A Wrought Iron Fence Made of Tigers

[MerricB]

I don't like that. That's not a game that helps me tell a story or play a role. That's a game that helps me kill things with flare, but CRPGs do that better. Killing things with flare is important, but it shouldn't force the story to play second fiddle. They should reinforce and advance each other -- my ability to kill things with flare should inform the story that I tell, and vice-versa. As it is, there is such a deep disconnect, that it is hard for me to enjoy it.

Flair. Unless you have the power to manipulate the sun... ooh, killing things with solar flares!

If I'm an ooze, I can still be tripped. If I'm a quadriplegic blind man on a skateboard, I can still use my class powers.

One of the disconnects between 3e and 4e is this: In 3e, you do what the rules tell you. In 4e, the DM is expected to overrule or modify the rules when something doesn't make sense. Knock an ooze prone? Doesn't make sense? Then, as the DM, you should say it doesn't happen... or, if you visit the Knowledge Base, you'll find...

Can an ooze be knocked prone?

In situations like this, DMs are encouraged to change the flavor of what is happening without changing the actual rules governing the situation. For example, the ooze could be so disoriented by the blow that it suffers the same disadvantages as if it had been knocked prone until it spends a move action to stand up effectively shaking off the condition.

Cheers!

 

[Filcher]

Flair. Unless you have the power to manipulate the sun... ooh, killing things with solar flares!

Comes with an inflatable boat and a life jacket! Eat flare, ork!

 

[Cadfan]

So, do you think there's some meat, here?

No.

I can raise the dead, heal the wounded, blast fire from my fingertips, and slay an army of soldiers, but, for all intents and purposes, that doesn't matter one whit outside of the context of killing things and taking their stuff.

This, in particular, seems to stem much more from you than from the system itself. I can honestly imagine no possible argument in support of this other than general grognarding and fist shaking at those darn kids on the lawn. Certainly, in the many, many months of edition wars on this board, I've yet to see someone put such an argument forth.

If I'm an ooze, I can still be tripped. If I'm a quadriplegic blind man on a skateboard, I can still use my class powers.

Two answers.

1. The DM has the explicit, stated right to rule that this is not in fact true.
2. This makes the game work better.

Look, a multiplicity of options leads to a multiplicity of combinations of options. A game where a character can do a backflip, ride a tricycle, and sing the national anthem, will inevitably encounter a situation where someone attempts to do a backflip on a tricycle while singing the national anthem. There are three possible ways to resolve this.

1. Don't let players do all that stuff. Restrict their options, and fewer combinatorial problems will arise.
2. Write extensive rules that cover every possible combination. This is a fool's errand, unfortunately, because the combinatorial options increase exponentially as new material arises. In 4e, where martial classes have o many different combat moves they can use, this is particularly difficult to do.
3. Give the DM a start, then tell him to use his judgment when unusual combinations arise.

I favor the third option. You see, the first two options leave us with a choice- rules bloat or not giving the players cool toys. I dislike both of those choices, and would prefer to simply empower the DM to adjudicate rough spots. That way, you can provide characters with the multiplicity of options that players seem to love, without bloating your rules beyond imagining.

When I'm DMing, and a player uses an ability or power in a way that doesn't make sense to me, I think about it for a moment. If I still can't see how it should work, I ask the player to describe how it works. If neither I nor the player can come up with anything, it doesn't work.

This rarely occurs. But I think its a vastly superior solution to a comprehensive ruleset, or to taking away all our nice things in service of a fundamental physics of Dungeons and Dragons.

Not that any of this has to do with what sorts of stories can be told, or the characters connection to the world around them. There is a massive leap of logic between something like "I don't get how encounter powers can't be used at will," to "I can't tell the stories I want to tell." Unless the story you want to tell is how Stabby McGee used Torturous Strike three times in a row, I can't see the problem.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Flair

4E has its own set of abstractions, but opponents cry foul as if abstractions never existed in the game before. Suddenly the mechanics detract from the sacred story.

Huh? I don't buy it. Or rather, the mechanics might distract from the story in YOUR game, but they certainly don't in mine. I hope you have a version of D&D that works to support your vision of sword and sorcery roleplaying.

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.

In 3e, you do what the rules tell you. In 4e, the DM is expected to overrule or modify the rules when something doesn't make sense.

Well, that's not really true. 3e had Rule 0 as one of the first things in the game, just as every edition has.

What does seem to be a difference is that 4e doesn't seem to want to imply any sort of effect other than the mechanical one.

When I'm DMing, and a player uses an ability or power in a way that doesn't make sense to me, I think about it for a moment. If I still can't see how it should work, I ask the player to describe how it works. If neither I nor the player can come up with anything, it doesn't work.

And the core of my case is that this is unsatisfying for me because it divorces the flavor from the mechanics, while I seem to prefer a system where the two work together rather than apart.

Not that any of this has to do with what sorts of stories can be told, or the characters connection to the world around them. There is a massive leap of logic between something like "I don't get how encounter powers can't be used at will," to "I can't tell the stories I want to tell." Unless the story you want to tell is how Stabby McGee used Torturous Strike three times in a row, I can't see the problem.

