The roots of 4e exposed?

[heretic888]

It seems to be common for terms to change and even to take on an opposite meaning then the original term.

True, but in this case it seems to owe to willful ignorance moreso than linguistic evolution.

Are you able to describe what makes 4e more or less railroady then other DnD games? I am just having trouble imagining how a 4e DM is less able to railroad (or not) then using other rules.

Its mostly the elements of 4E that make it amenable to Story Now play in general, although GMs are free to ignore much of these elements (and clearly quite a few did). I actually think the Skill Challenge framework is important here and how much it gets utilized by a 4E table (as well as how it gets used) is probably a pretty good indication of how much Story Now play is happening there. The MM math and Rule 42 also makes improvisational, non-scripted play much easier to pull off compared to typical DnD structural elements. The length and complexity of 4E encounters makes meaningful Stakes as well as alternatives to victory other than Kill All The Orcs pretty important to successful play. Player-authored Quests (which feed into the game's reward cycles) and other player-chosen fictional tags (themes, paragon paths, epic destinies) are other ways to emphasize Story Now play as well.

Of course, tables can ignore or de-emphasize all these elements (a popular example is the milestone-based leveling, which in my opinion minimizes player contributions and actions in regards to the game pacing schedule) and stick to wholly GM-authored outcomes. 4E just makes it a tinsy bit harder to do that if you follow the advice in the DMG1 and especially the DMG2.

I should qualify this however that a good deal of what gets passed off as "not being railroady" is still 100% GM-authored outcomes and isn't really Play To Find Out What Happens in my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

Its mostly the elements of 4E that make it amenable to Story Now play in general, although GMs are free to ignore much of these elements (and clearly quite a few did). I actually think the Skill Challenge framework is important here and how much it gets utilized by a 4E table (as well as how it gets used) is probably a pretty good indication of how much Story Now play is happening there. The MM math and Rule 42 also makes improvisational, non-scripted play much easier to pull off compared to typical DnD structural elements. The length and complexity of 4E encounters makes meaningful Stakes as well as alternatives to victory other than Kill All The Orcs pretty important to successful play. Player-authored Quests (which feed into the game's reward cycles) and other player-chosen fictional tags (themes, paragon paths, epic destinies) are other ways to emphasize Story Now play as well.

Of course, tables can ignore or de-emphasize all these elements (a popular example is the milestone-based leveling, which in my opinion minimizes player contributions and actions in regards to the game pacing schedule) and stick to wholly GM-authored outcomes. 4E just makes it a tinsy bit harder to do that if you follow the advice in the DMG1 and especially the DMG2.

I should qualify this however that a good deal of what gets passed off as "not being railroady" is still 100% GM-authored outcomes and isn't really Play To Find Out What Happens in my opinion.

This is giving the DM who isn't going to railroad more tools to play the game. A DM who is going to railroad in one system, is probably going to railroad in all of them. Who he is isn't going to change just because more tools are given to him.

 

[heretic888]

This is giving the DM who isn't going to railroad more tools to play the game. A DM who is going to railroad in one system, is probably going to railroad in all of them. Who he is isn't going to change just because more tools are given to him.

Right, not sure you're really disagreeing with what I've said here though.

My larger point is 4E will be an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience when railroaded because of its encounter-based design whereas in my experience railroaded games in certain other systems will produce more enjoyable play experiences. I believe this is a feature and not a bug, as 4E definitely has an anti-railroad design philosophy underlining a lot of its features.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The GSL, compared to the OGL is an impediment to 3pp support. And, of course, the threat of renewed edition-war hostilities (it's not like they've really stopped, just tapered off), is an impediment to WotC. I thought OSRIC got some kind of permission? I've glanced at it, bits look to be virtually verbatim.

Well, there may be plenty of business reasons, or at least political ones, for WotC to shun 4e. I mean, TBH, given that they were producing a new edition, there's nothing specifically amazing about the amount support or non-support that they've given 4e really. I mean, its not like 3.x got much. They HAVE IIRC issued a couple of fancy cover 3.5 core books? That was part of the 40th Anniversary stuff as I recall. I wouldn't really have expected some sort of active support of 4e. DDI is actually STILL functional, if you had an account before 5e launched. They'll still take your money and the tools all work fine.

There's hundreds of powers - per class - compared to yoinking the srd and having a game ready to go.

How many do you ACTUALLY need though? I mean, there's no point in simply cloning verbatim what is already there, 4e books are everywhere and DDI still works. Nobody needs reprints of what they already have. OTOH if you want to make different classes, or other content, then what stops you? You simply cannot call it out as being '4e compatible'. Simply put out your new material and don't worry about it. Put an OGL license in the back and follow its rules.

I checked that boy and found a thread bombed by "nononono NO nothing will ever come of this"

Direct link to the thing itself?

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?807149-4E-Actual-Faithful-Retro-Clone-Project

I think that attitude must have shifted. Suggestions for reskinning 5e around here go further than 4e ever did: Valor Bard for Warlord, GOO Warlock for Psion. Not without resistance from those that want the thing, naturally. Similarly, the only resistance to 3.x re-skinning of weapons I recall was bastard sword for katana - and quite a resistance it was!

