D&D 4E Is there a "Cliffs Notes" summary of the entire 4E experience?

[Tony Vargas]

it stops people from playing Robocop in ancient Japan.

"I'm going to run a D&D game set in Ancient Japan."

"Cool, can I play a warforged warlock?"

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would phrase it by stating, one of the fundamental building blocks of an RPG is that it accepts arbitrary input and returns logical and reasonable output. As someone said earlier, "I believe I can fly", if a character asserts that and then states he is trying to fly by jumping up and down, this is arbitrary input, logical and reasonable output is "It doesn't work. Humans don't fly". Allowing the attempt of anything under any circumstances is a necessary factor for an RPG. I would permit a Fighter to attempt to cast a fireball spell from a scroll, it wouldn't work because he lacks necessary knowledge to do it, but he could try, and I would likely let him roll the dice for a chance at a roll on the Wild Magic tables or something as it is a reasonable output that while he almost certainly won't cast a fireball it is possible something could happen.

"Not able to attempt" breaks this fundamental RPG component, it suddenly becomes a game with defined boundaries instead of an RPG with arbitrary input and logical/reasonable output. At that point, some significant number of possible events become blocked because of a game rule instead of a game ruling. Which moves it increasingly further away from an RPG and much closer to a boardgame where people are acting out certain expectations instead of crafting a world or narrative.

Thanks, that's a good explanation.

However, the vast majority of RPGs - all versions of D&D included - would still let you /attempt/ just about anything. You'd just fail. Most of the time when the DM says "you can't do that," he means that it won't work so don't bother.


The claim, upstream, that started this was that certain mechanics (more or less arbitrarily labeled 'dissociative') somehow prevented that.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Thanks, that's a good explanation.

However, the vast majority of RPGs - all versions of D&D included - would still let you /attempt/ just about anything. You'd just fail. Most of the time when the DM says "you can't do that," he means that it won't work so don't bother.


The claim, upstream, that started this was that certain mechanics (more or less arbitrarily labeled 'dissociative') somehow prevented that.

To add to this, there's also DMs who use auto-failure to say that, no, you're not allowed to even attempt it. I've had more than a few in my time. And they actually confirmed that's what they meant when they used the auto-failure.

That's part of why the difference between auto-failure and not even being allowed to attempt it, while potentially rationalized to be different, realistically are the same thing. Because, realistically, both have the same outcome.

 

[Kraztur]

To add onto this with my viewpoint:
<snip>
That isn't a bad thing; it stops people from playing Robocop in ancient Japan.

I don't quite understand how our respective viewpoints relate, but as for that last point, it doesn't bother me that D&D isn't a GURPs mashup. If I was roleplaying Robocop, I would't want my PC in ancient Japan (and if he was, I'd want a semi-plausible time travel story arc). Robocop in ancient Japan is hard to relate to. I naturally self-limit my PC actions to what's relatable to me. I don't need rules *stopping* me from playing Robocop in ancient Japan, because I'd never start. And if by some absurd reason I wanted that, just reading the fluff (ie., not a "rule") in a campaign book would "stop" me. Anyway, carry on....

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

I don't quite understand how our respective viewpoints relate, but as for that last point, it doesn't bother me that D&D isn't a GURPs mashup. If I was roleplaying Robocop, I would't want my PC in ancient Japan (and if he was, I'd want a semi-plausible time travel story arc). Robocop in ancient Japan is hard to relate to. I naturally self-limit my PC actions to what's relatable to me. I don't need rules *stopping* me from playing Robocop in ancient Japan, because I'd never start. And if by some absurd reason I wanted that, just reading the fluff (ie., not a "rule") in a campaign book would "stop" me. Anyway, carry on....

I was expanding upon your discussion of the fact the rules themselves do not allow 100% freedom.

 

[Aenghus]

Some people prefer RPG rules to be extremely clear and unambiguous, others want the rules to be as invisible as possible, most people as usual being in the middle.

I'm one of the former. My experiences of early D&D and other RPGs, with strong DM dictatorship and "rulings not rules" the default were often as extreme frustration as I use rules and genre to understand the game, and referees often ignored the rules and messed with the genre leaving me adrift. I hate "playing the DM" and having to negotiate for every little thing. "Just say no" seemed to be be the motto of the times.

