Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[Thasmodious]

In which case, why not just find a better word - or invent one - and use that instead. Askew is one possibility - my 4e-fu isn't good enough to come up with the full 4e wording of what the condition means, but it would be much the same as for prone but with this change:

Because, as soon as you do, you or someone else on a message board will find another corner case that invalidates that or will have created a new corner case with the different word. That's the pitfall of designing for the corner case rather than the general state of things. In most cases, calling it prone works just fine. In a few, rare cases, it can get a bit wonky if you poke it with a stick. Any individual group will have a method for dealing with this without much thought. Either the DM says you can't knock a snake prone, or a player describes it as "going all Steve Irwin on the snake", or the group doesn't fret with it much at all.

Point is, the "better" word is one that fits in most of the situations that will be encountered at the game table, and in this case, it's likely 'prone'. Like I said before, it's not hard to imagine doing something to a snake or a cube or a hydra that causes it to take a penalty to hit, be harder to hit from range and take an action to "right itself". That's what the condition implies. And if it doesn't jive with a particular group's sensibilities, there is nothing wrong with a group agreeing that powers will be tweaked at the table to make sense to that group. But I don't see a need to design games to account for every wonky corner case and situation that could possibly crop up over the course of hundreds of sessions. In fact, I think it is impossible to do so.

 

[Lanefan]

Point is, the "better" word is one that fits in most of the situations that will be encountered at the game table, and in this case, it's likely 'prone'. Like I said before, it's not hard to imagine doing something to a snake or a cube or a hydra that causes it to take a penalty to hit, be harder to hit from range and take an action to "right itself". That's what the condition implies. And if it doesn't jive with a particular group's sensibilities, there is nothing wrong with a group agreeing that powers will be tweaked at the table to make sense to that group. But I don't see a need to design games to account for every wonky corner case and situation that could possibly crop up over the course of hundreds of sessions. In fact, I think it is impossible to do so.

Impossible to hit every case, yes.

But it is very possible to eliminate some of those cases - my 'askew' example above might, for example.

In other words, if all other things are equal and one word covers 95% of the cases while another covers 97% which would you choose?

Lan-"askew much of the time, it seems"-efan

 

[Thasmodious]

Impossible to hit every case, yes.

But it is very possible to eliminate some of those cases - my 'askew' example above might, for example.

In other words, if all other things are equal and one word covers 95% of the cases while another covers 97% which would you choose?

Lan-"askew much of the time, it seems"-efan

Sure, but I don't think 'askew' covers it. I think prone does, snakes aside. You said yourself you could imagine a coiled snake getting knocked prone (I think that was you). When a PC is using a power that applies the prone condition, its a pretty good assumption that the snake is in a coiled to strike position as opposed to a strolling on the sand dune position.

We're making a stretch of an assumption if we assume that the designers didn't have much the same conversation or consider the labels carefully. The ones chosen are the ones they feel apply that 97% of the time. If it helps you sleep better at night, call it askew. It works about as well as prone, if a bit awkwardly, for legged creatures and works better for cubes and snakes. The drawback is the -2 to hit at range because of the profile. It's just semantics in the end, the mechanical effects are what's important.

This would be far from an unreasonable conversation at the game table:
PC:...and the snake is prone.
PC2: How do you knock a snake prone?
DM: Prone, askew, whatever, point is the snake has a -2 to hit, grants combat advantage and you have a -2 to hit it at range

Thas-"they be just words, mon"-modious

 

[Balesir]

Page 42 could absolutely be used to run a D&D game on its own, sans powers, combat rules and the like. And it's the existence of something like page 42 that keeps the system from becoming "based on its restrictions".

Yes, but I still think that a game run completely by Page 42 would not be D&D 4E. That is not to say it would be a bad game - with the right group it could be very good - but it would be very different from the "standard" 4E game. The game is strong enough to have an element of Page 42 and still remain based on what the majority of the rules pages are about - but a game that is Page 42 is something else entirely. Add to that that Page 42 is still explicitly about dealing with practical and physical challenges; it's clear that something else has to be added to it to get a game with another focus (I would tentatively suggest that these would be a narrative 'theme' or 'issue' for one style and a coherent world model for the other). While this "extra something" can be added by play groups that know what they are seeking, without prescription, I would still say that they form part of the "system" used to play the game. The fact that they are not written down, and that an experienced group might know what they are at a gut level without necessarily being able to express them in words, does not change that. A published game system that was designed to support such other styles, though, would absolutely have, at the least, some guidelines and advice for constructing those additional elements. The best also have rules for it.