OK, well, anyway, that's my suggestion to anyone with issues like "I can't make a 12 STR fighter" or "I can't make a fighter that uses a bow" or other similar 'issues'. Take a class that does what you want (assuming you can't just hybrid to get it, which you often can) and call it 'fighter' or whatever it is you want your character to be called.

Honestly, with classes particularly, I never saw what the issue was at all. Its not like 'fighter' is what some NPC would call you, it would be your office, your title, your occupation, something like that. Just because the "Captain of the Royal Guard" is actually a member of the 'rogue' class instead of the 'fighter' class, so what? Who said that wasn't OK? Yet there ARE people who seem grumpy about it. At least they sure did as recently as 4 years ago.

 

[billd91]

Basically, in a nutshell, "Gamism" is about overcoming challenges and doing strategic play in a risk/reward style of game; "Narrativism" is about eschewing any kind of predetermined plot (think of it as the polar opposite of Railroading) and focusing play on visceral human issues like emotions, relationships, and moral dilemmas; and "Simulationism" is about exploring the features and themes of a setting or genre.

By these criteria, 4E is fairly difficult to do Gamist play compared to other versions of DnD because of its focus on encounter-based design and little in the way of long-term strategic planning (although there were modifications such as those of the Fourthcore communities that tried to focus the game more on Step On Up play); 4E can be tilted to Narrativist play with fairly little work through its reward cycles (Quest XP and Skill Challenge XP specifically), explicit allowance of player-authored content and "reskinning", and broader conflict resolution mechanics compared to other versions of DnD; and 4E is generally pretty well suited to Simulationist play with the explicit understanding that what it is attempting to "simulate" is the heroic fantasy genre, especially as represented through cinema.

Hilariously, this is the OPPOSITE of understanding of 4E in most of the internet, with the understanding that it is super-Gamist and anti-Simulationist. The irony of this is truly astounding and speaks to the general ignorance and misinformation inherent to such discussions.

Opposite? Sure, that's because the internet decided to hijack the GNS terms and use them in a manner that's actually intuitable with respect to rule structures rather than the obfuscating crap they were. And as such, they're much more useful.

 

[Maxperson]

My larger point is 4E will be an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience when railroaded because of its encounter-based design whereas in my experience railroaded games in certain other systems will produce more enjoyable play experiences. I believe this is a feature and not a bug, as 4E definitely has an anti-railroad design philosophy underlining a lot of its features.

I believe that railroading is an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience in any edition of pretty much any RPG. I only say "pretty much any RPG," because I suppose there might be one out there I don't know enough where you're supposed to railroad and it's fun.

 

[heretic888]

Opposite? Sure, that's because the internet decided to hijack the GNS terms and use them in a manner that's actually intuitable with respect to rule structures rather than the obfuscating crap they were. And as such, they're much more useful.

Yep. As Tony pointed out earlier in the thread, Edition Warriors hijacked the jargon in order to demonize game systems they didn't like (in what context has "gamism" ever been used as anything other than a pejorative around these parts?). As opposed to the original intent of creative agendas, which was to talk about people's actual experiences at the table rather than dragging rules systems through the mud.

They're certainly more "useful" for the purpose of edition warring rather than understanding game theory, if that's what you mean.

 

[heretic888]

I believe that railroading is an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience in any edition of pretty much any RPG. I only say "pretty much any RPG," because I suppose there might be one out there I don't know enough where you're supposed to railroad and it's fun.

Well, as I said before, I consider railroading to be much more common than most would probably be willing to accept. And it can be good fun with the right group and the right GM, so there's nothing inherently "wrong" with it.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, as I said before, I consider railroading to be much more common than most would probably be willing to accept. And it can be good fun with the right group and the right GM, so there's nothing inherently "wrong" with it.

I agree. Years ago on the D&D forum a DM was asking about railroading, because his players wanted to play in a "Quantum Leap" campaign where they just hopped from one place to another and couldn't leave until they fixed the problem that brought them there. That's a fine way to do a railroading scenario. If the players are on board, have at it.

By and large, though, it's a DM with an issue and the players are having a miserable time.

 

[billd91]

Yep. As Tony pointed out earlier in the thread, Edition Warriors hijacked the jargon in order to demonize game systems they didn't like (in what context has "gamism" ever been used as anything other than a pejorative around these parts?). As opposed to the original intent of creative agendas, which was to talk about people's actual experiences at the table rather than dragging rules systems through the mud.

They're certainly more "useful" for the purpose of edition warring rather than understanding game theory, if that's what you mean.

No, and I don't think they were hijacked by edition warriors than anyone else - they were hijacked by people who thought that the GNS approach was convoluted and, ultimately, useless. Simulationist, gamist, and narrativist work far better and more easily among gamers to describe rules and the various tensions they exhibit between simulating some process, making it more playable but more abstract, and reflecting a story-telling element manipulated by the player more than the character in the system.

But go ahead and continue trying to stoke more edition warring. That's what you seem to want.