D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[timASW]

That's what a lock is in the real world. In the game it's an obstacle that needs a specific roll to bypass so as to move on to whatever tasks are possible having bypassed it.

Only kinda, sorta. And the defination is still very relevant when deciding whether the rules are well written with regards to it.

In the players' minds eyes, it may well be a finely polished construction of Myrrish steel, crafted to hold fast this sturdy, iron-bound wooden door that blocks the portal to the Archon's study... but in the mechanics it's an obstacle that requires 2 successes to overcome..

Actually its NWoD. In the players eyes..... Its a lock from home depot. Real world with monsters remember? At least if your in the default setting.

But anyway in the mechanics... its a basic lock that takes a skilled locksmith about 10 seconds to bypass with the right tools on average and possibly a lot longer or being nigh impossible for unskilled people or those without the right tools.

If you insist on seeing game mechanics as some sort of purple prose, rather than a resolution process that (hopefully) produces results that do not compromise the imagined fiction being explored, you will, as far as I'm concerned, never achieve a system that I think of as adequate for a good roleplaying experience..

The mechanics and prose work together perfectly. Over the last few posts I answered all your points and showed how they absolutely make sense mechanically and keep verisimilitude.

Its not as precise as a D20 mechanic because your moving in 10% increments rather then 5% increments. And D20 isnt as precise as percentile systems because it moves in 5% increments rather then 1% increments.

However at a certain point you have to ask whether the rules are helping to create speedy play that feels right most of the time or are getting in the way and bogging things down with little benefit.

Well, I certainly didn't mean that the chance of success was too high!! Call out a professional locksmith sometime. An average professional, with tools and with no outstanding talent, can defeat an average, hardware store lock near 100% of the time, in my experience. And that's legally, without damaging the lock.

And that is exactly what the rules say he can do. They dont say he will do it within 3 seconds of sticking his tools in the door everytime. But then in real life he probably wont do it in 3 seconds either. So i find that perfectly fine. Its an "extended task" that means you roll more then once with each roll representing a certain time increment.

It works the same as building a car in the game. You need to get a certain number of successes. That roll would be every day most likely. But in either case you roll until you build up the required successes, or run out of time (security notices you, the big race is over, whatever) or money. You might run out of car parts or the cash to buy the right ones after all.

Yeah - that was another thing. With a penalty, such that only 10's succeed, the professional actually has a higher chance of a critical failure than the klutz with no training. What's up with that?

Its called a chance roll. Penalties have to reduce you to a negative dice pool in order for critical failure to be a possibility. So for even a dead average professional he would have to have a -4 to his dice pool to be in that territory. Which is a very, very serious penalty in NWoD.

And you only roll 1 dice. You dont roll your whole dice pool when your at negative. So the pro and klutz have the exact same chance of a critical failure, 10% and the pro is much, much less likely to every find himself in critical failure territory.

And a professional with no tools has nearly no chance? Even with a 1 success lock? Rubbish. The only 'tool' you need for the really bad locks is a credit card.

-2 for no tools (standard) the pro still has a 2 dice pool. Which means no critical failure chance and he will definately succeed within a few seconds (3 second rounds). Your "problem" with the system is once more simply one of not knowing the rules. You have to read through the book once and play a few times to really get the hang of it.

I think it's easy to adjudicate because you really have no clear idea what effects your adjudications are having.

Its easy to adjudicate because its easy to adjudicate.

Ability+skill+equipment=dice pool.

modified by

Kinda challenging condition? -1
challenging? -2
Really hard? -3
Absurdly hard as hell? -4

Well, it doesn't seem that way to me. I spent several months running the system and all I learned was that it's obscurantic and convoluted if you want to actually understand what it really is doing. And you don't seem to understand the system, either, judging by your responses above.

Try it again. This time, dont try to make it D&D. Make it NWoD. Dont try to twist it what your used to and how your used to doing things. Follow the advice in the book, run it as its own game and you'll see that not only do I completely understand it but its very simple.

Oh, and the reason WoD sold so well? It was a great world background. Mage, especially - it literally blew me away. The concepts and game-world structures were a marvel to behold, really. It's such a tragedy that the system sucked rocks the size of Svalbard.

Thats actually funny. I think the core setting sucks. Most of the people I have played with either dont play it the way they write it or make it totally camp.

There were a few decent books. The werewolf setting was okay, the vampires of ancient rome was cool. Hunter was awesome. But I found the rest too full of themselves and kind of silly.

Different strokes for different folks i guess.

 

[timASW]

So, this is a bit of a thread shift, but another thread made me think of it.

4e is cried as being the "Rules" over "Story" edition by some people.

It is also cried as being "Narrativist" vs. "Simulationist."

