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

[Neonchameleon]

You begin with a goal, and you then ascribe tools to achieve that goal. If you take the next step, and assume that your goal applies to everyone, you've blundered.

I don't. But that doesn't make going after a consistent goal arbitrary.

My point was not that "As it was under Gygax, it is now and ever shall be, game without end" but rather that WotC's, or your, desire to change the social contract does not make the social contract changed for anyone else.

WotC have control of the default social contract for D&D games. They do not have control over the social contract at any given table. Just the default one. You seem to be objecting that they've changed the default.

Nor should it. It does not change the default expectations,

The default expectations for a group that doesn't know each other come from the ruleset and the game you are playing. WotC can and indeed has changed that. And IMO changed it for the better.

it does not make adhering to the previous social contract an "arbitrary change".

Your words. It's a change from the default paradigm.

WotC has power over the D&D trademark. It has no power whatsoever over the default social contract for groups.

What do you think the ruleset does other than to provide a default social contract for negotiating conflicts and assisting shared understanding? And in what way do you think those aren't deeply embedded in the social contract?

There are much better games for what I want.

And now there is a much better game for what you want, compared to what was available before.

That's a good thing. We both win.

Agreed

 

[Raven Crowking]

WotC have control of the default social contract for D&D games.

No, they do not. No more than Spalding has control over the default social contract of tennis games. I cannot object that they've changed the default, because they cannot do so. I can only object to the idea that they have this ability, coming either from WotC or elsewhere, and what some seem to wish the default to be.

You may give WotC the right to change the social contract at your table. I do not at mine. Neither what WotC wants, nor what I want, is the "default" for the masses.

Outside of Orwell's 1984, and competitive sports leagues, no one has that power. When WotC considers paying me what a pro athelete makes, I'll consider granting WotC the power to determine what the default social contract is.

But until then -- and probably even after then -- the "default" is chosen by the end consumer. WotC, or you, or I, may certainly urge folks to accept something as a default. But that does not make it so.



RC

 

[pemerton]

refluffing powers opens a proverbial bag of rats: and if you as a DM do so, you can't in good conscience (at least, I couldn't) disallow it in another scenario, you've gotta be consistent.

But the parameters of consistency are set by the mechanics - so it's not unfair to the player to confine "refluffing" in the various ways that you suggest.

Another example - forced movement grants a saving throw only when it would land a character in hindering terrain. Which is to say, most of the time characters fall prone from forced movement only on the edges of cliffs and the like.

Some might regard this as an oddity - although it is hardly at odds with the typical tropes of the fantasy adventure genre - but it is not unfair for a GM to deny a save against forced movement in other contexts, because the rules don't provide for one.

 

[Mort]

No, they do not. No more than Spalding has control over the default social contract of tennis games. I cannot object that they've changed the default, because they cannot do so. I can only object to the idea that they have this ability, coming either from WotC or elsewhere, and what some seem to wish the default to be.

The analogy is off because Spalding does not set the rules or etiquette for tennis, default or otherwise (now if you learned tennis from Spalding instructional videos then yes your default would in, fact, be set by Spalding). WoTC sets the rules for the default version of D&D, and also sets guidelines for how those rules are applied. Anyone learning the game from their books, or from someone teaching it from their perspective of the books, will get those rules and the social contract they imply as a default. Many players have had their assumptions set by earlier versions of D&D and/or other games entirely so don't adhere to the default in the slightest. And many who read/learn the rules will choose to deviate from them - but that does not mean a default does not exist.

You may give WotC the right to change the social contract at your table. I do not at mine. Neither what WotC wants, nor what I want, is the "default" for the masses.

I'd argue this is false. The default is set by the game designer and writers. Anyone reading the rules, or learning from someone who has, will pick up a certain way of doing things. WoTC by expressing their preference, sets the original defaults and assumptions. The fact that it's easy to deviate from does not change that fact.

Outside of Orwell's 1984, and competitive sports leagues, no one has that power. When WotC considers paying me what a pro athelete makes, I'll consider granting WotC the power to determine what the default social contract is.

But until then -- and probably even after then -- the "default" is chosen by the end consumer. WotC, or you, or I, may certainly urge folks to accept something as a default. But that does not make it so.

RC

It's not a power, it's a default suggestion. And, for better or worse, many people tend to abide by the default suggestion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But the parameters of consistency are set by the mechanics

Or by the fiction. Depending on taste.

The analogy is off because Spalding does not set the rules or etiquette for tennis, default or otherwise

Nor does WotC set the etiquette for RPGs, default of otherwise. Nor does WotC do more than set the default rules for a small slice of D&D.

(1) 4e is not the "default version of D&D".

(2) WotC sets the default rules for 4e, but not the rules (which are determined at table, and rightly so, and explicitly so in the RAW).

(3) IF "Anyone learning the game from their books, or from someone teaching it from their perspective of the books, will get those rules and the social contract they imply as a default" AND "Many players have had their assumptions set by earlier versions of D&D and/or other games entirely", THEN the so-called "default assumptions" in 4e are not the default in the slightest.

