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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)
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: 6241215" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Nice line - sorry I haven't got any XP for you.</p><p></p><p>But I'm also going to try and use your weight against you in a mighty judo-throw: notice that you didn't confine "mentally challenging" to being a desideratum for gamist play. I think in 4e the central role of carefully-calibrated challenges is similar. It certainly emphasises the situation/encounter as the site of play, and thereby downplays traditional D&D-style exploration. But these encounters don't have to be challenges in the step-on-up sense.</p><p></p><p>I think it's rather implicit in the skill challenge rules, and also in James Wyatt's famous "say yes" and "skip to the fun" advice, and a bit more overt in the cut-and-paste by Robin Laws from the HeroQuest revised rulebook into the DMG 2. (The problem with this cut-and-paste isn't that it's unclear about playstyle, but that it doesn't explain how to adapte the HQ techniques to the different mechanical environment of 4e.)</p><p></p><p>I agree it's not as clear as in rulebooks like Marvel Heroic or Burning Wheel. But nor is the gamist idea - there is nothing analogous to (for instance) Gygax's description of skilled play in the closing pages (before the appendices) of his PHB, and his invocations of skilled play throughout his DMG. So someone who came to 4e with gamist expectations might read it that way, but someone who came with narrativist or high-concept sim expectations I think could equally read it that way. (I think it doesn't have an easy reading for those with process-sim expectations - which turns out to be a good chunk of the 3E player base.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>"Here's a challenge, use your resources to defeat it" describes Burning Wheel as much as 4e. But Burning Wheel is an obviously narrativist-oriented game.</p><p></p><p>This is really the same point as in my response to Ratskinner earlier in this post: all RPGing is, in some sense, a challenge to the players' skill. The hobby provides mental diversion. "Step on up" is about making that challenge to the players' skill the raison d'etre of play.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">Here</a> is one of the most succinct descriptions of narrativist play that I know:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.</p><p></p><p>This is a playstyle in which the PCs (and the players in playing them) will confront challenges. We can only tell if the play is gamist rather than narrativist if we know what is the biggest concern for the players: to put it roughly, winning (= gamist); or story consequences carrying thematic weight (= narrativist).</p><p></p><p>The following text from the 4e PHB (p 258) and DMG (p 103) to my mind suggests that it is an open question which way that game is meant to be played:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Quests connect a series of encounters into a meaningful story. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Most adventures are more complex, involving multiple quests. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">character’s background. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">When you complete quests, you earn rewards, including experience points, treasure, and possibly other kinds of rewards.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">***</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">You can present quests that conflict with each other, or with the characters’ alignments or goals. The players have the freedom to make choices about which quests to accept, and these can be great opportunities for roleplaying and character development. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!</p><p></p><p>It's true that quests bring rewards (XP and treasure) but all these do - given the 4e "treadmill" - is propel the PCs through the default "story" of D&D (kobolds to Orcus). So this is not inherently gamist.</p><p></p><p>I agree that if the "story of D&D" that unfolds in 4e play as a factor of (i) XP gain and levelling and (ii) the default monsters in the MMs were mere colour, that would be consistent with gamist play and a serious impediment to narrativist play. But is it meant to be mere colour? I personally don't read the books that way - eg The Plane Above has a discussion of "journeying into deep myth" in order to change the mythic history of the setting which wouldn't be out of place in a HeroWars sourcebook. I think the core mythology and cosmology has been deliberately written so that it can be played as more than simply colour - that if the players want to sink their teeth into it, there is something to latch onto.</p><p></p><p>As for whether thesis/antithesis comes with challenge ratings - it does in HeroQuest revised (or, rather, DCs are set according to a table that correlates the current location within the rising action with the average strength of the PCs), and that's not an obstacle to narrativist play in HQ. In fact it's core to it. The transparency of 4e's challenge maths supports the use of story elements in a way that conduces to the whole thesis/antithesis thing. It's at odds with a certain sort of simulationism, which wants the story to be the outcome of whatever the mechanics dictate rather than making the mechanics the servant of a certain genre and story orientation, but not with narrativism. (Nor with gamism, obviously. I don't dispute the utility of these techniques to what I've called "light" gamism. Just that they imply or entail it.)