D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[billd91]

I'm not being dismissive of people's point of view in this, all I'm saying is let's argue about something real.

That sounds to me, by declaring it a "not real" issue, like you are dismissing their issue. For the people cheesed off by that video, and other marketing moves, the issue is plenty real.

You may not think there's an issue because you don't see any disrespect or intent to insult, but plenty of things devoid of such intent end up insulting or annoying people. Most people who refer to paddy wagons, being gypped on a deal, or jewing someone down to a better price do not intend to offend, but by using negative ethic stereotype phrases and words do exactly that. Should I not be pissed off by someone using those phrases because the person using them was ignorant or insensitive? I can't stop them from using them, but I can let them know how I feel and then let them decide if they want to keep using them (and suffer any consequences of doing so).


Edit: and on that note, I feel I have contributed to this tangent long enough and will let it go

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not being dismissive of people's point of view in this, all I'm saying is let's argue about something real.

Here's my thoughts on this. When you say the following things, you do seem dismissive:

and I say you are either taking this silly little game too seriously

When I run my game, I don't consider it a "silly little game." Maybe you do for your game, and that's cool. I don't think that way about my game. I invest in it, emotionally and mentally. As a writer, it's a strong, healthy creative outlet for me. Planning for it, thinking about it, running it, etc. all help me relax, get my creative juices flowing, practiced, and ready for the rest of life.

As far as emotionally investing in it, I mean that I play for the emotional payoff. I've written about this briefly before on these boards, but that's why I hold immersion so high. When my players are running their PCs, they get emotionally affected by the events in-game. The lives of their characters matter to them, in a sense, while they immerse in them. They can feel the failures truly sting, and they can feel sadness when a PC's friend or loved on passes on (especially when they think they caused it or could prevent it). They also feel happiness when their PCs are happy (for their friends, for personal issues, etc.).

Sure, go ahead and play your "silly little game" however you want. I, however, engage with my close friends of many years in a healthy creative outlet that lets me see new things from new angles. I've learned quite a bit from my time in gaming, and I mean that in a societal sense. I can put myself in the shoes of someone else, and that can truly affect who I am as a person. If that's not something that people engage in regularly, fine; but don't tell me that caring about my game is somehow unhealthy, especially when someone who's been selling me this helpful, healthy game for years is now mocking an aspect of it.*

*I say this as someone who wasn't offended by the gnome or dragonborn / troll videos, even if I thought they were stupid. And, really, I'm not a big fan of gnomes, but one of my players had a gnome PC who was one of his favorite characters.

I simply looked at this game from an adult standpoint.

As am I. Whether you meant it or not, this statement carries the implication that those who disagree with you are looking at the issue as children (which your "maybe back when I was 14" statement backs up). That's dismissive. And when I'm emotionally and mentally invested in my game, that's a problem. Not necessarily for you, as a poster, because I can just ignore your statements easily enough. But when you've been supplying me with my creative outlet, and then you start trying to sell me a new creative outlet while making fun of the old play style I had, that's going to be a problem to me, and others.

Again, I'm sorry if you don't get that adults would invest into such a thing, but people do, for reasons I went more in-depth into above.

I get that people invest in this thing, I do, but we should all recognize that it is just that: "a thing that we do". Some of us can make a living doing it, most of us don't.

This is another point I wanted to touch on: I don't define myself by my work, and probably never will. I haven't been lucky enough to work in a field that's truly fulfilling for me (some construction was the closest I got, I think; building something wasn't enjoyable for me, but looking at the finished product definitely was fulfilling).

My hobbies, however, are fulfilling. This includes gaming with friends, writing (mostly short stories), helping friends (and some choice family), and on and on. But work, not so much. Many people are lucky, and get to work in a field they love; I'm not one of them. I'm more invested in my writing, my game, my friends. These things are precious to me, and I have little respect for statements that try to make them less than they are. I truly learn from my game, and in ways that I feel make me a better person. I do not get that from my work.

