Elephant in the room: rogue and fighter dailies.

[pemerton]

your explanations represent a totally different approach to the game than the one those opposed to dailies and encounter powers are advocating. This is the crux of the disagreement.

People don't want to have them in their game because they want a particular mode of play where you describe what you do and then, as needed, use the system to resolve things. This then creates a new described situation in an endless circuit of description-reaction-redescription.

<snip>

And if you have to change the situation retroactively to explain it, it's incompatible with a type of game where you make decisions based on the described situation.

"Change" in the last sentence here is a bit loaded - from the point of view of those who are playing as Hypersmurf describes, it is not changing the situation but adding to it, amplifying it, or rendering it more precise and detailed.

The Burning Wheel Adventure Burner gives a simple example: my guy is fighting in a kitchen, and I want to perform an Assess action to spot a kettle of scalding water. The book suggests that, on a successful Perception check the GM should say yes - not thereby changing the situation, but rendering it more precise in a plausible fashion.

This is the BW approach to setting writ small (I'm thinking of the Adventure Burner here). It's an approach I'm a big fan of - the Adventure Burner is the single best GM book I know, and I find it on the whole to be a better help for running 4e than the 4e DMG.

Paul Czege talks about the same sort of approach to adjudicating NPC personalities here, and I'm a big fan of that too:

I frame the character into the middle of conflicts I think will push and pull in ways that are interesting to me and to the player. I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this.​

Ron Edwards, in his gamism essay, makes the following observation:

Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:

*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.

*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.

*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.

*Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.​

I think this is a pretty good list of the features of 4e that (i) bug the "dissociated mechanics" crowd, (ii) make it appealing to me, and (iii) explain why it can be used as both a light narrativist vehicle (my approach) or a light gamist vehicle ([MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s approach).

When it comes to fantasy party/troupe based gaming, I like the earliest modes of play. The kind that gave birth to Runequest and Rolemaster and were a very common approach to OD&D.

Whereas part of what I like about Rolemaster over Runequest is that it has certain mechanical points of choice that open a door, however modestly, to player metagame agendas. In action resolution, these are the need to make decisions about how to allocate an overall bonus in melee combat, and how to balance risk vs resource expenditure in spell casting. In character building, these are decisions about how to spend build points every time a level is earned.

Runequest does not have the same sorts of choices: attack and defence are separate skills, and all character development is driven and constrained by ingame fictional considerations.

For me, 4e does better what I used to do with RM, which is allow a light, mechanically fairly vanilla, narrativism, with a very mechanically heavy resolution and build system of the sort that a fairly conventional roleplayer has grown up on and enjoys deploying. (These same priorities make Burning Wheel look appealing, although the narrativism in BW is obviously a bit less vanilla.)

 

[Obryn]

And yet it seems like many of the people who like martial dailies hate Vancian spell-casting, and the say exactly the same things about those that people who don't like Martial dailies say.

"Vancian casting is stupid because the wizard forgets how to shoot a fireball!" They either haven't, can't, or won't consider alternative explanations.

I've seen some of the dislike but I've never seen it for that reason. It'd be nonsensical given that 4e Wizards and Fighters use very similar power structures - not quite identical, with the Wizard's spellbook, but very very similar. So I hate asking for a cite - but could you give an example? Because they are being wrong on the internet.

I've complaints about Vancian casting, and they're usually gameplay-centric, rather than gameworld-centric.

"Vancian" implies three things... (1) a strict Daily spell allocation, (2) lack of Encounter & at-will spells, and (3) huge amounts of day-to-day flexibility. It's not just "has Daily spells."

The complaints I've seen are more about Wizards and Clerics being the "any-class" depending on their daily spell choices, the amount of power such flexibility implies, 15-minute workdays after daily novas, exponential vs. linear advancement, and the relative power disparity between casters and non-casters.

I don't necessarily buy any of these arguments, mind you. I've run 1e recently, and it runs perfectly well.

-O

 

[pemerton]

If the fighter is going to use the terrain/story/whatever to his/her advantage in and outside of combat then they better have a bonus compared to other classes or at least the DM's favour.