</p><p></p><p>This is an interesting point but I'm not sure where to take it.</p><p></p><p>HeroQuest revised has difficulty levels, as I mentioned above, but (by D&D standards) no tactics (a character might have a "tactical genius" ability, but using that is - in terms of the mechanics of play - no different from using the "hulking brute" ability). Burning Wheel has little to no difficulty levels (though the Adventure Burner, which cites 4e in its bibliography, pays more attention to the issue, concerned mostly with threats of anti-climax in solo boss confrontations) but does have very heavy player-side tactics. (And I think TRoS is similar.)</p><p></p><p>I think the extent to which a game requires a high degree of player tactical engagement is mostly orthogonal to its GNS orientation, although I guess the presence of such stuff does open the door to gamist drift in an otherwise non-gamist oriented game.</p><p></p><p>I think, given my comment just above the quote, that I think it is the extent of tactical/mechanical player decision-making that is required that determines how wide the door is open to gamist drift. (Though T&T shows that luck-based rather than skill-based gamism is equally possible, and a game like HeroQuest could be played in this sort of way, even if that's not perhaps it's natural orientation.)</p><p></p><p>This I don't agree with. Saying that "powers" aren't naturalistic is no different from saying that initiative roles, 1 minute rounds and hit points aren't naturalistic. "Gygaxian naturalism" is, at least as I understand it, about the gameworld. 4e opts instead for a high mythic gameworld, but within those story parameters - which have their origins in classical myth, not in the 4e designers' heads - the encounters certainly make as much sense as Zagyg's imprisoned demigods on the Nth level of Castle Greyhawk.</p><p></p><p>I agree. I suspect the default is very close to what seems to me to be the default for 3E - namely, adventure-path play which is a mix of (ocassionally, perhaps often, illusionist) gamism with GM-driven story serving some sort of high concept simulationist goal.</p><p></p><p>I think "step on up" - eg Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Ghost Tower of Inverness (and these surely are all borderline cases at best of "Gyaxian naturalism", but I think are close to the core of the classic D&D experience) - has shown it has an attraction that can stand the test of time. I find [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] the best advocate for this style of RPGing on these boards.</p><p></p><p>I remember pointing Libramarian to <a href="http://" target="_blank">this passage</a> from Ron Edwards, in which Edwards describes his frustration with some D&D-inspired fantasy heartbreakers (a term he coined):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The key assumption throughout all these games is that if a gaming experience is to be intelligent (and all Fantasy Heartbreakers make this claim), then the most players can be relied upon to provide is kind of the "Id" of play - strategizing, killing, and conniving throughout the session. They are the raw energy, the driving "go," and the GM's role is to say, "You just scrap, strive, and kill, and I'll show ya, with this book, how it's all a brilliant evocative fantasy." </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">It's not Illusionism - there's no illusion at all, just movement across the landscape and the willingness to fight as the baseline player things to do.</p><p></p><p>I had seen some D&D players complain that Edwards' characterisation of these games in these terms was dismissive or demeaning, but I find it a fair characterisation of a core RPG gamist experience, and I was pleased that Libramarian agreed. Edwards goes on to claim that "energy and ego . . . are fine things, of course, but it strikes me that playing with them as the sole elements provided by the players is a recipe for Social Contract breakdown." But it doesn't strike me that way.</p><p></p><p>As to why do this sort of thing via an RPG rather than (say) a boardgame: any number of reasons. Continuity of characters and/or of gameworld. The ability to make intelligent use of fictional positioning, which can only work in a game adjudicated by a human referee (this is certainly key to those classic D&D modules). Even sheer pleasure in the "talk-y" medium of RPGing.</p><p></p><p>As Edwards says in <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">a different (and later) essay</a>,</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Gamist-inclined players tend to be unashamed regarding their preferences. Their role-playing is easily understood, diverse in application, unpretentious, and often perfectly happy with its role relative to the person's social life at large. The Gamists have a lot to teach the rest of the hobby about self-esteem. </p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Some folks seem to think that Gamist play lacks variety, to which I say, "nonsense." Scrabble is "always the same," and it's fun as hell; simple games do not mean simplistic, shallow, or easy. What matters is whether the strategy of the moment is fun. Well-designed, multiple-edged Step On Up activities with fully-developed competition are endlessly diverting and provide an excellent basis for friendship. Anyone who thinks that such things in role-playing necessarily