4E being immune to criticism (forked from Sentimentality And D&D...)

[Gort]

Man, I'm probably the only person in the community who hasn't posted here yet, and after having skipped straight from page 1 to page 23, it's obvious that this isn't really the same discussion it began as. But since I feel left out, I'll jump right into it:

4E! *flamebait* Previous editions! *flamebait* Your fault! *flamebait*

Similar situation to you. I love the fact that a thread decrying endless dead-end critical discussion of 4th ed has ballooned out to 23 pages in a week. Good show

 

[Allister]

I'd be very leery about designing powers that can only be explained by mundane means as the ingame opposition will make a mockery of this....

Hell, even 3E suffers from this and people regularly ignore it. (For example, how many people realize you can't sneak attack creatures more than one size larger than themselves i most cases?)

 

[cangrejoide]

In one respect I'm out of the war - - I play in a 3e campaign and run a True20 campaign....but I would like it if enough of this war gets through to WOTC to get them to produce a different game next time. And I definitely think it's ridiculous that they call 4e an 'evolution', not a 'revolution'. And as I've said a bazillion times before, just because the rules and the flavor they provide doesn't work for my campaign, doesn't mean I personally think it's a poor game system - it's just not compatible with the fiction of my campaign. I hold out hope that D&D will take on yet another incarnation in 5e that gets rid of a lot of this stuff that doesn't work for me, but 4th was such a huge shift that I'm not holding my breath.

I am sorry to say that if anything, the next edition of D&D will further shift into what is defined as the current version of the game ( narrative/gamist/non simulationist). So far their current model has served them well ( If you are to count sales figures). It may not be compatible with your ( an a small vocal minority of the market) 'type' of game, but it is sure compatible with a huge part of the market 'type' of game. I see no reason for WOTC to take a step back for a 5E design. Just be glad that you have your 3E books to carry you over, the same way some people have 1E, 2E, BECM, etc.

And you will always have Pari....erm I mean OGL.

(For further thoughts on this see the 5E thread in this very forum)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am sorry to say that if anything, the next edition of D&D will further shift into what is defined as the current version of the game ( narrative/gamist/non simulationist). So far their current model has served them well ( If you are to count sales figures). It may not be compatible with your ( an a small vocal minority of the market) 'type' of game, but it is sure compatible with a huge part of the market 'type' of game. I see no reason for WOTC to take a step back for a 5E design. Just be glad that you have your 3E books to carry you over, the same way some people have 1E, 2E, BECM, etc.

And you will always have Pari....erm I mean OGL.

(For further thoughts on this see the 5E thread in this very forum)

I would be careful with assumptions where the market will be heading in 6-10 years. It is possible that it will return to "simulationist" ideals.
Unless you think there is something inherently more appealing to narrative or gamist interests. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a pendulum swinging between the extremes (except that it has 3 amplitude positions )

 

[mmadsen]

I get the impression that you are skeptical of the claim that 4e can be approached from a narrative perspective. Do you think I'm being disingenuous ?

I don't doubt your sincerity; I just don't see any support for the notion that 4E is a narrativist game. The martial exploits we're discussing are pretty clearly gamist -- and not simulationist, which is my personal complaint -- with no meaningful underlying themes.

The rules constructs don't exist in order to explore character, in the literary sense, or even to produce a plot with a meaningful conflict. (Can the DM do such things? Of course, but the game is not narrativist to any great degree.)

Now, when a player invokes the non-simulationist come and get it exploit, does he have to "narrate" a rationale for why all his enemies approach with great alacrity? Sure, but that's not narrativism; that's explaining away a gamist power that makes little simulationist sense.

 

[Imaro]

Races, classes and monsters principally from Lord of the Rings {B]with extra bits from all over - mythology and fantasy plus some sci fi and comic books[/B] - but the setting is Vance's Dying Earth. Which is pure PoL, incidentally, though the 3rd and 4th books, which were published after OD&D, present a safer world than the first two. In the Gygaxian era the PCs had pulp-y money grubbing motivation but these days they're more heroic (and have been since late 1e/2e)..

Sooo...D&D doesn't have any solid narrative trappings and tropes. You're saying it's any and everything, which I guess is why fans find it so easy to claim it is narrativist (since again the narrativism claim can be slapped on anything when there's nothing to base the narration on.) when nothing in the rules or by the designers supports this, ad the setting is not Dying Earth (that's your intepretation)...What in the rules (with unaligned and evi alignments) makes PC's being "more heroic" a given?

The rules are inspired by Chainmail, earlier editions, other roleplaying games, D&D minis and about 0.01% come from videogames, which makes people very angry.

Again any and everything, so I ask once more... what sets the precedence for this so called narrativism in D&D 4e. What in the tropes of D&D specifically creates an environment where a power like "Come and Get It" makes sense in the way it's used each time...or even that certain powers can be used only once per encounter... Now I'm not asking for fans to step in and give their reasons for why this stuff works, I'm asking where within the rules the claims of narrativism is supported as a reason... or is it just a way some have chosen (because these powers and rules fit their idea of how their D&D world works.) to justify gamist elements of D&D 4e.