<snip>

We give the casters a free pass to do as they will because we have no real means to judge what can and can't be done with magic, even though when a player's character casts a spell they are influencing the game world in a way even the DM has to agree to, a Player Fiat in a sense, provided the character meets the requirements of the spell (eg. material and verbal components, has the spell available, etc.). They are essentially bypassing a DM's ruling/judgement that melee characters with their so few options depend on. Not only that, but they can do the same thing a fighter can do ("can I use the barrels as cover?") but can go above and beyond ("The barrels are now covered in a darkness spell")

We don't say to the casters "You have been hitting the Elven brandy and pipe weed a bit too much lately, lose some spell slots until you regain your memory" or "you've lost a memorized spell because Zagnor the Maleficant's enchantment has screwed with the imprinted dweomer" even though these possibilities would be accepted by most people based on: our previous experiences with booze/drugs, and an open void of possible metaphysics created by the vancian model.

<snip>

If this is the means of play then the fighter PC should be able to say "I swing off the chandelier, knocking my target prone, and showering the nearby bodyguards in glass" without the DM's ruling or interference. No "Mother may I?" style gaming. The DM should then be obligated to put in some form of terrain/device for the fighter to manipulate, and the fighter have a table ready similar to page 42 of the 4E DMG as a quick reference for damage or conditions. This is augmented by levels/feats in the same way casters spells are automatically gained and affected by caster level. It's only fair.

Good post. I'll try to XP you if/when the system is switched back on.

 

[Mercutio01]

I've seen some of the dislike but I've never seen it for that reason. It'd be nonsensical given that 4e Wizards and Fighters use very similar power structures - not quite identical, with the Wizard's spellbook, but very very similar. So I hate asking for a cite - but could you give an example? Because they are being wrong on the internet.

I don't have a cite handy, sadly, but awhile ago on ENWorld there was a thread all about Vancian casting (several, actually) and there were several posts that indicated just that. I'll see if I can dig one up when I have time, but considering how fast threads move compared to the pace of my life, by the time I get to it, it'll probably be a few days from now, and not worth dragging back in again.

"Vancian" implies three things... (1) a strict Daily spell allocation, (2) lack of Encounter & at-will spells, and (3) huge amounts of day-to-day flexibility. It's not just "has Daily spells."

This is true. I noted earlier that my biggest problem with the AEDU system was the E part of it.

The complaints I've seen are more about Wizards and Clerics being the "any-class" depending on their daily spell choices, the amount of power such flexibility implies, 15-minute workdays after daily novas, exponential vs. linear advancement, and the relative power disparity between casters and non-casters.

The 15 minute workday, exponential advancement, and hat last bit are all separate issues from Vancian magic, and they're ones I share to some extent. I think it would help if there were fewer spells that stepped on melee toes (No Tenser's Transformation, for example). And the advancement thing looks to be in progress of being fixed. The 15 minute workday is something I see discussed a lot but in play very rarely. In my own experience, the only time I've actually seen it is literally in D&D CRPGs like Menzoberranzan and Baldur's Gate. It's never happened at my table.

But there have definitely been arguments posted here (and other places, I'm sure) that gripe about "fire and forget."

 

[Hussar]

And yet it seems like many of the people who like martial dailies hate Vancian spell-casting, and the say exactly the same things about those that people who don't like Martial dailies say.

"Vancian casting is stupid because the wizard forgets how to shoot a fireball!" They either haven't, can't, or won't consider alternative explanations.

I don't understand the people who love martial dailies but hate Vancian casting. What 4E really did was make every character a Vancian caster, but those people who like martial dailies seem to be among the most vociferous anti-Vancians.

And I say this as someone who actually sort of likes some of the ideas behind martial dailies. (It's encounter powers that bugged me, not daily.)

Umm, who's claiming that?

The biggest criticism of Vancian casting is because it's unbalancing and overpowered. When only one subset of classes gains daily level powers and another subset of classes never does, you have an unbalanced system. Particularly when it's not terribly difficult to turn "daily level powers" into "Pretty close to at-will".

The "Why does a wizard forget" argument is based on the idea that it's nonsensical for the fighter to "forget" his daily attack. The only reason the wizard "forgets" is 100% game balance and has nothing whatsoever to do with in game narrative. But, people want to conflate the two - wizard forgetting and in game narrative.

 

[Mercutio01]

Umm, who's claiming that?

The biggest criticism of Vancian casting is because it's unbalancing and overpowered. When only one subset of classes gains daily level powers and another subset of classes never does, you have an unbalanced system. Particularly when it's not terribly difficult to turn "daily level powers" into "Pretty close to at-will".

The "Why does a wizard forget" argument is based on the idea that it's nonsensical for the fighter to "forget" his daily attack. The only reason the wizard "forgets" is 100% game balance and has nothing whatsoever to do with in game narrative. But, people want to conflate the two - wizard forgetting and in game narrative.

I wasn't looking for posts by you, but here are two that I came across.

