General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
This statement amounts to "if you don't like it, then you aren't doing it right."
In the past, such assertions have been found to be condescending, mildly insulting, and just plain incorrect.
I'm sorry, RC, but people can find it boring even with good presentation. Not everyone finds everything interesting - including reality applied to their RPGs.
Sure, but what I was quoting didn't say "I find realism boring". The exact words were "can be". This indicates that the problem is not whether or not realism is interesting, but rather whether this particular example is interesting. That is an issue of presentation.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
The point is that there are so few examples of this in the game that when it does come up it seems to be more of an excuse than a feature. If there were larger sections in the PHB and DMG with guidelines and mechanics for shared narrative control then I would be more inclined to accept this view. As it stands the "shared narrative control" argument seems more like an excuse.
I was looking in "Dungeons and Dragons 4E for Dummies" yesterday at the bookstore and saw a section dealing with suspension of disbelief. Basically, it said that the DM should make rulings that don't challenge their basic assumptions of the game world. The example presented was a scenario in which a player asks if he could cast Fly on himself and carry someone else across a pit.
IMO they should have used an example that involved using a Martial power to slow or knock prone an ooze, or to slide a Huge dragon and control how it moves, or to force someone to move wherever you want by glowering at them.
QFT, This is also my biggest problem with the "narrative control" excuse, it's being used in a sense that it can virtually encompass and serve as the reasoning for anything... yet, unlike magic, is never actually referenced in any of the corebooks only by fans who are trying to defend some of 4e's wonkier aspects.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
The power system is an interesting experiment and works reasonably well for magic, but I feel like the mechanics don't fit non-magical abilities. I also think there's too much of an emphasis on making new powers. Abilities and spells in Third Edition were designed to create mechanical models of
Really, I feel like 4E is an experiment, an experiment that introduced lots of new concepts. I think several elements of 4E should be retained in the next edition, but the power system as is isn't one of those things. The next edition should be a game that combines the best elements of both 3E and 4E.
If we are to accept the assertion that the game rules in no way represent the way the game world works and that the "narrative control" reason is sufficient as an explanation of why things work the way they do, then perhaps we have overlooked a possibilty of game world reality: That the inhabitants of the game world know that they are part of a story and act accordingly. If the world around you does not seem to operate in any sort of logical fashion then you may come to realize that you, and the entire world are fictional. Its a fantastic world where no one questions the absurd, minions know their role, and everyone works together in harmony for the greater good of the plot. It works.
This is also my biggest problem with the "narrative control" excuse...
It's not an 'excuse', Imaro, just an explanation offered that's consistent with the rules text. And there's nothing to excuse, the system works fine, though how it works in clearly not to everyone's taste.
Quote:
... only by fans who are trying to defend some of 4e's wonkier aspects.
I think what's wonky is that some people aren't satisfied in simply not liking 4e (which, obviously, is a perfectly valid response to it). They feel the need to create nonsensical explanations/interpretations for certain rules, ones that are clearly contradicted by the text (ie, 'even Martial powers are magic'), and then use them as 'proof' that the new design is bad.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
If we are to accept the assertion that the game rules in no way represent the way the game world works...
No set of game rules are a sufficient physics. Just sayin'...
Quote:
That the inhabitants of the game world know that they are part of a story and act accordingly.
You know, that's kinda brilliant. It's Six Characters in Search of the Dungeon. I may have to use that someday.
Quote:
If the world around you does not seem to operate in any sort of logical fashion...
The game worlds I've ever seem operate, at best, in a quasi-logical fashion, sometimes, on occasion. Mostly they operate in the nutty and contrived way necessary to fulfill their function as backdrops to fantasy adventure stories.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
The game worlds I've ever seem operate, at best, in a quasi-logical fashion, sometimes, on occasion. Mostly they operate in the nutty and contrived way necessary to fulfill there function as backdrops to fantasy adventure stories.
Thats too bad. Maybe one day you'll stumble into what else there can be.
__________________ It was one of those nights when you turn out the lights, and everything comes into view
The combat system should be based on the world design. The world design should not be based on the combat system.
My 4 year old ties a towel to her shoulders and pretends to be a superhero. Roleplaying is not between the covers of a book.
As an extension of that, if you tell me that any game is the same just because you roleplay the same, then as far as I am concerned, you don't get the point.
"I just want D&D to run smoothly, palpate my gamer gland, and bring the metal." - A 4E fan
"I've got to have all that, but I require intelligent conversation as well." - Me
Pre-3E: Rounds took up a minute of in-game time. The options selected by the players were assumed to have occurred within that timeframe in some way. Combat mechanics were geared towards abstraction.
3E: Rounds took up six seconds. Combat mechanics were geared towards simulation, and as such non-magical abilities were either always usable whenever certain conditions were met or caused the character using them to become fatigued.
