A Wrought Iron Fence Made of Tigers

[radferth]

What kind of story can you tell with both C&C and 3.5 that you can't tell with 4e?

It's not really a matter of could. I'm sure if 4e was the only RPG to which I had access, I'd modify this and that to make it do what I wanted. But why go to all that trouble when I already have systems that do what I want? If I want to run a game with lots of social interaction, and relatively little combat, I'm probably going to use True 20. If I want to run a campaign consisting largely of old 1e modules I have, I am probably going to use C&C. I guess if I were going to run something with a lot of combat set-pieces against evenly-matched foes, I'd use 4e. But that's not the type of campaign I would be interested in running. That's not to say there is anything wrong with 4e, it's just not the one I choose to run.

 

[I'm A Banana]

For instance, 4E monsters - they are generic enough they can be easily reflavored to fit your needs. So if you know you want fire-breathing wolf monsters that attack the PC in a medium-sized group in open terrain, you can simply find a monster of the appropriate level and role and flavor as needed. But conversely, it's hard to draw much inspiration from a monster's stats - you can't look a demon, see what it can do, and use that for an idea of what plans it might try, as you could in previous editions.
...
I can definitely see where Kamikaze Midget is coming from - for a campaign that's more about exploration than nonstop action (combat or otherwise), having rules that wait for you to give them purpose can make the DM's job a lot harder.

Hey, he gets it! That's it right there. The disconnect is something that is deeply unsatisfying for me, just as it is when I can't say "no" to the quest-giver in a computer RPG. And while it's certainly possible to overlook it, in moderation, with enough other shiny things going on, I find that for me, D&D 4e makes it too obvious and necessary by butting a bigger wedge between mechanics and story than there was before.

First thing you should do is describe what you mean when you say "story" in RPGs. Does that mean the DM telling a story to passive players? The players playing PCs as protagonists, the DM providing opposition? All players as co-DMs / authors, not really getting into character? There are lots of ways to take it.

Well, this is part of the issue -- I think that D&D should be telling me what that means. What "story" means in an MMO is different from what "story" means in a linear "push X to advance the plot" style RPG, which is different than a "branching paths" approach like PS: Torment, but they all tell you what they mean by that. Whatever D&D means, it should provide the tools to play that way.

I'm using "story" and "flavor" pretty interchangeably here, myself. I think this is in line with the quote where, if you choose to do one thing, something different will happen than if you choose to do another thing, and that difference will help tell you what the game is all about.

* Character creation. You create characters who are good at what they do. It's hard not to.
* Quests. Mechanical support for story, as in "What does the protagonist want?" Rewards for playing an interesting character.
* Systemized, abstract, complex conflict resolution mechanics. Hit Points don't mean much except how much fight you have left. Words can cut as deep as a sword.
* Systemized, abstract, complex conflict resolution mechanics, Take 2. Also known as skill challenges. This sub-system puts the characters into motion: a goal to reach, skills to get them there, and a systemized way of knowing when it's over. Needs work on how to use it, but I like it.
* Helpful advice on how to improvise. Page 42. Don't need to say any more.
* Helpful advice on how to create fit adversity. Also known as creating encounters and monster creation by level and type.

Take all of that together, what do you have?

Conflict resolution mechanics and conflict generation mechanics. Which do give you the heart of drama, but they aren't directed toward any purpose (aside from, debatably, generating more conflict).

What's the point of all this killing things and taking their stuff? Why do it? And how do you do it? Does how you do it matter? Does the fact that I kick a goblin in the leg or punch him in the face or shoot him with a spell have any difference, after I'm done with it? Are there any consequences? A game is better when it can weave these mechanics into something overreaching. Some greater effect.

Is D&D 4e supposed to be 300? Where are my rules for dramatic speeches and rocking soundtracks and walls of corpses? Is D&D supposed to be Die Hard? Where are my rules for jets and trucks (or the fantasy equivalent thereof), my rules for playing "normal joes" who just get a little bit tough? What is this trying to accomplish?

