This makes me think that there's a different of underlying assumption as to the role of the DM and their power in the game world. I guess I'm relatively traditional and see the DM's power as absolute - I mean it ultimately is in the sense that they can throw whatever they want at the players, so even if a game is by the book, if they really want to kill a party of 3rd level characters they can always just through the Tarrasque at them.
This is probably true. I certainly don't take the view that the GM is any sort of "ultimate power" or "god figure" over the game. In D&D, as we play it, the GM still has the role of scene framing (so the Tarrasque is still an option - but one generally at odds with the GM's aims in the game), but not generally that of rules arbiter or modifier.
The reason for this has nothing to do with "bad GMing" or "player empowerment" in the sense of social dominance and so on, however. It is simply because different folks have different views about how "worlds" (and the usual "default" - the real world) work, in general. I don't believe many GMs set out to bork players or to concoct mean "gotchas" - but people just naturally have different models of how reality operates. And they sincerely believe in their own model.
If a GM has a model of world physics that is purely Newtonian, but I have an understanding of quantum mechanics, there will be points (although, admittedly, few of them) where what the GM says happens simply disagrees with my model of reality. If we were talking about the real world, the GM would simply be wrong. But this isn't because the GM is being a "jerk" or trying to be mean or contradictory - it's because they sincerely believe in a model that differs from mine.
Melee combat is another common example. In another thread, someone claimed that a greatsword wielder would do better if they had "room to make a good swing". My understanding of medieval combat techniques suggests strongly to me that any greatswordsman swinging the thing in big arcs would likely be dead in under 10 seconds against someone who really knew what they were doing. The combination of telegraphing the blow with a massive opening in the defences as the swing is wound up would just be lethal. But in the other poster's "realistic" world, obviously swinging a greatsword like a scythe would work just fine - not because they are trying to be a dick, but because their honestly believed model of how melee combat works is at odds with what I believe it to be.
The advantage of rules, here, is that they define what the outcome of certain character choices in the game world are in a way that the GM and the player agree on (because they read the rules and agreed to play by them). Whether or not the rules are really "realistic" is immaterial; they provide a shared model that allows both "sides" to understand how interaction between the character and the environment will work. In this sense it is "player empowering", because it gives the player a knowledge of the game world that lets them see the game world more like their character would see it - with comprehension rather than ignorance - and make in-character choices that are informed rather than wild-assed guesses, at least in the areas that their character is supposed to be good at.
In other words, the rules themselves don't "force" or create the play experience, but the nature of the rules - depending upon what they are - opens up probable enactments.
Yep - I agree with this. This is why the folks on the Forge talked in terms of systems
supporting specific styles of play rather than enforcing them. The difference is not that a style of play is possible with one ruleset but impossible with another - it's that a style of play is easy with one ruleset and hampered with another.
I would suggest that to even approach that question we'd have to agree that there is something to integrate - meaning, that there is something in the old that is lacking (or de-emphasized) in the new, and something in the new that is lacking (or de-emphasized) in the old. I tend to take this approach. Now if you, or someone doesn't, then there really isn't anywhere to go with it.
Absolutely I think there are things that some styles of play have that others do not; the very point of playing by a different style is to emphasise some aspects of play while de-emphasising others.
As an aside to this, I don't see "immersion" as necessarily the primary aim of roleplaying. It's
AN aim - and a perfectly valid one - but not
THE aim of roleplaying. In some styles it is emphasised, in others it's not.
I think it comes down to whether we see a game as an ongoing, organic process of development, or something that has achieved (near-) perfection in one form (or edition) or another. I take the former approach, which is why I'm not an advocate of any particular edition.
Well, I don't fundamentally accept that there is any such thing as (near-)perfection in roleplaying, so I guess I can't possibly hold the second view!
All I can say is this: for the aspects of RPG that it is good at, I find 4E to be the best system on the market. For what older editions of D&D are particularly good at, I find that there are other systems that do the job in a way that I prefer.
That's not to say that others won't prefer earlier D&D editions for the styles for which I prefer another system, or that they might prefer older editions for styles that I haven't even considered playing. Both of those are possible. But it does mean that I currently have a use for 4E D&D, whereas I don't really have a use for older editions (any more).
If two PC's respond to an npc's offer in plainspeak: " I don't think that will work for us".
PC #1 has a CHA of 16 and/or a socially skilled background.
PC #2 has a CHA of 6 and no such background.
When PC #1 responds the npc will hear " not exactly what I had in mind, lets see what other arrangements we can make" as a sort of in between the lines message.
When PC #2 responds the npc will hear " screw that. If thats the best ya got you can stick it" as a sort of in between the lines message.
So it is very possible for normal conversation to take place HIGHLY influenced by the attributes of the character. The influence of such attributes will depend largely on the attitude and disposition of the recipient.
That sounds like a perfectly sensible system. The GM determines what "success" and "failure" are likely to lead to - which is constrained by the situation in play - and the skill roll (or, better, skill challenge - to take account of the several tasks required to get to a resolution) determines which path is open.
Better would be a set of rules (or at least guidelines) for "framing the scene" in social encounters in terms of what is possible and what is not, and what opposition must be overcome to get to the possible. I found this a disappointment with 4E; it had extensive (and very good) advice on framing combat encounters, but almost nothing on framing social or exploration encounters. This omission was never really rectified, I'm sad to say. The only "excuse" I can see is that previous editions of D&D didn't grasp this nettle, either - but I don't really think that excuse flies very far.
).