I'd argue this is false. The default is set by the game designer and writers.

Against a blank slate, maybe. But there hasn't been a blank slate since the 70s.

Sorry, WotC doesn't get to decide that their current version is the default version of D&D, and neither do you.

Sorry, WotC doesn't get to decide that their current assumptions are the default social contract of D&D, and neither do you.

You are free to believe otherwise, of course.


RC

 

[pemerton]

One way to do this is to have the player describe the action the PC is taking in the game world, and have another player - whose job it is to make judgement calls without bias - act as the authority on what's reasonable and what's not, given the game's setting.

The problem with making the same person responsible for both overcoming challenges and maintaining consistency is that you have a conflict of interest. You have to pick one or the other. Not in all cases, but in many. 4E gets around this problem by removing the relationship between the game world's consistency and mechanical effects.

The fiction determines what and how you can do, and secondly you change the fiction when you act. There is the feedback loop there. Movement and positioning are critical parts of the feedback loop.

My experience matches Neonchameleon's on this. I think that 4e does make certain elements of the fiction - like terrain, positioning and movement - highly salient.

LostSoul is right, though, that other aspects of the fiction - like facing, detailed fighting techniques, etc - are not made salient.

There are yet other aspects of the fiction - like the precise character of injuries, and the precise manner in which a PC overcomes the prima facie burden those injuries place upon movement etc (given that D&D doesn't generally have wound penalties) - that no mainstream version of D&D makes salient. And, from my memory of reading his posts, LostSoul's 4e hack doesn't make this particular part of the fiction salient either.

If I wanted to adduce a single encounter area I have GMed that, for me, strongly confirmed the feedback between fiction and mechanics, it would be the first room of the Well of Demons (from H2). My players fought in it twice - once against its scripted inhabitants, and again against some gnolls and demons. The first time, the player of the wizard worked out that a ghoul was controlling a golem. He had his PC look for the source of control, noticed the amulet, killed the ghoul, took the amulet and then took control of the golem, thereby winning the encounter. That's engaging the fiction. The second time around, much of the combat centred around the pit in the room, with the PCs trying to avoid falling into it while using it to channel their enemies and even push one in. And there was jumping over the pit by both PCs and foes. For me, that's engaging the fiction also.

 

[Balesir]

It's clear I did have a misunderstanding of exactly how you were using the GNS terms as types. I thought you were defining narrativism specifically as conflict that arises because of story, as if story was a separate element from the other two. I felt that you were redefining all three terms a bit as examples of what you were talking about, but it seems you are using them as intended, so I think we are on the same page, now.

No worries - that was mostly down to me getting muddled in my own analogies and attempts at explanation. Yes, when I talk about GNS I mean the Forge definitions, since they (the actual identifications of each focus) are a genuine achievement, in my view.

The mutual exclusivity of playtypes is primarily why I don't agree with GNS theory in the first place and why I responded to your original post.

Exclusivity of focus is a thorny subject, and I think it's impossible to "prove" one way or the other. All we can have is our own experience and, to some extent, aesthetic sense (since it is clearly possible to try to mix foci - the question is whether this can produce good play outcomes or just a kludgy muddle).

A successful game, for me, necessarily blends and weaves elements as tools to advance the game by advancing the characters, both in a gamist sense (gaining levels) and as characters (achieving goals, resolving conflicts, etc).

It's interesting that you think of levels as a gamist device. Actually, I'm not sure they are. Experience points are certainly a feature that drives players towards gamist play - hence why so many GMs pining for non-gamist players stop using xps as written. Levels themselves, though, I think are actually a story conceit. They ensure that the story works up to a climax and finishes with a (perceived) tougher challenge than it began with. It's sort of a built-in story-arc shape that doesn't have to be designed for or focussed on in play. As such, I think it can support Narrativist play as much as gamist - and I should credit pemerton for bringing me to this realisation. Added levels are not really a player reward, in the sense that lower level play should not be less fun than higher level play - that would be a poor design. The only sense in which they might be gamist per se is in the sense of "OK, you handled those powers , spells, resources etc. alright - now see how you cope with these as well!"

The only thing I think 'levels' really hurts is Sim, and this is for two reasons. The first is that Sim is a delicate flower when it comes to player focus; push players towards Nar or Gamism and Sim will get ditched in the dirt, in my experience - I have had to cull even moderate "character advancement through adventuring" mechanics to get Sim games to work in the past. The second is that, after long and painful hours with "A Magical Medieval Society", excellent as it is, I have concluded that any society where some people are inherently immune to a range of things that could kill off most others and are inherently capable of greater feats (regardless of training or effort) is dysfunctional. I just can't make it work to my satisfaction as a Sim setting.

It's collaborative, and more broken down into a series of significant encounters/scenes, so I think moviemaking is much more similar to RPGs than literature.

Yes, and maybe this points to where we might find some common ground. The Forge GNS stuff talks about un-mixed focus in actual play. With a movie, you have a scriptwriter writing first, then a production crew taking over. Maybe there is a similar tactical/strategic thing going on in roleplaying games. While I can't think of an occasion when mixing the focus while actually at the table has worked well, I can quite see where the wider campaign, the meta-play in which the structure of several encounters is considered, might be addressing a different focus. Maybe "layers" of focus is an appropriate way to consider the play structure? I don't know right now - something to consider and maybe experiment with.

