The Truth About 4th Edition.

[ST]

If someone is walking away when it is not their turn, they are not participating in the same activity that I think of when I play a roleplaying game. They may be having a ton of fun. I'm not making a relative value statement there. But we are not talking about two different ways to achieve the same thing, we are talking about achieving two different things.

I suppose if the rest of us were invested in your personal, internal definition of "roleplaying game", this would be important to the conversation. But it's just your own definition; everyone else has one in their head, too.

Your personal definition of "engaging", from what I can see here anyway, has some strong implications of a Heavy Immersionist style, where it's fine if the game isn't particularly interactive for a while as long as everybody at the table is strongly engaged in imagining the game world and feeling an internal sense of their character.

Fair enough, that's a fairly common play style. But it sure ain't the only one. And boy howdy, is certainly is the one play style whose proponents tend to say that other play styles aren't really "roleplaying". Expecting other people to adopt your own preferences doesn't really make any more sense than them expecting you to adopt theirs.

You're entitled to your opinion, certainly, but the crux of your argument is that long handling times don't matter because even people who haven't gotten to take any action for hours, because their character is dead, are still fully engaged. And that that is by far the most common play style, and nobody should have a reason to complain about it. I'm sure you feel that way, yes, but surely you can see that there are other people don't feel that way, possibly because they are telling you here in this thread "I don't feel that way."

 

[Raduin711]

I don't think either side here is completely right or completely wrong.

Sometimes, waiting for your turn is boring. This isn't a question of maturity, or role-playing skill, or mental sickness. Sometimes what is happening when it is not your turn is just not very interesting.

IMO, 4th edition's answer to that was to try to make character's actions more closely linked with one another, so that an effective strategy consists of one character bouncing off of another character's ability. Finding out whether that damage bonus you gave Winnifred is going to make a difference is one way to keep you at the table and interested, and thus, entertained.

Well, what do you do instead? Just have people say vaguely where they are and every so often ask a person at DM whim what they want to do next?

Because that sounds confusing as heck. There's a good reason we had paper maps in 2nd ed, which turned into grids in 3e. They prevent every combat from being:

DM: "Seven guys rush you. Each of you get engaged by two guys, except for Tough Player, you get three."
Wizard Player: "But how can they reach me? I'm round the corner/at the back of the party/on the moon/under the table!"
DM: "You didn't say you were under the table, I thought you were in the room with the others!"
Rogue Player: "Can I backstab yet? Am I behind anyone? Can I sort of like slip between some guys so I can backstab them? I never get to backstab anyone!"

Well, maybe not every combat, but there've been plenty of times when the idea the DM has of player positioning has been very different to the idea the players have.

Generally speaking whenever anyone brings up miniatures or grid maps as a bad thing, their expectation is that the GM should just handle it all. Something not covered by the game? GM handwaves it! Which is great and all, but I'd sooner just know that I'm behind someone and can backstab them rather than having to ask permission from The Master beforehand.

I think your assessment of mapless combat does point out some of its flaws, but I think you might be missing the benefits.

For one, players relying on the DM for information about the combat is a good thing. This allows him to describe the combat free from the constraints of the grid. He doesn't have to be exact; as long as the action sounds plausible, it's a go.

It is also yet another way to keep player's attentions between turns. Occasionally that attention will lapse, which is a burden of mapless combat. But one other thing it does well is put the image of the events in the player's minds. It is easy to let combat turn into a sort of strategy/board game when using a map. Yipping kobolds are now pennies, ogres are now whatever "large" sized mini the DM had on hand. This doesn't exactly stop you from using your imagination, but more than likely you are focusing on strategy, rather than mental imagery. Ever since 3rd edition players and DM's have been searching for various ways to make combat more cinematic. Best way to do that: take the map away.

Now, i am not saying that mapless is superior. Combat maps have obvious advantages. I just think that sometimes mapless combat has its own advantages as well.

 

[Windjammer]

I'm also starting to wonder whether the issues of players getting bored when it isn't their turn both is and is not a real issue.

I recall reading a rather detailed report of someone running one of the 2009 Gameday adventures (released for one of the Core 2's, I think it was for MM 2, Journey through the Silver Caves).

The gist of it was, 'Geez, have I been out of the hobby so long? Am I so out of touch with youth culture today?'. Ah, okay, so we're talking about someone in his mid-30s (if not 1-2 decades later). The guy in question ran the demo module in a store for guys and girls in their late teens. He was impressed (and distraught!) by their needless effort to 'multi-task' - doing stuff on their iphones, texting friends, all of this happening right there at the game table - but having difficulty doing some of the math in the game, and keeping their attention even when it was their turn.