From 1e days I gravitated to spellcasters as spells were more reliable in affecting the gameworld than mundane actions, the spells acting as mini legal contracts to some extent.

Obviously people's RPG tastes emerge from a variety of factors including their experiences of play. In my experience improvised actions have always been penalised in every version of D&D I know, 4e having the least penalties.

I feel the idea that old school had lots of wonderful improvisation is a combination of nostalgia, and the DM throwing the players a life line when they have no other choice. There was so much fudging in the early days, acknowledged or not. YMMV.

 

[Rygar]

And yet, by rules, fighters are still not allowed to attempt to cast spells from memory. That has been in every edition, and even 5E is continuing it. Wizards, on the other hand, have had it as a core mechanism of how spellcasting works for numerous editions.

Also, let me point out that your use of the Wild Magic tables is a houserule; you are altering the core mechanics to give an effect. That you have done it does not mean the core rules themselves allow it.

Now, let me ask you this: How much of your argument is based on your personal houserules, and how much of it is based on RAW? Because if everything you have said is based on the former, then nothing you have said about how the rules actually work in relation to roleplaying is legitimate because you are having to alter the rules themselves to allow some outcomes. And, in turn, the fact you have to alter the rules at all just to have the fighter's attempt have any results goes on to show that the rules themselves are too restrictive for roleplaying in your mind.

Rulings, not rules. RPG's were never meant to be a straight-jacket that locks you in. The whole design is to present a framework that handles the basics and common cases and lets the DM's/Players handle the expression of infinite input. The input is infinite, anything that can be expressed can be input into an RPG, the output can be "No", but that doesn't preclude the insertion of any input.

All I'm doing is repurposing an existing piece of the framework that approximates the likely output of some input.

The core rules are simply there to provide guidance in constructing a shared world, they are not, and never have been a straight jacket and IIRC both BECMI and 1st edition expressley stated that. I believe both of them outright stated that much of the game was left abstract such that DMs/Players could interpret it as they desired, and 2nd edition continued to maintain a significant degree of leaving things up to the DMs/Players for the same reason.

So if you want to know how much of how I play is RAW? Every single moment. RAW started and ended with the original principle that the rules were a framework and everything was left to the DM/Players discretion. Everything else is a single interpretation that can either be accepted or rejected, which is what the designers intended from the very beginning.

 

[Lalato]

So... not RAW. You play fully cooked.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have a feeling I'm going to hate "Rulings not Rules" as much as I hated "Bad rules make for good games," "ROLE-playing not ROLL-playing," and "according to the RAW..."

(Yeah, even though the first and last of that list are polar opposites. Heck, especially because of that. Darn those pendulums.)

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Rulings, not rules. RPG's were never meant to be a straight-jacket that locks you in. The whole design is to present a framework that handles the basics and common cases and lets the DM's/Players handle the expression of infinite input. The input is infinite, anything that can be expressed can be input into an RPG, the output can be "No", but that doesn't preclude the insertion of any input.

All I'm doing is repurposing an existing piece of the framework that approximates the likely output of some input.

The core rules are simply there to provide guidance in constructing a shared world, they are not, and never have been a straight jacket and IIRC both BECMI and 1st edition expressley stated that. I believe both of them outright stated that much of the game was left abstract such that DMs/Players could interpret it as they desired, and 2nd edition continued to maintain a significant degree of leaving things up to the DMs/Players for the same reason.

So if you want to know how much of how I play is RAW? Every single moment. RAW started and ended with the original principle that the rules were a framework and everything was left to the DM/Players discretion. Everything else is a single interpretation that can either be accepted or rejected, which is what the designers intended from the very beginning.

In other words, you play with a set of house-rules, not the rules as they are actually written. And now you're trying to justify your house-rules as being the legitimate RAW rules just because the text allows you to create house-rules and you don't like getting called on using them.

You're right that they were not meant to be a straightjacket... but they're also not meant to be purely freeform, either. They are meant to have limitations on what players can do. They are meant to have things the players are simply not able to even attempt. They are meant to do have things where the players can do nothing but fail. Because those items are meant to create a game where people who don't know each other can sit down, play the game, and all have the same amount of fun.

They do not exist to allow a player to attempt anything they wish. If they did, then my example of a fighter being unable to even attempt to cast spells from memory would have been something easily addressed... instead of being flat-out ignored.