As it sits, rules for conflict generation and conflict resolution only accomplish the conflict grind, and WoW does that with prettier graphics and less hassle. I guess that is a certain something, but it seems awfully empty to me -- I think the game could be so much better if it had a reason for these conflicts, something they were working towards, and something that the mechanics of the conflict actually supported them working towards.

Mostly I think that because I enjoy a game that has a specific agenda and feel more than I enjoy a generic game that you insert your own plotline into and it plays the same regardless.

And magical 'ammo'? I don't remember any edition of D&D where a good night's rest didn't get all that back...

I'm glossing over a lot of the post because it argues specifics when I'm arguing generalities, but this touches on the generalities, so I'm calling it out.

A good night's rest, in any edition, fixes all your magical bullets back in their holster.

That's part of the reason why D&D doesn't seem like a "dungeon survival" game to me. I don't see characters starving (though there are rules that I'm a goober and missed), tiring out from making sword blows, breaking their weapons and armor, eating rats cooked on a spit, and struggling to light a fire with damp wood. You can make it that to a certain extent, sure, but the rules don't really imply that this is what D&D is about. They just imply the conflict (which, if that's all they WANT the game to be about, seems unusually shallow to me).

The rules don't really tell you to go wear your characters down through gradual resource depletion over the course of weeks and months away from home. If that's what the game is, there are so many things throughout the rules that contradict that feel that you're not really going to get it unless you modify the game. If D&D is trying to be a dungeon survival game, it's not doing a very good job, and it seems to make some blatantly countering choices.

I think there's a fence between the game and some types of story, and that this has been true for every RPG ever made. If you find the right kind of story, you'll find no fence.

The fence wasn't so much a barrier between me and the story as the mechanics and the story. Tripping an ooze is the same thing as tripping a hobgoblin, the mechanics are the only thing that matters. Generating a monster yields a pile of numbers to which you still need to add characterization and motive.

Versus something like Sanity, which tells you that your character will be slowly loosing their mind. Or Fear/Horror/Madness, which tells you your character will sometimes be helpless against their emotions. Or the Jenga tower in Dread, which tells you that every choice you make might send your whole scheme crashing down and, sooner or later, almost certainly will.

What do the quest mechanics tell me about D&D? That I will be in encounters. What do encounters tell me about D&D? That I will be fighting things in detail, or making skill checks in abstract. What is D&D trying to accomplish? Does it just want me to fight things and make skill checks? Because that seems kind of a dull reason to get 6 people together for four hours on a semi-regular basis, I can't imagine that "just" being the reason. Does it want me to survive in the horrible lands far away from civilization? That sounds cool but why, then, do I regain all of my endurance by taking a nap?

That iron fence of tigers means that the dice I roll aren't going to have an effect on the story I tell. Which, for me, is a lot less satisfying than the dice I roll having an effect on the story I tell.

When I try and trip an ooze, I want something different to happen than when I try to trip a bugbear, because that helps me tell a story about Trippy McTrippenstein who liked to trip everyone he meets but then met an ooze and had to think of a clever new way around it. I can tell this story alongside the story of Scardey Bill, Trippy's best friend who would always hide behind rocks when the bugbears game along, but then saw his friend in trouble and moved to help him. This is a story about the Power of Friendship, and it reinforces the idea that friends help friends, and it is shown by Trippy and Bill having different abilities to handle the things that both of them will be encountering, so that neither could survive on their own. Hearts are warmed. And if something is about the Power of Friendship, maybe Trippy and Bill will gain combo abilities that work well together, maybe we can track their friendship with a Buddy Score system, and maybe if one of them goes down, the other can hulk out because THAT'S MY BEST FRIEND RAAARGH.

With the iron fence of tigers between mechanics and flavor, it doesn't matter what I'm fighting, I can do the same stuff to it, so it doesn't imply that there's any real story to be told about it except whatever I want to use to gloss over the effect, and whatever I use, doesn't matter.

I want my story (my flavor) to matter.

 

[LostSoul]

Conflict resolution mechanics and conflict generation mechanics. Which do give you the heart of drama, but they aren't directed toward any purpose (aside from, debatably, generating more conflict).

Quests. That's what they should be directed at. If you are inclined to story, make the Quests about what the protagonists (i.e. the PCs) want.

