A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[Krensky]

Everything it did in 3e outside of skill challenges. That hasn't changed. Skill challenges are for complex plans that require more than just bluffing.

So you can use it to gain combat advantage in a fight?

 

[Krensky]

This is a fairly narrow definition of "playing a genre", then.

But it's an accurate one. Especially since Star Wars is a rather narrow genre.

I want a game that lets this sort of question to be posed and explored, perhaps resolved, as part of play. I don't want the answer presupposed. Mechanics like punitive alignment, personality (at least in many forms), sanity (at least in some forms), "dark side points", etc are part of what supports high concept play but is (in my view) an obstacle to narrativist play.

Then you don't want to play Star Wars. You want to play something Star Wars-esk. Anger leads to hate is part of the nature of the universe in SW. By saying, "Let's play a Star Wars game" you're presupposing this, just like you're assuming wookies and droids and lightsabres exist.

 

[Krensky]

But the player doesn't get to decide whether or not they achieve their goal.

Nor should they. It's not the player's job to decide if they succeed. It's the rules and the GM's job. Otherwise why are we playing D&D or whatever instead of Baron Munchausin or just sitting around the table BSing?

And the GM has to make that fit into the world.

You mean like the GM has to fit everything that he or other plaeys want in the world in?

It is (in part) about whether the player is following the GM's hooks, or the GM following the player's hooks. 4e has more of the latter than any earlier version of D&D. That is part of the difference.

What difference? 4e has no more or fewer tools for this then 3e or any other edition of D&D or any other RPG for that matter.

Well, the reality of 4e is that it is non-simulationist in both character building, action resolution and encounter design. And for the reasons I gave upthread in post 246, this makes a difference to pacing, to the way players engage the challenges of the game, and so on. And heroquesting is an example of the sort of game that benefits from this - whereas simulationist mechanics, where the ingame reality rather than metagame considerations dictate pacing, and challenge levels, and where intervention in the past in order to change the future is either a matter of GM fiat or else mecanically spelled-out rituals, don't support this so well.

So non-GM player fiat is better then GM fiat? You're really stretching your arguments thin to keep claiming that 4e is something it isn't.

4e resembles Heroquest in the relevant respects. Like a HQ player, a 4e player gets to dictate to the GM what is relevant (by choosing Paragon Path and Epic Destiny) just as a HQ player does by chooing relationships and the like. Like a HQ player, a 4e player gets to choose how to engage situations, and thereby help frame them thematically in the game, via skill challenge mechanics.

3e resembles Heroquest in the relevant respects. Like a HQ player, a 3e player gets to dictate to the GM what is relevant (by choosing skills, feat, and Prestige) just as a HQ player does by chooing relationships and the like. Like a HQ player, a 3e player gets to choose how to engage situations, and thereby help frame them thematically in the game, via complex skill check mechanics and other game rules.

There is nothing special about the elements you bring up in 4e. They're all cribbed from earlier RPGs, including 3e.

Because of the alignment rules - the GM gets to decide whether or not I'm evil, for example. Because of the lack of myth and history. Because of the metaplot. Look at Dead Gods, for example. As I read that module, there is no expectation that the players, via their PCs, will engage with the backstory and use that to change the gameworld. To me, at least, it reads just like a railroad.

No, you get to decide that. The GM just tells you what the effect of your actions are regarding that choice. I'm not a major Planescape fan, but considering how many pages were published for it, saying there's no myth or history seems a little disingenuous. Unless you're doing the typical Forge thing and redefining those terms.

 

[Imaro]

But it's an accurate one. Especially since Star Wars is a rather narrow genre.



Then you don't want to play Star Wars. You want to play something Star Wars-esk. Anger leads to hate is part of the nature of the universe in SW. By saying, "Let's play a Star Wars game" you're presupposing this, just like you're assuming wookies and droids and lightsabres exist.

I'm starting to think that pemerton has set up a sort of fallacy where narrativist play means that the game must not define certain things concerning the particular theme being explored... However...I do not believe this is actually a requirement for narrativist play (or even good for it), as it pre-supposes in an extreme example, no type of base for anything since then the players wouldn't be able to, according to pemerton's posts so far, explore their own definitions of a particular theme or whatever. In a less extreme example it forces the question of what should and shouldn't be defined and who decides it. However after reading up on narrativism I am convinced this is untrue and his own narrowing of what is necessary for narrativist play.