Now, as to mixing types, where I think the conclusion that you can't mix well falls apart is that this is what stories do.

Do they? I'm not at all sure that most do. It seems to me that this is a large part of what we call "genre". It's not the entirety of genre, but most genres fit mostly into one 'camp'; action-adventure, for instance, rarely steps significantly beyond the "gamist" mode. Crime thrillers and murder-mysteries are generally "gamist", too, with good and bad clearly delineated and unblurred throughout. Some 'action' stories flirt briefly with a serious theme, but don't actually take the step into "narrativism" by actually challenging the "received wisdom" in any meaningful way. Star Wars, for example, seems to me to be almost pure "gamist"; the one real challenge to the "Light side = good; Dark side = bad" paradigm is when Luke discovers Vader is his father. Now, if Vader had tuned out to be the ultimate big-bad that Luke had to kill, that might have turned seriously Nar - but as it was the practical goal was able to switch seamlessly from "kill Vader" to "kill the Emperor", and the basic schema was not really seriously questioned, let alone tested.

Avatar - another action flick vaunted for its "ethical content" - is pretty much the same. The basic "greedy industrial corporation = bad; primitive ecological stuff = good" is never really in doubt. Worse than that, the eco-folk are even proved to be unequivocally right, in the end. If the planet had not been "alive", and the eco-folk had reacted to environmental danger by killing a portion of their young by lottery, that might have constituted a meaningful challenge - but the contest was never really there.

As an example of a really Narrativist film, I would take The Reader. Who is the villain in that film? There's an interesting question! But the film's action sequences are hardly points of doubt - everybody knows that 17-year-old boys have unlimited endurance, where sex is concerned

Another example of Nar would be Deadwood (the HBO series). Sure, it has a few "action" moments - but they are spice, not the main event. No-one would watch Deadwood for the special effects. Well, not without disappointment, anyhow.

For examples of Sim my first thought is the Aubrey & Maturin books (not the Master and Commander film, particularly, although it wasn't bad - it did tend to action-adventure a bit). Sure, there is action - how could a war story be without it - but it's never the main focus. It's a picture of life, which never ties up in a neat 'ending'.

These types of obstacles are tools, not different styles unto themselves. Many stories present their conflicts utilizing all types of conflict, and often in the same "scene".

I maybe chose a poor example in the "ethical challenge" I proposed. Such challenges may indeed fit into D&D, but unless the players make a very specific response to them they are unlikely to make for a 'narrativist' story. The "sacrifice the halfling baby", for example. If the players refuse, then the game stays on the previous tack (unless refusing also carries an ethical price - a "real" bang where neither option maintains all the players'/characters' principles intact). If the players choose for their characters to sacrifice the baby, however, the story may well change it's nature.

Games can easily do the same. I guess where I disagree is that there is not a need to do any one "really well" but utilizing those tools builds a more complete game than focusing in on one sole element. The whole of the game is greater than the sum of its parts.

Sure, you can flirt with other types of focus - maybe the group will even run with one of them. In the end, though, I think the story will be pretty clearly one thing or another.

The bulk of most RPG systems deals with the first type of obstacle out of necessity, that's where the most rules bulk is needed. But page count does not equal focus.

Not neccessarily, I agree - but there are systems that have actual support for the other foci and simplify the practical challenge rules considerably. Pendragon is one example. Sorceror is another. Vampire: the Masquerade tried, but ultimately failed - mainly, I think, because it tried to do more than one focus at once.

The thing is, "switching" is not a noticeable thing to the player or the reader in a well developed story or game. Players approach an obstacle by whatever means are necessary and don't tend to analyze along the lines of "which is this one now, a moral quandary or should we just bash things?"

