One thing I've been noticing lately is that while making a good combat is roughly as difficult as making a good adventure/skill challenge/puzzle/whathaveyou, bad combats seem to have more leeway with respects to how they are received. That is to say, if you make a combat that is about a 6.5/10, the players might not have any complaints or criticisms, but any other element at a 6.5/10, they sure will. The flaws are easier to see, I suppose. Not sure why.
If you're talking about 4e, then I'm prepared to hazard a guess.
The 4e combat resolution mechanics are
incredibly good at producing a dramatic narrative in the course of the fight - the PCs start out on the ropes as the NPCs/monsters rain down superior damage and hide behind superior hit points. But then the PCs start to draw on their deep resources - encounter and daily powers, healing surges accessed in various ways (so they don't stay down, unlike most monsters), more sophisticated combinations and tactical synergy (among 5 carefully built PCs and 5 thinking players) than the GM can muster out of his/her monsters, etc etc.
A lot of people enjoy pop music, even though pop songs are formally often indistinguishable from one another. A lot of people enjoy TV dramas, comdies, soaps etc, even though the episodes are formally often indistinguishable. I think 4e combat is a bit like this - you really have to try hard (at least in my experience) to produce something that won't at least give the players a hint of drama - the pacing is so inherent in the mechanics.
But 4e isn't as strong, at least in this respect, in other elements of the game. In a skill challenge, for example, or a scenario as a whole, pacing - and therefore drama, and therefore payoff - is much more dependent on the GM handling resolution and framing well. It's not baked into the mechanics in the same way as for combat.
I play 4e to produce something that can be evaluated in aesthetic terms - thematically compelling play. (In Forge-ist terms, this is narrativism.) Whether or not this is what the designers intended me to do with 4e, it is (in my view) something that the game supports right out of the box.)
expound on these aspects, please.
I'll try.
I'm sure there are lots of different ways of getting thematically compelling play out of an RPG. The approach I like is discussed on
this blog that [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has pointed me to a couple of times, and in
this post from Paul Czege:
From Eero Tuovinen's blog:
One of the players is a gamemaster whose job it is to keep track of the backstory, frame scenes according to dramatic needs (that is, go where the action is) and provoke thematic moments . . .
The rest of the players each have their own characters to play. They play their characters according to the advocacy role: the important part is that they naturally allow the character’s interests to come through based on what they imagine of the character’s nature and background. . .
The actual procedure of play is very simple: once the players have established concrete characters, situations and backstory in whatever manner a given game ascribes, the GM starts framing scenes for the player characters. . .
The GM describes a situation that provokes choices on the part of the character. The player is ready for this, as he knows his character and the character’s needs, so he makes choices on the part of the character. This in turn leads to consequences as determined by the game’s rules. . .
The player’s task in these games is simple advocacy, which is not difficult once you have a firm character. . .
The GM might have more difficulty, as he needs to be able to reference the backstory, determine complications to introduce into the game, and figure out consequences. Much of the rules systems in these games address these challenges, and in addition the GM might have methodical tools outside the rules, such as pre-prepared relationship maps (helps with backstory), bangs (helps with provoking thematic choice) and pure experience (helps with determining consequences).
From Paul Czege:
My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details . . . of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.
"Scene framing" is a very different mental process for me. . . I'm turning a freakin' firehose of adversity and situation on the character. It is not an objective outgrowth of prior events. It's intentional as all get out. . . I keep NPC personalities somewhat unfixed in my mind, allowing me to retroactively justify their behaviors in support of this. And . . . the outcome of the scene is not preconceived.
Sorry for the long quotes, but they do a better job than I can of explaining what is needed - namely:
(i) character build rules that will locate the PC in a situation of potential conflict that is thematically engaging;
(ii) scene framing rules/guidelines that give the GM the flexibility to force the issue; and
(iii) action resolution rules that
(a) let the players engage the conflict (via their PCs),
(b) let the GM keep injecting conflict/complication as the scene resolves,
(b) leave the outcome to be determined by how all this pans out in actual play (no railroading/fudging/cheating/predetermination of the resolution), and
(c) that bring the scene to a close.
