D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[innerdude]

Rules as laws of physics are de-facto the case, in one sense, the sense of using them that way as a matter of DMing style, and the antithesis of the style you're describing, which puts story and character first. No matter how lite the rules, if you approach them as 'laws of physics,' you're not approaching them as story-facilitating, 'say yes,' fail forward, or however you want to characterize that alternative style.

..snip..

You just finished explaining that 'process sim' had nothing to do with it, so I'll ignore that one....

I can see how my comments might be seen as contradictory---"I don't want to be beholden to process sim so I can push forward the story elements, but I really like process sim!"

I think what I was trying to get at is that with Savage Worlds, I find it easier to interpret "fail forward" or "say yes or roll the dice" instances because the nature of the system itself gives me a clear indication of 1) what the characters are inherently capable of relative to the game world, and 2) the players know how to interpret that capability when making their choices in game. In this sense, it is a fairly linear "process sim"---"I want to hack that computer, I have a relative skill of X, my character is fairly certain under the circumstances that (s)he has a reasonable chance of success."

Roll the dice, process the degree of success or failure (which Savage Worlds has hard-coded into the rules), interpret the results.

But what does this have to do with creative fictional positioning? The point I was trying to make is that the combination of simple, elegant process sim + player freedom in realizing a character concept builds a natural sense of fictional positioning for both the GM and player. Once players understand the basic premise / genre / background in which their characters live, in Savage Worlds they tend to drive their own "fictional positions," and then act in ways that support their positions.

For example, in my current game, one of the players is playing a guy in his mid-50s, who specializes in electronic gadgetry, who's unlucky (has one less fortune point / "Benny" to spend per session than the other players), who developed some moderate combat and shooting skill as a con man and former biker. This is all fully supported by in-game mechanics, that when "activated" in fairly typical process-sim ways, reinforce where he is. I don't have to build fictional positioning around him, it's already there, codified in the way his character is expressed based on the rules.

4e actually probably hits the same notes, in that the mechanical expressions of class / race / powers / destiny choices "push" the character to a natural fictional position. Moreso than D&D 3e pushes characters into that position, since D&D 3e lacks the embedded keywords in 4e powers, and in many cases 3e's class, feat, and skill combos simply fail to realize the concept. (The whole "defender" idea, as noted earlier, is actually pretty dang hard to create in D&D 3).

Another problem I always had with D&D 3 was how quickly the numbers scaled beyond reasonable interpretive results. "Really, you have a +17 to stealth at level 4? Wow, um, okay....." When a player's character sheet basically says they're the equivalent of the world's greatest ninja at stealth at 4th level, how am I supposed to process that in terms of placing the character within the fiction? "Bounded accuracy" was 5e's way of addressing this, I think; Savage Worlds does the same by specifically limiting the codified upper boundary of skill (you can't have a skill higher than a d12).

Now does any of this lead to a truly Narrativist, "Story Now" game session? Not really. I'm not trying to get my players to buy in to a "dramatic premise," and force all of the action to examine that premise. But having characters that naturally gravitate toward fictional positions---and having the system support it naturally, with plausible mechanical results---makes it easier for me to introduce scene frames (and elements within those frames) that carry more fictional, narrative weight. I have much more time to insert plot hooks, NPC motivations, setting elements, etc. that back up and reinforce the PC's positioning.

In this regard, I think 4e and Savage Worlds are very similar. In fact, the relative ease of GM-ing for both of these systems may be more of a factor than the process sim vs. genre convention effects of the mechanics themselves.

 

[Tony Vargas]

in many cases 3e's class, feat, and skill combos simply fail to realize the concept. (The whole "defender" idea, as noted earlier, is actually pretty dang hard to create in D&D 3).

I know this wasn't the thrust of your post, but I feel the need to jump to the defense of 3.x, here. It does present a tremendously customizeable character build system. With enough system mastery and enough permitted material, you could build to virtually any concept.

