't interfere with the narrative flow and enjoyment of the game ... Players who want to climb onto your coffee table and jump across your living room to prove that their character could jump over the chasm have probably missed the whole point of the story.​
In a game played in this sort of fashion, 3 jump cards might do the job without any need for a mechanic to resolve routine jumps - because these wouldn't be jumps that evoke any "danger or emotional reaction".


----------



## billd91 (Feb 28, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Well, in a d20-ish game the way that this sort of case is handled is by taking 10.
> 
> It's pretty easy to envisage a game in which, instead of rolling d20 every time a jump is made, we work out how far the PC can jump based on taking 10 with Athletics/Jump skill, and then when the PC wants to jump further - ie a non-routine or dramatic jump - the player of the PC has to play a "jump card". A "jump card" might be defined as allowing a jump equivalent to a roll of 20 on the skill check.




And I see that you're casting the 3 jump cards in exactly the way I'm referring to them to make them palatable. If the rules of the game define the character's ability to jump as X (whether requiring all jumps to be based on taking 10 or rolling 1d20), giving them the ability to do X+ an arbitrary number of times per day really is giving them something above and beyond their normal ability. So it's fine as I see it.

Now with respect to defining a task by difficulty alone rather than achieving a specific real-world defined result, the question would be whether the jump cards again allow you to exceed your normal ability or at least remove the uncertainty of achieving a desired level of success - both of which really are cases of exceeding normal ability - or whether they allow you to actually resolve a jump-appropriate task by jumping at all or some arbitrary number of times regardless of how many jump-appropriate tasks are generated though the characters' actions. Again, I'd accept the former. I'd reject the latter.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 28, 2011)

pemerton said:


> In a game played in this sort of fashion, 3 jump cards might do the job without any need for a mechanic to resolve routine jumps - because these wouldn't be jumps that evoke any "danger or emotional reaction".



Does anyone ever require checks for "routine" jumps which don't present any "danger"?

I think it is more than safe to presume we are talking about events with some degree of dramatic element.  Frankly, the text you quoted should simply fall under "minimally adequate DMing 101", and doesn't add to the actual conversation.

Now, how big a jump is required to evoke these feelings?  That depends on who is jumping.  If it is a normal 10 year old girl, an olympic long jumping gold medalist, or the incredible hulk, the answer will change wildly.  A very high quality game can forego absolute numeric systems.  And yet just by making the judgment of whether *this* jump is routine or "evokes danger", you have applied a mathematical model to the system.  Replacing solid quantitative values (X, Y, Z), with relative qualitative abstracts (girl, long jumper, hulk) does not remove the math model foundation.  It just moves its location on the spectrum.

But, more directly in response, saying that cards are ok because you won't use them at the same times any decent DM would not call for a check does not provide a meaningful contribution to understanding if the cards provide value or not.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Feb 28, 2011)

*sings*

In the morning
In the evening
I shoot my gun


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 28, 2011)

> Identity vanishes.




I'm well aware of the molecular replacement rate.

Still, identity does NOT vanish.  As I said, "I" still have the same, immutable past.



> I am not trying to generate a syllogism...




Please- lets not kid around: you used the classic syllogistic form of Major premise/Minor premise/conclusion with a patently flawed Major premise and absurd conclusion.

You did it, you _KNOW_ you did it, and I'm through with you on this one.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 28, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Please- lets not kid around: you used the classic syllogistic form of Major premise/Minor premise/conclusion with an absurd conclusion.




Correct. As a demonstration of a fallacy.



> You did it, you _KNOW_ you did it, and I'm through with you on this one.




Oh-kay.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 28, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Identity vanishes.




Only if you assume that identity follows conservation laws.  

All you demonstrate is that identity is not a physical property of an object.  Well, that and the limitations of language to express identity.

(Which are ideas I hope most of us are familiar with).


RC


----------



## pemerton (Feb 28, 2011)

BryonD said:


> Frankly, the text you quoted should simply fall under "minimally adequate DMing 101", and doesn't add to the actual conversation.



