How do you like your martial characters?

[B.T.]

My point is that if 4e mechanics written in such a manner that applied a metaphorical body over the chassis, people would be more willing to go with it, even if those mechanics remained the same (a few powers notwithstanding).

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is an intriguing theory.

Thanks. Just reasoning from "what does 3.5 deliver" to "who might like that and why."

I think there is another dynamic going on related to these issues of transparency and "dumbing down", which Ron Edwards gets at in this passage

transparent action resolution rules like 4e's power system, violate the simulationist canon that the metagame must be invisible when not completely absent. And I think this is what a lot of the hostility to 4e and its transparency is motivated by.

I can't really buy that in regards to the 3e/4e split nor do I see much potential for 5e to use those ideas. Meta-gaming is a consequence of mechanical imbalances as well as gamist abstraction. While 3e might have been a bit less abstract in it's simulation-like style, it's severe imbalances made the meta-game critical and in-your-face if you had any level of system mastery. Ignorance of the system could leave you out of the meta-game, though you'd still quickly become aware of who was 'winning' it.

You also see it in descriptions of the rules as "textbooks" or as not being "good reads" - which seem to imply that a manual for playing a game should itself produce an aesthetic experience comparable to playing the game.

This is something I've always noticed across different games, yes. Storyteller books are good cover-to-cover reads, they parcel out rules and setting information in an engaging mix over the various chapters. They're nearly worthless when looking for an answer to a specific question, but they're enjoyable reads. D&D books tended to have a lot of needful information that's not too hard to locate, bounded by blocks of Gygaxian philosophical digressions, or occassionally hidden in mixed rules/flavor text that can be difficult to interpret. 4e books are further in that direction, with almost technical-manual-like organization that makes it easy to find and use only the information you actually need, and 'fluff' segregated from mechanics.

 

[pemerton]

One of the claims for 4e superiority is "Look at all these different things I can do rather than swing/hit or swing/miss." If they're all just minor variations on the same thing, then that emperor is pretty much wearing no clothes.

Well, most spells in AD&D are just "minor" variations on the same thing - spend some time, expend some components of varying value, and produce some sort of effect (which may or may not include damage). Some people still think the difference between "Confusion" and "Fireball" and "Mass Hold" is important.

Maybe the word "minor"- your word, not mine - is missplaced here, though.

 

[pemerton]

As role-playing games take place primarily in the imagination, the writing of the books should inspire the imagination.

The question is, what sort of inspiration? The 4e books inspire me to run a game using the mechanical and story elements they produce. This doesn't depend on them producing the same experience that running a game would produce.

I would go further and say that they can't, given that the experience is the product of multiple participants engaging the game mechanics to produce unexpected outcomes.

 

[Hussar]

The question is, what sort of inspiration? The 4e books inspire me to run a game using the mechanical and story elements they produce. This doesn't depend on them producing the same experience that running a game would produce.

I would go further and say that they can't, given that the experience is the product of multiple participants engaging the game mechanics to produce unexpected outcomes.

Honestly Pem, I believe there is a significant segment of the gamer population that reads RPG books for enjoyment even if those books will never see the light of day during their game. The completists out there that have far more material than they could use in their lifetime are an example of this. I think Paizo taps into this segment rather well too. There are what, five or six Pathfinder adventure paths now? I've kinda lost track. There is just no way that any group is going to be able to play through what's already available, never mind that there is more coming out every month.

But, it's spectacularly popular with its fans. Why? Well, I believe (and I'm more than willing to be wrong here) that there are a number (apparently a fairly large number) of gamers for whom game books are every bit as important as actually playing.

Honestly, I'm not one of them. I'm really not. I read a game book once, then reference as needed and only buy something if I think I will use it right away and use it a lot. Otherwise, I can't be bothered anymore. Long gone, for me, are the days when I'd pore over my Encyclopedia Magica reading about all those fantastically funky magic items that had appeared in D&D up to that date.

But, I think there are still lots of people who do think that the experience of reading the book is enjoyable enough that re-reading is worth it and spending significant amounts of time reading new material is fun. If the books are written like manuals, that enjoyment is gone, thus, they're not going to like the game, regardless of what the game actually is. Their enjoyment has nothing to do with how good or bad the game itself is, but, based at least in part, in how enjoyable it is to read about the game.

At least, that's my understanding of it. Thus we get B.T.'s reactions to the books.

 

[pemerton]

I believe there is a significant segment of the gamer population that reads RPG books for enjoyment even if those books will never see the light of day during their game.

I agree with this - and, unlike you, I'm probably one of those people! But when I'm reading my books for systems I don't play - recently, for example, I read the book for C&S 3rd ed which I picked up second hand 5 or 10 years ago - I don't read them like fiction. I read them as manuals. The pleasure, for me, comes from thinking about the system, and how it fits together (or doesn't, in the case of C&S - very clunky!), and the sort of play it might and might not support.

(I also see this sort of reading as making a contribution, however minor, to my understanding and GMing of the system I am running.)

The sort of gaming book I least enjoy reading is setting material. If I want to read history and geography, I'll either read about the real world, or read well-written fantasy fiction. When I do read a setting book or module, it's as something to be played (either in full, or more likely something that I'll borrow from), not as an entertainment in its own right.

 

[Hussar]

I agree with this - and, unlike you, I'm probably one of those people! But when I'm reading my books for systems I don't play - recently, for example, I read the book for C&S 3rd ed which I picked up second hand 5 or 10 years ago - I don't read them like fiction. I read them as manuals. The pleasure, for me, comes from thinking about the system, and how it fits together (or doesn't, in the case of C&S - very clunky!), and the sort of play it might and might not support.

(I also see this sort of reading as making a contribution, however minor, to my understanding and GMing of the system I am running.)

The sort of gaming book I least enjoy reading is setting material. If I want to read history and geography, I'll either read about the real world, or read well-written fantasy fiction. When I do read a setting book or module, it's as something to be played (either in full, or more likely something that I'll borrow from), not as an entertainment in its own right.

Actually, we're VERY much in the same boat. I don't buy that many books anymore, but, I'm often snagging this or that one used, or freebie, or whatever for exactly the same reason. By and large, the flavour gets skipped so I can get to the nuts and bolts. Count me very much as a guy who likes that first picture of a transparent body of a car vs the finished product.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I believe there is a significant segment of the gamer population that reads RPG books for enjoyment even if those books will never see the light of day during their game.

I agree. And I'll add that there's a probably-non-trivial segment of those who buy the books for a game they will never play, at all - perhaps precisely because they never get to play it. If you get to play a game, you're playing the game. Adding new rules in the middle of a campaign is a pain. OTOH, if you never get the chance to play a game you really like, reading each new book that comes out for it is the next best thing.

I wonder what proportion of game books are actually sold to people who play the game regularly and make real use of that book when doing so? It's probably shockingly low.

 

[slobo777]

The sort of gaming book I least enjoy reading is setting material. If I want to read history and geography, I'll either read about the real world, or read well-written fantasy fiction. When I do read a setting book or module, it's as something to be played (either in full, or more likely something that I'll borrow from), not as an entertainment in its own right.

Same here. In fact for 4E, I've not bothered at all, I just use the compendium and online tools.

Over the years, I have my own game world, my own plot-lines, and my own rationale for how it all fits together. It's nowhere near as complete as any D&D published book, but I'm very comfortable running campaigns in that setting, and can get inspiration for fantasy stories from plenty of other sources.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I liked the AEDU system so far. I may find a token-gathering mechanism á la Iron Heroes an interesting alternative.

Just At-Wills don't cut it in the long run, but it may be okay for a "Simple Fighter". There must be some complex resource management.