What's the point of all this killing things and taking their stuff? Why do it? And how do you do it? Does how you do it matter? Does the fact that I kick a goblin in the leg or punch him in the face or shoot him with a spell have any difference, after I'm done with it? Are there any consequences? A game is better when it can weave these mechanics into something overreaching. Some greater effect.

• The Quests are what the PCs want.
• The things to kill are their opposition.
• You do it because you're a protagonist in a story and there's something in your way.
• You get rid of the opposition in whatever way your character chooses. Fighting, sneaking, talking, magic.
• How you do it matters. There's a difference between removing opposition with carefully placed words (Diplomacy), cowing someone (Intimidate), and stabbing him in the face (any number of attack options). How you resolve the conflict should change the situation. If it resolves the situation, your story is over.
• Killing someone with violence is probably the same no matter what method of violence you choose (except maybe for Clerics and Paladins). But it's not the only way to remove obstacles in your path.
• The consequences are based in the situation that's unfolding in the game. How do other NPCs react?

As it sits, rules for conflict generation and conflict resolution only accomplish the conflict grind, and WoW does that with prettier graphics and less hassle. I guess that is a certain something, but it seems awfully empty to me -- I think the game could be so much better if it had a reason for these conflicts, something they were working towards, and something that the mechanics of the conflict actually supported them working towards.

Use Quests. Have the players make driven characters. Use the rules for conflict generation to make sure the PCs face opposition that's not too hard or too easy. Use the rules for conflict resolution to determine if the PCs are successful and how they succeed or fail.

What 4e is missing is a "And this is how much I want to succeed" mechanic in combat. (Not so in Skill Challenges.) Healing surges could have done this somehow, but they don't.

This is a story about the Power of Friendship, and it reinforces the idea that friends help friends, and it is shown by Trippy and Bill having different abilities to handle the things that both of them will be encountering, so that neither could survive on their own.

So you want a hard-coded theme in the game?

D&D kinda has that: if you work together, you're more likely to get what you want than if you go it alone.

With the iron fence of tigers between mechanics and flavor, it doesn't matter what I'm fighting, I can do the same stuff to it, so it doesn't imply that there's any real story to be told about it except whatever I want to use to gloss over the effect, and whatever I use, doesn't matter.

I want my story (my flavor) to matter.

Why do you think it doesn't matter?

For example, I'm running a PbP game. The backstory is: NPC and PC love each other. NPC kills PC. PC comes back from the dead with a hate-on for NPC.

The current situation is: NPC and PC go through a round or two of fighting. NPC calls PC a traitor.

PC2 then steps up and reams out the NPC with words. He calls NPC a traitor for killing the one he loved.

PC2 has to make a roll.

How NPC reacts to the PC's words are important. The die roll will determine that. The situation will change based on the die roll. The story is affected by the die roll.

 

[Stalker0]

If I want to run a game with lots of social interaction, and relatively little combat, I'm probably going to use True 20. If I want to run a campaign consisting largely of old 1e modules I have, I am probably going to use C&C. That's not to say there is anything wrong with 4e, it's just not the one I choose to run.

I understand what your saying, I just don't get the why. I mean, we all have our favorite systems, but you make it sound like its hard to run a social game in 4e. I mean sure, 4e has a lot of combat effects, but how much stuff do you need to run a social game?

I'm currently playing a fighter in a 4e game, and he has almost the best strength you can afford. I also have a 14 cha, and diplomacy as a trained skill (I took the warlord multiclass). I am full capable in combat, yet I have excellent social skills.

So what other rules do you need to make the social game happen? Lots of classes make great use out of charisma already, rogues, paladins, warlocks, inspiring warlords, etc. They can all pick up diplomacy and intimidate etc and be great in combat and social scenes.

 

[Scribble]

In the end, I'm thinking it's not a problem with the rules. It's a poblem you're having with the rules. They work very well for me, and the style of game I run.

9 times out of 10 I have an idea for an adventure, and the backstory. Rules tend to get in the way.