I believe narrativist play is about exploring a theme through the beliefs and choices a character (not player) makes in game and the ramifications and consequences those choices have within the context of the setting. However there is no requirement in it that pre-supposes the character or player decides what the ramifications are or is in some way capable of deciding the parameters (setting) in which the thematic play takes place...thus certain things such as alignment, the dark side or a werewolf's rage don't hinder narrative play at all, as it is specifically about the consequences and ramifications of one's actions within the context of the setting and these things are accepted as part of the setting. In other words I feel pemerton's argument is really about him perferring the 4e cosmology to previous editions and perhaps his own ideas on how he wishes to tweak narrativist play as opposed to what hinders or helps base narrativist play in various editions.

 

[shadzar]

This is a fairly narrow definition of "playing a genre", then.

I want a game that lets this sort of question to be posed and explored, perhaps resolved, as part of play.

Then you don't want to play a Star Wars game. Part of the universe that says "anger leads to hate" is in part a definition of Star Wars.

Certain games have certain settings that define them. The people that want the Star Wars universe play in it, other don't have to.

There are also rules for the Dune universe that when removed you take Dune away.

The people looking for the experience of that universe will want those things.

 

[Bluenose]

So you can use it to gain combat advantage in a fight?

Yes. Standard Action, opposed by an Insight check. Gain CA to the end of your next turn. I think there are a few ways to get it as a Move or Minor action.

 

[Krensky]

Yes. Standard Action, opposed by an Insight check. Gain CA to the end of your next turn. I think there are a few ways to get it as a Move or Minor action.

I stand informed. I would have figured this was frowned upon under the premise of keeping combat and skills separate. Although I notice that Diversion is only a combat trick now.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I don't want to sound rude here, but ...

In 4e, those skills don't do anything. You literally cannot know what your character is capable of until you see the skill challenge.

How is this any different from, say, 3E combat?

Can you look solely at your character sheet and answer the question, "Can you beat an orc?"

Actually, you can calculate it to a high degree of accuracy.

[...]

It is not the same thing. It is just true that in 3e, an orc warrior 1 or an orc fighter 12 has certain capabilities, and you can imagine how you will fare against an orc war 1 or an orc fighter 12.

That is not what I said at all, ergo you *are* arguing against a strawman.

Build a 3rd-level Human Fighter, Core Rulebook only, using the available wealth guidelines. Look only at your own character sheet.

I, the DM, tell you that I'm going to place you into a room with an orc (presumably guarding a pie). Without knowing anything else about that orc (because of your claim that you can tell with a high degree of accuracy your combat capability in 3E by only referencing your own character sheet), what are your chances of defeating him in a fight?

You can give me a +/-10% range, if you want.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A combat- in any version of D&D- is radically different from using a skill. I really don't understand how we got to combat comparisons from comparing skills and what they mean across systems.

Back to skills, consider lockpicking. In 3.X, you know a masterwork lock is somewhere about a DC of 25. So looking at your PC's skill, you can estimate your odds of picking that lock. And you know that as you level up, you'll have better and better odds of picking a masterwork lock...but you can still fail, no matter how good you are.

In earlier editions, thieves all rolled their lockpicking chances against a single percentage-based chart.

In contrast, skill challenges of 4Ed are different from any previous incarnation of D&D. 4Ed's system says the challenge of lockpicking scales with PC level (please correct me if I'm wrong). Because of this, just looking at your PC's sheet, you cannot guess what your odds of success are.

 

[Lanefan]

Re: whether you can tell by your character sheet whether you can beat an Orc or not:

Actually, you can calculate it to a high degree of accuracy.

See, that's actually part of the problem.

Other than vague generalities (most of the time I'll beat it) or really obvious mismatches (e.g. a Fighter-10 against an Orc), you should never be able to tell how any combat will go until and unless you play it out. If you can work it as accurately as you claim without rolling any dice, the game's math has become far too fine-tuned at cost of the randomness of combat.

Lanefan