D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[pemerton]

Okay.

I made my Wisdom check, and giving up with further posts with you on this matter.

That's your prerogative.

In the post to which I replied, you said "It screams "working my magic behind the scenes to invalidate PC choices to get the result I want" to me." By "PC choices" I assume you mean "player choices", because illusionism is something that happens in the real world (between GM and players), not in the fiction. And when I say "I'm not seeing what the illusion is" what I mean is that I don't see what choice was invalidated.

For instance, in relation to the sacrifice, you say "This, again, is something I'd argue is illusionism." I'm asking what the argument is. Presumably, it needs as a premise that the players made a choice which they believed was significant, which was then invalidated. What was that choice?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In the abstract, I don't really see how to answer this. What is going on, and why make the item?

As I was imagining it, the party learns that the head cultist is a minotaur, so they decide that a minotaur-slaying weapon would be good to have. Or they find out it's a dragon, so they want a shield that protects against breath weapons. I'm not all that familiar with 4E magic items, but I think you see where I'm going with this.

Even in the GM's pre-written timeline version, what time is the sacrifice going to take place? Midnight? Measured how (the cultists don't have wrist-watches, presumably)? And what time, exactly, did the PCs start making their item -

That's the thing. The party doesn't necessarily know when the deadline is, or I guess even what the exact time currently is. They may or may not have time to set up their plan. Under any sort of fixed timeline, this would be a choice that the party makes - they can spend the hour, and gain the upper hand on the upcoming encounter, at the risk of missing the deadline and failing the quest. It's an interesting decision, but only if the timeline is otherwise independent of their actions.

Or the party could find a copy of the ritual time-table, and learn exactly when the sacrifice will take place. At that point, the only risk is that something unexpected might happen at the last minute to throw them off schedule. Do they have enough time, accounting for traps and guards and other sorts of misdirection?

- and did stopping for lunch, to avoid fatigue/hunger penalties, cost them 10 minutes or 30? How long was the queue at the tavern? These are the sorts of things I have in mind when I say that D&D doesn't really have the resources to handle time outside of a fairly narrow range of contexts.

That's an area where the DM should be able to figure things out based on his or her prior knowledge of the setting, and dice for randomness where the DM is uncertain. That's DM 101 stuff. And if lunch is taking too long, the players may decide they don't have time, and cut it short.

Although maybe you're right. Maybe 4E chose to abstract the passage of time in such a manner that it's difficult to track what the exact time is at any give point. That's not easy for me to conceptualize.

 

[pemerton]

As I was imagining it, the party learns that the head cultist is a minotaur, so they decide that a minotaur-slaying weapon would be good to have. Or they find out it's a dragon, so they want a shield that protects against breath weapons. I'm not all that familiar with 4E magic items, but I think you see where I'm going with this.

My default approach, then, in dealing with this in a 4e game, would be to impose no penalty. The game is predicated on the assumption that rituals and the material components to pay for them are a player resource. The game expects that players will expend these resources to build their characters as they think is appropriate.

The function of the ritual casting times seems to be to provide some colour, and to somewhat ration them relative to the combat and the rest economies of the game (eg no ritual taking 10 minutes can be used during combat; if a ritual takes an hour then performing it is giving the GM a licence to change the fictional situation quite different from taking a (5-minute) short rest). There is no robust support for using time itself as a type of resource, with rituals one of the things that can be done with it. (A contrast would be systems that allow trading of time spent healing, earning money working, researching spells, enchanting items, etc: 1st ed AD&D had elements of this, and so do non-D&D games like Runequest and Burning Wheel.)

The party doesn't necessarily know when the deadline is, or I guess even what the exact time currently is. They may or may not have time to set up their plan. Under any sort of fixed timeline, this would be a choice that the party makes - they can spend the hour, and gain the upper hand on the upcoming encounter, at the risk of missing the deadline and failing the quest. It's an interesting decision, but only if the timeline is otherwise independent of their actions.

