Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of going mainstream
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6127051" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I don't think I've seen anyone try to defend the 4e adventures. Some of the ideas are interesting (but some are not), and some individual story elements or encounter set-ups are interesting (but some are not), but their overall design is (I think) clearly a failure.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess that I don't see these things as per se objectionable.</p><p></p><p>Wanting the GM to follow the rules; wanting the GM to recognise encounter-building guidelines around which the game has been designed; expecting access to PC-build resources (eg WBL, magic items) around which the game has been designed; wanting to exercise some authority over the fictional content of the game (via choice of PC build elements and setting quests) - I don't see any of these things as bad. To me, this is players wanting to play the game according to its rules. And I personally don't see much attractive in an RPG ideal of the players just sitting at the table and doing nothing but making in-character calls in response to situations that the GM throws at them entirely according to his/her conception of what the game is going to be about.</p><p></p><p>This is interesting. I don't have the play experience with 3E to make the comparison, but it doesn't entirely surprise me - as best I understand the system, 3E seems designed almost deliberately to create conficts of interest, or at least tension, at the table, because the GM is called upon both to push opposition against the PCs, <em>and</em> to make "rules as physics"-style calls that can easily end up hosing the players.</p><p></p><p>I think it's an important innovation in RPG design (which 4e didn't make, it copied from earlier models) to come up with "level appropriate" or "scaling" DCs (of which 4e's approach is just one version) that mean that the players can be confident that the GM's calls <em>will</em> contribute both to colour and to the details of resolution, but <em>won't</em> make the difference between easy and hosed. (An alternative to scaled DCs is a Burning Wheel style approach of "objective" DCs but liberal Fate Points in combination with "fail forward" which means that the players are happy to take risks and not always succeed.)</p><p></p><p>AD&D has many similar features to 3E in this respect, but (at least in its classic playstyle) maybe has enough gonzo on the player as well as the GM side (especially various spells and items) that the conflicts don't manifest quite as egregiously. I'd be interested in your (S'mon's) views on this given your recent GMing experience with AD&D.</p><p></p><p>I still don't see how this sets up the GM in some role that contrasts with "the rules guy". What contribution does it make to the game that we have multiple rather baroque options for determining whether or not someone slips on ice?</p><p></p><p>In 4e, for instance, this is an Acrobatics check. The GM's role isn't to decide what sort of check it is - the rules tell us that (and so a player who has build a high-Acro bonus PC will be better at traversing slippery ice). The GM's role is to choose how difficult the check is, which will then determine what sort of impact the presence of the ice makes during play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6127051, member: 42582"] I don't think I've seen anyone try to defend the 4e adventures. Some of the ideas are interesting (but some are not), and some individual story elements or encounter set-ups are interesting (but some are not), but their overall design is (I think) clearly a failure. I guess that I don't see these things as per se objectionable. Wanting the GM to follow the rules; wanting the GM to recognise encounter-building guidelines around which the game has been designed; expecting access to PC-build resources (eg WBL, magic items) around which the game has been designed; wanting to exercise some authority over the fictional content of the game (via choice of PC build elements and setting quests) - I don't see any of these things as bad. To me, this is players wanting to play the game according to its rules. And I personally don't see much attractive in an RPG ideal of the players just sitting at the table and doing nothing but making in-character calls in response to situations that the GM throws at them entirely according to his/her conception of what the game is going to be about. This is interesting. I don't have the play experience with 3E to make the comparison, but it doesn't entirely surprise me - as best I understand the system, 3E seems designed almost deliberately to create conficts of interest, or at least tension, at the table, because the GM is called upon both to push opposition against the PCs, [I]and[/I] to make "rules as physics"-style calls that can easily end up hosing the players. I think it's an important innovation in RPG design (which 4e didn't make, it copied from earlier models) to come up with "level appropriate" or "scaling" DCs (of which 4e's approach is just one version) that mean that the players can be confident that the GM's calls [I]will[/I] contribute both to colour and to the details of resolution, but [I]won't[/I] make the difference between easy and hosed. (An alternative to scaled DCs is a Burning Wheel style approach of "objective" DCs but liberal Fate Points in combination with "fail forward" which means that the players are happy to take risks and not always succeed.) AD&D has many similar features to 3E in this respect, but (at least in its classic playstyle) maybe has enough gonzo on the player as well as the GM side (especially various spells and items) that the conflicts don't manifest quite as egregiously. I'd be interested in your (S'mon's) views on this given your recent GMing experience with AD&D. I still don't see how this sets up the GM in some role that contrasts with "the rules guy". What contribution does it make to the game that we have multiple rather baroque options for determining whether or not someone slips on ice? In 4e, for instance, this is an Acrobatics check. The GM's role isn't to decide what sort of check it is - the rules tell us that (and so a player who has build a high-Acro bonus PC will be better at traversing slippery ice). The GM's role is to choose how difficult the check is, which will then determine what sort of impact the presence of the ice makes during play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of going mainstream
Top