Well, every D&D module I've ever read defines jumping distances in feet and inches, not in terms of difficulty of the scene. So I think a game that was run in the Maelstrom style would be a bit different. (It would be more like 4e scaling skill challenges, actually - with difficulties defined first, and the ingame situation - if needed - retrofitted to it.)



BryonD said:


> saying that cards are ok because you won't use them at the same times any decent DM would not call for a check does not provide a meaningful contribution to understanding if the cards provide value or not.



Both 3E and 4e require a roll for every jump in combat, however routine it would be out of combat (because of the take 10 rules).

More generally, 3E has no rules (other than take 10 or take 20) for suspending the normal action resolution mechanics.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 1, 2011)

/me is really, REALLY sorry for bringing up the colors/forests thing.  I was trying to make a point, that apparently got completely lost.  That a government body can make an aribitrary definition of forest, AND, the fact that that definition changes with every country, pretty much tells me that you cannot actually define a forest.  If you could, then every government body everywhere would use the same definition.  Arrrrghghghhg!!!  I don't want to get into this.  /me fails saving throw. 

Sigh.  *ahem*

Let's move away from jump for a second because that seems to be causing some confusion.  Let's use trip instead, because that's actually not a hypothetical.  

In 3e, you could attempt to trip someone in combat all the time.  Any time you wanted.  In 4e, you can't (well, you can, but, it requires you to Page 42 it).  So, it seems that 3e is less constrained than 4e right?

But, let's drill down a bit.  In 3e, if I attempt to trip, I draw an AOO, which, if it succeeds, blocks my trip attempt.  Then, I make a melee touch attack and if that fails, my trip attack fails.  Then I make a trip check, and if that fails, not only does my attack fail, but I could be tripped in return.

What this adds up to is a heavy mechanical leaning towards forcing players to take improved trip before even trying to trip anyone.  The mechanics allow you to try it without the feat, but, make it such a bad idea, that no one actually does it.  

And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this:  How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf?  How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?

4e takes a very different approach.  It says that you can try to trip all day long, but, you will only succeed a limited number of times.  That limit is defined by your character powers.  If you don't have a power that knocks people prone, then you are the same as the 3e character without Improved Trip - just more explicit.  If you do have a trip power, then you will succeed in that attempt presuming that you hit.  But, you won't be able to do it every single round, over and over again, because, well, that's kinda lame and doesn't fit with the genre.

Both games have very hard and fast mechanical limitations on trip.  The only real difference in my mind is that 3e puts them at the front and 4e puts them in during play.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> In 3e, you could attempt to trip someone in combat all the time.  Any time you wanted.  In 4e, you can't (well, you can, but, it requires you to Page 42 it).  So, it seems that 3e is less constrained than 4e right?
> 
> But, let's drill down a bit.  In 3e, if I attempt to trip, I draw an AOO, which, if it succeeds, blocks my trip attempt.  Then, I make a melee touch attack and if that fails, my trip attack fails.  Then I make a trip check, and if that fails, not only does my attack fail, but I could be tripped in return.



Bleah.


> What this adds up to is a heavy mechanical leaning towards ...



... not bothering with trip mechanics at all.  4e's approach as explained by Hussar is better, but still far too mechanical.  Why not just let the DM wing it on those infrequent occasions someone actually tries to trip someone (as opposed to just knock 'em flat) during combat?

Lan-"trippy, man"-efan


----------



## Lalato (Mar 1, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Bleah.
> ... not bothering with trip mechanics at all.  4e's approach as explained by Hussar is better, but still far too mechanical.  Why not just let the DM wing it on those infrequent occasions someone actually tries to trip someone (as opposed to just knock 'em flat) during combat?
> 
> Lan-"trippy, man"-efan




That's certainly an option.  There were no trip rules in early versions of D&D. I remember the DM just having us roll for some target number to see if we succeeded on some crazy action we wanted to perform.  I think what later versions (3.x/4e) are doing is just quantifying what that target might be so that the player knows the chance of success beforehand.