I'm not saying I can't do anything. Pay attention, 'cuz this shouldn't even be a case I'm addressing:

I like a game where the mechanics and the story work hand-in-hand.

When both serve a larger purpose, it creates a better game than either working by themselves. United we stand, divided we fall (for me). A game that tells me what kind of stories it is creating is better than a game that leaves it open-ended because it creates a stronger, more emotional, more visceral, and more concentrated experience. It melds the flavor with the mechanics to produce a superior effect than either alone. I prefer this. I'm seeing that 4e, in choosing to not link these two together, isn't meeting my needs.

This isn't a thread for me (or anyone else really) to whine about 4e or 3e or any other game, this is a thread to discuss the implications of the idea that mechanics and story work hand-in-hand and the ways that 4e and other games do or do not address this. I'm not bashing 4e, and I'd appreciate it if people stopped accusing me of it.

Let's go back to Merric's post for another example to hopefully clarify it:

In situations like this, DMs are encouraged to change the flavor of what is happening without changing the actual rules governing the situation. For example, the ooze could be so disoriented by the blow that it suffers the same disadvantages as if it had been knocked prone until it spends a move action to stand up effectively shaking off the condition.

You see, the story and the mechanics are separate from each other -- they don't depend on each other. The mechanics work the same way regardless of what story you tell about how they're working.

I'm saying that this leads to a less satisfying game experience for me, and figuring out the actual implications of it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Let's get another example for good measure.

Ravenloft's rules for Fear, Horror, and Madness existed to support a specific kind of story: one where fear, horror, and madness played a major role in the narrative. Likewise, Call of Cthulu's Sanity rules supported a specific feel: the slow degeneration of a mind exposed to the limits of its ability. Likewise, the Vile magic from the BoVD, with its cost in Ability Score points, supported the idea that this magic was actually sapping the raw energy of those who cast it. Similarly, the Jenga Tower in Dread supports the building tension and horror.

These all helped the story and mechanics entwine, and so are examples of the kind of thing that I really like in a game. The numbers represent something in the narrative, and the player's experience, ideally, helps mimic the experience of the character. As your Sanity drips away with no easy recovery, you feel like your character is getting nearer to some threshold that it cannot pass back over, and as quirks and phobias begin to occur, you begin to loose control of your character, just as your character begins to loose control of themselves. This is implied, not through telling, but through showing: the numbers tell you you've become less sane, and your character reflects that.

On the other side, 4e's monster creation rules don't support any specific story. They don't give you a society or an ecology or a strong theme or a reason for existence or a motive or an archetype. They give you some numbers. What you do with those numbers is left up to your whims and wildnesses.

I like the Sanity rules (and the feel they create) better than 4e's monster creation rules (which don't create any specific feel) because I prefer it when the rules and story go hand-in-hand, rather than when the rules are generic to suit whatever story is plunked down in them.

 

[malraux]

I dunno, the 4e powers system really help to create the feel of action heroes. The monster creation rules really help to present monsters that feel like the bad guys in an action movie.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I get what your saying Kamikaze, and I like those as well... BUT! Only in setting-specific games, like you pointed out Call of Cthulhu and its Sanity system.

Since then my stories don't need to thread amongst the mechanics since the story will essentially always play along with the mechanics laid down, this isn't true in a non-setting specific game like D&D.

I prefer a more generic and detached mechanic in D&D, because I view D&D as a much open and broad when it comes to setting, so to tie it down too much to one setting type I find restricting. Which also explains why I am having a much easier time coming up with vastly different worlds in 4e that work perfectly fine with the mechanics then compared to past D&D.

 

[Irda Ranger]

4e has become quite a bit more like the "JRPGs" than D&D has historically been. This is the siloing, in a nutshell: gameplay and story are kept on either side of a wrought iron fence made of tigers.

There is a wrought iron fence made of tigers. I don't dispute that. But it doesn't just protect the rules from the narrative. It also protects the rules from the other rules. To the extent the designers were able, each little bit of rule is tigered off from the others.

This is a Good Thing(TM). You know how 1E/2E was easy to house rule because all the systems were siloed off (even if also broken)? We've moved back in that direction a bit. Just follow a couple "design principles" and house ruling 4E is much less likely to "break" it as house ruling 3.x tended to do. The systems don't talk to each other, which also means they don't depend on each other.

Further, you can change the fluff. A lot. This is cool because you can make the setting your own without having to re-playtest the whole system. Sweet! The narrative is independent of the rules, which means you can change either one without effecting the other.

For anyone looking to make any changes from "The One True Way" published by Wotc, dependencies are bad.

I like a game where the mechanics and the story work hand-in-hand. 4e lost some of that, in its zeal to silo everything away. Now we have mechanics that do their thing, but no context, no real effect, for any of them. I can raise the dead, heal the wounded, blast fire from my fingertips, and slay an army of soldiers, but, for all intents and purposes, that doesn't matter one whit outside of the context of killing things and taking their stuff.

By the rules, you're right. But see below.

But everything exists in a vaccuum. Nothing affects anything else. There are no consequences, no ramifications, for a monster, or an ability, or a particular rule.