How does that parse? It is a narrative game that ignores story?

I'm not trying to be a jerk in asking, but I do wonder how that works out, and this thread seems to be the place.

I found it to be too rules heavy and war gamey. Nothing wrong with war gamey but I have warhammer and the new WoTC wargame for that. So it just didnt fit anything for me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

So, this is a bit of a thread shift, but another thread made me think of it.

4e is cried as being the "Rules" over "Story" edition by some people.

It is also cried as being "Narrativist" vs. "Simulationist."

How does that parse? It is a narrative game that ignores story?

I'm not trying to be a jerk in asking, but I do wonder how that works out, and this thread seems to be the place.

Any time you use GNS terms trouble's bound to follow.

The key difference here is that you can have a story without rules (whereas you can't have a simulator without rules or a game without rules). Narrativist mechanics are ways of shaping anything, but their value is debatable. Most people look at D&D as being a very game-y and abstract simulator; narrativism is usually used to describe indie rpgs with more explicit mechanics for narrative control or plot generation.

In this case, the term "narrativist mechanics" is being improperly applied to 4e (just as it is often inaccurately referred to as being more "tactical" or more "videogamey" than other versions of D&D). The mechanics in question aren't simulatory of much of anything, and they don't work on a gamist level, so the term narrativism is used simply by process of elimination. Really, the GNS model isn't the end-all, and "metagame mechanics" or "dissociated mechanics" are more accurate in this case.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Any time you use GNS terms trouble's bound to follow.

... "dissociated mechanics" are more accurate in this case.

Trouble is going to follow no matter what terms you use. It will just depend on which trouble you want to pick. "Dissociated mechanics" and "accurate" don't belong in the same book, let along the same sentence. And that's all I've got to say to your point.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Trouble is going to follow no matter what terms you use. It will just depend on which trouble you want to pick. "Dissociated mechanics" and "accurate" don't belong in the same book, let along the same sentence. And that's all I've got to say to your point.

Feel free to offer any vocabulary that you think more clearly articulates the point.

 

[Ratskinner]

So, this is a bit of a thread shift, but another thread made me think of it.

4e is cried as being the "Rules" over "Story" edition by some people.

It is also cried as being "Narrativist" vs. "Simulationist."

How does that parse? It is a narrative game that ignores story?

I'm not trying to be a jerk in asking, but I do wonder how that works out, and this thread seems to be the place.

umm....hmmm....uhh....

Okay, first off, the GNS terms aren't universally accepted, and even fewer people take the time to understand what they actually mean. Of the three, I would say "Narrativism" is the least understood and the most commonly misused. People tend to use it interchangably with a lot of other things including story and narration, which happen regardless of whether the game is Narrativist or not.

D&D has traditionally dwelt primarily along the Gamist-Simulationist end of things, rarely having any mechanics dealing directly with "motivation" or a high-falutin' "premise" about the human condition or other "Narrativist" concerns. (An individual D&D game may, in fact, feature character motivations and the subsequent conflicts, but there is little in the mechanics to reflect or prompt that.)

So, the question then arises "How much should the fiction/story/narration stuff be tied directly to the mechanics?" For the gamer who prefers Simulationism, the answer is "as much as possible." An S player, and 3e is about the most S version of D&D IMHO, wants the mechanics to directly reflect what and who their character is. However, for the Gamist player, the answer is "as much as is relevant" or "Who really cares?" 4e, in some ways, is a lot more gamist than 3e.

Now flip the question around: "How much should the mechanics make sure the game is fair, challenging, and 'balanced'?" Now the Gamist player rises and say "a lot, that's the primary thing the rules are for isn't it?" The Simulationist player will respond with confusion. "If you want to play a Fighter, then you must be willing to accept that you will be a lesser being than the full caster...because magic would be superior to fighting...its 'realistic'."

So, when someone says: "4e is the rules over story edition!" I would tend to think that they are a Sim player. Without the mechanics reflecting their character directly, they "lose" the story. To such a person, 4e's concerns of balance and fairness taking precedence over "realism" destroys the "story".

The reverse is also true for the Gamist player and a heavier Sim game. In this case, the ingrained mechanical imbalances can abort their proposed story before it even sees light. For instance, their desire to be an equal partner in the team forces them away from some classes and other choices that might fit their desired story better than what they end up taking. For such a person, concerns of "realism" taking precedence over fair and balanced destroys the story.

While others disagree with me, I don't find 4e to be particularly "narrativist" as a rules set, in comparison to the other versions of D&D. So when someone says: "4e is Narrativist not Simulationist." - Well, they're part right. 4e toned down Simulationism quite a bit. However, I suspect they are intending the "Narrativist" part as either a pejorative or just plainly misusing the term. It could also be acting as a stand-in for "Indie", as some gamers find some of 4e's mechanics to be inspired by Indie games, but whether that's pejorative would depend on the source.