I don't have a problem with either way of resolving a trip.  And I don't think either way is all that different in the long run.  Either the DM or the rules set a target for success.  The player rolls.  Hilarity ensues.


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 1, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Why not just let the DM wing it on those infrequent occasions someone actually tries to trip someone (as opposed to just knock 'em flat) during combat?



Because many people don't like playing "DM May I?" (not intended in a pejorative way, just enjoying a bit more certainty than the DM's whim). Many DMs also enjoy having that certainty so they can spend less energy on adjudicating such things and more on things they find more important.

Completely a matter of taste, and any time you produce an RPG you have to decide which type of taste the "default" will be assumed to be for your game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 1, 2011)

Yep, Hussar.  There are bad mechanics in 3e.

That doesn't mean that the philosophy (mechanics should model tripping) is bad.  There are other ways you can do it, without requiring trip cards.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Mar 1, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> Bleah.
> ... not bothering with trip mechanics at all.  4e's approach as explained by Hussar is better, but still far too mechanical.  Why not just let the DM wing it on those infrequent occasions someone actually tries to trip someone (as opposed to just knock 'em flat) during combat?
> 
> Lan-"trippy, man"-efan




Well, the 4e answer would be that movement in combat is REALLY important.  I know people don't like the minis centric focus of 4e combat, but, it's a basic design decision.  AD&D for example, didn't really focus too much on tactical level movement.  Yes, there was stuff there, but, it wasn't a huge deal.

4e focuses very strongly on tactical (read combat) level movement.  It's not unusual for a character to move every round, and quite possibly several times per round with all the push/pull/slide stuff going on.  It's just another way to engage the players during play.

RC - Oh totally.  But, when you have mechanics that are based on the premise that these are modeling the physics of the setting, those mechanics are going to dictate to a large extent how this game is going to be played.  Whenever you say, mechanically, that X works like _this_ then that is going to have a huge effect on how play goes at the table.

The thing is, I don't think the 3e trip mechanics are actually that bad.  They do the job and work pretty well.  

But, at the end of the day, whether you model it before play or you simply leave it up to the players to model it in play, the point is, the mechanics still have a very strong effect on how the players interact with the game world.

And, going back to Lanefan's point about leaving it entirely up to the group, IME, what happens is that these things are just ignored.  How often did someone try to trip someone in 2e?  I don't know about your group, but I can't think of a single instance that it occurred.  

Simply free-forming isn't really an answer.  Games lacking particular mechanical resolutions tend to produce games where that element is simply ignored.  Games which have some guidance as to how to resolve elements tend to direct play towards those things.

At least in my experience.  Obviously YMMV and all that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 1, 2011)

2e had trip mechanics.  They were located in the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

Other than that, no real disagreement.  Where the rules choose to focus is going to have a real effect on play.  If I can only have three Jump cards, I'm going to have to look for other solutions to that little jump.  Of course, I'm never going to make Batroc the Leaper, either.  







Mechanics-First systems are not my cup of tea, but I can certainly accept that others enjoy them.  OTOH, I like spinach, brussel sprouts, and liver, so there you go.  


RC


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 1, 2011)

> OTOH, I like spinach, brussel sprouts, and liver, so there you go.




Sounds like a tasty meal to me!


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> /And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this:  How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf?  How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?




I'm pretty sure I would give you the "wrong" answer. The lack of Improved Trip doesn't prevent you from tripping. It makes it more circumstantial, but there are plenty of times it's a useful tactic. I've seen it done lots of times. You have a pretty good chance against any given opponent roughly your size; all you have to do is figure out a way to get rid of the AoO. Reach will usually do it. You can also eat one, then use your second iterative attack to make an easy-peasy touch AC. Figure out some way to get cover. Have an ally or a summoned critter draw an AoO. Etc.


----------



## Abraxas (Mar 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But, let's drill down a bit.  In 3e, if I attempt to trip, I draw an AOO, which, if it succeeds, blocks my trip attempt.  Then, I make a melee touch attack and if that fails, my trip attack fails.  Then I make a trip check, and if that fails, not only does my attack fail, but I could be tripped in return.