Because (iii) can lead to suprising outcomes, it is also helpful to have guidelines and materials to enable (ii) to take place even if it wasn't known, in advance, what exactly would be required. Also, the reason that the italicised part of (iii) is important is because if the scene lingers on once the interesting stuff has happened, this gets in the way of starting again at (ii).
I find that 4e has a lot of features that help with (i) to (iii) above. I'm going to give a fairly lengthy account of some of them, but the TL;DR version is: a focus on the encounter as the unit of play; robust action resolution mechanics with a strong metagame component; and a lightly sketched but thematically rich default setting.
For example, the GM has a fairly robust toolkit for building engaging challenges - both guidelines (these are better developed for combat than for skill challenges, but I come to 4e skill challenges with at least a passing knowledge of how skill challenge-style mechanics work in other games like HeroWars/Quest) and story elements (again a richer selection for combat than non-combat, but there are plenty of interesting noncombat ideas in the 4e books - as well as a range of mechanical elements that might be included in a skill challenge, Worlds and Monsters has good stuff on how different story elements can contribute to the game).
And once the GM has built these challenges, 4e's action resolution mechanics are heavily focused on the "situation" (the scene, the challenge) as the focus of play. This is express in the skill challenge mechanics, which emphasise "the goal of the challenge and [the] obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal" (DMG p 72) and also emphasise "describing the situation and . . . [then] narrating the results" of the players' skill checks (DMG p 74). There is little focus, here, on conceiving of the situation in terms of its outgrowth from "the physics of the gameworld". The focus is on what the players do, via their PCs, to engage the scene and resolve the conflict (achieve the goal) that inheres in it. (Even where this is not spelled out, it is implicit in comments like the advice in the DMG to "fast-forward through the parts of an adventure that aren’t fun" (p 105).)
In the case of combat, there is also an emphasis on the situation as framed or constructed rather than extrapolated, although in the DMG this is more about
tactical matters than
thematic matters (Worlds and Monsters is more useful here, in my view). 4e's metagame approach to monster and NPC design (solos, elites, minions, etc - indeed, arguably, its treatment of the whole matter of "levels" as a metagame device rather than an ingame matter) facilitates this. Combat itself has the inherent drama I described above. And whereas some people seem to think that success in 4e combat depends on highly optimised play - such that gamist considerations about being successful start to crowd out other considerations - I haven't had this experience at all. I find that - unlike other fantasy mainstream fantasy RPGs I've played - AD&D, RQ, RM - 4e is very forgiving of a wide range of player decision-making during the course of combat (eg where to move, who to heal, who to attack, how to attack them, etc), which means that combat provides a fertile ground for players to express their own thematic points.
And whether in or out of combat, the metagame character of 4e's action resolution mechanics - which a lot of the time lend themselves to being treated as setting parameters on narration, rather than dicatating what is happening in the fiction without the need for interpretation/narration - allow players and GM to narrate what is happening in a scene in a way that drives the story in the direction they want to push it.
A simple example of this point about metagame mechanics: in a recent session an NPC cast Baleful Polymorph on the PC paladin of the Raven Queen, turning him into a frog. As per the NPC's stat block, after a round had passed I told the player of the PC that his paladin had turned back to his normal form. The paladin's turn came up next, and his player had him charge the NPC spellcaster. Speaking for the NPC, I said something like "I'm not scared of you - I already turned you into a frog!" And without missing a beat, the player of the paladin replied, in character "Ah, but the Raven Queen turned me back". That is, the player treated the polymorph mechanic as a metagame mechanic, and then narrated the result - namely, that his PC is no longer a frog - in a way that further developed his PC's relationship to his god, and his reliance upon his god to see him through in every situation. There wouldn't be the same scope for this if it was just assumed that, because
at the mechanical level the polymorph has to come to an end after one round, so
in the gameworld the polymorph would come to an end after 6 seconds
regardless of the Raven Queen's relationship to her paladin.
