D&D 5E Legends & Lore 4/1/2013

[pemerton]

This ain't about GMs ruling on everything. It's about each table determining the corner cases for themselves. GMs may make the call in the moment, or they may establish a rule up front for their own games, but the rules don't tell you that you have to do X or Y.

Which is it - the GM or the table? The difference between the two is very important to me, and different designs facilitate one or the other option better.

 

[pemerton]

I don't see any actual indication that New1st level PCs will be substantially less survivable than Old1st level PCs are. Just simpler, and naturally a bit less capable as a result. (Really - bounded accuracy. The numbers are probably mostly the same; it's the flexibility and complexity that will probably be lacking.)

I agree about effectiveness/capability, for the bounded accuracy reasons you mention.

It's the survivability in terms of hit points I'm worried about - seasoned players are meant to start with more than double those of newbies (3rd level vs 1st level, and the higher the CON bonus the more the ratio rises above 2), and in pre-4e low level D&D that's not nothing.

 

[VinylTap]

I guess that's your prerogative.

OK. But aren't you the poster who said 4e i a miniatures game rather than a RPG (though it can be played in the vein of one) and who then asked people to explain what they mean by "4e feel"?

If I'm getting my posters confused, my apologies.

I didn't really talk about 'feel', but that's sort of that the comment that DMZ was talking about.

There are difference in empahsis and mechanics in both of the systems, and expressing those differences clearly and in a non-inflammatory way is one of the struggles that seems to permeate this board.

Calling 4th a 'miniature combat game' helps me, in my brain, to distill the differences in approach these games have. Its just one way of looking at it. In my mind its not a bashing or embracing of either system, but acknowledging they do different things, and that's just fact: the systems are different, but how do we talk about those differences in a productive matter? The reason, I think, that these thread go round and round and never end has to do with the basic fundamentals of what makes these games different beasts, but trying to get to the heart of that difference usually leads to a lot of misunderstandings and defensiveness.

 

[VinylTap]

I don't actually agree with this. To see why, pop over to the "surprising the GM" thread.

That would be an inclusive edition.

I think you're missing my point a bit.

DMZ has suggested that because of so much structure in 4th why do you even need a DM? Why not just use a computer. I think that's taking it a little too far. You could play it like that perhaps, but it would be a boring game, and probably very close to a 'pure dungeon crawl' (which i don't think anyone wants for DND).

Balesir on the other hand, argues DM interjection, where the PCs aren't controlling anything, merely rolling when the DM says roll, and to a DC that he sets, makes it less of a "game" (?) and probably more like a drama exercise. (apologies if i put words in your mouth, good sir).

I'm just saying, with either game-- when you get down to actually playing it , is never or very rarely (if its a good DM) presented well in these extremes. Both systems are, in reality, a mix of both when they're working well. If a DM in 3rd doesn't present the info he's giving to his players with a "air" of impartial, its not going to be a great time. If a DM in 4th doesn't interject some story-telling flair, its going to fall flat unless a pure dungeon crawl was all you were looking for.

Some people rejoice in the structure of 4th, while others long for the creative freedom of earlier systems, its a preference thing. But the systems are slants of those idea, neither embraces either sides fully- and both systems, in the hands of a good GM, can make up for the lack of whatever you want, in either system.

 

[Balesir]

If what the powers do doesn't have a tight relationship to what the characters are doing, it's a problem.

But what the characters are doing is decided by those imagining them doing it, because they are imaginary characters. Your weirdness with leprechauns is "what the character is doing" if you imagine the character doing that - because s/he's an imaginary character.

I dunno, I think pemerton is saying I'm doing it wrong because keywords?

I may agree with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] on quite a bit, but I'm not him, so I can't comment on that. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to imagine an Edward Lear world you're welcome to. I don't expect it to become the norm, though.

This ain't about GMs ruling on everything. It's about each table determining the corner cases for themselves. GMs may make the call in the moment, or they may establish a rule up front for their own games, but the rules don't tell you that you have to do X or Y. The rules don't need to tell you that. The rules can be cool either way.

If it's corner cases, fine. If it's how long durations are (because the only "rule" gives it in game time) or what attribute applies when (because the GM decides ad hoc what attribute to roll against) or what "friendship" or "evil" mean in the context of the game, then it's not "corner cases" any more - it's how the game world operates being set ad hoc by the GM and opaque to the players.

 

[pemerton]

I may agree with pemerton on quite a bit, but I'm not him

And that's to your credit!

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to imagine an Edward Lear world you're welcome to.

That goes without saying.

The question I'm interested in is whether or not 4e establishes, and draws consequences out of, fictional positioning; and are powers part of that?

As I understand him, [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] is saying that powers have no impact on fictional positioing - that I could drop an enemy to 0 hp and that tells me nothing about what's happening in the fiction; that I could drop an enemy to 0 hp using my sword, and for all we know in the fiction what might have happened is that I tickled him with my feather duster and he fell over laughing.

And KM is also saying that 4e differes from (say) AD&D in this respect.

It's these claims that I dispute. A declaration of an attack with a sword in 4e carries with it the same default fictional consequences as it does in AD&D - someone is trying to hurt someone else with a sharp and dangerous lump of metal.