The 3.x fighter did 'lack aggro' as it was sometimes put at the time, but there was a Knight class, later, that was meant to be more 'sticky,' and it was always possible to use tactics and build strategies to make a fighter function in something like the defender role (also with aspects of the controller role, in some cases). For instance, a melee type could always hold a choke point as a way of defending allies. With the right build, a fighter could hold a choke 'point' 30 feet across. Marking is a cleaner 'aggro' mechanic, and requires almost no system mastery to use well, tactically, so it's an improvement. But the fighter defined the 'defender' role long before 4e formalized and mechanically supported it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Haven't noticed you contributing nor even acknowledging anything of that nature.

I contributed back on page 1 - I like the multi-class system, where you spend feats to swap out powers from different classes. I think it's a really neat way of adding interesting choices to a game, without messing up the power balance too much, and it's taking advantage of the fact that all classes use the AEDU structure.

I also really like the concept behind the consistent scaling of the level bonus, instead of what 3.x did with the various saves going up at different rates and AC only ever going up from magic items, although I perhaps think that it progresses a little too fast.

It's been a lot of pages since either of those things have come up.

And I'm still not clear on what it means. Either I'm proud to say that I'm an Illusionist, because that means the DM is trying to craft the illusion of a living and breathing world where the characters exist beyond just the plot; or I take umbrage at the accusation of being an Illusionist, because it implies that the DM is only giving players the illusion of freedom in anything they do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And I'm still not clear on what it means. Either I'm proud to say that I'm an Illusionist, because that means the DM is trying to craft the illusion of a living and breathing world where the characters exist beyond just the plot; or I take umbrage at the accusation of being an Illusionist, because it implies that the DM is only giving players the illusion of freedom in anything they do.

Niether's perfect, but I'm guessing some umbrage is in order...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I gotta admit, you're sounding more and more rigid and incapable of adaptation in play style at even the most basic levels.

If by "basic' you mean 'fundamental', then yeah. Just like it's not a video game if there's no video or game, changing something at a basic level is going to turn off more players than if you change something at a more detailed level.

Our views are 'mainstream' enough that the vast majority of games designed today incorporate some version of these concepts explicitly in the design of the game. There may be many casual players from past years who haven't really absorbed all of the current trends in RPGs, but IME they almost invariably simply need to be exposed to them to understand and utilize them.

There's a reason why 4E wasn't as successful as everyone had hoped. (Am I allowed to say that? I don't mean it as any form of disrespect). I mean, there was a considerable backlash from people who didn't like the new style. Maybe it was just too cutting edge for 2008.

I have a feeling that the trends will end up cyclical. The new styles will continue to evolve, and the old styles will regain popularity only to lose it again after a few years.

I mean you are very welcome to your preferences, but you have at times said some things that more than verged on stating that your preferences were superior. The overall impression is one of a player who has a very narrow view of RPGs, doesn't accept that playstyles much outside his own are even RPGs at all (you called them 'Story Games' and put them in a separate category) and pretty much outright stated that what I played "wasn't challenging" and I "didn't earn success" playing that way.

Labels are useful. I don't want to accidentally get stuck buying a game that has so many elements that I find distasteful.

To me, when you make such a huge change - going from one narrator with several people just playing a role, to everyone playing roles and narrating - then it's a fundamentally different thing. It warrants some way of making that distinction known. I guess you could say that they're both sub-sets of the same type of activity, so maybe they're all Role-Playing Games and your thing is a Role-Playing Game (Story-Telling Game) and my thing is a Role-Playing Game (... what)? I dunno. I don't have a specific term, other than RPG, for the thing that I've always known as just a regular RPG.

I'm not trying to make up some derogatory label for the thing that I don't like. I've seen more than a few games that refer to themselves as Story-Telling Games, presumably with the intent of distancing themselves from D&D and other traditional RPGs. If there are better terms out there, then please let me know.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And I'm still not clear on what it means. Either I'm proud to say that I'm an Illusionist, because that means the DM is trying to craft the illusion of a living and breathing world where the characters exist beyond just the plot; or I take umbrage at the accusation of being an Illusionist, because it implies that the DM is only giving players the illusion of freedom in anything they do.