Just a minor nit pick - if the AOO hit it doesn't stop the trip attempt. Plus, if you used one of the tripping weapons you didn't provoke an AOO.



Hussar said:


> What this adds up to is a heavy mechanical leaning towards forcing players to take improved trip before even trying to trip anyone.  The mechanics allow you to try it without the feat, but, make it such a bad idea, that no one actually does it.
> 
> And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this:  How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf?  How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?



I must have an unusual group - tripping came up often enough - not unlike the number of times knocking someone prone comes up in the 4E game I play in now.


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 1, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Well, the 4e answer would be that movement in combat is REALLY important.  I know people don't like the minis centric focus of 4e combat, but, it's a basic design decision.



Doesn't mean I have to like it. 


> AD&D for example, didn't really focus too much on tactical level movement.  Yes, there was stuff there, but, it wasn't a huge deal.



And as with all things 1e, it varies group by group as to how much it gets used if ever.  No problem there.



> 4e focuses very strongly on tactical (read combat) level movement.  It's not unusual for a character to move every round, and quite possibly several times per round with all the push/pull/slide stuff going on.  It's just another way to engage the players during play.



Truth be told, I don't much mind the movement stuff; though I suspect 4e may have gone a bit overboard with it.  It'd be easy enough to rein in, though: some combat situations are intended to be static e.g. a couple of tough guards blocking the hall while the caster blasts away from behind, and I've no problem with that situation being very static at the front line.



> RC - Oh totally.  But, when you have mechanics that are based on the premise that these are modeling the physics of the setting, those mechanics are going to dictate to a large extent how this game is going to be played.  Whenever you say, mechanically, that X works like _this_ then that is going to have a huge effect on how play goes at the table.
> 
> ...
> 
> And, going back to Lanefan's point about leaving it entirely up to the group, IME, what happens is that these things are just ignored.  How often did someone try to trip someone in 2e?  I don't know about your group, but I can't think of a single instance that it occurred.



Exactly.  Which tells me it's probably not an important feature in the narrative of combat, so why bother with mechanics for it?

Also, as per your point in the previous paragraph, the mechanics dictate what's going to happen.  With no trip mechanics, tripping an opponent is only going to come up in unusual circumstances; but once mechanics for it get introduced then tripping as a tactic becomes way more frequent - just because of the mechanic's existence.  All this accomplishes is to add another layer to the combat rules, an extra headache for something that has already been proven (by play in prior editions) to be unimportant.

Lan-"take a little trip with me"-efan


----------



## pemerton (Mar 1, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Where the rules choose to focus is going to have a real effect on play.  If I can only have three Jump cards, I'm going to have to look for other solutions to that little jump.  Of course, I'm never going to make Batroc the Leaper, either.



I think this is exactly right - including that if the game is meant to make Batroc possible, something will have to be done about the jump card mechanic.

I think eyebeams is right in saying upthread that people will try to do all sorts of things with an RPG that the designer(s) didn't anticipate or didn't intend. So I can imagine some players of "3 jumps only RPG" coming up with clever mechanical workarounds to make Batroc possible. And then posting about them on the internet, looking for more tips. And then getting very annoyed when others tell them to find a system better suited to playing Batroc-oriented hijinks!

To the extent that there are still different views in this discussion, my bottom line remains: (i) 4e is not the best RPG system for running an exploration-heavy game; (ii) this doesn't mean that 4e isn't a good vehicle for roleplaying; and as a corollary (iii) this is because there are viable approaches to roleplaying other than exploration, and (iv) 4e (in my view) tends to support them better than other versions of D&D.

I think that (iii) and (iv) mean that I'm on the anti-Rome side - 4e works best to take me to a roleplaying experience different from that that I get from (for example) AD&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 1, 2011)

pemerton, I agree with everything in your post.

Of course, the three jump card rule would also eliminate Olympic Hurdlist Edwin Moses from a non-houseruled game.  






And I know Edwin Moses is real; I've met him.  


