I think there are different, orthogonal issues at play here.
Rules light vs rules heavy is one. Games like MHRP (and FATE) show that rules light games can still be comprehensive and robust.
Yes, sure.
In D&Dnext, it could be a simple as a token that every player gets when they roll initiative....snip
I like it. I haven't played Next yet so haven't thought about house rules, but this is the sort of thing I could see adding on - as you would put it, it adds dimensionality but without too much complication, and without (as I see it) the problematic AEDU paradigm...although it still gives a taste of that.
In the absence of mechanics, it seems to me that we have only GM fiat. To put it by reference to the slogan "say yes or roll the dice", if there are no dice to be rolled then either the GM "says yes" - ie the players get what they want - or the GM "says no" - ie the GM decides that the players don't get what they want.
For all sorts of reasons I don't find that very satisfying. I recognise that my view is not universal. But I don't see how this is easily described as anything but the GM deciding what story will be told. If the players would like the story to go differently, where is their opportunity to bring that about other than by persuading the GM?
Again, its not either/or. DM fiat fills the gaps (and there are always gaps, no matter how seemless the rules are), and also provides an over-arching "rule zero" that can be applied as deemed necessary by the DM, usually behind the screen.
By "Gygaxian gaming" I mean the sort of RPGing advocated by Gygax in his PHB and DMG. It is (in Forge terminology) gamist, or "step on up", RPGing. The players show their mettle by beating the referee's dungeon. Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain and the like are classics of this genre.
....
It would be wrong to say that in this style of game the DM's power is absolute. For instance, the DM does not have unlimited power over backstory - thsu, a DM who simply redraws dungeon corridors, or adjust dungeon inhabitants, so as to undermine the strategy and tactics the players have formulated in reliance upon their scouting, detection magic and the like is (in this style of play) flat out cheating. Of course, if those changes have an in-fiction explanation - say, a teleporter device - then the DM is not cheating. But this shows it is not railroading but overly adversarial GMing which is the threat to the functionality of this sort of play. You can see it lurking beneath the surface, but not very far beneath the surface, in Gygax's DMG (with the advice on earseekers), in his MM (lurkers above, trappers, mimics, earseekers, rot grubs, gas spores, etc) and in Dragon and White Dwarf magazines of that period. Not to mention the Tomb of Horrors.
What you describe as the DM "cheating" has nothing to do with style of play, but who the DM is as a person - and thus can occur in any game, any edition.
Unlimited DM power, even to the extent of fudging monster hit points so as to keep them alive, or fiating player attacks so as to stop them killing "special" NPCs, is a product of AD&D 2nd ed rules texts (and similar era rules text in White Wolf books - the so-called "golden rule").
Not sure I buy this. This seems to be an underlying assumption in
all editions of D&D, that rule zero always applies. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing that you could find mention of it in some form or fashion in every edition, probably every DMG.
I prefer a game in which the players can make meaningful choices as to how their PCs engage the gameworld without relying upon the GM as the sole mediator of whether or not those choices have an effect - and if so, what effect - on the ingame fictional situation. I have two main reasons for this preference: (i) I want the players to play a major role in shaping the outcome of ingame events; (ii) I do not want the conflict of interset, as GM, of having to both establish the adversity that confronts the PCs, and deciding whether or not they are able to overcome it. For me, systems which do not satisfy constraint (ii) - ie systems in which the GM decides to "allow" things or not based on whether or not they are "good for the story" - are insipid and uninspiring. Whether or not they involve roleplaying, they all fall under the broad notion of the GM deciding what story will be told.
See, both of your reasons aren't a problem in any game I've ever run. Players always have a major role in "shaping the outcome of in-game events" and I never feel I have a conflict of interest because I emply fiat/rule zero sparingly, and only when I deem it necessary to improve the enjoyment of all...and, if at all possible, it won't be noticed by the players.
I think the main problem I see with your logic is that you see it as a black-or-white issue: if the GM "meddles" at all, the whole thing is tainted. I think the main issue is how
skillfully (or tactfully) the GM employs fiat, and for what end.
Another variation on fiat is with critical hits and misses. I tend to find 4e's max HP rather boring, so I often throw in an added effect. The same with a critical failure. This effect is entirely subjective, entirely my choice, and the players have always been fine with it, even enjoyed the unknown quality of it.
That's not in disupte. I'm not saying that you should like 4e. I'm just denying that it's a game which is a threat to imagine, or has caused imaginative play to become "a secret that was lost". By empowering players in the ways I have described in the previous paragraph, I find it produces more imaginative play than any other fantasy RPG I have GMed.
That goes back to the original post, which I just re-read and still feel in resonance with. But its important to realize that I was talking about something much larger than just RPGs or editions of D&D and applying that to how I see it manifest within the context of RPGs and D&D.
Going back to my original point, another way of framing it is that as our technology develops, something is lost in the mix. The technology "fills in the gaps" but something gets obfuscated. One analogy is that of a going to the movie theater vs. sitting around a camp-fire and listening to a story. Another is that of the wonder and play of a child being obfuscated by the Important Activities of the Adult World.
It is hard to pin-point exactly what it is in recent editions of D&D, especially 4e, that makes it more like a movie than a campfire story (for me), but I think it is related to the degree to which the rules cover everything, which is largely what we've been talking about. If there's a rule for everything then there is no room for rulings. If a PC has a whole list of powers with specific effects, its less likely that they'll improvise and come up with their own imagined action. That's the heart of it for me.
This is a huge over-simplification, but its kind of like this:
- In paradigm A a warrior can do one of two things: attack or do something fancy (improvise)
- In paradigm B a warrior can do ten things, or "powers"; they can also do something fancy, but it won't be as effective as the ten things they can do
I'd have no problem with paradigm B if it didn't obscure or marginalize doing something fancy. But, unfortunately, in 4e it does. Improvisation is put on the back-burner because A) there are so many pre-described options to choose from, and B) those pre-described options are generally superior and more failproof than making something up on the fly.
To put it another way, I don't have a problem with PCs having greater control of their own resources, but that those resources are so clearly defined and obscure the option to improvise, both by "covering them up" with the drop-down menu of powers, but also because the powers are inherently superior to page 42.
This is just one example, one area, in which I think "something has been lost," that the rules - both as written, but also as implied - limit the use of imagination and improvisation in 4e.
I don't know where to go from here. We can continue to nit-pick the fine points of the rules of various editions, but I don't see much point in that - plus we'll just end up going round and round.
) I've seen similar arguments about animation styles, especially hand-drawn versus photorealistic CGI. Or possibly between novels and graphic novels, where in reading you have to generate your own images, but a graphic novel does it for you. I've always found novels to be immersive, and graphic novels not to be (I generally find them a waste of money, as I read too fast for them to provide much value), but I don't think that's anything else than a product of my own style of cognition.