I don't doubt your sincerity; I just don't see any support for the notion that 4E is a narrativist game. The martial exploits we're discussing are pretty clearly gamist -- and not simulationist, which is my personal complaint -- with no meaningful underlying themes.

The rules constructs don't exist in order to explore character, in the literary sense, or even to produce a plot with a meaningful conflict. (Can the DM do such things? Of course, but the game is not narrativist to any great degree.)

Now, when a player invokes the non-simulationist come and get it exploit, does he have to "narrate" a rationale for why all his enemies approach with great alacrity? Sure, but that's not narrativism; that's explaining away a gamist power that makes little simulationist sense.

This pretty much sums up exactly what I'm trying to convey...D&D 4e is gamist and using the whole "narrativist" as a defense falls flat in reading it and in gameplay for me, when I compare it to other narrativist games.

 

[cangrejoide]

I would be careful with assumptions where the market will be heading in 6-10 years. It is possible that it will return to "simulationist" ideals.
Unless you think there is something inherently more appealing to narrative or gamist interests. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a pendulum swinging between the extremes (except that it has 3 amplitude positions )

Hmm I'll grant you that.

But I ask you how many simulationist games have appeared and been suscesful in the last 10 years?

 

[Ourph]

The rules constructs don't exist in order to explore character, in the literary sense, or even to produce a plot with a meaningful conflict. (Can the DM do such things? Of course, but the game is not narrativist to any great degree.)

This is a good point. A lot of people are seeing examples of players being given a larger piece of the "control pie" and reading that as narrativist. It certainly can be, when the purpose of giving the players that slice of pie is to allow them to use it to affect the outcome of the campaign's story. But it can also be purely gamist, when the purpose is to give the players more options for overcoming challenges. I think the purpose with 4e's powers is clearly to give the players options for overcoming challenges. Narration of the effects of those tools is entirely possible and overcoming challenges obviously affects the outcome of the story, but it doesn't mean the purpose behind the tools is narrativist-driven. If that were true, then the rules would limit the players to using those powers at dramatic moments or advise them only to use them when it contributes to the fulfillment of a certain theme or idea within the narrative and I see no evidence of that.

 

[Greg K]

Hmm I'll grant you that.

But I ask you how many simulationist games have appeared and been suscesful in the last 10 years?

And in turn, I would ask how many games are not from WOTC, White Wolf, or to a lesser degree SJG and, therefore, unable to get into Borders, Barnes and Noble, etc. where they can be exposed to the a larger segment of the population beyond those visiting local game stores or message boards let alone have the DND name attached?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Hmm I'll grant you that.

But I ask you how many simulationist games have appeared and been suscesful in the last 10 years?

Maybe the question should be: How many simulationist D&Ds have appeared and been successful in the last 10 years?
I count 1 that lasted for 8 years. Not too shabby, eh? Of course, 3E also had a lot of "gamist" stuff, especially in it attempts to balance classes (and still fail at it on many accounts) and party vs monsters.

---

This is a good point. A lot of people are seeing examples of players being given a larger piece of the "control pie" and reading that as narrativist. It certainly can be, when the purpose of giving the players that slice of pie is to allow them to use it to affect the outcome of the campaign's story. But it can also be purely gamist, when the purpose is to give the players more options for overcoming challenges. I think the purpose with 4e's powers is clearly to give the players options for overcoming challenges. Narration of the effects of those tools is entirely possible and overcoming challenges obviously affects the outcome of the story, but it doesn't mean the purpose behind the tools is narrativist-driven. If that were true, then the rules would limit the players to using those powers at dramatic moments or advise them only to use them when it contributes to the fulfillment of a certain theme or idea within the narrative and I see no evidence of that.

Come and Get It is "narrative" in this way: The player decides how he wants to affect the battlefield and choses his narration for it.

If 3E had a Come and Get It like ability, it would probably work like this:
Roll Bluff DC 10 + HD of opponent. Opponent makes Will Save DC 10 + 1/2 per level and then moves (provoking AoOs) towards you on a failure. Then you might get an AoO against the opponent (as a special feature of that feat, so you would want the Combat Reflexes feat). It would be a mind-affecting effect and Undead, Constructs and Oozes would be immune. The player doesn't get a chance to say "I am throwing some stones at the Construct, so he gets distracted from his original target" or "I am throwing some rations towards the Oozes so they finds a trail toward me".

The simulation approach to Come and Get will always define the narrative to use. You still get to define the narrative, but only if you use the simulationist details. Unfortunately sometimes you'll note that the simulation doesn't allow you to do things well enough to really faciliate the narrative you are interested in. For example, you might notice that you don't have the Taunt feat, or you face a creature immune to it and would have to find another way to describe what you're doing - but there is none.
Of course, the "gamist" part of 4E also constraints you - you get your narrative rights only once per encounter (speaking of Come and Get It).