I much preffer a system that lets me mutate the rules to my flavor then forcing me to mutate my flavor to its rules.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't think you quite grok my meaning. I'm not saying that 4e mechanics distract from any story. I'm saying they rather expressly don't support any story. They are independent of description. And that this seems to be part of my issue with them.

At some point between the printing of Wizards Present: X and Y preview books and the 4e core books, SCRAMJET got ejected from the game-design cockpit and FLYWHEEL had to cover the entirety of the program. This, I believe is solely the reaction WotC got to Dragon Tail Cut, Golden Wyvern Adept, Animus, and a bunch of other flavor-inspired ideas that got cut because of the NERD RAGE of "How DARE WotC dictate my game fluff!" Go back and read the preview books; WotC had a much more detailed interaction between their world and the rules, but much of it was ejected (wrongly, IMHO) for this litely-flavored ruleset that alludes to deeper meaning but divorces concept form implementation, creating rules that seem superficially shallow because there is no "reason" backing them up.

Compare that to older D&D rules: dwarves couldn't be wizards because of a flavor reason. It was spelled out. I doubt the Internet of 1977 would have suffered a hemorrhage that "Oh NOES! GARY IS DICTATING MY GAME FLUFF! I WANT DWARVEN MAGES! Gary Gygax MUST be stopped!!11!"

Personally, the greatest disservice WotC gave its customer base was going back and remove the fluff around the rules. Its the reason the Monster Manual reads like the SRD doc and why really cool ideas like Animus and Mage Orders were scrapped for little or no flavor alternatives (or simply left hanging).

WotC had no problem dictating fluff in 3e (see: paladin, barbarian, prestige classes, monks, warlocks, etc) why the sudden aversion now?

 

[billd91]

At some point between the printing of Wizards Present: X and Y preview books and the 4e core books, SCRAMJET got ejected from the game-design cockpit and FLYWHEEL had to cover the entirety of the program. This, I believe is solely the reaction WotC got to Dragon Tail Cut, Golden Wyvern Adept, Animus, and a bunch of other flavor-inspired ideas that got cut because of the NERD RAGE of "How DARE WotC dictate my game fluff!" Go back and read the preview books; WotC had a much more detailed interaction between their world and the rules, but much of it was ejected (wrongly, IMHO) for this litely-flavored ruleset that alludes to deeper meaning but divorces concept form implementation, creating rules that seem superficially shallow because there is no "reason" backing them up.

Sheesh, reel in the hostility, why don't you?
A lot of the so-called "Nerd Rage" was directed at the flowery terms given to maneuvers that indicated very little about what the maneuver was about. You might have noticed that there's still plenty of that in the PH (perhaps even too much when there's a power that uses the term dire wolverine... when there isn't a dire wolverine defined in the game yet).

But what KM is getting at isn't simply fluff descriptions of things that are otherwise generic. He's getting at real mechanical differences that are manifested in how the story plays out. If the rules for ranger exploits are based on generic ranged weapons, and they apply regardless of the type of ranged weapon, then my ranger character could be hell on wheels with thrown beer tankards in a tavern brawl just like he would be with his bow... and while that may make sense for a super-powered character like Bullseye from Daredevil, it's a bit odd in-genre.
For what it's worth, I do think that WotC did do a bit of what KM is looking for with fighter exploits, some being geared for different types of weapons than others with a real mechanical difference you can see based on the weapon choices of the PC.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think that D&D should be telling me what that means.

This would narrow D&D to the point where 98% of all other story possibilities would require a rules rewrite. You'd be moving from a broad, "any S&S variation or theme" resolution mechanic to a one-trick pony. No thanks.

I think this is in line with the quote where, if you choose to do one thing, something different will happen than if you choose to do another thing, and that difference will help tell you what the game is all about.

You want Quest/Plot baked into the rules? If you used a rule system that required everyone to manage Sanity, every quest and campaign then becomes about Sanity. Remind me, how often is Sanity a theme in Arthurian Romance, 1001 Nights or Norse Adventure?

What's the point of all this killing things and taking their stuff? Why do it?

KM, you don't need different rules. You need a Motive. Just frickin' pick one. Avenge your father (slain these 20 years) or something.