Actually, I think they absolutely do. Take the "halfling baby" case; if sacrificing the baby isn't even a consideration, then no switch has been made. All you have is a complication to add to the practical challenge. But what if the alternative is that orcs break into the city and sack it? Or a party member dies? If the players don't notice that sort of switch, I can only think they're not paying attention.

The GM may think of these things, but its not so cut and dried as turning one off and turning on another. So I don't think utilizing various tools leads to a muddling of the narrative waters.

Variants of all the types of challenge can be used as elements or alternatives for any focus of play. In a Sim game it's possible to have fights, of course, but that does not mean they suddenly become gamist. The challenge type doesn't change the focus on its own. It might invite a change in focus - but unless and until the group as a whole takes up that new focus it hasn't really changed, I don't think. An elephant might kill a lion defending its young, but that doesn't make it a lion hunter.

Edit on snakes: I might have difficulty imagining knocking a snake prone, but I have no difficulty imagining throwing one prone. 'Prone' means it's flat on its back, just as with humanoids. That whole argument is just silly, IMO...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

... So, while I am sure that any type of game can be mixed with any other, and can be played using any game system, I think that doing any of the styles really well required a sole focus and a supportive system.

That's not to say, even so, that an introductory phase might not be accomplished with one focus before switching to another - but switching too many times is likely to be disruptive, even so, and it may well be worth considering switching system at the twist point.

The whole post deserves more response than I can give right now, as we are still recovering from the Tornados here. But Thasmodious already touched on what I believe to be the main difference in actual play, related to the above quote.

The stated assumption is that too many times is disruptive. This is key. For the style of play at our table, switching is not only not disruptive, but expected and highly useful.

I write software for a living. So both from understanding how CPUs work, and how people write code, I'm well aware that there really isn't such a thing as "multi-tasking"--despite the illusion that computers create, and that software managers can't seem to ever fully grasp. What you have is "task switching". If it happens easily and seamlessly enough, then it appears to the outside person to be "multi-tasking". And no, multiple processers on your single machine is not "multi-tasking" any more than having 4 people load firewood onto a truck is "multi-tasking". This is dividing the work, which is a separate, but important and related concept.

Now, some people task switch better and more effectively than others, in general. And just about everyone task switches between some tasks much more effectively than they do other tasks. I happen to task switch very slowly when writing code or, well, writing something like this post. One interruption, and I have to ramp up again. But when I'm running a roleplaying game, I task switch very easily. Most of the people I game with do as well. We switch from roleplaying characters talking (on different levels) to OOC chatter to mechanics to metagame discussion to explicitly story-driving behavior (author stance, narration, etc.), sometimes within seconds.

This is not always perfect (nothing ever is), but it does happen the way I just described it. Yeah, sometimes I'm building up to a certain moment, and someone says a lame joke and temporarily derails me. It happens. And sometimes I'm building up to a dramatic moment, and someone puts in a great joke, and we go into pun mode for 5 minutes. But see, that five minutes is as much a part of the emergent story as the drama we were driving for. In popular culture, the closet thing I know to explain it is to say that Terry Prachet wrote a western novel, then the Coen Brothers adapted it to a screen play, which Clint Eastwood directed. Sandra Bullock and Adam Sandler starred. Jody Foster and Robert Duvall produced, and were the supporting actors. Robin Williams was the main villain. We don't always hit, but hit or miss, we are always quirky. That is our table.

And quickly, my definition of "story" is basically a quirky extrapolation from the basic creative writing conceit of story, which is that conflict makes story. That's it. You have a hunter in the woods. You can talk about him all day, describe the sun, the trees, etc. You have no story. Add a bear. Now you have a story.

Where the quirky comes in, is that we don't care how the conflict resolves, gets framed, gets adapted, etc. We are happy with hunter shoots bear. We are happy with bear eats hunter. We are happy with hunter mortally wounds bear who eats hunter before it dies. We are happy with hunter stalks bear but the situation is unresolved before some other conflict intrudes. We are happy with hunter and bear form an alliance to stop tiger. We are happy with hunter and bear become best friends and go to Vegas where they start a musical review. And it doesn't really matter to us whether the hunter or bear or both are PCs, either.

All that doesn't really answer Balesir's point, but I think it at least lays the groundwork for my set of competing assumptions.