In the end, when you have all the facts laid in front of you, there were no valid reasons to get upset over the cartoons portrayal of gnomes. You can say the humour failed, it certainly didn't make me laugh out loud, but as a gnome player, I didn't feel betrayed, talked down to or insulted.

I get that you didn't feel that way. I do get that. I didn't feel "betrayed" or "insulted" either, even if I thought the shorts weren't funny and were stupid. But, I get why people do get upset. People can tell me "you're doing it wrong" all they want to, but it's not going to change how I feel. I get something out of this hobby, and so do others. And sometimes, when you make fun of the things they care about for legitimate reasons, they can and do get offended. In very adult ways.

I'm glad you like the game, and I hope you get something special out of it; RPGs are a special type of game. Good luck in the future. And, most importantly, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

4e may have been a development of 3e, but I find that the two play very, very differently.

<snip>

My 4e campaign is a different kettle of fish; the dynamics of the game are very different from any previous D&D, and trying to shoehorn it into the old paradigm is a recipe for unhappiness. Eg I find exploration-based play is the heart of all pre-4e D&D, but 4e works best with exploration de-emphasised in exchange for more of a scene-framing approach. Instead of exploring a labyrinth, you 'skip to the fun' and fight the minotaur (10th level Solo Brute).

I'm not sure about your characterisatin of "skipping to the fun" - it sounds a little railroady! - but I agree that 4e doesn't particularly suit exploration-based play.

What sold me on 4e was an experience during my first session playing it, in 2009.

<snip>

It took me another 2 years to mid 2011 before I could say I had reasonable mastery of 4e - there were and are huge problems with the game - but I'll never forget that first experience.

I GM rather than play 4e, but the sort of dynamism you describe here - which rests on the players having a rich pool of resources to invoke depending on their conception of the stakes as they unfold through an encounter - is part and parcel of my experience of it.

Early narrativist games like Sorcerer! were still largely traditional PC-centric RPGs in form, but were trying to re-protagonise the PCs by ensuring they had genuine moral choices and freedom to respond to events (Bangs) as the player decided. Later Indie Storygames, like the one I played recently at the London Indie Game Meetup, often don't have 'PCs' at all, or 'GMs'.

I agree that there is a significant difference between a "shared storytelling" style of game - in which the main aim of the participants is to create a good story together - and narrativist RPGs - in which one desired outcome ofp lay is a story that is pleasing to the participants, but where that is achieved by playing a PC. This second sort of thing needs someone to play the GM role (though it may perhaps be shared across participants, who alternate between playing their PC and framing scenes for others to play their PCs), and needs a distinction between backstory and playing one's PC.

In Burning Wheel, for example, when a player uses a PC ability to introduce some new story element into the game - say, an old contact who will help you out (using the Circles ability), or a secret path through the forest (using the Forests-wise skill) - the player is not meant to be motivated by "what's good for the story". The game expects that the player will be motivated by "what will advance my PC's interests at this point").

How would you classify something like FATE, that clearly has PCs and a Storyteller, but where PCs share in the narrative of the story as a creative undertaking and have a lot more authority over events than any version of D&D has ever given them?

From what I know of it, I'd call FATE a "Narrativist RPG" like "Sorcerer".

I think S'mon is right here. I would think it's similar to my description of Burning Wheel above.

 

[pemerton]

I don't get the whole "tone" argument. I simply looked at this game from an adult standpoint

<snip>

I get that people invest in this thing, I do, but we should all recognize that it is just that: "a thing that we do". Some of us can make a living doing it, most of us don't. We talk about it, argue about it, but I feel it should remain just that.

<snip>

I don't get where they told us we were playing the game wrong. They implied they thought they had designed a better way to play. Agree or disagree with the results of the design process, that's what they did.

<snip>

They weren't dismissive, or disrespectful, they simply didn't know what to do with the little fellows as a PC race. So they shelved them for a while

I wanted to XP your post but couldn't.