No bad ones either. 4E is a bit like a well-playtested padded room. It's pretty fun and you can't hurt yourself. Since I want to have fun and not think too hard about game design (as opposed to world, campaign, and (N)PC design), I consider that a plus.

If I'm an ooze, I can still be tripped. If I'm a quadriplegic blind man on a skateboard, I can still use my class powers.

Rule 0.

So, do you think there's some meat, here? Is this a more useful way to look at the game than G/S/N wordvomit? Does this reflect anyone else's problems with 4e? If someone is a fan of 4e's hard siloing, do you not need or want the game and the story to go hand-in-hand? Why not? What are you doing that I'm not?

Discuss and debate!

I'm a pretty hard core "simulationist" to use the G/S/N wordvomit, so you might think 4E is a problem for me. I also really, really insist that the story and the rules go hand in hand. However, 4E's hard silos work for me.

I look at like this: the rules can be interpreted however you want, so do so. Imagine each rule system as an island, all of them connected in a big web by strands of narrative. The rules don't care about lots of things, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. You can imagine each narrative "reason" for the rules working in a particular way on a particular day. I think this adds a great deal of flexibility when it comes time to tell the story (in DM mode or PC mode).

I've created a PC in my first 4E campaign (KotS) which would normally require a new class in any previous edition, but instead I took a Star Pact warlock and rewrote all the fluff to make him (for all intents and purposes) a Vistani fortune teller/witch. A Vistani doesn't need to "call darkness down from between the stars" to inflict 2d8+4 pyschic damage; he has other ways of doing that.

I think 4E's rules impose a much smaller burden, and impose fewer restrictions, on storytelling than any previous edition of D&D. The fluff implies a lot, but you can ignore that with impunity - trust me (I rewrote the Dragonborn as Fir Bolg with no changes to mechanics). The rules take over from the story here and there to impose some HP damage or a condition, and then control is given back to the story to react to what the rules did. It's very boolean.

Man, I can tell I'm not explaining this right. I really feel where you're coming from; I hope this helps.

 

[Stalker0]

I agree with those who have said Dnd has always been full of abstractions that you have to handwave to get along with the story.

My favorite one in 3.5? The fact that a 20th level character needs a truckload of regular clerics to feel fine while a 1st level wizard gets a wink and a smile from the local priest and feels like a million bucks! But hey, it works, we nod and go with it.

4e has its own set of abstractions, but I don't think they are any more egregious than 3e's were. I didn't play enough 2e to say how the flavor and mechanics really messed there.

So if anyone wants to list some specific 4e points they feel truly show the tiger fence then let's debate them. But just saying 4e mechanics "doesn't support a story" doesn't really hold a lot of weight with me.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Bummer. After reading through the whole thread (and refreshing the page to see a couple more posts appear) I see that what I consider Good Things(TM) you consider Bad Things(TM). Oh well. I'll leave my post up in case it helps you appreciate 4E's strengths.

By the way, one reason I love the 4E's mechanics "blandness" is because I never 100% like any setting as its given to me. Rule systems too closely tied to settings never hold me for long. I'm an unstoppable homebrewer that way.

Ravenloft's rules for Fear, Horror, and Madness existed to support a specific kind of story: one where fear, horror, and madness played a major role in the narrative. Likewise, Call of Cthulu's Sanity rules supported a specific feel: the slow degeneration of a mind exposed to the limits of its ability. Likewise, the Vile magic from the BoVD, with its cost in Ability Score points, supported the idea that this magic was actually sapping the raw energy of those who cast it. Similarly, the Jenga Tower in Dread supports the building tension and horror.

Yeah, D&D is just about running out of healing surges, arrows and trail rations while deep in enemy territory, and you wonder if you can kill an orc archer (and eat him) to stay alive long enough to get back to your FLPoL. Not nearly as sexy.

Maybe the problem is that that story 4E tells is about killing things and taking their stuff, and you would prefer something else?

(This is not sarcasm; honestly)

On the other side, 4e's monster creation rules don't support any specific story. They don't give you a society or an ecology or a strong theme or a reason for existence or a motive or an archetype. They give you some numbers. What you do with those numbers is left up to your whims and wildnesses.

You want "rules" that dictate breeding cycles and preferred source of dietary fiber?

I mean, when I'm writing up my campaign world, I think about stuff like that, but I don't want Mearls to waste his time "playtesting" whether the local herbivore population could actually support a hunting dragon. I'm 100% okay with coming up with that rationale myself. (And I do. The local dragon is best thought of a as a Queen Kobold (like a Queen Bee) that rests in the center of a mountain (instead of a hive) and is brought ignaeous rocks by its drones (kobolds). Its digestive system breaks them down, extracts all the heavy isotopes to power a nuclear reaction (fire!), and it poops the carbon leftovers in tiny, highly compressed little pebbles (diamonds and other gemstones, depending on impurities). Inert metals (such as gold and silver) are regurgitated. No herbivores are harmed in this process.)

If you want ecology stuff, I suggest the AD&D 2E monster manuals. Awesome. Just swap in the 4E mechanics.