It might be interesting, in the same way that playing Russian roulette is interesting! But unless the goal of play is to have the players gamble against the GM's predetermined backstory, I'm not sure that it's very satisfying.

If the goal of play is to have the players gamble in this way, then manipulating the backstory to shape outcomes would be invalidating of the choices that the game frames for the players, and hence illusionistic. But this isn't the way that I approach RPGing.

did stopping for lunch, to avoid fatigue/hunger penalties, cost them 10 minutes or 30? How long was the queue at the tavern? These are the sorts of things I have in mind when I say that D&D doesn't really have the resources to handle time outside of a fairly narrow range of contexts.

That's an area where the DM should be able to figure things out based on his or her prior knowledge of the setting, and dice for randomness where the DM is uncertain. That's DM 101 stuff. And if lunch is taking too long, the players may decide they don't have time, and cut it short.

To me, this just seems to undermine the integrity of the "gambling on the GM's backstory" approach. If the outcome is dependent on so much of the GM's opinions about the fiction - prior knowledge of the setting plus rolling dice - then I'm not sure it's even a fair gamble. Or, at least, the players aren't gambling against the GM's predetermined backstory anymore - they're gambling against the way that the GM interprets and interpolates (via dice, fiat or both) these elements of backstory.

That seems even less interesting to me - it's one thing to explore the GM's backstory (which might be interesting, if done well) but another thing to explore the GM's 'random lunch-queue' table (that doesn't sound as interesting to me: "Why did we fail to rescue the prisoners?" "Because the GM rolled a 1 rather than 100 to work out how easily we were able to make our way through the marketplace on our way to the cultists's hide out").

Do the players get to see the GM's tables in advance, so they at least know what they're gambling against when they decide to stop and make a magic item? Otherwise it looks like Russian Roulette without even being told how many chambers are in the cylinder.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

My default approach, then, in dealing with this in a 4e game, would be to impose no penalty. The game is predicated on the assumption that rituals and the material components to pay for them are a player resource. The game expects that players will expend these resources to build their characters as they think is appropriate.

At least in some traditions of D&D, though possibly not in 4E, time is very much a player resource. I guess that depends on your definition of "robust", though. I've always noticed that specific times are usually given in any context where they could reasonably be codified. There's a reason why they list specific times for specific actions, such as crafting and travel.

Again, though, I'll assume that 4E is a departure here. I certainly didn't notice any Craft or Profession skills, or even spell research, that would give any real use to down-time. The whole system seems oddly focused on keeping things moving without ever taking a break. Even re-training come free with level, and no down-time is needed!

To me, this just seems to undermine the integrity of the "gambling on the GM's backstory" approach. If the outcome is dependent on so much of the GM's opinions about the fiction - prior knowledge of the setting plus rolling dice - then I'm not sure it's even a fair gamble. Or, at least, the players aren't gambling against the GM's predetermined backstory anymore - they're gambling against the way that the GM interprets and interpolates (via dice, fiat or both) these elements of backstory.

Which goes back to the oldest piece of advice for DMs: Be fair. If the DM is honest in all such estimates and interpolations, then the players should be satisfied that the outcome is actually the result of their own choices (and possibly random chance), rather than the DM trying to invalidate player choices by directing the narrative. And since the DM actually knows what's going on in the game world, you get details and options that are much more nuanced than anything you could pull from a chart.

I mean, the players can do anything. Especially, they'll do things that you never planned for ahead of time. In order that the players actually retain that freedom, the DM needs to be free to treat it as appropriate, rather than filtering it through a lens of a Skill Challenge.

And that goes back to player-empowerment. Is the player empowered by codified mechanics, such that a level-appropriate outcome is guaranteed if you make a level-appropriate check? Or is the player empowered by leaving it free-form, so that you can do anything that the DM agrees that you can do, regardless of what's level-appropriate? Does the player want the DM to be confined to certain narrow parameters when it comes to adjudication?

Sorry, I'm rambling. It's late. I think we're debating in circles over here. Feel free to ignore the parts that are off-topic.