I think it would be fairest to say that the style of play you enjoy is one which is very susceptible to DM force and where the players have relatively little leverage against it. You could of course still run a game that takes [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]'s strategy of just specifying EVERY possible rules interaction with the world, and very robust resolution mechanics that are never varied. IMHO 4e mostly does the latter, but obviously not to JC's satisfaction. Still, I don't think just because a table is playing a process-sim agenda game that the DM is practicing Illusionism, just that most DMs in that situation aren't good enough to avoid it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Still, I don't think just because a table is playing a process-sim agenda game that the DM is practicing Illusionism, just that most DMs in that situation aren't good enough to avoid it.

So we could say that Illusionism (as a bad thing) is a potential pitfall a process-sim game? I can buy that. It takes a strong DM to not abuse power, when there's nobody to challenge it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If by "basic' you mean 'fundamental', then yeah. Just like it's not a video game if there's no video or game, changing something at a basic level is going to turn off more players than if you change something at a more detailed level.

Yeah, you have a fairly specific set of preferences. That's OK, but of course the world may leave you behind. Swing was a ubiquitous dance style once, but if you like it today you have to find the small percentage of people who like that one type of dancing so much that they keep it up even though it went out of style at least 60 years ago.

There's a reason why 4E wasn't as successful as everyone had hoped. (Am I allowed to say that? I don't mean it as any form of disrespect). I mean, there was a considerable backlash from people who didn't like the new style. Maybe it was just too cutting edge for 2008.

I have a feeling that the trends will end up cyclical. The new styles will continue to evolve, and the old styles will regain popularity only to lose it again after a few years.

Oh, I don't actually disagree too much with you in a sense. I think a lot of what happened with 4e though was that people cracked the book, were put off by the fact that it changed things, not how it changed them or what it changed them to, and never really gave it a fair chance from there. WotC exacerbated the whole thing in several ways. They poked fun at older styles of play, they failed to really understand and articulate a lot of what was better about 4e, and they made horrible adventures and adventure writing advice that turned off even me (luckily I don't run canned adventures pretty much ever, so it had minimal impact on me).

I agree too that trends are cyclical. 3.x and the OGL/SRD lead to a whole backlash and release of many OSR games just at the time 4e was being released. It is highly antithetical to a lot of what the OSR people hold dear, and garnered their wrath in spades. I expect the OSR cycle is about spent now though, and games will start to swing back in some other direction. Ironically if WotC hadn't reversed course with 5e they might have a game well-positioned to capitalize on that (4e with some improvements). 5e will have to do it for them, but I suspect they may have mistaken cycles for more fundamental market splits.

Labels are useful. I don't want to accidentally get stuck buying a game that has so many elements that I find distasteful.

To me, when you make such a huge change - going from one narrator with several people just playing a role, to everyone playing roles and narrating - then it's a fundamentally different thing. It warrants some way of making that distinction known. I guess you could say that they're both sub-sets of the same type of activity, so maybe they're all Role-Playing Games and your thing is a Role-Playing Game (Story-Telling Game) and my thing is a Role-Playing Game (... what)? I dunno. I don't have a specific term, other than RPG, for the thing that I've always known as just a regular RPG.

Well, we broke them down by agenda, roughly. Many people hold that there are dramatic, gamist, and simulationist agendas. All games address each of them in some fashion or relate to those aspects that all games have. So you're playing games with a highly simulationist agenda, whereas 4e is much more gamist/narrativist. They are all RPGs, we all play characters.

I'm not trying to make up some derogatory label for the thing that I don't like. I've seen more than a few games that refer to themselves as Story-Telling Games, presumably with the intent of distancing themselves from D&D and other traditional RPGs. If there are better terms out there, then please let me know.

Oh, I'm not really offended, I think 'Story-Telling Game' is OK, though I do believe its the narrativist subset of RPGs, not a separate thing. The 'earned it' thing might have been a BIT extreme, but I don't think anyone here is super touchy these days. It was certainly one of the buttons that got pushed a whole bunch during the edition war, so it can raise some flags...