cannot be fun and will necessarily destroy social interactions is badly mistaken</p><p></p><p>I really can't agree with the idea that gamism is any sort of threat to the purity of RPGing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6241215, member: 42582"] Nice line - sorry I haven't got any XP for you. But I'm also going to try and use your weight against you in a mighty judo-throw: notice that you didn't confine "mentally challenging" to being a desideratum for gamist play. I think in 4e the central role of carefully-calibrated challenges is similar. It certainly emphasises the situation/encounter as the site of play, and thereby downplays traditional D&D-style exploration. But these encounters don't have to be challenges in the step-on-up sense. I think it's rather implicit in the skill challenge rules, and also in James Wyatt's famous "say yes" and "skip to the fun" advice, and a bit more overt in the cut-and-paste by Robin Laws from the HeroQuest revised rulebook into the DMG 2. (The problem with this cut-and-paste isn't that it's unclear about playstyle, but that it doesn't explain how to adapte the HQ techniques to the different mechanical environment of 4e.) I agree it's not as clear as in rulebooks like Marvel Heroic or Burning Wheel. But nor is the gamist idea - there is nothing analogous to (for instance) Gygax's description of skilled play in the closing pages (before the appendices) of his PHB, and his invocations of skilled play throughout his DMG. So someone who came to 4e with gamist expectations might read it that way, but someone who came with narrativist or high-concept sim expectations I think could equally read it that way. (I think it doesn't have an easy reading for those with process-sim expectations - which turns out to be a good chunk of the 3E player base.) "Here's a challenge, use your resources to defeat it" describes Burning Wheel as much as 4e. But Burning Wheel is an obviously narrativist-oriented game. This is really the same point as in my response to Ratskinner earlier in this post: all RPGing is, in some sense, a challenge to the players' skill. The hobby provides mental diversion. "Step on up" is about making that challenge to the players' skill the raison d'etre of play. [url=http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/]Here[/url] is one of the most succinct descriptions of narrativist play that I know: [indent]One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . [O]nce the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. Each scene is an interesting situation in relation to the premise of the setting or the character (or wherever the premise comes from, depends on the game). The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. Story is an outcome of the process as choices lead to consequences which lead to further choices, until all outstanding issues have been resolved and the story naturally reaches an end.[/indent] This is a playstyle in which the PCs (and the players in playing them) will confront challenges. We can only tell if the play is gamist rather than narrativist if we know what is the biggest concern for the players: to put it roughly, winning (= gamist); or story consequences carrying thematic weight (= narrativist). The following text from the 4e PHB (p 258) and DMG (p 103) to my mind suggests that it is an open question which way that game is meant to be played: [indent]Quests connect a series of encounters into a meaningful story. . . Most adventures are more complex, involving multiple quests. . . You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. . . When you complete quests, you earn rewards, including experience points, treasure, and possibly other kinds of rewards. *** You can present quests that conflict with each other, or with the characters’ alignments or goals. The players have the freedom to make choices about which quests to accept, and these can be great opportunities for roleplaying and character development. . . You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible![/indent] It's true that quests bring rewards (XP and treasure) but all these do - given the 4e "treadmill" - is propel the PCs through the default "story" of D&D (kobolds to Orcus). So this is not inherently gamist. I agree that if the "story of D&D" that unfolds in 4e play as a factor of (i) XP gain and levelling and (ii) the default monsters in the MMs were mere colour, that would be consistent with gamist play and a serious impediment to narrativist play. But is it meant to be mere colour? I personally don't read the books that way - eg The Plane Above has a discussion of "journeying into deep myth" in order to change the mythic history of the setting which wouldn't be out of place in a HeroWars sourcebook. I think the core mythology and cosmology has been deliberately written so that it can be played as more than simply colour - that if the players want to sink their teeth into it, there is something to latch onto. As for whether thesis/antithesis comes with challenge ratings - it does in HeroQuest revised (or, rather, DCs are set according to a table that correlates the current location within the rising action with the average strength of the PCs), and that's not an obstacle to narrativist play in HQ. In fact it's core to it. The transparency of 4e's challenge maths supports the use of story elements in a way that conduces to the whole thesis/antithesis thing. It's at odds with a certain sort of simulationism, which wants the story to be the outcome of whatever the mechanics dictate rather