L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

Odhanan · Mar 3, 2012

pemerton said:
All that said, I think it one thing to say "I don't care for 2nd ed AD&D", but another thing to say that it is not D&D. It was the published game for 10 years, after all.

These are two different things indeed. It's the difference between "I don't care for this game" and "this game went against many of the tropes and game play aspects of what I consider to be the core of the Dungeons & Dragons game, and I see that as a problem, because it changed my enjoyment of the game for the worse over the years." I am very much saying the latter, not the former. It has nothing to do with whatever book had the "Dungeons & Dragons" name printed on its cover, or how long this or that game wearing the "Dungeons & Dragons" name was published by the copyright holder of the time. I hope you realize that.

Odhanan · Mar 3, 2012

Kingreaper said:
4e is full of NARRATIVIST mechanics (limit breaker powers, you can shout someone back into the fight, etc.)

That scene where someone is faltering, but their friend boosts their courage/reminds them why they're fighting/threatens to kill them if they die, is a staple of fiction.

It's one of my big problems with that iteration of the game. Basically you have game mechanics that make sense from a gamist and/or narrativist standpoint, and I wouldn't define myself as either of those types.

I like immersion. I like to act as my character in a game world in motion that is considered an alternate reality unfolding live as the events follow their natural course in the game. I don't want to be the co-author of a "story" with "narrative control". I want to role play my character from my character's standpoint, not as a pupetteer building a drama from afar.

Likewise, I do not want the game rules and the board to be the game itself. The game itself for me is what happens in this world in motion I was just talking about. All the rest is window dressing and adjudication material that helps the make-believe to stay coherent. It's not the point of the game to me. The make-believe is.

I'm what you might call an immersionist, or a simulationist. Whatever jargon you might want to use. I love role playing, but have no interest in "building stories and narratives" in a role playing game. Neither do I want to consider its rules to be the point of the game itself. It's never been, for me.

Balesir · Mar 5, 2012

Odhanan said:
I like immersion. I like to act as my character in a game world in motion that is considered an alternate reality unfolding live as the events follow their natural course in the game. I don't want to be the co-author of a "story" with "narrative control". I want to role play my character from my character's standpoint, not as a pupetteer building a drama from afar.

Likewise, I do not want the game rules and the board to be the game itself. The game itself for me is what happens in this world in motion I was just talking about. All the rest is window dressing and adjudication material that helps the make-believe to stay coherent. It's not the point of the game to me. The make-believe is.

I'm what you might call an immersionist, or a simulationist. Whatever jargon you might want to use. I love role playing, but have no interest in "building stories and narratives" in a role playing game. Neither do I want to consider its rules to be the point of the game itself. It's never been, for me.

Point 1: bravo for not only being someone who prefers a Simulationist agenda (in the Forge sense of the term) but also clearly understands what that means.

Point 2: how do you find levels, hit points and experience points synchronise with your "make believe"? I have always found these to be a barrier to immersion/Sim-focussed play with D&D.

Point 3: I can say from personal experience that Gamist and Simulationist play can both be enjoyed by the same person. I still find them difficult to mix - in Hârn, for example, I houserule out potential Gamist drivers or a Gamist focus begins to creep in - but I really enjoy playing both HârnMaster and D&D 4E; I just do so with very different expectations and aims.

Bedrockgames · Mar 5, 2012

Balesir said:
Point 2: how do you find levels, hit points and experience points synchronise with your "make believe"? I have always found these to be a barrier to immersion/Sim-focussed play with D&D.

.

I am also in the immersionist camp on this one and would say (as i have done before) it is fundamentally about believabillity, not creating a physics engine. So any mechanics that seriously disrupt immersion by creating glaring instances of inconsistency or disconnect between me and the game world are a problem. Levels and exp are really not that much of an issue here (and there are not that many alternatives for a class based system). As long as xp progression makes a modicum of sense (getting a bunch of xp for killing a dragon is reasonable, but gaining xp for completing a storyline is iffy for me); and dont forget about the old ad&d training rules for advancement.

HP is a bit abstract and doesnt model wounds well but as a simple and broad method it works well provided the gm is consistent. The issue is D&D is heroic, so characters aren't supposed to drop like flies. HP in older editions worked well enough for me, it was really the introduction of healing surges and such that went a step too far for my taste. For D&D, i like HP. For other games I usually favor a gritty wound system.

Otakkun · Mar 6, 2012

Balesir said:
Point 2: how do you find levels, hit points and experience points synchronise with your "make believe"? I have always found these to be a barrier to immersion/Sim-focussed play with D&D.

Well, reality is boring. We are far too fragile ^^

Neonchameleon · Mar 6, 2012

talok55 said:
I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is not D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.

Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell? I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this. If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.

Watch any boxing movie ever where the coach is yelling at the boxer to get back up off the mat. Watch almost any war film where someone finds the energy to keep going because of loved ones. Watch Lord of the Rings with Aragorn being given the dream. Sure it's cinematic. But it's very common and bears some resemblance to real life - I'd hardly call this "ultra-gamist".

Just about every form of non-gritty fiction has this "non-sensical" aspect. What they don't have? Scry and Fry. Flying bricks who can shoot laser beams and are completely immune to non-magical missiles. If I want superheroes, it depends what I want. If I want Batman, 4e does the job admirably - as it does for Indiana Jones. If I want Superman or Dr Strange, or the Incredible Hulk I'm going to have to use 3e and make Superman with overlapping spells.

