D&D 4E [4e] Paladin (feat) advice needed

[Manbearcat]

Despite being mechanically as different as night and day, 4e captures a similar result. In fact, they may not actually be that much different! Both games have clear, overt rules the players can see and leverage. Both have important guidelines for the DM--but specific advice to disregard those guidelines when it makes for a better game. Both put an emphasis on party diversity to avoid issues during play (DW classes tend to have one Core Thing, so two Fighters can be kind of dull; 4e classes have their roles, and having the four bases covered is Pretty Important). Sure, the specific mechanical implementation is different, but I mean, 4e's keywords are effectively identical to DW's tags, in that they point to specific game-rule elements and are often used for balance of some kind (consider the number of DW classes that have the "you ignore the Clumsy tag on armor you wear" feature!)

You're preaching to the choir. I've said many times that both my Cortex+ games and my Dungeon World games hew very closely (with respect to player decision-points, thematic underpinnings, and GMing principles/techniques) to my 4e games (and I've written posts analyzing why that is so). The play procedures and basic resolution mechanics have myriad superficial differences, but there is a LOT of meaningful overlap.

Part of it, frankly, is Keehnelf's ability to take a step back and tell himself, "This is a new game, with a new goal and purpose. What's that like in action? Maybe it could be fun." He doesn't expect every D&D to be the same D&D--just that it have...plausible similarity, I guess. And with our game, he's specifically pushing the system in the directions that it most thoroughly encourages: refluff things, customize your monsters the way you want them to work, have high-action high-drama scenes, be open to the strange and the crazy if your players are, etc.

I definitely feel like his experience with far, far "looser" systems is a huge boon for being a first-time 4e DM; specifically, the PbtA games.

<snip>

It's just that he can evaluate things from within their new context--as long as they don't disparage, intentionally or unintentionally, the contexts he's coming from. Because of that, I think his focus has been more on, "Wow, this is pretty solid for its goals!" rather than "Wow, this is NOT the game I expected to play!" And that difference--pleased at a thing being good for its particular flavor, rather than bothered for it not having the "right" flavor--is what has made everything else possible.

I feel that the "familiarity to indie games/PBtA system" hypothesis is pretty much moved into theorem territory. However, that might be a second order effect. Pulling back a bit, what makes it so some long-time D&D GMs are completely capable of toggling between the differences of (say) process-sim vs genre emulation or drama logic. Why can some toggle between play centered around challenge-based pacing and that centered around dramatic pacing? Why can some toggle between "push play toward conflict" and "neutral (lol?) arbiter of a stochastic system"? Why can some toggle between serial exploration of an open world and closed scenes (encounters) propelling the action?

There is something about mental framework malleability or versatility or ossification going on that has explanatory power here. It isn't just simply play preferences (a part of it yes...but not all of it). I mean we see plenty of 4e advocates outright HATE Skill Challenges and write about them in the most bastardized way possible (with utter misconceptions at the most fundamental level possible...from GMing techniques, to application of the resolution mechanics, to social contract, to player sincerity) that in no way resembles anything like what a table with players and a GM who grok (and appreciate) play propulsion based around the conflict-charged scene.

Its fascinating. I'd love to see an evolutionary psychology study done on this. Hell, I'd love to see one done on GMing and the edition wars! Obviously 8 years and 40 years aren't enough time to develop genetic adaptations, but I wonder if very superficial surmises can be drawn about non-genetic adaptations to mental frameworks over that time scale (that would start the process of putting genetic adaptations in the evolutionary pipeline).

I often wonder if I'm increasing my cognitive capacity by GMing so many different types of games or if I'm actually damaging it (or my general health) and I'm completely unaware. I'd be curious at the Cortisol levels of GMs during various moments of play. Obviously it would decrease with confidence, mental overhead reduction, and mastery...but my contention is that it would generally be elevated with respect to a standard cross-section of the human populace.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I often wonder if I'm increasing my cognitive capacity by GMing so many different types of games or if I'm actually damaging it (or my general health) and I'm completely unaware. I'd be curious at the Cortisol levels of GMs during various moments of play. Obviously it would decrease with confidence, mental overhead reduction, and mastery...but my contention is that it would generally be elevated with respect to a standard cross-section of the human populace.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am utterly at ease DMing. It is the least stressful thing imaginable. I've done it MANY 1000's of times, so its just like walking. Now, maybe I'm only a middling good DM, overall, but I am certainly practiced...

I don't think I would call Keehnelf a 'Grognard'. He's said he enjoys a somewhat 'old school' approach, but I think this is based purely on a deep ability to deploy excellent DMing skills and perhaps little need for a lot of elaborate support for those than anything else. I suspect he's just one of those guys that can pick an agenda and go with it, so he's fine with just taking each game on its own terms. I'm definitely like that as a player, I can play ANY RPG (well, there might be some infamous exception or two) and it will be at least amusing if the DM can roll with it. He just seems to be there on the DM side, from what I've been reading.