 

[Thasmodious]

Yes, but I still think that a game run completely by Page 42 would not be D&D 4E. That is not to say it would be a bad game - with the right group it could be very good - but it would be very different from the "standard" 4E game.

Of course it would different from standard, but it would still be identifiably D&D. I'd still like to run this sometime, perhaps as an OLG.

Do they? I'm not at all sure that most do. It seems to me that this is a large part of what we call "genre". It's not the entirety of genre, but most genres fit mostly into one 'camp'; action-adventure, for instance, rarely steps significantly beyond the "gamist" mode. Crime thrillers and murder-mysteries are generally "gamist", too, with good and bad clearly delineated and unblurred throughout. Some 'action' stories flirt briefly with a serious theme, but don't actually take the step into "narrativism" by actually challenging the "received wisdom" in any meaningful way.

You're kind of moving the goalposts on me here, though. We're talking about mixing the elements of play, not requiring that any we use be the main focus when it is being used. I don't think stories "switch" from one to the other, but blend. I would agree, most have a primary focus, but they mix seemlessly the other elements, the great ones often do, anyway.

In response to your examples, I'd say Star Wars is a simplistic example because it's a simplistic by design story and a classic white/black hat one, one that helped define the trope. Even then, it has both elements of narrativism (I'm using, but don't really like, the GNS terms to keep us on the same page) and simulation blended in. We also have the arc of Han Solo and, counting the prequels, the full arc of Vader himself, to consider. And while the rich settings are mostly backdrops, we still have a strong element of world and journey, both literal and metaphorical. As for Avatar, I'd say it was criticized for its "ethical content" not vaunted for it. It was a tired retread of industrial society versus ecology precisely because the elements were never in doubt. That was handled much better in an example I'd hold up as a highlight of blending elements that also, as a side benefit, led to the creation of our beloved hobby -

LotR. The thematic thread running through the whole tale was industry versus nature, but, as with most great stories (and I think great games), the theme was not something so directly acted upon by the characters. There are moments where a character makes a comment in support of the theme, but mostly Tolkien just shows us by making us love Hobbiton, and Rivendell, and Fangorn, and half a dozen other locations. The physical obstacles are many: fights, battles, natural obstacles, social obstacles (dealing with the elves, the ents, etc). We have a pretty seemless blending of all the elements, focused on a party, broken down into challenges, that nonetheless includes a wealth of moral and ethical situations, a strong running theme, and exploration of both the world and society as a central part of the adventure.

I feel I need to stress that I'm talking about blending the elements and not switching foci. I don't think switching focus is the goal. I don't think making a game moment solely about one thing or another is a good way to go about it. I agree that many stories and games likely have a focus along one element or another, they are primarily action based or primarily a game of exploration (sand box for example), but a good game will blend in plenty of physical challenges and combats as well as elements of story and plot (whether GM or player determined, or both).

Sure, you can flirt with other types of focus - maybe the group will even run with one of them. In the end, though, I think the story will be pretty clearly one thing or another.

I don't. It may well have a clear focus, but even most action stories have story, even while action is what drives it. Sure, at the low end of genre, its pretty generic and tacked on, but, again, the great ones rise above the trappings by blending the elements, by having a great story, real character development, a focused setting. The Matrix is a prime example of this.

If the players don't notice that sort of switch, I can only think they're not paying attention.

My argument is that it's not a switch, or doesn't have to be. You don't stop the game, completely change the presentation, clear the minis off the map while the dilemma is being resolved, its blended with the action element or with the setting element. It arises from character or plot or setting. You don't have to change the focus of the game, it's ALL the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Thasmodious, can't give you XP right now. It's ALL the game, ALL the time!

Note, too, that unstated in this discussion is the role that immersion plays. Roleplayers desire different amounts of immersion, but the level of immersion desired necessarily changes the parameters of the dicussion from table to table. Any level is fine, if that is what you want, but quite simply, there are things possible at very shallow immersion that simply can't easily happen at deep immersion, and vice versa. There are probably other competing factors that have those same kinds of defining consequences.

It doesn't do any good to attempt to define "story" universally based on a particular set of choices for immersion and those other factors. Story is bigger (broader? deeper?) than that.