RC


----------



## Gryph (Mar 1, 2011)

Than said:


> For me the "D&D experience" is best served with any system that is fantasy based, has distinct classes that are really distinct in the way they work not just in the "flavour text".
> 
> So for me this would not be 4th edition but would be amongst others systems like:-
> 
> ...





This is a pretty good working definition. Though, with feats/multi-classing/prestige class rules I think 3e and its variants no longer have distinct classes that are really distinct in the way they work. Your Mileage has clearly Varied.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this:  How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf?  How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?



The difference is, you are equating external players choices with internal rules boundaries.

As has already been pointed out, your personal experience is not indicative of the boundaries of 3E experience.  I readily agree that 3E *can* be played in a "trip-limiting" manner.  But the relevant point is that it need not be.


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this:  How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf?  How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?
> 
> Both games have very hard and fast mechanical limitations on trip.  The only real difference in my mind is that 3e puts them at the front and 4e puts them in during play.




Actually, in the 3e game, I would use an "untrained trip or disarm" on occassion at low levels (up to about 3rd level).  Above 3rd, it was much more likely that the "untrained" attacker couldn't pull it off without being struck in the process.

And I think this was deliberately built into the system - at low levels "anyone" can benfit from wild/unusual attacks, but as both attacker and defender become more trained, you're better off sticking to what you know, and the system encourages you to pick up "specialization" - or pay - for special attack types.  At higher levels, 3E rewards you for "training" in these attacks, definately attempting to show value in the improved line of feats.  4E takes this one step further by replacing the "improved" feats with powers available to certain builds.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 2, 2011)

I notice that despite protestations about how people's character's might have used the trip mechanics without the feat, no one bothered mentioning how often opponents actually did it.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> Also, as per your point in the previous paragraph, the mechanics dictate what's going to happen. With no trip mechanics, tripping an opponent is only going to come up in unusual circumstances; but once mechanics for it get introduced then tripping as a tactic becomes way more frequent - just because of the mechanic's existence. All this accomplishes is to add another layer to the combat rules, an extra headache for something that has already been proven (by play in prior editions) to be unimportant.




Is it that it was unimportant so no one did it, or is it that there was no mechanical support, so no one did it?  I'm not sure you can claim one or the other really.  Prior editions had only very rudimentary social interaction rules, but, I think most players do want them.  Prior editions had very rudimentary skill systems, but, again, considering that nearly all RPG's now come with skill systems of some sort, I would say that skill systems are now considered to be pretty important.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> The difference is, you are equating external players choices with internal rules boundaries.




How can you separate them though?  One is going to have massive effects on the other.  

Take another example - magical item creation.  Magic item creation in AD&D was more or less free form.  There were some basic guidelines, but, largely it was left to the individual group to figure things out.  2e flat out said that you couldn't buy magic items for any price and creating magic items was again the province of very, very high level campaigns.  

Move on to 3e.  3e made magic item creation rules very concrete.  To make Item X, you needed this feat, this spell and this amount of money and xp.  You know, absolutely, how much it costs and how difficult it is, to make any magic item in 3e D&D.

This had to have a big effect on play.  The proliferation of wands for one thing dramatically changes how the game plays out.  Add in a wand of cure light wounds and suddenly the party has virtually unlimited healing outside of combat.  It's a trivial cost after about 4th level for every character to carry one.

That, right there, can completely change the pacing of the game.

I really don't think it's possible to separate player decisions from internal rules boundaries.  Player decisions are always going to be influenced by those rules.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I notice that despite protestations about how people's character's might have used the trip mechanics without the feat, no one bothered mentioning how often opponents actually did it.




For my part, I thought it went without saying. Reminds me of a battle with a hydra...


----------



## Lanefan (Mar 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Is it that it was unimportant so no one did it, or is it that there was no mechanical support, so no one did it?  I'm not sure you can claim one or the other really.  Prior editions had only very rudimentary social interaction rules, but, I think most players do want them.



I'd disagree with this, for the most part; IME social interaction is the province of free-form roleplaying.  