I think the game could be so much better if it had a reason for these conflicts, something they were working towards, and something that the mechanics of the conflict actually supported them working towards.

Here you go: The Big List of RPG Plots, by S. John Ross

That iron fence of tigers means that the dice I roll aren't going to have an effect on the story I tell.

Complete and utter B.S. The actions you take and the dice you roll will be 100% responsible for deciding whether you (rescue the princess, save the day, get the treasure, get the McGuffin, etc.). Are you suggesting that your actions have zero consequences on how the story unfolds; that it simply doesn't matter whether the BBEG lives or dies? If that's the case that's not a problem with the rules, it's a problem with your DM.

When I try and trip an ooze, I want something different to happen than when I try to trip a bugbear,

Something different does happen. When you try to trip an ooze (who would do that?) you get acid all over your hands and don't trip anything - no legs, no trippy. Congratulations.

It's called "The DM can not be an automaton, he must use his brain or go home."

I want my story (my flavor) to matter.

Maybe so, but that's not what you really want. What you really want is to not have to make any decisions about Motive or Goal. You want to be simply given one by the rules, rather than decide on one yourself.

 

[Cadfan]

Sheesh, reel in the hostility, why don't you?
A lot of the so-called "Nerd Rage" was directed at the flowery terms given to maneuvers that indicated very little about what the maneuver was about. You might have noticed that there's still plenty of that in the PH (perhaps even too much when there's a power that uses the term dire wolverine... when there isn't a dire wolverine defined in the game yet).

That was a different flurry of nerd rage.

The nerd rage that Remathilis is critiquing is the specific flurry of rage regarding the Golden Wyvern Adept and associated concepts.

Look at the Warlock for a moment. Its the class in the game that probably most clearly links flavor and mechanics. The infernal pact warlock is full of fire attacks and powers his own person with dark energies ripped from his foes. The fey pact warlock is a teleporting, mind controlling dynamo. Each pact has its own set of proclivities that only make sense together because of the basis of flavor that undergirds the class.

As far as we can tell, Golden Wyvern Adept was an attempt at crafting a similar superstructure for wizards. There were three schools of magic, each with two associated energy types, one associated implement, and a set of associated styles of attack. Interestingly, the wizard has three secondary ability scores- odds are pretty good that these were associated as well.

I obviously can't say how well this structure would have worked- I haven't seen it in its final form. But we know for certain that it did exist, and that it doesn't exist now- and a lot of people feel that when you look at the wizard's class entry you can see the holes where it used to reside. Like the way only two wizard powers use secondary ability scores in any way, for example, or the way that various energy sources have feat prereqs that reference ability scores that don't seem otherwise related. It seems very likely that there was a superstructure that brought all of this together, so that a Golden Wyvern Adept might hypothetically focus on constitution as a secondary ability score, have easier access to a certain suite of feats, and have benefits when casting spells from his favored school (ie, benefits to spells that are boosted by a high con score). But apparently this was pulled out of the game.

I am a bit embittered about this loss. Right after chromatic dragons, I think its second.

 

[Scribble]

But what KM is getting at isn't simply fluff descriptions of things that are otherwise generic. He's getting at real mechanical differences that are manifested in how the story plays out. If the rules for ranger exploits are based on generic ranged weapons, and they apply regardless of the type of ranged weapon, then my ranger character could be hell on wheels with thrown beer tankards in a tavern brawl just like he would be with his bow... and while that may make sense for a super-powered character like Bullseye from Daredevil, it's a bit odd in-genre.
For what it's worth, I do think that WotC did do a bit of what KM is looking for with fighter exploits, some being geared for different types of weapons than others with a real mechanical difference you can see based on the weapon choices of the PC.

The flip side of that argument is that making things specific to one concept ends up locking you into that concept.

This way if I want to make a character who happens to be a supreme tankard tosser, I can without going through hoops to do so.

I preffer the open ended style, as it lets me create a concept then work the system into that concept, as opposed to looking at the system and deciding what type of concept it can best handle.

Neither system is defficient though. It's just a personal preference thing.

Other then that... you're not really going to be as effective a mug tosser as you would be an archer. Proficiency bonuses and weapon damage and all that...