 

[pemerton]

I find it terrifically amusing to see a self-avowed grognard/old-school type groking the system right off, espousing its virtues generally (while being aware of its shortcomings), and giving specific commentary that fundamentally mirrors what several of us on these boards have been saying for years (about its proper application and the indie GMing best practices that underwrites its best usage)!

This is with no prodding from any of us that might bias him! He came to those conclusions on his own entirely. The source of the deep division on the (dis)functionality and (in)coherence of SCs has often baffled me. I do think I see some strain of shared experience and corresponding mental framework on my side of the fence (old school grognards who also have a lot of exposure in and appreciation for GMing conflict-driven, scene-based indie games). I wonder if he is another data point to that end.

There is something about mental framework malleability or versatility or ossification going on that has explanatory power here.

For what it's worth, I don't think we need to resort to sophisticated psychological theory here.

Some people are familiar with the concept of RPGs as games with rules that are intended to be followed so as to produce a play experience.

And others learned to play from AD&D 2nd ed. (Or from original AD&D played in the same spirit that would lead to 2nd ed.)

I think that explains about 95% of the playstyle/edition debates that one sees on these boards!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am utterly at ease DMing. It is the least stressful thing imaginable. I've done it MANY 1000's of times, so its just like walking. Now, maybe I'm only a middling good DM, overall, but I am certainly practiced...

I've never DM'd myself, though most every DM I've had has been a fairly experienced one. Partially because I game online, where most DMs are specifically looking to DM for one reason or another.

I don't think I would call Keehnelf a 'Grognard'. He's said he enjoys a somewhat 'old school' approach, but I think this is based purely on a deep ability to deploy excellent DMing skills and perhaps little need for a lot of elaborate support for those than anything else. I suspect he's just one of those guys that can pick an agenda and go with it, so he's fine with just taking each game on its own terms. I'm definitely like that as a player, I can play ANY RPG (well, there might be some infamous exception or two) and it will be at least amusing if the DM can roll with it. He just seems to be there on the DM side, from what I've been reading.

Perhaps "grognard" is too strong a word; I had thought that while writing the post, but figured I'd go with it and see what the response was. In the occasional moments where Keehnelf makes some commentary on his own style or preferences, though, I've seen a distinct strain of old-school thought. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I like to entertain the notion that it's entirely possible to be a "grognard"--or something very like one--while being open to the possibility of new ideas, new approaches, new avenues of gaming.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Perhaps "grognard" is too strong a word; I had thought that while writing the post, but figured I'd go with it and see what the response was. In the occasional moments where Keehnelf makes some commentary on his own style or preferences, though, I've seen a distinct strain of old-school thought. Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I like to entertain the notion that it's entirely possible to be a "grognard"--or something very like one--while being open to the possibility of new ideas, new approaches, new avenues of gaming.

Yeah, I don't really have a problem with the term. I've generally felt like deploying it for those who seem STUCK in one attitude, particularly when they not only profess no desire to play in any other style, but can't even tolerate any other types of play. When that style happens to be "old school" then 'grognard' seems to be the usual term. Of course its equally likely to prevail with other styles too. However, IME those of rigid thought usually tend to latch onto their initial RPG experience as being definitive, and in the nature of the growth pattern of RPG participants most start with fairly basic 'procedural play' concepts involving attempted high verisimilutude, detailed simulationist mechanics, and a fairly DM-centered agenda, etc. So there are a LOT of people stuck in that mode of play, whereas those with more malleable preferences tend to modify or discard many of those notions in favor of more story-centered or purely gamist concepts over time. There are of course no easy generalizations though, nor am I meaning to suggest that if you like Gygaxian OSR play you're a simpleton or a stick-in-the-mud, just that some version of that tends to form the default entry style (perhaps purely due to it being Gygax's initial creation, I'm not really sure, truthfully I suspect it is just the most obvious and simplest to wrap your head around).

 

[pemerton]

IME those of rigid thought usually tend to latch onto their initial RPG experience as being definitive, and in the nature of the growth pattern of RPG participants most start with fairly basic 'procedural play' concepts involving attempted high verisimilutude, detailed simulationist mechanics, and a fairly DM-centered agenda, etc. So there are a LOT of people stuck in that mode of play

<snip>

There are of course no easy generalizations though, nor am I meaning to suggest that if you like Gygaxian OSR play you're a simpleton or a stick-in-the-mud, just that some version of that tends to form the default entry style

I think the default entry style that you describe is much closer to 2nd ed AD&D than Gygaxian D&D, which (i) has many non-simulationist mechanics (eg wandering monsters, conventions for dungeon building) that actually get eroded over time due to the imposition of simulationist/verisimilitudinist concerns, and (ii) is not particularly GM-centred when it comes to deciding on the focus of play (though it is GM-centred when it comes to adjudication).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the default entry style that you describe is much closer to 2nd ed AD&D than Gygaxian D&D, which (i) has many non-simulationist mechanics (eg wandering monsters, conventions for dungeon building) that actually get eroded over time due to the imposition of simulationist/verisimilitudinist concerns, and (ii) is not particularly GM-centred when it comes to deciding on the focus of play (though it is GM-centred when it comes to adjudication).