than making the mechanics the servant of a certain genre and story orientation, but not with narrativism. (Nor with gamism, obviously. I don't dispute the utility of these techniques to what I've called "light" gamism. Just that they imply or entail it.) This is an interesting point but I'm not sure where to take it. HeroQuest revised has difficulty levels, as I mentioned above, but (by D&D standards) no tactics (a character might have a "tactical genius" ability, but using that is - in terms of the mechanics of play - no different from using the "hulking brute" ability). Burning Wheel has little to no difficulty levels (though the Adventure Burner, which cites 4e in its bibliography, pays more attention to the issue, concerned mostly with threats of anti-climax in solo boss confrontations) but does have very heavy player-side tactics. (And I think TRoS is similar.) I think the extent to which a game requires a high degree of player tactical engagement is mostly orthogonal to its GNS orientation, although I guess the presence of such stuff does open the door to gamist drift in an otherwise non-gamist oriented game. I think, given my comment just above the quote, that I think it is the extent of tactical/mechanical player decision-making that is required that determines how wide the door is open to gamist drift. (Though T&T shows that luck-based rather than skill-based gamism is equally possible, and a game like HeroQuest could be played in this sort of way, even if that's not perhaps it's natural orientation.) This I don't agree with. Saying that "powers" aren't naturalistic is no different from saying that initiative roles, 1 minute rounds and hit points aren't naturalistic. "Gygaxian naturalism" is, at least as I understand it, about the gameworld. 4e opts instead for a high mythic gameworld, but within those story parameters - which have their origins in classical myth, not in the 4e designers' heads - the encounters certainly make as much sense as Zagyg's imprisoned demigods on the Nth level of Castle Greyhawk. I agree. I suspect the default is very close to what seems to me to be the default for 3E - namely, adventure-path play which is a mix of (ocassionally, perhaps often, illusionist) gamism with GM-driven story serving some sort of high concept simulationist goal. I think "step on up" - eg Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Ghost Tower of Inverness (and these surely are all borderline cases at best of "Gyaxian naturalism", but I think are close to the core of the classic D&D experience) - has shown it has an attraction that can stand the test of time. I find [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] the best advocate for this style of RPGing on these boards. I remember pointing Libramarian to [url=]this passage[/url] from Ron Edwards, in which Edwards describes his frustration with some D&D-inspired fantasy heartbreakers (a term he coined): [indent]The key assumption throughout all these games is that if a gaming experience is to be intelligent (and all Fantasy Heartbreakers make this claim), then the most players can be relied upon to provide is kind of the "Id" of play - strategizing, killing, and conniving throughout the session. They are the raw energy, the driving "go," and the GM's role is to say, "You just scrap, strive, and kill, and I'll show ya, with this book, how it's all a brilliant evocative fantasy." It's not Illusionism - there's no illusion at all, just movement across the landscape and the willingness to fight as the baseline player things to do.[/indent] I had seen some D&D players complain that Edwards' characterisation of these games in these terms was dismissive or demeaning, but I find it a fair characterisation of a core RPG gamist experience, and I was pleased that Libramarian agreed. Edwards goes on to claim that "energy and ego . . . are fine things, of course, but it strikes me that playing with them as the sole elements provided by the players is a recipe for Social Contract breakdown." But it doesn't strike me that way. As to why do this sort of thing via an RPG rather than (say) a boardgame: any number of reasons. Continuity of characters and/or of gameworld. The ability to make intelligent use of fictional positioning, which can only work in a game adjudicated by a human referee (this is certainly key to those classic D&D modules). Even sheer pleasure in the "talk-y" medium of RPGing. As Edwards says in [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/]a different (and later) essay[/url], [indent]Gamist-inclined players tend to be unashamed regarding their preferences. Their role-playing is easily understood, diverse in application, unpretentious, and often perfectly happy with its role relative to the person's social life at large. The Gamists have a lot to teach the rest of the hobby about self-esteem. Some folks seem to think that Gamist play lacks variety, to which I say, "nonsense." Scrabble is "always the same," and it's fun as hell; simple games do not mean simplistic, shallow, or easy. What matters is whether the strategy of the moment is fun. Well-designed, multiple-edged Step On Up activities with fully-developed competition are endlessly diverting and provide an excellent basis for friendship. Anyone who thinks that such things in role-playing necessarily cannot be fun and will necessarily destroy social interactions is badly mistaken[/indent] I really can't agree with the idea that gamism is any sort of threat to the purity of RPGing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)
Top