The PCs get in a fight due to a misunderstanding of local customs, they vastly overpower the locals, who have drawn weapons, and are intent on killing rather than brawling. The PCs have one clear goal that is easily achieved - survive - but how and at what costs? The ethics of the group and the realities of the setting will come into play. Should these locals die because of a misunderstanding, what are the legal and social ramifications, are they skilled enough to maybe talk their way out, do they just blast anyone that stands in their way? Depending on the answers to these questions, their actions and secondary goals are heavily influenced by the friction between all these elements and you have a deeper conflict than just 4 HD of locals to beat down.

Picking out "what is the challenge, exactly" is a key element in roleplaying, for sure. This is, to my mind, an area where D&D 4E is expressly gamist, because it assumes that the challenge is set by the DM. It has no inbuilt allowance for the players to decide what their aim is for a particular scene; compare it with some Indy games like PrimeTime Adventures, where the protagonist (and antagonist) select their own goals for each conflict, and it's a totally different paradigm at work. At best, in D&D (any edition), this will be "DM wings it" territory, unless there is a pre-specified "solution" decided by the DM up-front.

The biggest reason I don't play 4e, though, is that it does not include a ruleset good enough that the DM can use it without often needing to overrule it......for what I want out of a game. If I used the 4e ruleset, all I would do is overrule it. I would have to call the game "Page 42".

There are much better games for what I want.

And now there is a much better game for what you want, compared to what was available before.

That's a good thing. We both win.

I can't XP you currently, but this hits the nail on the head, I think. Has 4E changed the assumed (in the rules design) social contract and game style in D&D? Yes - thank goodness, as far as I'm concerned! Does this mean D&D is poorer for setting-focussed (and character-focussed) games? Yes - but then, IMO, it was never that good, anyway. What should people who want to play such games do? Pick another system! Honestly, there are some really great ones out there!

 

[Mort]

Nor does WotC set the etiquette for RPGs, default of otherwise. Nor does WotC do more than set the default rules for a small slice of D&D.

But it does for that slice - that's the point.

(1) 4e is not the "default version of D&D".

(2) WotC sets the default rules for 4e, but not the rules (which are determined at table, and rightly so, and explicitly so in the RAW).

Again, it sets the default until you change it at the table - that's the point.

THEN the so-called "default assumptions" in 4e are not the default in the slightest.

ONLY if you rely on an earlier default. If you learned from 4e then it may well be, for better or worse, your default.

Against a blank slate, maybe. But there hasn't been a blank slate since the 70s.

Not for me, not for you. But for anyone coming new to the hobby, there can easily be a blank slate.

Sorry, WotC doesn't get to decide that their current version is the default version of D&D, and neither do you.

WoTC gets to present their current version of D&D as the default - you are free to reject that.

I get to present whatever version of D&D or other game as the default at my table.

Sorry, WotC doesn't get to decide that their current assumptions are the default social contract of D&D, and neither do you.

You are free to believe otherwise, of course.

RC

WoTC absolutely gets to present their version of the social contract in their books, as does GURPS in theirs, Whitewolf in theirs, me in my game, or you in yours. The fact that you are free to reject the presentation does not change that.

I'm just not getting where you are coming from RC. The default is set by the initial presentation and environment. For many the initial presentation and environment will be that of WoTC (Say from experiencing Encounters at the local game shop, or a WoTC game at a Con etc.), so their default assumption is set by WoTC. If they then come to your table you change the default - does not mean it wasn't there in the first place.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You are absolutely allowed to take anything you like as your default, or the default at your table.

"The default" without those qualifiers implies something much larger.

WotC has a vested interest in your seeing 4e as default D&D. They also have a vested interest in your seeing a subscription model and "Say Yes" as the default, as both drive player sales and put money into the bank.

You're damn right that I can -- and do! -- object to that attempt to reshape the default. However, my objection is not "changing the default back" -- it never changed in the first place.

And, yes, WotC gets to present their version. But their version doesn't become "the default" because it is presented. It only becomes "the default" if it is accepted by enough people that it does, indeed, become so. I don't think WotC-D&D has even necessarily become "the default" over TSR-D&D, let alone the 4e version of WotC-D&D.

Again, you are free to believe otherwise.


RC

 

[Balesir]

Or by the fiction. Depending on taste.

It's a convenient mental shortcut to think of the fiction shaping the outcomes and "consistency", but it doesn't. It can't. It doesn't exist. It is a mere figment of our imaginations.

Hence, the mechanics literally do shape consistency; but those mechanics might say something like "the players collectively (or the GM alone) must consider what they think would happen in the fiction as they envisage it, aided by guidelines as set out in these rules and by dice, to adjudicate what happens and keep that consistent". Those are still mechanics, however, and we should be wary in the extreme of believing that "the fiction" has any sort of independent existence or authority.