I still recall, burned into my memory, a poster on RPG.net talking about how revelatory it was to him that, in Gygaxian D&D, plate armor was very intentionally designed as an XP penalty that boosted your survival. You wore plate if you were betting on dying before you could get anything at all, and you wore something light (like leather) if you wanted to go for a high-risk, high-reward game. Aesthetic and physical considerations were distinctly secondary.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the default entry style that you describe is much closer to 2nd ed AD&D than Gygaxian D&D, which (i) has many non-simulationist mechanics (eg wandering monsters, conventions for dungeon building) that actually get eroded over time due to the imposition of simulationist/verisimilitudinist concerns, and (ii) is not particularly GM-centred when it comes to deciding on the focus of play (though it is GM-centred when it comes to adjudication).

This is an interesting discussion, of course, but I won't steal away Ezekiel's thread, lol.

 

[Manbearcat]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am utterly at ease DMing. It is the least stressful thing imaginable. I've done it MANY 1000's of times, so its just like walking. Now, maybe I'm only a middling good DM, overall, but I am certainly practiced...

There are stout studies on Cortisol level and its correlation to the actor's perceived or realized ability to assert command and control and/or to self-actualize. Put another way, Cortisol levels increase or decrease in proportionate to internal locus of control. For instance, a Navy Seal's Cortisol levels will be dramatically reduced in comparison to a grunt on "routine patrol" in Fallujah.

Confident GMs who are supported by the infrastructure of a clean system (mental overhead chafe reducing), strong social contract, and mature/engaged players will surely have a reduced stress-load (and corresponding reduced Cortisol levels) when compared with GMs in an opposing paradigm.

My guess is the vast majority of GM burnout is related to those in that opposing paradigm.

 

[Manbearcat]

For what it's worth, I don't think we need to resort to sophisticated psychological theory here.

Some people are familiar with the concept of RPGs as games with rules that are intended to be followed so as to produce a play experience.

And others learned to play from AD&D 2nd ed. (Or from original AD&D played in the same spirit that would lead to 2nd ed.)

I think that explains about 95% of the playstyle/edition debates that one sees on these boards!

Oh you'll get no disagreement with me on the above (as I'm certain you know)!

However, I'm not so much interested about the playstyle/edition debates on these boards. I'm trying to sort out the machinery at work within the 4e advocate base that makes one group (of which the four of us most recently posting belong) stridently appreciate 4e's noncombat conflict resolution mechanics and the other group stridently abhor them.

I look at posts on these boards by the second group and I look at posts on RPG.net in the "Let's Read" thread under present discussion and there are a few distinct similarities in lines of dissent (of which you, I, and several others have gone to great lengths to combat). The reasoning always implies things like:

1) GMs having no idea how to dynamically change the situation as a result of a resolved action (paying heed to neither explicit stakes nor narrative trajectory).

2) Lack of usage (and understanding) of the (utterly mandatory) technique of Fail Forward.

3) GM having no idea how to frame a particular PC into a conflict-charged situation that they have to address RIGHT NOW.

4) Fundamental breakdowns at the play procedure level (things like initiative being used in a gamist fashion rather than as intended - if used at all - which is as sort of tacit social contract for spotlight passing...and then weird things arising from this like "passing turns?")

5) Various breakdowns at the social contract level.

There are other aspects of it, but those hit most of the relevant notes. Does the "groomed on heavy metaplot, GM-force-laden, sim-ish AD&D 2e" cause some of this? Or the 3.x "rule for every interaction with extremely discrete action resolution" serial world exploration (rather than discrete scenes?) cause some of this? Combination of both?

Maybe. Though even if the answer is "probably" or even "yes", my musings still persist, I think. Why can someone groomed on those conceits and play procedures not pivot from that framework to another (if that is indeed what is happening here)? Perhaps the answer of why someone who appreciates Gygaxian D&D or OD&D can pivot to discrete, abstract scene resolution, with attendant action declaration/resolution which is coherent with the framework (propelled by explicit stakes, drama logic as a principle, and Fail Forward as a technique) is because there is some fundamental overlap between the two approaches to play.

Whatever the reason, some sort of cognitive dissonance within the 4e advocate camp is still...going...on (much to my chagrin). Meanwhile this brand new 4e GM (who is an old school GM) has immediately grasped 4e SCs conceptually and is using all the same language and comparisons that several of us have used to explain them over the last several years, citing the same systems, their resolution machinery and philosophical underpinnings. I mean remember all of these people saying "WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING ISN'T IN THE DMG". And we said "uhhhh...yes it is...it is just written this way...but this is what they mean." Now he is doing the same thing, out of nowhere, with seemingly no exposure to all the many words we've spilled on the matter over the last several years.

I find that very interesting