> Prior editions had very rudimentary skill systems, but, again, considering that nearly all RPG's now come with skill systems of some sort, I would say that skill systems are now considered to be pretty important.



To some extent I'll agree with this.



> Take another example - magical item creation.  Magic item creation in AD&D was more or less free form.  There were some basic guidelines, but, largely it was left to the individual group to figure things out.  2e flat out said that you couldn't buy magic items for any price and creating magic items was again the province of very, very high level campaigns.



Which meant that such things could be happily ignored by the game, as the game is centered on in-the-field adventuring characters rather than stay-at-home artificers.  


> Move on to 3e.  3e made magic item creation rules very concrete.  To make Item X, you needed this feat, this spell and this amount of money and xp.  You know, absolutely, how much it costs and how difficult it is, to make any magic item in 3e D&D.
> 
> This had to have a big effect on play.  The proliferation of wands for one thing dramatically changes how the game plays out.  Add in a wand of cure light wounds and suddenly the party has virtually unlimited healing outside of combat.  It's a trivial cost after about 4th level for every character to carry one.



And by making magic item creation both available to low-level characters and relatively quick and easy for PCs to do between adventures the designers to a large extent broke their own system.

I don't mind them codifying the item creation rules.  The mistake was placing item creation so squarely in the purview of field adventurers instead of keeping it way - way - in the background where neither players nor DMs have to worry aboutit much if at all.  But the way it came out, of course players are going to jump all over it.  Of course it's going to affect the game.

Just not in a good way.

Lan-"would you like a potion with your wand today?"-efan


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 2, 2011)

Lanefan said:


> The mistake was placing item creation so squarely in the purview of field adventurers instead of keeping it way - way - in the background where neither players nor DMs have to worry aboutit much if at all.  But the way it came out, of course players are going to jump all over it.  Of course it's going to affect the game.
> 
> Just not in a good way.





So, so true.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> How can you separate them though?  One is going to have massive effects on the other.



They are completely separate.  Yes, they have effects on each other.  Calling them "massive" is arbitrary.  I think "massive" is more accurate to describe the distinction between rules which limit behavior and tendencies which actual game play can and does completely ignore.



> Take another example - magical item creation.



Very good and interesting topic.  But you have moved from talking about the effect of rules limitations to the effect of rules putting specific power in the player's hands.  And, more specifically, it is not really a topic of "the PC's now have the power", but whether the access and costs to these powers are fitting to the rest of the game system.

It has some superficial similarities, but in substance is not very relevant to the prior conversation.

Though it truly is a very good conversation in its own right.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 2, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> For my part, I thought it went without saying. Reminds me of a battle with a hydra...




VERY apt analogy.


----------



## Abraxas (Mar 2, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I notice that despite protestations about how people's character's might have used the trip mechanics without the feat, no one bothered mentioning how often opponents actually did it.



Given that I said tripping came up often I didn't think I had to specifically say the NPCs tried to trip the PCs often enough - so - Opponents did it as often, if not more, than the PCs did - in fact it was incredibly useful for mooks to effectively give the big fighter types a -4 to attack or give their mook allies a bunch of free attacks at a bonus when the fighter tried to stand.
In  the games I had played in all the special combat tactics were used - they were useful. Sure they may have been situational, but when those situations came up - they were great - and IIRC those situations came up often enough.


----------



## Lalato (Mar 2, 2011)

[MENTION=1266]Abraxas[/MENTION]... I'm confused on this because I don't see how your experience invalidates Hussar's claim that because trip was explicitly in the rules, that it was used more often.  I should note, however, that your experience varies wildly from my 3.x experience where only those with Improved Trip actually used it with any regularity... even at low levels.  So I'm also wondering if your experience where trip was being used all over the place is more of an outlier.  Or is it that my experience is more of an outlier.


----------



## BryonD (Mar 2, 2011)

Lalato said:


> I should note, however, that your experience varies wildly from my 3.x experience ...



All roads do NOT lead to Rome....

