Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Tony Vargas · Jul 8, 2012

Lanefan said:
It can also be argued that in social conflict there is no such thing as precise victory conditions. Take this thread, for example - it's a social interaction in which there has certainly been some conflict - and ask: what are the victory conditions, and who's winning, and how does one define either of these?

It can't be done.

This thread may not be the best example, but take the edition war, itself. It had a clear victory condition - one edition or the other going to it's grave. I think one side will be able to declare victory before too much longer. So, sure, social conflicts can have victory conditions.

Mustrum_Ridcully · Jul 8, 2012

ForeverSlayer said:
Bottom line is this.

If 4th edition was such a success then we wouldn't be playtesting 5th edition.

If D&D was such a success, we'd still be playing OD&D.

All the editions of D&D were successful. But they only work for some time - once the core rulebooks are out, you will always make less customers for subsequent books, since you no longer have the entire D&D or RPG community as a target audience, but only those that have the core rules as well. On top of that, every game has its flaws, and the longer you play them, the more apparant they will become, and they start bothering some more and more. They also have strengths, and people will think about how they can focus more on their strengths and eradicate those flaws - other games and new editions are possible answers to that.

Balesir · Jul 8, 2012

billd91 said:
pemerton said:

The combat rules are pretty detailed - they have precise and detailed DC rules (via the rules for AC) and precise victory condition rules (via the rules for hit points, damage, healing etc).

There is nothing analogous to this for social conflict.

Click to expand...

A lot of us, for a long time, have believed that there needn't be and probably really shouldn't be.

It confuses me that you can believe this.

The game world is not a real place - it's imaginary. Events are happening in the real world from which events in the imaginary game world are being imputed. There must, therefore, be some mechanism or system by which those real world events are translated into game world events - including (but not limited to) the decisions of the imaginary characters in the game world. How those characters are affected by the (imaginary) events occurring around them must be deduced using some sort of "system", since imaginary characters do not have "reactions" of their own.

Presumably, therefore, you have (and use) such a system already. Is it that you don't believe that this system can be improved upon, and therefore do not wish to consider any alternative? Or is it perhaps somehow important to you that you pretend thiat this system does not exist, or is in some way "the natural way of things"? I'm baffled by your stated opinion, here, given that the system you claim needn't and shouldn't exist already must exist.

TrippyHippy · Jul 8, 2012

Balesir said:
It confuses me that you can believe this.

The game world is not a real place - it's imaginary. Events are happening in the real world from which events in the imaginary game world are being imputed. There must, therefore, be some mechanism or system by which those real world events are translated into game world events - including (but not limited to) the decisions of the imaginary characters in the game world. How those characters are affected by the (imaginary) events occurring around them must be deduced using some sort of "system", since imaginary characters do not have "reactions" of their own.

Presumably, therefore, you have (and use) such a system already. Is it that you don't believe that this system can be improved upon, and therefore do not wish to consider any alternative? Or is it perhaps somehow important to you that you pretend thiat this system does not exist, or is in some way "the natural way of things"? I'm baffled by your stated opinion, here, given that the system you claim needn't and shouldn't exist already must exist.

The game doesn't need a system for social interaction. Y'know, um, role-play it.

Minigiant · Jul 8, 2012

Did I not make a topic about complex social rpg rules?

Bedrockgames · Jul 8, 2012

I think people distinguish between a procedure and roleplaying it out without one. You are really stretching what most mean by resolution system to arrive there. There is nothing wrong with wanting a system, but I really dont think these are the same thing at all. And I believe that argument is going to be a tough sell for most people (frankly on both sides of the issue).

pemerton · Jul 8, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
I think people distinguish between a procedure and roleplaying it out without one. You are really stretching what most mean by resolution system to arrive there.

I am in agreement with [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] on this one.

When a PC convinces an NPC in the fiction, something else is happening at the table. The GM is not actually convinced by the player - it's all just pretending, isn't it?

Is the GM judging the apparent sincerity or profundity of some rhetoric? Or is something else going on? Are there certain "key words" that must be uttered by the player, for example?

Nagol · Jul 8, 2012

Social resolution and personality systems have been around in other systems almost as long as D&D has existed.

Whether a game has such systems comes back to the philosophy of the game designers and what they think will appeal to their audience and be true to the genre being emulated. Some examples from the top of my head:

Fantasy Wargaming (1981) has a bunch of systems to deal with social dynamics inside the party including challenging/replacing the leader, succumbing to temptation, and persuading PCs and NPCs to action.

Champions (1981) as a variety of disadvantage types that codified how a character would/could act. Later developed skills in the social realm.

Pendragon (1985) has personality traits (defined as virtue/vice pairings) and passions that can assert some control over PC and NPC choices.

The problem often develops that players don't want a system that interferes with their control of their character(usually their only expression in the game world) and find having their characters' action dctated unfun.

Ahnehnois · Jul 8, 2012

pemerton said:
When a PC convinces an NPC in the fiction, something else is happening at the table. The GM is not actually convinced by the player - it's all just pretending, isn't it?

The GM is not necessarily convinced by the player. He tries to adopt the perspective of the NPC and judge, based on what that NPC knows, what that NPC has been through, and what that NPC's personality/goals/biases/etc. whether that NPC would buy the argument or not. He plays the role (which is pretending, of course).

Is the GM judging the apparent sincerity or profundity of some rhetoric?

Pretty much, although there are other things that influence people's behavior. He's judging the logical merits of the argument, the emotional context, the PC's stature in the game, and whatever other things would enter into an NPC's behavior. What else would he be doing?

billd91 · Jul 8, 2012

Balesir said:
It confuses me that you can believe this.

The game world is not a real place - it's imaginary. Events are happening in the real world from which events in the imaginary game world are being imputed. There must, therefore, be some mechanism or system by which those real world events are translated into game world events - including (but not limited to) the decisions of the imaginary characters in the game world. How those characters are affected by the (imaginary) events occurring around them must be deduced using some sort of "system", since imaginary characters do not have "reactions" of their own.

Presumably, therefore, you have (and use) such a system already. Is it that you don't believe that this system can be improved upon, and therefore do not wish to consider any alternative? Or is it perhaps somehow important to you that you pretend thiat this system does not exist, or is in some way "the natural way of things"? I'm baffled by your stated opinion, here, given that the system you claim needn't and shouldn't exist already must exist.

I don't believe any social interaction rules or structures need to be as detailed (and constraining) as the combat ones are. The question isn't about whether a structure would or wouldn't be helpful. The question is about whether it needs to be as detailed as the combat structure. I think a lighter structure is preferable when dealing with social interaction - but then I also believe the combat structure has become far too detailed and focused on structure with 4e as well.

Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition

Tony Vargas

Legend

Mustrum_Ridcully

Hero

Balesir

Adventurer

TrippyHippy

Hero

Minigiant

Legend

Bedrockgames

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Nagol

Unimportant

Ahnehnois

First Post

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)

Similar Threads