 

[Fifth Element]

Two fundamental principles of rules drafting:

1. Do not define a word that is unnecessary to define. If the plain and ordinary meaning of a word, when read in the context in which it appears, is clear and unambiguous, it does not need to be specifically defined.

2. If you have to define a word, then how it is defined must not be inconsistent with the word's plain and ordinary meaning.

I don't think this has anything to do with the problem of knocking a snake prone. The "prone" condition, when applied to the majority of cases in 4E, means just what the ordinary sense of the word means. It's only when you get into unusual cases, like snakes or oozes, that there's a potential problem for some people.

The definition of prone, in 4E, is a purely mechanical one. Mechanics are included to represent the effect of being prone, and these effects are the effective definition of prone.

The problem only arises when a creature that you would not normally think of being prone, such as an ooze, is knocked prone. That's an immersion thing, so far as I can tell, not a definition thing.

While I think the "prone" condition in D&D 4E is merely a bunch of mechical effects given a label, that label causes confusion and the sorts of debates we see here, because it does not accord with our instinctive understanding of what the label means.

Sure, anything that's defined mechanically can have this problem. But what would you recommend it be called if not "prone"? Should we make up entirely new terms for each defined mechanic in the game? Because that has its own problems.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As I find myself drawn into comparing the versions/editions of our game. In fact TO discuss this topic in it's fullest, I almost see no way to NOT compare editions...

How did I know as soon as I read this that the following post was going to simply show how badly you understand 4th edition?

Why am I playing this game if all I want is an endless debate with my DM about rules, and my character is so rediculously powerful that (as the OP posted) he can lock down a Demigod with no, let me rephrase NO chance of said demigod doing anything to get out of it.

I don't know. But that isn't 4e. Now high powered mooks can be stunlocked. But demigods? Even low level dragons can automatically escape stunlock without having to roll.

This reminds me of the old old days - good old fashioned 1st Edition - and our ancient characters, in some cases ten plus 'real' years old. We had grown so insanely powerful, so rediculously uber, that our DM had been reduced to utilize Dieties and Demigods for our random encounters. And yes, we'd find Loki (not some avatar of him, but He - Himself) and we'd promptly open a can of whoop-ass on him. The rules were clear. We had the abilities and powers, and hell, we ALL had quite a few more levels, hit points and special abilities than any of the dieties listed in that book. Needless to say it got boring, real fast.

Ayup. Which does not and can not apply in 4e. You can get damn powerful. But you never get as powerful as a 17th level wizard in older editions. There is no 4e equivalent to Wish.

How this relates to this discussion? The DM works hard long and meticulously in creating a fun, interesting and challenging adventure for our Epic 4th Edition characters - only to find that the very Rules themselves take away virtually any threat of mortality to the PCs.

Which explains why my 4e campaigns are more lethal than the 3e and 2e ones were in my group...

In fact, those same rules literally dicate that it's the role of the DM to ensure the success of the players and their characters.

Source?

instead, he's there to challenge them, and to instil an element of mystery. 4th doesn't let you do that. In 4th, he's a simple referee.

Complete and utter codswallop. I don't know what game you are talking about, but not 4e.

Yes he can tell a story, but he is tightly bound by the rules to make everyone a super-hero. What's the fun in that? What's the challenge?

Define Superhero. At first level goblins or kobolds in equal numbers are considered a match for the party. Some superheroes! At 17th level the wizard can cast Wish. Now that makes him more powerful that most superheroes. Oh wait. Wish doesn't appear in 4th edition. It does in 3e, 2e, and 1e. Do you really want to keep talking about superheroes? Because unlike previous editions, 4e ranges up to high end pulp and sword and sorcery heroes. Not people so powerful that they can gank Loki easily.

Our group played 2nd Edition Rules for several years, and eventually everyone started just knowing the various monsters. Their weaknesses, strengths, abilities - everything. So I changed them.

Congratulations. You customised monsters. Something 4e makes easy for you. Never mind the fact that there are half a dozen statblocks for Orcs in Monster Vault alone.

Now tying the hands of DMs might be a good idea, as I will be the first to admit, there are alot of them that simply suck at it.