Just speaking for myself here, but I don't for a second challenge your experience, or Hussar's or anyone else's.

But, all that means to me is that different groups sit down to the table with very different notions and expectations.  

Now I would not ever suggest that there are two points of view here.  It is vastly more complex than that.  But, for sake of discussion, lets just assume people with experiences like you and Hussar and people with experiences like Abraxas and myself.

I fully expect that, for people in the former group, 4E not only provides ever bit of value that 3E provided, it also does a better job of it.

But, for the latter group, 3E does a vastly better job.

I also think that 3E does a much better job of supporting the former style than 4E does of supporting the latter.  That doesn't mean that 4E doesn't still do far better for 4E style.  It just means you can't look at these comparisons as mirror images and get an accurate assessment.

Quite simply Hussar's claim is not a fact, it is just a personal observation.  I honestly don't keep track of how often trips are used.  I think the very idea that this is a point of contention is just hydra head number (big number)+1 demonstrating that the point doesn't not translate between the two groups.

More trips or less trips don't matter.  If you think it does, then you don't understand where we are coming from.

My answer to the question is: trips get used every time the player wants to.  The rules do not play a factor in that question.  Yes, a character who is not conceived as someone who is going to do a lot of tripping will want to try to trip someone less frequently than one who is conceived that way.  But "daily" or "until I run out of cards" or whatever gamist mechanic of the moment applies will not be any part of the answer.

Yes, having tripping be hard to do without being trained to do it will discourage trying in lieu of other, easy to complete options.  My response to that is: YES!!!  Hurray!!!   Things that are hard, should be hard.  And characters choosing not do things that are harder is not a system flaw.  Now, we can debate whether or not 3E did a good job of providing a system for making tripping appropriately hard.  (I think it is fine, but could be better.)

But how good 3E does at modeling it is really a different debate altogether.  The point is: is the decision based on whether or not a player thinks the character would decide to try or is it based on gamist mechanic of the moment?


----------



## Abraxas (Mar 2, 2011)

Lalato said:


> [MENTION=1266]Abraxas[/MENTION]... I'm confused on this because I don't see how your experience invalidates Hussar's claim that because trip was explicitly in the rules, that it was used more often.  I should note, however, that your experience varies wildly from my 3.x experience where only those with Improved Trip actually used it with any regularity... even at low levels.  So I'm also wondering if your experience where trip was being used all over the place is more of an outlier.  Or is it that my experience is more of an outlier.



Hmmm - i didn't think that was what he was claiming, he posted
"_What this adds up to is a heavy mechanical leaning towards forcing players to take improved trip before even trying to trip anyone. The mechanics allow you to try it without the feat, but, make it such a bad idea, that no one actually does it.

And if you think I'm wrong, ask yourself this: How often, as a DM, did you use a trip attack on a PC when the opponent didn't have some sort of tripping power like a wolf? How often did you see a player use the trip mechanics that didn't have Improved Trip?_"

To which I replied that my group must be different - and every group I've played 3.XE in - because we saw it used fairly often - and as I pointed out, it was probably used more by the NPCs because when it works it really hampers the PCs.

We also saw other combat maneuvers like sunder and disarm used, plus characters using tanglefoot bags and alchemist fire, plus any other trick we could use to get an edge - and any trick we used, the NPCs used to.

I find it hard to believe that we were unique in this.


----------



## Lalato (Mar 3, 2011)

[MENTION=1266]Abraxas[/MENTION], thanks for clarifying that for me.

I don't think you were unique in this.  In the groups I played in trips, sunder, disarm and every other combat maneuver and option was used.  And yes, NPCs used those options as well.  However, the only distinction I would make is that those options were mostly used by PCs and NPCs with the appropriate feats.  

That's not to say that folks didn't try those options every once in a while when their backs were to the wall.  However, those attempts ended in failure more often than not... so people tended to gravitate away from them until they got the appropriate feat... at least in my groups.