I think the whole post is very cogently reasoned. There are things in the world that warrant outrage; there is reasonable disagreement over what exactly those things are; but the gnome video is not among them.

I reread Worlds & Monsters last week, and as with your quote from Races & Classes, this dismissive attitude is just not there. There is the view that they've done something better, and improved the game. But there is no sneering, no dismissal and no telling people how to play (in fact, they refer on multiple occasions to the desire to support a wide range of approaches to the game).

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm not sure about your characterisatin of "skipping to the fun" - it sounds a little railroady! - but I agree that 4e doesn't particularly suit exploration-based play.

I do understand that this is generally the consensus thought regarding the edition. However, I truly wonder if this stems from a confluence of (i) a lack of conceptualization of the classic "resource attrition" angle within 4e's mechanical framework and (ii) 4e being so potent and consistent at emulating scene-based heroic fantasy/cinema.

Historically, what are the 5 components of exploration and resource attrition gameplay in D&D?

ATTRITION OF RESOURCES

1 - Tracking the bare essential such as foodstuffs and water.
2 - PCs not being able to predictably and reliably rest to replenish daily resources.

DANGER/THREATS

3 - Environmental exposure including climactic and topographical hazards.
4 - Threat of wandering creatures or PCs wandering into hostile territory.

MECHANICAL OR EXTRA-MECHANICAL RESOLUTION

5 - Leveraging PC meta resources or player ingenuity to navigate toward intended destination.


1 and 2 are easily enough handled by 4e. Its just that the way they manifest within the mechanical interface is different than times past. In 4e, 1 and 2 would be handled as (i) getting back daily HPs, (ii) getting back Healing Surges, (iii) getting back Daily Powers. However, 4e has more granularity; Encounter Powers. In 4e, if a member of a group, or an entire group, has their ability to take short rests compromised, then their potency within the course of a single combat is diminished dramatically...and suddenly, ignorantly wandering into hostile territory (dangerous animal dens or savage tribes or precipitous falls/hazards) becomes considerably more threatening and thus the prospect more ominous and foreboding. If you couple that with the inability to take extended rests and the attrition of Healing Surges (by way of combats or failed skill checks within the extended Skill Challenge) and HPs...threatening can turn deadly. How does/can 4e handle this? By way of Disease Track mechanics. It can handle this and does it rather effectively if I may say so. Further, I think its actually more easily adjudicated (and thus more clear to the PCs what they are facing...and thus explicitly made more dire) than in editions past.

3 is made considerably easy by 4e's mechanics. The hazard system is extraordinarily well done in 4e. Both climatic and topographical hazards are very easily injected into a session (and improvised as need be). Further, as part of a large Skill Challenge (and the resources lost by way of failures), the 4e mechanical framework further provokes the sense of imminent danger and the inherent consequences of long-term failure required in Exploration/Resource Attrition gaming. As far as 4 goes, this one is, as we all know, one of 4e's major strengths. Instant, compelling, dynamic combat replete with exceedingly easy monster/hazard/terrain creation and usage at a moment's notice.

5? Again, a 4e strong-suit. Conflict Resolution (the exploration challenge itself) by way of extended Skill Challenge...or multiple Difficult Skill Challenges if the PC's fail...possibly over and over again...until their status within the Disease Track is terminal (no extended or short rests for anyone), their resources (Healing Surges, Dailies, Encounters) depleted with no way to refresh and they are facing the specter of death due to exposure or things with nasty teeth and claws that go bump in the night. Or they succeed at the Skill Challenge (or one of them at the tail end of multiple failures) and locate their quarry or reach their intended destination.