Anyway, the discussions that have happened here have been pretty good-natured, in good faith, at least IMHO. Much better than what could be had 2 years ago, even on EW.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So we could say that Illusionism (as a bad thing) is a potential pitfall a process-sim game? I can buy that. It takes a strong DM to not abuse power, when there's nobody to challenge it.

Yeah, and that was one of the advantages of the evolution of more participatory systems, they diluted DM power in some sense. Then even beyond that are transparent mechanics like 4e has, which tend to expose DM bad faith even when it is still happening. JC holds that he can have 'the best of both world's' from what I understand, whereas most of us see something like 4e as a good antidote and something that we're happy to play.

 

[Manbearcat]

So we could say that Illusionism (as a bad thing) is a potential pitfall a process-sim game? I can buy that. It takes a strong DM to not abuse power, when there's nobody to challenge it.

I think it would be fairest to say that the style of play you enjoy is one which is very susceptible to DM force and where the players have relatively little leverage against it. You could of course still run a game that takes @JamesonCourage's strategy of just specifying EVERY possible rules interaction with the world, and very robust resolution mechanics that are never varied. IMHO 4e mostly does the latter, but obviously not to JC's satisfaction. Still, I don't think just because a table is playing a process-sim agenda game that the DM is practicing Illusionism, just that most DMs in that situation aren't good enough to avoid it.

Beyond the resolution mechanics and the GMing advice being insufficient to the task of fulfilling a full-bore, objective process-sim agenda, there is another huge, huge angle that works against things (hence driving GMing toward covert GM force - illusionism - or a passive participationism by the players). That angle is that a purely objective process-sim agenda does not lead to satisfyingly dramatic outcomes (from a genre/literary conceit/trope perspective) as an emergent aspect of authentically applying play procedures. Once folks sit around the table for 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, a full session, 2 sessions (etc) and there are maybe 1 or 2 moments (at best) that are satisfyingly dramatic, an enormous amount of conflict of interest begins to manifest.

This is The Forge's idea of "agenda incoherency" (there is also system incoherency; eg when a system doesn't naturally propogate its alleged agenda as a result of authentically applying play procedures), which I happen to be a big subscriber to; Multiple agendas that are at tension or flat-out diametrically opposed. The inevitable consequence of which is that the players (GM is inclusive here) have to go outside of the prescribed play procedures and force/drift play toward their sought ends. For hardcore sim that doesn't lead to satisfying dramatic outcomes, the answer is illusionism. This illusionism is aided by opaque or incoherent rules and/or something like WW's Golden Rule. The more clear the rules, the more coherent the interactions with PC build mechanics, the more coherent and transparent the GMing agenda/principles, if all dice are rolled on the table and/or by the players, (all of which constrain GM latitude), then the more difficult it is for the GM to covertly force the outcome they're looking for (be it dramatic, challenge or other).

I should note that a gamist/simulationist/narrativist hybrid agenda is even more prone to illusionism (if the aspects of the system I've mentioned prior and directly above are in place). This is because you are looking for:

1) satisfying challenge

2) satisfying physical causal logic as an emergent property of apply play procedures/consulting resolution mechanics

3) satisfying dramatic outcomes and sufficiently addressing thematic premise

Those 3 are almost always brutally at tension with one another (and again, sometimes diametrically opposed). This is why AD&D 2e is the mother-load of illusionism play. It purports to value all 3 of those agendas simultaneously (in equal measure) while the system itself doesn't consistently produce/satisfy any 1 of those 3 (merely by the authentic application of play procedures) by themselves...let alone all 3 simultaneously! How do we get consistent challenges, a world driven by empirical/reproducable causal logic, and satisfyingly dramatic outcomes (from a genre conceit/literary trope perspective)? Covert GM force. Illusionism. That is how. And you see it advocated for on this board left and right (even if people don't realize that illusionism - the subordination of player agency to GM will - is precisely what they're advocating for).