4E: Rounds take up six seconds. An opportunity to use a limited-use mundane power is assumed to only occur either once an encounter or once a day. The optimal opportunity to use that power is assumed to have occurred whenever the player chooses to use that power. Combat mechanics are more abstract than 3E and more simulationist than pre-3E.
I hate to keep using this as an example for fear of offending you, Raven, but your Rogue's Living Shadows ability could be explained that last way. Instead of your Rogue saying "Okay, time to turn on my super sneak ability", the player is deciding that he's going to use a once daily allowance to assume that conditions are optimal for his Rogue to go unnoticed.
I can't say I'm particularly a fan of this approach, but on further inspection I think I agree that the 4E designers intended for Martial powers to be instances of player narrative control. I wish they would have been more forthright with this concept if this is indeed the case. Perhaps they could have made mention that "Magic powers allow a character to influence the world; Martial powers allow a player to determine when unique opportunities for action occur for his character."
I guess all Martial powers are intended to be like this. Encounter powers aren't usable only once because they're too tiring, but because they are allowances for a player to assume that the optimal chance to attack has arrived. Another example: the Ranger has a power that grants bonuses to skill checks that is described as a flash of insight. This implies that the Ranger doesn't actively try to think of something but that the player has a limited capacity for choosing when an idea pops into his character's head.
I think another problem with this approach is that it leads to the false conclusion that characters can only do something if they have the power for it. The Rogue doesn't have to have the "Sand in the Eyes" power to throw sand at an enemy's eyes. Any character can do that whenever they want; that power just grants the player the optimal opportunity for that course of action to succeed.
Last edited by Hexmage-EN; 4th May 2009 at 05:09 PM..
It's not an 'excuse', Imaro, just an explanation offered that's consistent with the rules text. And there's nothing to excuse, the system works fine, though how it works in clearly not to everyone's taste.
It's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks. I've played rpg's based around narrative control... and the fact of the matter is they go through great lengths to explain this as the basis of the game because without such explanations the game can be approached from and interpreted in a way that makes it seem absurd or non-sensical. Answer me this how does someone who has never been exposed to a "narrative control" rpg suppose to even know what that is, much less come to the conclusion that certain powers in 4e are supposed to be interpreted by switching one's perspective into a narrativist mode? I would classify that as bad design. Good design should be based around a totally uninformed person playing the game for the first time.
The only way I can see 4e being based on narrative control (and let me not forget, it's only certain-particular-specific-individual-powers that do this) is that the designers made a big mistake and didn't think it mattered if the lens through which certain, but not all, powers were suppose to be interpreted through was narrative...even though D&D has never been based around giving narrative power to characters in very specific instances before (this was the realm of magic in previous editions). If so that's a pretty big mistake for professional game designers to make, and again bad design.
That is why I feel the whole "narrative control" is an excuse made up by fans of the way 4e chooses to implement it's mechanics and not something with any real merit to it as far as the actual design of the game is concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mallus
I think what's wonky is that some people aren't satisfied in simply not liking 4e (which, obviously, is a perfectly valid response to it). They feel the need to create nonsensical explanations/interpretations for certain rules, ones that are clearly contradicted by the text (ie, 'even Martial powers are magic'), and then use them as 'proof' that the new design is bad.
You know what Mallus, the funny thing is to me this isn't about just admiting you do or don't like 4e, since there are people of both opinions on both sides. Though I guess it's easier to try and paint in broad strokes so that now if you like 4e you must say these particular powers make sense and if you don't then you must believe they don't within the context we are discussing.
Concerning explanations/interpretations... let's just say I find the arguments and lengths that the side arguing that these powers are easily explainable as mundane abilities is just as nonsensical, perhaps moreso than you find mine and others who believe this is not the case.
As far as the text, which one is it, is the fluff text relevant or not... it seems the answer often changes depending on whether the fluff supports a proponents view or not. If it's not and malleable as you and many others have claimed it is irrelevant to the discussion of how something works (putting aside the fact that most, if not all the text deals what happens in the moment of the effect... not what caused it) and the only thing we have to go buy are the mechanics in determining the why's of a power...right? thus if the mechanics of a power work in a way more similar to magic than not... the easiest and simplest conclusion to draw is that it is magic (though perhaps called something else).
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
That is why I feel the whole "narrative control" is an excuse made up by fans of the way 4e chooses to implement it's mechanics and not something with any real merit to it as far as the actual design of the game is concerned.
Of course it is. It isn't mentioned nor explained in the rule books, NO designer has said that this is the way the game was designed. It is just a way to try and explain an area of poor design. I can understand fans trying to figure out what the heck the designers were thinking (or even if they were) as it is human nature to try and make sens of nonsensical things in life.
__________________ Being a DM does not require that you check your brain at the door. Much to the chagrin of munchkins & powergamers.
