Don't get me wrong, I love what you guys are doing with it, and appreciate it quite a bit. I just don't think its the "typical" interpretation of 4e (at least around here.)
First, thanks. Second, I agree it's not the typical interpretation around here. But "around here" also has many posters who don't like 4e. When you look at those who regularly post on the 4e boards, or who talk favourably about their 4e games and 4e experiences, I think it is less atypical. (Thought of course far from universal.)
VinylTap's characterisation matches a lot more of what I saw (if not participated directly in) from 4e.
<snip>
For me, one of the weirder things about 4e and the reaction it engendered was how so many people saw such contradictory things in it. This is one of those areas. On the one hand, I know a few "grognards" who absolutely despise all the "new-school indie Bleep!<bleep>" in 4e. On the other hand, most of the non-grognard crowd seems unaware of those facets of the game, or at best doesn't interpret/use them that way.
I've even encountered posters on this forum who see the very same contradictory things: 4e is all about tactical combat, and has nothing in common with indie games, but also has too much attention to metagame, pacing, player empowerment, etc.
I can't explain it any more than you can.
I'm sure there are plenty of 4e tables who play it as, essentially, lair assault. I can't speak for them, but I would guess that they would want next to provide a tactically rich "boardgame" experience with sufficient fictional positioning (at the tactical, not more thematic, level) to make it an RPG rather than a mere boardgame.
I'm sure there are also plenty of 4e tables who play it as, essentially, a GM-driven adventure path game. To the extent that thiese players aren't just a variant on the lair assault approach, I would imagine that they're not to fussed about the minutiae of mechanics provided they still evoke the right archteypes and colour in the adventure path.
I guess my concern with [MENTION=6697217]VinylTap[/MENTION]'s comment is that it seemed to characterise 4e, and what it offers, from the point of view of someone who doesn't like it (and I assume doesn't play it). Whereas I think, if you're trying to pitch D&Dnext to 4e players, it's better to approach the design questions from the perspective of those who like and play the game.
I think the nature of the objection is that all the fiddly bits of 4e combat rules actually detract from your flexibility in narration.
<snip>
For some people (myself included) the disjunction between the one and the other is a bit jarring. It feels like you suddenly "drop out of warp" when combat starts.
<snip>
Now, there are some (I think pemerton would be one, Manbearcat would be another, given his post above) who find that the "fiddly bit" mechanics of 4e are evocative of narrative elements, and serve to further illuminate the characters/monsters. I certainly don't think that's true of everyone. I know its not (in general) for me.
I agree there's a very strong contrast. And I've frequently posted that the lack of attention to the interface between these main two action resolution mechanics is a major flaw in 4e. I'm gradually getting better at handling it as a GM, but it would be nice to have some advice in the books so I didn't have to work it all out myself!
On the issue of "evocative fiddliness", I am someone who experiences the game that way. But generally I think the combat has to be framed with quite a degree of attention to its story/thematic significance (even if that's just tons of colour), and this is another point on which the rulebooks are basically silent. (Worlds & Monsters is an honourable exception here, but it is not a core 4e rulebook - and many people dismissed it, wrongly in my view, as a mere preview.) The fiddliness then provides the mechanical tools whereby the players both (i) experience the intensity and pressure of the fictional situation, and (ii) are able to grab the situations by the horns and bend it to their will. I think this speaks to (and probably only to) a particular aesthetic sensibility - you have to be very tolerant of fiddly arithmetic as a conveyor of thematic information, for example, which is a fairly old school thing.
Burning Wheel is in some respects similar to 4e in this respect: Versus Tests together with Let it Ride as the default resolution, but more complex mechanics able to be invoked in particular conflict situations - the skill-challenge like Duel of Wits, the slightly more pinned-down but still very abstract and need interpretation Range and Cover mechanic, and then the quite crunchy, positioning-focused, RQ-or-RM-level detail of melee in Fight!.
BW does a better job than 4e of explaining (in the Adventure Burner) how to conjoin these mechanics. But I don't think it's accidental that the Adventure Burner, which is the most recent BW book prior to the new (Gold) edition notes 4e as an influence on the direction of the game at that ponit. Nor is it a coincidence, in my view, that the Adventure Burner discusses how to tweak both rules and situation to make "boss" fights evocative - something that 4e, with its fiddly attention to positioning, healing, etc has arguably achieved better than any previous fantasy RPG.
What's the point of all the above? Yes, 4e is a bit weird, but there are other similarly weird games out there too. Even HeroWars/Quest feels the need to be especially detailed in its explanation of how its generic conflict resolution rules apply in the case of physical combat.
I think one of NEXT's big proposition is that metagame considerations need to be served naturally out of in-game considerations, rather than being imposed on them from the outside. They need to arise organically, or else you run afoul of a credibility problem in a big chunk of players. So I wouldn't expect it to be blatant.
I'm definitley of the view (
to quote Ron Edwards) that you get what you play for. If you want the game to deliver exciting, well-paced drama than you have to design for that, and then advise your players on how to use what it is that you've designed. Conversely, if you just build everything on the "game mechanics as physics engine" principle, decent pacing and the like will be down to good luck rather than good management.
Hit points are a classic D&D solution to part of this problem, but (notoriously) mark the most obvious point of departure between game mechanics and ingame physical causation.
2nd ed "solved" some elements of the drama and pacing problem with invocations to ignore the rules when they would interfere with the "story". To me this is anathema: not because I'm obsessed by rules, but because I really don't like that sort of application of GM force.
3E "solved" other elements of this problem by (for example) giving dragons +20 and +30 "natural armour" bonuses without making even a fig leaf of an attempt to explain what that represents in the fiction (given that +13 is the AC bonus from best magical plate armour that mortal wizards can forge). CON scores in the high 20s and even 30s are a less egregious instance of the same issue
Bounded accuracy is a clever solution to the natural armour problem and the inflated stat problem. But it doesn't solve everything on its own. And look at the large number of playtesters advocating a "+2" to all monster to-hit bonuses: that is based not on any "ingame" or "physical causation" considerations, but on metagame considerations - combat is not dramatic/threatening enough.
I think there is no avoiding the metagame. But if, as per 3E, the rules try to hind it behind a veneer of simulation, then it will be hard to express it clearly in the context of a "page 42".
I'm not sure what precisely about 4e's acknowledgement of these issues puts people off, but it really does. I suspect that part of DM empowerment means putting some of that back into the DM's hands directly. For whatever reason, some people feel that codifying these things hamstrings the DM. It may also play into that "one way to play" thing. Perhaps Next should off multiple/concurrent metagame solutions?
I think multiple approaches is one good way of going. Mearls mentioned this in one of his L&L columns (on monster design), but only mentioned two approaches: ingame considerations as dominant; and tactical considerations as dominant. Pacing/drama/"story" from the metagame rather than ingame point of view weren't mentioned!
On the "DM empowerment" issue, I don't entirely see how the GM is disempowered by having useable and clearly explained metagame tools. But I'm obviously the wrong person to be trying to work it out!
I have no idea what any of that implies for Next and what its best direction would be. I would hate to be in the designer chair and trying to figure out how to interpret 4e wrt next.
Agreed.