Assuming the report is honest (and my recall isn't totally warped - wish I could remember where I read it - and then link it)... that's quite a window into the sort of situation 4E was designed to handle well, and which Collins talks about in the interview.

I think 4E's overarching design goal was to be a game people can easily get into while trying it out at stores or conventions. I also think that design goal was exceedingly well met. In these types of situations you don't want to eliminate a guy from playing his PC ten minutes into the game. And you don't want him to sit there on his hands, waiting half an hour for his next turn. Because if you do that, you risk the possibility of that guy simply walking away from the game and, by extenuation, from ever purchasing it.

But here's the catch. We're talking about contexts which lack the social component of ... bonds of friendship.

I'd be hard pressed to generalize design choices for such contexts beyond them. Which is why I'm with BryonD on this issue. As regards my own person and my home games, I don't want to be lumped into this target demographic.

Because, if people in my home games behaved in the manner described - getting bored when it's not their turn, disengaging from the game to the point of walking out of the room - I'd basically stop and ask myself (and them!) why they are behaving like complete strangers to the rest of the group. And if they continued to behave in this manner, I'd ask them to leave.

 

[BryonD]

I suppose if the rest of us were invested in your personal, internal definition of "roleplaying game", this would be important to the conversation. But it's just your own definition; everyone else has one in their head, too.

Which is why I specifically said we are talking about two different things.

I am not rejecting the appeal of 4E. I'm saying its appeal, and what appeals to me about other games (3E/PF being the clear example) are very much different.

They are different games with different design concepts and are not freely interchangeable.

I've had people tell me that the only reason not to play 4E is just closed-minded resistance to change.
I've had people tell me that 4E does everything 3E does, only easier.
With no claim at all that one game is an implicitly superior experience, I'll say that those statements are decidedly false.
The referenced interview and the comments I have replied to are clear evidence.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I suppose if the rest of us were invested in your personal, internal definition of "roleplaying game", this would be important to the conversation. But it's just your own definition; everyone else has one in their head, too.

"Roleplaying" is too vague a term to be useful. Along with "D&D" and "videogamey", it should not be used.

 

[ST]

Well, that's interesting. Are you saying the high handling time of 3e/PF, and the fact that there's relatively little interaction during other player's turns, are a good thing? So far I'd only seen you argue that they weren't an issue.

I'm just kidding, I know the people who prefer the 3.x style have numerous reasons for doing so. I'd imagine there are tradeoffs that make the handling time worth doing.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think either side here is completely right or completely wrong.

Neither do I.

Enjoying romantic comedies and enjoying horror movies are both completely reasonable positions. It would be silly to argue otherwise. And people can very easily enjoy both.

But if you went to a discussion about romantic comedies and started insisting that the latest SAW movie fit right in, then the differences would be important. Saying, correctly, that they are both obviously "movies" would not break the dispute.

 

[filthgrinder]

I have more time than you just playing my main (I got three 80's), but I also don't want a 4E Wow setting.

It's a great game, but I'm not a big fan of Wow's lore clichés...

Why would a Wow player want to leave his PC for playing with dices?

You do realize that there was a WoW setting for 3.5
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/World-Warcraft-Roleplaying-Game-d20/dp/1588467813/]Amazon.com: World Of Warcraft The Roleplaying Game (d20 3.5) (9781588467812): Rob Baxter: Books[/ame]

So if anything, I think 3.5 was more WoWish, since you know, there is a WoW setting for it and all...

 

[BryonD]

Well, that's interesting. Are you saying the high handling time of 3e/PF, and the fact that there's relatively little interaction during other player's turns, are a good thing? So far I'd only seen you argue that they weren't an issue.

I'm just kidding, I know the people who prefer the 3.x style have numerous reasons for doing so. I'd imagine there are tradeoffs that make the handling time worth doing.

"High handling" time can be managed. I do not find that it exists to an extent to be a problem.

And I don't accept "relatively little interaction" as a fact at all. Again, even if there was zero interaction, engagement in the story should be the driver. If you run the same story under two different systems and the only thing keeping people at the table is one of the systems, then the story itself is not being everything it has the potential to be.

I don't see my enjoyment of 3E as trade-offs for handling time.

 

[Jack99]

I have more time than you just playing my main (I got three 80's), but I also don't want a 4E Wow setting.

It's a great game, but I'm not a big fan of Wow's lore clichés...

Why would a Wow player want to leave his PC for playing with dices?

You have over 1000 days played in WoW on just your main? That's pretty neat.