You railed against clerics and fire and forget, and said that was your biggest hang-up against Vancian magic for them - http://www.enworld.org/forum/5774065-post108.html

And said here - http://www.enworld.org/forum/5774474-post114.html - that your real problem with Vancian magic was the fire-and-forget of wizards.

Here are some other harrangues against Vancian magic strictly because of fire-and-forget:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5771177-post50.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5772037-post63.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5882358-post25.html

And this gem which says that 4E doesn't really have Vancian casting:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/5770749-post33.html

And some posts from other places than ENWorld:
Critique on Fire-and-Forget | Game On :: Aleph Gaming
dungeons and dragons - How does D&D Vancian magic make sense in-game? - Role-playing Games

 

[nnms]

Sure. But there's a difference between "I don't like it" and "It makes no sense".

Absolutely.

When you see someone say it makes no sense, you can probably point out that they really mean makes no sense "within the confines of a specific approach that is not universal."

I don't think I've disagreed anywhere that the mechanic is dissociated from the character's decisions. I'm saying that the dissociation is not an objectively bad thing.

It can be very, very useful. I love GMful games where plot and situation authority is distributed to more than just one person. And in those cases you can't help but use meta resources to manage it.

From the beginning of the thread, I've always granted that "I find those mechanics not to my taste" is a perfectly valid viewpoint. It's "I find those mechanics not to my taste because they must result in nonsensical narrative" that I take issue with.

-Hyp.

How about "I find those mechanics not to my taste because they must result in nonsensical narrative when used as part of a specific approach to play that I prefer."?

 

[nnms]

If this is the means of play then the fighter PC should be able to say "I swing off the chandelier, knocking my target prone, and showering the nearby bodyguards in glass" without the DM's ruling or interference. No "Mother may I?" style gaming.

This all depends on the specifics of the system. Some people like having a GM to regulate the gonzo back to a more mundane feel. When I was running my favorite 4E campaign, we explicitly agreed that it was my job to make sure people don't go outside of the tone we had agreed to beforehand. We weren't looking for action movie play and it would be my job to say 'no' to such antics.

In a game like Runequest, everyone pretty much agrees to abide by the system. So it doesn't matter what the GM says to the same degree as it does in 0D&D. You've got an athletics role, an unarmed attack, followed by an improvised weapon attack. Assuming heroic dexterity, you probably even have enough actions to do all that in a 5 second round. But you might fall on your ass in front of the guards if the first role goes bad or if the target gets a critical on their block of your knock down attack.

The DM should then be obligated to put in some form of terrain/device for the fighter to manipulate, and the fighter have a table ready similar to page 42 of the 4E DMG as a quick reference for damage or conditions. This is augmented by levels/feats in the same way casters spells are automatically gained and affected by caster level. It's only fair.

I think this is a really good idea. Build a stunting system right into the game.

 

[nnms]

The Burning Wheel Adventure Burner gives a simple example: my guy is fighting in a kitchen, and I want to perform an Assess action to spot a kettle of scalding water. The book suggests that, on a successful Perception check the GM should say yes - not thereby changing the situation, but rendering it more precise in a plausible fashion.

Absolutely. And it works really, really well.

[Ron Edwards stuff] I think this is a pretty good list of the features of 4e that (i) bug the "dissociated mechanics" crowd, (ii) make it appealing to me, and (iii) explain why it can be used as both a light narrativist vehicle (my approach) or a light gamist vehicle (Balesir's approach).

Yes.

Runequest does not have the same sorts of choices: attack and defence are separate skills, and all character development is driven and constrained by ingame fictional considerations.

This has relaxed a bit in recent versions of the game. You can get advancement rolls that are not necessarily on skills you used in the particular quest. It's not universally adopted though, people still like the classic RQ/BRP/Call of Cthulhu approach of only improving in things you do/practice in the fiction. And the fiction linked ways of developing (getting training, for example) are more reliable than the floating improvement rolls you can assign.

My major departure with Forge theory is that I think they kept GNS as creative agendas only because of emotional and tradition-driven reasons. I think the big model makes them unnecessary and most of the time people misuse them. Having these three categories also leads people into identifying certain mechanics or approaches (or even games) as only producing a certain creative agenda.

I propose that there are multiple means of aligning the elements of exploration to produce very, very different results. Even by using the same mechanics and techniques. For example, many mechanics traditionally associated with "Story Now!" play are actually excellent at simulating a certain genre of fiction. The actual exploration of theme during play isn't the priority, but the representation of fiction that contains those themes is what's important.