And you keep arguing that the DM's hands are tied. You're arguing this without evidence.

No, our Dwarf raised his Silvered Battle Axe and Knocked the Mattock aside. This Mattock should have sundured the blade of that axe. Should have splintered the haft of it.

Why? A parry isn't a straight block or it would be almost impossible to parry a fencing foil (which I can tell you is not the case) - you would have to catch the point on the guard of your own foil. It's deflecting the weapon so it doesn't hit. Either blocking or using your leverage to sweep the blow outside the line of your body.

Instead he performed the impossible. Not the unlikely. Not the fantastic and improbable. The impossible.

Bull! The Dwarf caught the tip of the giant's club with his axe and, putting his muscle behind it, swept its momentum out of the line of his body. At every moment he was applying force to the club at right angles to the motion of the club so it wasn't too hard - and the club missed him and instead sunk deep into the earth or smashed against the walls.

There. Your so-called impossible parry. Sure you need to be very skilled to pull that off. But it certainly isn't impossible.

The DM ajudicated an ammendment there and then - that a blow or object that should be unparryable - is just that, at DMO (Dungeon Master's Option), something generally missing from 4th.

Translation: The DM got his panties in a bunch that he'd screwed up and decided to screw over the dwarf so his giant could look awesome despite not actually being that good. He changed the rules of reality and the narrative consistency of the game mid way through.

I also trust he carried his ruling right the way through and said that shields didn't work at all against giants. Because every objection you have against parrying should also prevent shields getting in the way. Block with your shield and it just gets smashed back into you, shattering your arm and causing all the other results. If he didn't immediately rule that as well then he's definitely just dicking over the other side of the table when the game goes against the creatures he over-identifies with.

For the record, contrary to your beliefs, 4e handles matters properly. A blow of the sort you describe would likely do half damage on an miss. So skill and armour works but you can't completely avoid all damage facing that. Or it would be against reflex - armour does you almost no good, all you can do is try to get the hell out of the way.

The DMs powers and abilities are weakened,

You keep asserting this. You have yet to say how other than that the expectation is now that the DM will not dick over a player by changing the rules when he gets his knickers in a twist.

and we find ourselves role playing our way through a board game.

And here come the cliches. You'll be talking about World of Warcraft next...

For some people that's awesome. Especially the World of Warcraft players.

... this is my surprised face.

Piratecat here. Okay, you've strayed from "making your point" to "making your point by being sarcastic and rude." Both of you ratchet it back, please. - PCat

What's the penatly if we die in WoW? What's that? a Little (and I do mean LITTLE) inconvenience?

D&D is the home of the Raise Dead spell. Death has minimal inconvenience in D&D when compared to almost any other tabletop RPG. And you need to be 8th level to Raise Dead in 4e or 9th in 3e. (Or 7th in 3e to Reincarnate). Death, where is thy sting?

That said, if you've just been playing Encounters I see where you could be coming from.

IMO we have a game now that coddles the players and simply doesn't challenge them, not really.

And if that's your experience, it's the DM's fault, not the system's fault.

I certainly don't want to dictate to my DM how ineffectual and limp his super powerful monsters are.

Then put down the Wish spell and come join us with 4e. Even high level chumps are still chumps. But we don't get to simply drop Earthquakes on top of dungeons. Or beat up Gods. Or readily re-write reality. Or Diplomance our way through encounters automatically. Or...

And for the record, if you want mystery, magic, and wonder, 4e beats older editions. 3e is the worst case - with NPCs and PCs using the same rules it means that if NPCs can use any given magic so can PCs. 4e allows the DM to use completely different rules for the monsters. And with well-designed 4e monsters (don't bother to point out that MM1 Orcus is a pushover - we know), the monsters can be extremely powerful and scary.

 

[Fifth Element]

Sure, but I don't think 'askew' covers it.

Indeed. Just replacing one everyday word with another doesn't help with this issue, and can often hurt. In this case, "askew" generally means "crooked".

"What, you knocked the bugbear crooked? What the heck does that mean?"

No term is ever going to be perfect, and I fully agree that using the one that covers the most cases is the best choice. Prone (nearly always applicable) versus askew (maybe applicable sometimes) is an easy choice.