Anyway, I hope that helps.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Feel free to offer any vocabulary that you think more clearly articulates the point.

That making up vocabulary in vain attempts at rationalization causes confusion and contradictory signals is the point. Criticisms of 4e, particularly early on, were outright contradictory. Some were screaming that it was dumbed down, others that it was too complicated. Some were bemoaning the loss of RP, while others were attacking it as 'too narrative.'

 

[Ahnehnois]

That making up vocabulary in vain attempts at rationalization causes confusion and contradictory signals is the point. Criticisms of 4e, particularly early on, were outright contradictory. Some were screaming that it was dumbed down, others that it was too complicated. Some were bemoaning the loss of RP, while others were attacking it as 'too narrative.'

Neither of those claims represent contradictions.
Complicated and intelligently designed are not the same thing (quite the contrary IME), nor are narrativist mechanics and roleplaying.

In any case, rpg gaming does not have much of an established vocabulary or underlying theory and it is difficult for anyone to convey their opinions on it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Neither of those claims represent contradictions.
Complicated and intelligently designed are not the same thing (quite the contrary IME)

/Both/ "Dumbed down" and "too complicated" seem pretty contradictory to me.

nor are narrativist mechanics and roleplaying.

You can have RP with anything, of course, but narrativist mechanics do kinda shove the story aspect of RP in your face. So, again, it's contradictory to claim a system is 'too narrativist' and somehow discourages RP.

Not that there are a lot of folks doing all that, just collectively you had these contradictory criticisms coming from every direction. In 4 years it's sorted itself out, but it's funny that you still get a bit of it now and then. I'm sure it'll all be come clear enough in hindsight...

In any case, rpg gaming does not have much of an established vocabulary or underlying theory and it is difficult for anyone to convey their opinions on it.

There is that, there's no RPG standards organization to help us. We have to bang these things out for ourselves. It just often seems so un-productive, as terminology gets used and abused to try to paint this or that opinion or emotional reaction as fact. :shrug:

 

[JamesonCourage]

/Both/ "Dumbed down" and "too complicated" seem pretty contradictory to me.

While people did have contradictory claims about 4e (and 3.X, etc.), I disagree with these terms being necessarily contradictory. They could be, mind you, but I don't think they necessarily are.

That is, say I make a pen & paper RPG that is better left to a computer: you need to keep track of a bunch of things all at once, it's amazingly fiddly, you need to roll up dozens of random events to see what happens, etc. I've made a very complicated game (what many might call "too complicated").

Now, let's say I have a rule in my game: you can't do what's not presented as an option. If you run across an ogre (random event that you rolled), you have the option to Fight (Attack, Block) or Flee (attempt to dismiss combat). You can't try to negotiate, bribe, intimidate, recruit, swear fealty to, etc., to the ogre. It's not an option. People might call this "dumbed down" when the previous version of the game had those options.

Obviously, 4e isn't "dumbed down" like my example is, but some people that got the impression that it was missing options (Craft, Profession, Perform, etc.) might give that critique, while others critique it for being "too complicated" (powers, +½ level, etc.).

Again, though, people could just be making contradictory claims. It's not necessarily true that they were, but it certainly did happen (enough claims were made that it's bound to happen).

You can have RP with anything, of course, but narrativist mechanics do kinda shove the story aspect of RP in your face. So, again, it's contradictory to claim a system is 'too narrativist' and somehow discourages RP.

Again, this depends on your definition of role playing. If you mean something very focused (immersion, actor stance, etc.), and a meta-mechanic pulls you out of that to progress the story, you can make the claim of "too narrativist" and "discourages RP". It just depends on your definition of what "RP" is.

There is that, there's no RPG standards organization to help us. We have to bang these things out for ourselves. It just often seems so un-productive, as terminology gets used and abused to try to paint this or that opinion or emotional reaction as fact. :shrug:

And, on top of that, people are upset that contradictory claims are made! Of course different groups will critique different things. I'm not a fan of complicated systems... until I get used to them. Then I usually much prefer them to simple systems. Other groups may not like complicated systems at all, even after giving it some time. We'd probably give different long-term reviews.

Just like people say "it's the best game" or "it's the worst game", people say "it's too complicated" and "it's dumbed down" and so on. Sometimes, though, "too complicated" and "dumbed down" aren't as contradictory as "best" and "worst"; it's just a matter of slogging through the dialogue and finding out what bugs people ("too complicated" = too many options, "dumbed down" = too restrained on my choices, etc.).

Of course, some people aren't very cooperative when it comes to having that dialogue. We'll just have to work around them. As always, play what you like