But it doesn't work infinitely in any direction. Eventually you can hit a point where a given technique will produce something that is not desired for a given game. For example, making a conflict more likely to go in one characters direction than another because of their motivation rather than their ability or skills isn't going to work for a game like Runequest or how the "no dissociated mechanics" crowd plays D&D despite working excellently in In A Wicked Age.

If WotC wants any hope of getting revenue out of a D&D pen and paper RPG that would make Hasbro happy, they need to start doing what they were talking about ASAP and bring in modularity to deal with these issues of different people wanting different things from their D&D.

I took 4E and drifted it hard towards Runequest like play. I had to mangle it to get it there, but I did. I was hoping for a strong sign of the ease of this with the playtest of 5E, but so far their modularity has been limited to dropping themes and backgrounds. So I'm done waiting and have started up my RQ game again alongside the BECMI one I'm playing in and the DMless Fate-based urban fantasy game I participate in.

The pre-3.x crowd is well served with retroclones. The 3.x crowd has the SRDs and things like Pathfinder. The 4E crowd. I wonder how long the DDI database and character builder will remain available once 5E is released as a real product. So they better get 4E AEDU play and expanded grid rules into 5E through modules quickly as well.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How about "I find those mechanics not to my taste because they must result in nonsensical narrative when used as part of a specific approach to play that I prefer."?

Yeah, I don't find that phrasing offensive, because it sufficiently acknowledges the subjective nature of the complaint

You've got an athletics role, an unarmed attack, followed by an improvised weapon attack. Assuming heroic dexterity, you probably even have enough actions to do all that in a 5 second round. But you might fall on your ass in front of the guards if the first role goes bad or if the target gets a critical on their block of your knock down attack.

Someone mentioned this earlier, but this adjudication approach tends to discourage my preferred play style - when the repetitive grinding approach is massively more efficient and effective than the flavourful or exciting alternative.

By building in multiple failure points to the unorthodox action, you make it less likely to succeed, so it's more sensible to take the orthodox approach of hitting someone with a sword.

I can remember a couple of anecdotal examples:

1E game, where the fighter ended up covered in several big biting beetles (say that three times fast)
Fighter: "I want to slam my back into the wall, to crush some of the beetles."
GM: "Okay... call that an unarmed attack, so make a to-hit roll, and if you hit, you can deal 1d3 damage."
Fighter: "... and if I just use my sword?"
GM: "To-hit roll, 1d8 damage."
Fighter: "I hit it with my sword."

3E game, where the dwarf cleric was on a spiral staircase leading down to a tower floor 10 feet below with a squad of orcs.
Cleric: "I'd like to jump off the stairs, and hit the orc sergeant with my axe on the way down. Can I call that a Charge?"
GM: "Hmm. Hang on." [Five minutes later after consulting the PHB] "I'm gonna say... make a Jump check. If you succeed, you can make your attack; if you fail, you'll take 1d6 damage and can't attack. Either way, you'll end up prone."
Cleric: "+2 Charge bonus?"
GM: "Well, it's not technically a charge, so no..."
Cleric: "Screw it, I'll walk ten feet down the stairs and smack the first orc I reach."

One thing I loved about 4E was that I could say "I hack at the first hobgoblin with my longsword, grab his friend by the collar, and headbutt him in the face!", and if the power I was using said "Str vs AC, Two targets, 2[W] + Str", then my description wasn't going to make it less effective than if I said "I hit one hobgoblin with my sword, and then I hit the other hobgoblin with my sword". The fluff didn't have to make my second attack drop from 1d8+2 for the +2 longsword down to 1d3 for an unarmed strike, because the power deals damage based on the +2 longsword.

If cinematic action is a/ not discouraged (4E) or b/ actively encouraged (Dino-Pirates of Ninja Island, Feng Shui, Exalted), that tends to produce the gameplay I enjoy the most. If cinematic action tends to be less efficient or effective, or more prone to failure, it's thereby discouraged, and it tends to inhibit the gameplay I enjoy the most.

(Which doesn't mean it can't still happen - I played a pregen swashbuckler in a 3.5 game whose fluff text described him wielding rapier and dagger. But he had no TWF feats. I queried the GM on that - "Oh, that's just flavour - just roll for the rapier." "Nuh-uh!" I said. "It says he fights with rapier and dagger - I'm fighting with rapier and dagger!" So for the whole adventure I was making attack rolls with a -4/-8 penalty. Except for the couple of rounds I was fighting from prone, at -8/-12. And still having fun... but admittedly, it would have been more fun if the mechanics of the character had supported what I was doing!)

-Hyp.