4e can certainly do this. It does it differently than prior editions (I think I actually prefer it as the mechanical framework for exploration/attrition gameplay as it is cleaner, made more explicit, so the conveyed fiction can be focused on as the delivery-method of the tension, and there is an actual means of conflict resolution - Skill Challenge) but it can do it nonetheless. I think if people would give it a trial-run (if just for the fun of it), they may find it more than satisfactory for the playstyle. I think that, because 4e's "refreshable" resources are different (and more layered) than edition's past and because 4e is so extremely good at its consensus "sweet spot" that the possibility of other playstyles gets routinely dismissed out of hand. Further, poor editing and lack of circumnavigated advice within the PHB and DMG are also likely culprits.

 

[The Choice]

I reread Worlds & Monsters last week, and as with your quote from Races & Classes, this dismissive attitude is just not there. There is the view that they've done something better, and improved the game. But there is no sneering, no dismissal and no telling people how to play (in fact, they refer on multiple occasions to the desire to support a wide range of approaches to the game).

Thanks.

I want to leave this alone for now, but it feels nice to know I'm not the only one who's perception of this situation was similar. Having my argument that a perceived slight against an imaginary race was akin to racism really took most of the enthusiasm I had towards this thread. I'll know better than to rock the boat next time.

 

[pemerton]

a perceived slight against an imaginary race was akin to racism

I haven't followed the Transformers movies, but after reading your long post I googed "Transformers racism" to see what came up.

I am one of those who thinks not only that "perceived slights against imaginary races" can be vehicles for racism, but that it is fairly ubiquitous - including in fantasy. (I'm from the "Tolkien's presentation of orcs - and, to a lesser extent, dwarves - has obvious racist overtones" camp.)

But the treatment of gnomes in 4e, and the lead up to 4e, seems to me to be in no way such an instance!

 

[Hussar]

Thanks.

I want to leave this alone for now, but it feels nice to know I'm not the only one who's perception of this situation was similar. Having my argument that a perceived slight against an imaginary race was akin to racism really took most of the enthusiasm I had towards this thread. I'll know better than to rock the boat next time.

No, you are certainly not alone in this. There was lots of back and forth in the edition warring going on, but, there were lots of people who also seemed to be deliberately trying to find stuff to be insulted by.

Heck, we see it now with some of the Next marketing. Someone talked about Mearl's last L&L article as being insulting to playstyle.

Yes, if you pull a single sentence, out of context, out of just about anything, you can make it seem insulting.

 

[S'mon]

I'm not sure about your characterisatin of "skipping to the fun" - it sounds a little railroady! - but I agree that 4e doesn't particularly suit exploration-based play.

I'm not a big fan of James "Fun!" Wyatt, but I don't think it necessarily involves railroading: as long as it is the genuine choice of the PCs to find and fight the minotaur, skipping over the exploration of the maze is not railroading at all.
I do think there is a dysfunctional "My Precious Encounter" version of 4e play that you see in many of the published WoTC adventures. Encounter-centric design can work for a 'Bang' encounter that kicks off an adventure, and for the occasional set-piece, perhaps a climactic encounter with the villain, but the 30-compulsory-fights-in-a-row approach is incredibly bad.
I was just reading through P2 "Demon Queen's Enclave", one of the better HPE adventures, and there is a weird disjunct between the 64-page Encounter book, 30 lots of 'attacks immediately', and the slim 32 page Adventure book which explains that around half these fights are actually avoidable through diplomacy & negotiation!

 

[S'mon]

4e can certainly do this. It does it differently than prior editions (I think I actually prefer it as the mechanical framework for exploration/attrition gameplay as it is cleaner, made more explicit, so the conveyed fiction can be focused on as the delivery-method of the tension, and there is an actual means of conflict resolution - Skill Challenge) but it can do it nonetheless.

This is not what I mean by exploratory play. To me exploratory play is "You are there, what do you do?", not an abstracted dice game of skill challenges and pass-fail branching. And I find that 4e does not support this style of play well; eg my first 4e campaign was the Vault of Larin Karr sandbox converted from 3e, and the environment-exploration element never really worked well IMO. If I do that kind of exploration game again I'll probably use Pathfinder Beginner Box, which gives me the Simulation-oriented design I want without the heavy crunch of full Pathfinder.