In some ways the correlation between declared action, as mechanically specified, and fiction, is looser - eg Tide of Iron used against a giant is probably quite a different technique from Tide of Iron used against a halfling. But in other ways 4e is tighter than AD&D - for instance, it tells me in a lot more detail where my PC is, in the fiction, from moment to moment.

For me, the leprechaun example has the same status as a group of AD&D players who all joke about their PCs sitting down and taking a 50 second rest in the portable deckchairs between thrusts of the sword. In a certain sense the mechanics leave room for that narration, but I'm sure it wasn't what Gygax intended, and nothing about the game suggests it would fit with intent or general tone.

Likewise with respect to 4e and the Leprechauns.

 

[DMZ2112]

Newbies need low complexity PCs compared to seasoned players. I think this is not in dispute.

Oh, it's in dispute.

But there is nothing about being a newbie which makes it desirable for them to play PCs who are less robust than those of seasoned players. Or to play throught scenarios that are less engaging, or full of fantasy tropes like undead and goblins and dragons erring-do, than seasoned players.

This is less disputable.

Under Mearls' original plan, of allowing PCs to be at the same level but of different complexity, it was completely viable to satisfy the need for low complexity without that having any impact on the robustness of the newbie's PC, or the sorts of adventures the newbie could participate in. At least for me, this seemed like a clever design approach.

It did to me, as well, until I was corrected multiple times by other fans who pointed out that the design team never stated that this was their purpose. They offered dial-in campaign complexity, yes, but the actual premise of high-complexity characters playing alongside and with full compatibity to low-complexity characters was never actually proposed.

But now, Mearls seems to be saying "If you want the simple PC experience, you also have to have the less robust PC experience, and only a limited range of scenarios will be viable, which may not include the full range of fantasy tropes."

I just reread the article and I cannot even begin to extrapolate this from what he says.

For the reasons I've given, though, I think that as far as the newbie thing is concerned this is a strictly backwards step from earlier approaches that they talked about, and I think that's a pity.

I really don't think we know enough about this implementation to critique it yet, particularly not in any specific way, but I will say that having a three-level tier, a 12-level tier, and a five-level tier just tweaks my nose something fierce. I liked the three even tiers of D&D4 -- I could've done with a fourth tier below heroic (I called it "brave tier"), but there was elegance in D&D4's implementation. This just doesn't feel right, and on that point I agree.

 

[DMZ2112]

DMZ has suggested that because of so much structure in 4th why do you even need a DM? Why not just use a computer.

For the purpose of clarity, I did not suggest that (in this thread). I asked, if a DM's purpose is not to fudge, why have one? That's an edition-independent thought.

 

[pemerton]

Calling 4th a 'miniature combat game' helps me, in my brain, to distill the differences in approach these games have. Its just one way of looking at it.

<snip>

The reason, I think, that these thread go round and round and never end has to do with the basic fundamentals of what makes these games different beasts, but trying to get to the heart of that difference usually leads to a lot of misunderstandings and defensiveness.

The approach I try to use is to start from the fact that the person I'm talking to is playing an RPG, and then try to reason back from that - "Given this person is (i) playing and RPG, and (ii) wants this thing that strikes me as really weird, what are they doing differently from me, or what do they value differently from me, such that in their framework it makes sense."

I find it also helps to know what sorts of other RPGs they might have experience with, because this can help hone in on other models of play.

DMZ has suggested that because of so much structure in 4th why do you even need a DM? Why not just use a computer.

But 4e, at least as most people play it, clearly does involve a GM. So what is the GM for? What does [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] have in mind?

Luckily, he told us himself upthread! I haven't got the quote ready-to-hand, but my paraphrase is along these lines: I want the GM to be able to frame challenging situations for the players, and then, in the resoution of those situations, I want the GM to go no holds barred for the NPCs and monsters, and the players to go no holds barred for the PCs, and by application of the mechanics we'll find out who overcomes whom, or what compromise is reached.

If the GM has to not only play the NPCs but also "be" the mechanics, than this approach breaks down - because the GM now has a conflict of interest between playing the NPCs as hard as s/he can, and being a fair resolver of conflicts between them and the PCs.

But that doesn't mean you can replace the GM with a computer. The computer can't play NPCs with personality. The computer can't decide that, because of how you spoke to his manservant, you have a -2 penalty on your Diplomacy rolls with the king. Generally, the computer can't provide colour in the same way a GM can (better visuals, worse patter) and can't adjudicate fictional positioning in anything like the same way.

 

[pemerton]

Oh, it's in dispute.

Then I would have thought you're not a big fan of Mearls' idea of using Apprentice tier to shepherd in newbies.

It did to me, as well, until I was corrected multiple times by other fans who pointed out that the design team never stated that this was their purpose. They offered dial-in campaign complexity, yes, but the actual premise of high-complexity characters playing alongside and with full compatibity to low-complexity characters was never actually proposed.

I read it. I would say around a year or so ago, but my memory is not that good. It was framed as a rhetorical question, or perhaps a hypothesis, along the lines of "Imagine a D&D where you can play your tweaked-out 3E/4e style PC alongside your friend playing his/her barebones classic D&D style PC. Wouldn't that be terrific?"

Can someone else on the thread with better Legends & Lore fu than me dig it up?