In both non-combat and combat contexts there is fairly robust guidance as to suitable DCs, damage numbers etc to use. (This is a bit like the sort of guidance HeroQuest/Wars gives in its pass/fail cycle, although not identical.) I find that this helps with both encounter building and encounter resolution. It makes it easy to adjudicate unexpected choices made by the players (eg "We're going to negotiate with these duergar slavers rather than fight them" - I've got DC numbers to support a skill challenge, or "The tiefling paladin is going to charge through the wall of the burning hut to rescue the unconscious dwarf" - I've got DC numbers and damage numbers to support this). This reduces any temptation to fudging, railroading, or saying "no", thereby encouraging players to engage the situation as they see it and do interesting stuff with it. And the forgiving nature of the combat and other tactical resolution mechanics means that I can be confident in setting these numbers that I'm being fair to the players and not likely to run a risk of TPKing them. And it also works well with the metagame character of the mechanics - you can set a DC that is fair, let the situation play itself out, and then add in the narration that supports that outcome as part of the process of play.
Another feature of the action resolution mechanics in 4e, that helps with what I'm trying to do, is that they bring scenes to a close. A skill challenge comes to an end - the players can't keep check-mongering. A combat is at an end, and now a short rest takes place - there is no need for check-mongering around healing. Magical treasure is identified by handling it in a short rest - there is no need for check-mongering around looting. To the extent that the rulebooks don't spell out a "let it ride" implication,
subsequent GMing advice has done so. All of this contrasts very much with the approach of a game like RM, or any other game where the action resolution mechanics produce lingering consequences that the players can't afford to ignore (because they produce hooks for the GM to hang "gotcha's from") but which, if not ignored, cause scenes to linger on even when there is nothing more interesting to be gotten out of them.
The final aspect of 4e that I think is there in the box that helps the sort of game I want to play is its default setting. Unlike some other D&D settings, it is laden with thematically-rich conflict (eg Raven Queen vs Orcus - death and undeath; Ioun vs Vecna - magic and secrets; Erathis vs devils vs demons - civilisation, domination, destruction; etc). And this content is distributed throughout the race descriptions, the class descriptions, the monster descriptions, etc. So it is very easy for players to build PCs who are invested in a thematically engaging conflict (and to keep developing and rebuilding them, via the retraining rules), and it is equally easy for the GM to build situations that put those conficts into play. This ties into (i) and (ii) above.
And this lore - both the stuff to which the players have access, and the stuff that the GM sees when quickly skimming over a monster description - is all true. There is no "secret" canon that will derail or wrongfoot players, invalidating their conception of how their PCs are located in the conflicts that they care about. Or that will derail or wrongfoot GMs, invalidating the way they have framed and resolved the situations in their games.
(I personally find that this is a marked difference from earlier D&D worlds. Consider, for example, the World of Greyhawk. Yes, the Scarlet Brotherhood are slave-trading martial artists, so they're fun to encounter and beat up on. But exactly what thematic conflict do they bring to the table without me as a GM having to do any more work? I don't know FR as well, but my impression is that its chock full of secret canon that is likely - designed, even - to wrongfoot the players.)
Now, unlike the indie games on which I'm modelling my approach to D&D, 4e doesn't
mandate that the players build PCs that are invested in conflict. And there are
some monsters and other story elements that don't scream conflict to me. As a GM, I personally would find it harder to run a thematic game if the PCs in my game were all halfling rangers of Avandra. (Luckily I don't have a single one.) And even if I had players who built compelling PCs, I could stuff it up by using encounters consisting only of kruthiks and ankhegs (which I at least don't find all that compelling on their own). But the thematic stuff is not hidden - both on the player side and the GM side its easy to find and use. As I think I posted upthread, to get my game going, all I had to add to the 4e default setting and the 4e rules were two instructions to the players: your PC must have at least one important loyalty, and your PC must have a reason to be ready to fight goblins.
Anyway, that's a long answer. But I think I'm one of the few posters who sees 4e in this way, so I've erred on the side of completeness in my explanation.
EDIT: I'm also aware that nearly every feature of 4e that I've identified as supporting the sort of play I'm interested in is one of those aspects of the game that tends to be criticised by those who prefer 3E or PF to 4e. I'm one of those (apparently a minority, given the evidence of sales figures) who didn't particularly care for 3E, and who likes 4e precisely because of these ways in which it differs from 3E.
Little help! 