Of course it is. It isn't mentioned nor explained in the rule books, NO designer has said that this is the way the game was designed. It is just a way to try and explain an area of poor design. I can understand fans trying to figure out what the heck the designers were thinking (or even if they were) as it is human nature to try and make sens of nonsensical things in life.
Would you mind taking a look at my last post an commenting on it? I was skeptical at first, but now I'm pretty sure that the designers did intend for Martial powers to be instances of player narrative control; not just the ones that strain credibility, but every single one that isn't At-Will.
I have no idea why the designers wouldn't state that this is the case, though.
It's an "explanation" that has no basis whatsoever in the rulebooks.
That's true. But it's also an explanation that isn't contradicted by the rulebooks, unlike the "everything is magic" position, which is.
Quote:
Answer me this how does someone who has never been exposed to a "narrative control" rpg suppose to even know what that is, much less come to the conclusion that certain powers in 4e are supposed to be interpreted by switching one's perspective into a narrativist mode?
I don't know. All I'm providing is what seemed like the obvious answer to me.
Quote:
I would classify that as bad design.
I think it's good design, but I'm using different criteria. The 4e combat engine is a lot of fun, ergo, it's good. The fact it requires narration provided by the DM and players to make it make sense isn't a problem.
Quote:
If so that's a pretty big mistake for professional game designers to make, and again bad design.
Again, the fights are fun (for us).
Quote:
Concerning explanations/interpretations... let's just say I find the arguments and lengths that the side arguing that these powers are easily explainable as mundane abilities is just as nonsensical, perhaps moreso than you find mine and others who believe this is not the case.
You can either believe the designers where crazy, liars, or that they have some inkling of what they were doing (this is a classic C.S. Lewis argument, BTW). I choose to believe the latter.
Quote:
... the easiest and simplest conclusion to draw is that it is magic (though perhaps called something else).
So you believe the 4e designers are liars (because they explicitly label all Martial powers are something other than magic)?
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
I can understand fans trying to figure out what the heck the designers were thinking (or even if they were).
I can understand not liking the approach the 4e design team took to abstracting combat --it does diverge radically from the previous editions-- but to suggest no thought went into their design process is ludicrous.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Would you mind taking a look at my last post an commenting on it?
I read it. Interesting, however it is not likely. Purposely redesigning the flagship RPG product on the planet to operate off of an almost unheard RPG concept and then, neither mention it in the rules nor in a designer interview after almost a year of withering criticism, is incredibly unlikey.
__________________ Being a DM does not require that you check your brain at the door. Much to the chagrin of munchkins & powergamers.
So you believe the 4e designers are liars (because they explicitly label all Martial powers are something other than magic)?
Go...go... super hyperbole. No actually I believe the designers knew what they were doing (as oposed to some of the fans who have constantly pushed the "narrative control" excuse)... and what I believe is that the designers gave themselves a mighty big out, concerning the "magicalness" of Martial powers, when they stated this in the PHB...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHB pg.54 "Power Sources"
Martial powers are not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordianry mortals. Martial characters use their own strength and willpower to vanquish their enemies. Training and dedication replace arcane formulas and prayers to grant fighters, rangers, rogues and warlords among others their power. Martial powers are called exploits.
So. looking at this we see some martial exploits allow one to do things beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals...
We also see that they are only called out as "not magic" when dealing with magic in the traditional sense... however this means they could be and probably are magical in the non-traditional (which seems to be the same boat Primal is in since it is neither arcane or divine) sense.
They use strength and willpower through training (doesn't say what type perhaps focusing magic through willpower into their bodies) and dedication to vanquish enemies... their willpower could easily be a channel for non-traditional magic...and their training a way to draw on it along with their mundane strength in order to achieve exploits.
Now you could argue I'm making all this up, just like the "narrative control" excuse... the difference is that I'm citing actual text from the book that supports my reasoning of certain exploits as magic, I've yet to see someone do the same for the "narrative control" explanation.
__________________ Nobody built like me, I designed myself ...as an
You don't think a player exercising narrative control is a form of roleplaying?
I do not consider exercising narrative control a form of roleplaying, unless it is in fact an aspect of a role. That might indeed be the case with a magician, superhero, deity or functional equivalent -- with predicate assumptions as to the nature of the underlying "reality".
Now you could argue I'm making all this up, just like the "narrative control" excuse...
Yes you are. Not that there's anything wrong with it. If your explanation works better for you, by all means use it.
Quote:
...the difference is that I'm citing actual text from the book that supports my reasoning of certain exploits as magic, I've yet to see someone do the same for the "narrative control" explanation.
True, but the 'narrative control' thing works better as an explanation for some powers. But, to each his own. Whatever way you find to translate the mechanics into satisfying narrative is cool.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
