D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

I'm certainly not going to disagree with that, but whether or not something is satisfyingly dramatic will vary wildly from person to person. For some people - many of the people who are drawn to process-sim - any amount of genre/literary/trope-consistent drama is just a bonus on top of the existing (trope-neutral) simulation-derived drama. If that's your main goal from playing, then there are other systems which are better at delivering it (usually by sacrificing something like process-sim, which you probably don't care about).

 

[Tony Vargas]

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).

The hope was, apparently (according to an insider who pitched it) that it would bring in $100million - 4 or 5 times the revenue of the whole TTRPG at the time, nearly 7 times the size ($15mil) of the whole industry as measured (pretty badly, but it's all we've got) by ICv2 recently. Anything less than 50 mil was 'failure.'

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.

Even if every existing fan had loved it, it wouldn't have brought in the revenues hoped for.

D&D hadn't been cutting edge since 1977. 4e was revolutionary for D&D, but, without the D&D label, would have been unremarkable and not terribly innovative back in 1990.

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.

That's the kind of hazy, narrow distinction the Role v Roll set tried to draw in the 90s to hold up 'Troupe Style Storytelling' as 'real' or superior Roleplaying. Really, though, players inevitably contribute to the narrative, regardless of system or style. Games that actively encourage that could be called 'collective storytelling' to distinguish them from other RPGs without such conscious emphasis - but, it's an aspect of RP that's always there, regardless of labels.

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)?

Immersive Illusionism? Quasi-psuedo-simulation?

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.

Thing is, the premier storytelling game, unsurprisingly called 'Storyteller,' would have been as keen to distance itself from any version of D&D, since they're all way over on the other side of its false dichotomy as 'Roll Playing Games.' 4e, perhaps, as a balanced, playable RPG, even more so. The WWGS Storyteller philosophy was to present a rich setting, and consciously bad rules to force 'troupes' to reach outside the rules and engage in collective storytelling instead of 'just rolling dice' (actually playing a game). It was a lot of crap then, and remains so, now. Though, 'collective storytelling' or 'narrative' isn't a bad description of what RPG campaigns accomplish when they go well.

Rather than judgmental labels, think of accurate descriptions. 4e is a class-based Heroic Fantasy Role-playing Game. It uses a d20 resolution system, and has mechanics that are clear, balanced, and playable. It covers 30 levels divided into 3 Tiers. It presents players with many character-customization choices at both chargen and level-up (build, features, feats, skills, powers, race, background, theme, PP, ED). It uses a vague, generic 'points of light' setting in presentation, but has a few books outlining actual settings. In contrast, AD&D 2e is a class-based Heroic Fantasy RPG. It uses a mix of d20 (notoriously THAC0), %, and other dice mechanics and matrices for resolution. It's mechanics are not perfectly clear and balance is tenuous, being strongest at mid levels (~3-9) and tending to favor fighters below that and casters above (and rogues never), but it is playable with a competent DM to resolve any problems that arise. It covers 20 levels, but is theoretically open-ended. It gives players few customization choices beyond class at chargen (race, kit), and fewer at level-up (optional NWP), though that varies with class (. It provides a choice of several richly-developed settings, some fairly typical fantasy worlds, others quite unique - none as vague, generic & undeveloped as 4e's PoL, all better-supported than 4e's few published settings.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm certainly not going to disagree with that, but whether or not something is satisfyingly dramatic will vary wildly from person to person. For some people - many of the people who are drawn to process-sim - any amount of genre/literary/trope-consistent drama is just a bonus on top of the existing (trope-neutral) simulation-derived drama. If that's your main goal from playing, then there are other systems which are better at delivering it (usually by sacrificing something like process-sim, which you probably don't care about).

100 % agreed. I think you'll find that a lot of us don't dislike process-sim. We dislike covert GM force and system/agenda incoherency (which happens with systems that don't do process-sim well and/or with people tacking on a process-sim agenda to a game that pushes back hard against it).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Rather than judgmental labels, think of accurate descriptions. 4e is a class-based Heroic Fantasy Role-playing Game. It uses a d20 resolution system, and has mechanics that are clear, balanced, and playable. It covers 30 levels divided into 3 Tiers. It presents players with many character-customization choices at both chargen and level-up (build, features, feats, skills, powers, race, background, theme, PP, ED). It uses a vague, generic 'points of light' setting in presentation, but has a few books outlining actual settings.

The problem here is that your accurate description isn't useful, when I'm trying to decide which game I want to play. If you label it as heavy on the Game and Narrative, at the expense of Simulation, then I know right away that it's probably not the game I'm looking for. To contrast, you might say that 2E is equally light in all three categories, and that might not be appealing either, but then you say that 3.x sacrifices Narrative for extensive Sim and I'll know that's the one I probably want.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem here is that your accurate description isn't useful, when I'm trying to decide which game I want to play. If you label it as heavy on the Game and Narrative, at the expense of Simulation, then I know right away that it's probably not the game I'm looking for.