As for BryonD's assertion... I have no idea what to make of it.  I'm pretty sure that what I wanted to get out of the game was a fun D&D session... and not much else.  Abraxas, when you play 3.x... are you after a fun D&D session too or are you after something else?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 3, 2011)

BryonD said:
			
		

> My answer to the question is: trips get used every time the player wants to. The rules do not play a factor in that question. Yes, a character who is not conceived as someone who is going to do a lot of tripping will want to try to trip someone less frequently than one who is conceived that way. But "daily" or "until I run out of cards" or whatever gamist mechanic of the moment applies will not be any part of the answer.




See, I disagree.  The mechanics totally play a factor in the question of "Do I want to do X" in a given system.  I think it's hair splitting to say there's a significant difference to "You can try this all you like, but you will fail almost every time" and "You can't do this at all."

Obviously we disagree on this.  



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> But how good 3E does at modeling it is really a different debate altogether. The point is: is the decision based on whether or not a player thinks the character would decide to try or is it based on gamist mechanic of the moment?




I don't think you can separate the two.  Players are not stupid.  They are not going to attempt actions that will almost certainly fail, particularly if failure carries consequences beyond simply failing.  Players will very often be able to calculate the odds of success pretty easily and will, again very often, base their actions on a risk/reward basis.

Nearly all the risk and reward is mechanically determined which means that the players actions will very often be determined by the mechanics of the system.

If the mechanics say, "You can do this and it will work if you hit" then players will do it if they think they will hit.  If the mechanics say, "You can try this but your chances of success are slim and if you fail, you're going to get punished" then, unless that success is critical, they won't do it.

The only real difference here with 4e is that 4e says, "You can do this now and it will work, if you hit but you won't be able to do it later.  Is it worth it to do it now?", so the decision is shifted from playing the odds at the moment to playing a longer game where you might not have this resource later on down the line.

But, in both cases, the player's decisions will be very largely influenced by the mechanics.  Players don't make decisions in a vacuum very often, unless you're free-forming.  That assessment of risk/reward is always going to come into the decision making process.



			
				Lanefan said:
			
		

> I'd disagree with this, for the most part; IME social interaction is the province of free-form roleplaying.




From a personal point of view, I'm kinda ambivalent.  I can see the value in both systems and, depending on who I'm playing with and what game, I can swing from either side of the plate.

But, I don't think it's deniable to say that most RPG's now come with social interaction rules.  It's pretty rare to find any games outside of OSR stuff that leaves social interaction entirely freeform.  It's certainly there, sure, but, I think the players have largely spoken on this issue and decided that social mechanics are a good thing.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 3, 2011)

BryonD said:


> trips get used every time the player wants to.  The rules do not play a factor in that question.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, having tripping be hard to do without being trained to do it will discourage trying in lieu of other, easy to complete options.  My response to that is: YES!!!  Hurray!!!   Things that are hard, should be hard.  And characters choosing not do things that are harder is not a system flaw.



I'm not 100% sure what you're saying.

I agree that PCs will try to trip only when their players want them to. This is also true in 4e. (I assume we're putting to one side here domination etc).

But are you saying that _at your table_, the (mechanically-determined) prospects of success of a trip attempt _don't make a difference_ to whether or not a given player wants to have his/her PC attempt a trip.

If the answer to this question is No, then it seems that the rules are playing a factor. But you said they're not. Which implies that the answer to the question is Yes, and that players at your table _do not_ have regard to the (mechanically-determined) prospects of the success of a trip attempt in deciding whether or not to have their PCs attempt to trip opponents.

I've never come across such a player myself, but I'm happy to admit that the world is full of surprising things. Does this disregard of the mechanically-determined prospects of success extend to other areas of the game?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 3, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Players are not stupid. They are not going to attempt actions that will almost certainly fail, particularly if failure carries consequences beyond simply failing. Players will very often be able to calculate the odds of success pretty easily and will, again very often, base their actions on a risk/reward basis.




I'd go a step further.  _Characters_ are not stupid.  And those that are don't live long.  If you are playing a character who does what he does entirely independently of the chance of success then to put matters bluntly you are roleplaying a madman.


----------