Crazy Jerome said:
It would be mostly unfair, but not without some merit to say that 3E tends to read like a story, play like a videogame, whereas 4E tends to read like a videogame, play like a story.

You must spread XP around...

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 6, 2012

Mark CMG said:
It does raise the question of how NPCs will be handled in published products, which modular options will be in use by default. If an NPC is built using particular options and there's no equivalent option that handles the same abilities, this might get a bit tricky, particularly in regard to what level of PC group that NPC can challenge (assuming it is an NPC that would be at odds with the PCs for whatever reasons).

And this is the real nut of the matter right here folks.

Modularity can perhaps work in a sense, but it can't be meaningful. Every published resource is going to have to assume some baseline configuration of game you're actually playing. Go to a con, use the 'standard' rules. Go to any organized event, use the 'standard' rules. Run a module, use the 'standard' rules (OK, here maybe they'll tack on some notes on some options, maybe).

Beyond that WotC is NOT going to support 82 different sorts of play. They are going to support ONE style of play (heck, they haven't even shown a terribly good track record of being able to do that consistently). There's not going to be any real support for interactions between modules, etc. There's not likely to be any sort of support for anything but the most widely used 'standard' options at all. And as we can see from 4e DDI such support is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If Vancian 3e-style is the devs pet magic system do you really think you're going to get anything but a nod to AEDU or whatever? Of course not. They'll keep putting out support for what they like or imagine that more people want. This is perfectly natural of course, because they'll figure that's where they can make money.

Its kind of inevitable. Get what you want into the core, or it basically might as well be homebrew.

Its not that I like this, but that's just the way it is. In terms of magic systems, there will really only be one that is practically usable. It will get all the new spells, all NPCs will use it, the modules will use it, you'll have to use it if you play in any organized play, etc.

Kingreaper · Mar 6, 2012

AbdulAlhazred said:
Its not that I like this, but that's just the way it is. In terms of magic systems, there will really only be one that is practically usable. It will get all the new spells, all NPCs will use it, the modules will use it, you'll have to use it if you play in any organized play, etc.

Ummm.... No.

Magic system is one of the things that is PC-side modular.

PC-side things are all, naturally, able to co-exist unless explicitly banned. They're not going to ban Warlocks in organised play.

You're being far more pessimistic than you have any cause to be.

Balesir · Mar 6, 2012

Otakkun said:
Well, reality is boring. We are far too fragile ^^

Oh, sure - but you don't need hit points - let alone escalating hit points based on the number of creatures you have killed - to fix that in a roleplaying game.

The problem is that, with those system features, something will always arise to throw immersion out. A L1 character getting killed by a housecat. A high level character jumping out of a fifth story window and walking away.

Once again, you could mitigate this with work-arounds and house rules and adventure design and yadda yadda yadda... But, I figure, why not plug the gap at its source by picking a different system?

AbdulAlhazred · Mar 6, 2012

Kingreaper said:
Ummm.... No.

Magic system is one of the things that is PC-side modular.

PC-side things are all, naturally, able to co-exist unless explicitly banned. They're not going to ban Warlocks in organised play.

You're being far more pessimistic than you have any cause to be.

Just remember who said it, and look at the Runepriest vs the Fighter. The logic is clear.

Just a couple of other notes on this:

1) It is unproven that 'PC-side things can all co-exist'. In fact I find this whole aspect of the modularity concept highly unlikely. Some limited options will probably work OK on different characters. Which exactly ones those are will be highly dependent on what you consider 'works OK'. I'd note that many people here don't even think E-Martial classes work OK. I'm not as picky as that, but I've been around a long time and I've really not seen this mythical disparate yet equal mechanics in a game.

2) Which option is this? You have to realize, the unpopular 'options' simply won't be developed enough to BE really usable. Sure, you can play your AEDU wizard that has all of 40 spells, or you can play your Vancian wizard that has 300. Even if they are hypothetically 'equal' in some theorycraft way, they aren't ACTUALLY equivalent, which is all I care about.

3) Everything but the PCs are going to be using the 'standard' option in any case where you're playing published material. Of course the DM can deal with this, but what is the point of buying a game where you have to homebrew at least half of it to play how you want? It is the wrong game for you at best.

'Modular' is effectively a pipe dream. Of course you can tack 42 different sorts of mechanical options onto any game, label them all 'optional' and have a 'modular' game. That is not at all the same thing as having a game that fully supports a variety of very different play styles. Supporting that is no less work (and no more likely to happen) than putting out 8 different games and supporting them all. WotC doesn't have any interest in supporting more than one RPG now. Show me where there is even a snowball's chance in the nether regions they're going to support even 4 styles of D&D play. They don't even support 4e's version of GW.

And lets suppose for a moment they DID try to support all those different play styles... What is going to happen? They're going to put out 2 modules grand total for each one, and 1 or 2 supplements a year? Do you think that level of support is going to impress the people playing PF right now? Really? Do you need a bridge? It is absurd. WotC guys are not dumb. They understand all of this. I don't doubt for a minute they'll provide some basic modules for "4e style play" and some for "3e style play" but bluntly one of those styles is going to be DOA because that's pretty much the last we'll here of it. If your tastes don't happen to be the ones WotC chooses to cater to, you're going to be pretty much out in the cold and better off playing a different game.