Accurate is useful. Meaningless isn't. GNS is a theory about how people approach games, it's damn near meaningless when it comes to analyzing what a game system actually /is/.

If you want to take a simulationist approach to a game, you treat it's rules as 'laws of physics' - no matter what kind of weird, Terry-Pratchet-esque world that gives you. You can inflict that on any game. Similarly, you can let narrative trump rules all you want, no matter how few or how many, how good or how bad said rules may be - or vice versa.

You already know which game you like, so the only 'usefulness' is in rationalizing that preference. If I contrast 4e and 2e, I might conclude that you're seriously into settings rather than systems, since that's a stand-out point in 2e's favor.

But, I also know you started with 2e, and that's a major consideration, too.

GNS? Not so much. It'll tell me the kind of campaign to expect if you were running. Personally, I don't see what's so great or terrible or incompatible about any of the three letters. S? Yes, RPG rules are de-facto laws of physics, and you can take that pretty far and possibly get an immersive (or quixotic) experience out of it. That can be fun. N? Yes, when you play an RPG, the result is a narrative, you can focus on shaping that more or less as DM or player, if you like - or not. Taking narrative into account, even letting it be the prime mover in the campaign can be fun. G? Well, it /is/ a game, duh. Playing games is fun, emphasizing the qualities that make a good game can be fun.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

100 % agreed. I think you'll find that a lot of us don't dislike process-sim. We dislike covert GM force and system/agenda incoherency (which happens with systems that don't do process-sim well and/or with people tacking on a process-sim agenda to a game that pushes back hard against it).

Yeah, I don't really have a huge problem with process-sim when it is used to add authenticity or depth to an aspect of a specific RPG. For example, if a game is really about ships, then maybe the various aspects of ship handling are completely covered in a simulationist way. It may interfere with dramatic narrative at times, but the sim COULD be a sort of 'romanticized' process (probably will be to some extent, reality is boring). If its done well then on balance it could really focus the game on that theme and give it a center.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Accurate is useful. Meaningless isn't. GNS is a theory about how people approach games, it's damn near meaningless when it comes to analyzing what a game system actually /is/.

Different rulesets lend themselves toward different approaches; 3.x is better for Sim because it uses consistent rules for PCs and NPCs, where 4E is better for Narrative because it uses narrative weight to determine NPC stats (among other things). For people who enjoy the Sim aspect of a game, they're likely to get a better experience out of a 3.x game than out of a 4E game. For people who enjoy literary-style drama, and are looking to create those situations in-game, they're likely to get a better experience from 4E.

You don't play Feng Shui for its process-sim aspects. That's just a recipe for disappointment.

 

[JamesonCourage]

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.

I just want to pipe in here to say that I have had a lot of fun with 4e, despite the things I don't prefer about it (it's not great with player-empowerment, prep time is too much for me, and the item treadmill is dreadful after a while). But I have had a lot of fun with it, and so have my players, which is probably evidenced in my long thread where I post my game sessions.

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.

Lol.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Different rulesets lend themselves toward different approaches; 3.x is better for Sim because it uses consistent rules for PCs and NPCs, where 4E is better for Narrative because it uses narrative weight to determine NPC stats (among other things).

See, that sounds like a rationalization for dividing D&D fans into 3.x fans and 4e fans and calling their differences irreconcileable.

But, 3.x and 4e were both fun. I played each for it's full run. 4e is better balanced, 3.x has more customization options. In 4e I can play a Warlord, in 3.5 I can build a tactical reach fighter. Both are RPGs, both modern forms of D&D. You could say that 3.x is Simulationist because it uses equally involved write-ups for PC and NPCs, you could say that 4e is more Gamist because it's rules hold together better. You could say 3.x is more Gamist because it has a deeper meta-game with greater rewards for system mastery. You could say 4e is more Narrativist because it gives some PCs more agency (comes closer to giving all PCs comparable agency would be more on the mark).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

See, that sounds like a rationalization for dividing D&D fans into 3.x fans and 4e fans and calling their differences irreconcileable.

Not entirely. There's more to 3.x than Sim, and there's more to 4E than Narrative. It's entirely possible that someone might like the Gamist aspects of each. If someone mostly cares about process-Sim, though, then that person is probably going to enjoy 3.x more than 4E. If someone cares about encouraging Narrative-drama and genre conventions, then that person is probably going to enjoy 4E more than 3.x.

It's only Rationalization if you're inventing it as an excuse to avoid admitting the actual truth. This explanation seems more like the actual truth; there's nothing unlikely or distasteful about the idea that different people have different preferences, and different rulesets promote different styles.