 

[pemerton]

At least in some traditions of D&D, though possibly not in 4E, time is very much a player resource.

In Gyagxian AD&D, yes - but look at the sorts of activities for which time is defined: spell research, overland travel, healing (defined in terms of days) and then dungeon exploration (defined in terms of 10-minute turns and to a lesser extent in terms of 1-minute rounds). Note also that these are defined - they don't rely simply on GM interpolation.

There is no discussion of time in the context of performing mechanically unspecified rituals (like sacrifices by cultists in temples), or for making one's way through a market square. Or for eating lunch, or visiting a friend's house, or making an address to the Senate. Or for tilling a field. (Though it does discuss time required to mine dungeons and build castles.)

Gygaxian AD&D has a relatively narrow focus of activity. Once you branch out into other subject matters, it doesn't really have robust support.

I guess that depends on your definition of "robust", though. I've always noticed that specific times are usually given in any context where they could reasonably be codified. There's a reason why they list specific times for specific actions, such as crafting and travel.

My contention is that you've got this the wrong way round. Because they're codified, they're robust. The other times could be codified - there is no reason that searching a room for secret doors can be codified (see Gygax's DMG) but eating lunch at a tavern can't be. It's just that in Gygax's game searching for secret doors mattered while dining at taverns didn't.

But in the absence of codification - which, for the sorts of activities that many D&D games deal with, would be an immense task - the robustness isn't there. And without that robust support, time does not remain a meaningful player resource. It turns into mere colour.

If the DM is honest in all such estimates and interpolations, then the players should be satisfied that the outcome is actually the result of their own choices (and possibly random chance), rather than the DM trying to invalidate player choices by directing the narrative.

It need not be about the GM "trying" to invalidate; it may just be that that is what the GM is doing, whether s/he wants to or not. At a certain point, no amount of fairness or neutrality obviates the fact that it is the GM's choice that is the dominant concern in respect of the fiction.

For instance, the PCs have an hour to rescue the prisoners, and have to cross Greyhawk on foot to do so. How long does it take? Do they get stuck in a crowded market place? Do they get detained by thugs, or guards, or bump into friends who want to chat or old enemies who want to glower? All this is much like my example of the PC in prison upthread - neutrality does not really come into it, as there is nothing neutral about deciding one way or another in respect of these things. And what random table is going to do the job?

I mean, the players can do anything. Especially, they'll do things that you never planned for ahead of time. In order that the players actually retain that freedom, the DM needs to be free to treat it as appropriate, rather than filtering it through a lens of a Skill Challenge.

I don't understand. What is the relationship between freedom of action declaration and resolving something as a skill challenge?

The decision about using a skill challenge is about pacing, stakes, etc. It is not about the subject-matter of the action. I've used skill challenges to resolve travel, bargaining, befriending, crafting, and other sorts of things I've probably forgotten. If there's a player (and PC) goal, and potential obstacles in the way, then it can be resolved as a skill challenge, whatever the details of the action resolution.

Is the player empowered by codified mechanics, such that a level-appropriate outcome is guaranteed if you make a level-appropriate check?

<snip>

Does the player want the DM to be confined to certain narrow parameters when it comes to adjudication?

I'm not sure what you mean by a level-appropriate outcome: generally the fictional stakes for action resolution will be established (explicitly or implicitly) as part of framing the declaration of action and then adjudicating the outcome. There are fiction constraints and system constraints.

For instance, in all versions of D&D I'm familiar with, the player of a 1st level human PC can't just declare "I flap my arms and fly to the moon", because that is inconsistent with the agreed-upon backstory (humans don't have wings and can't fly by flapping their arms); nor can that player declare "I kill him with my sword!" - rather, they have to roll attack dice, then (if they hit) damage dice, and only if hit points are reduced to zero is the opponent reduced to zero hp. (In other words - there is no difference between "I kill him with my sword!" and "I attack him with my sword!" as action declarations. This is not true in all RPGs - eg it's not true in Burning Wheel. And I think it's not true in [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s game.)

Do players want systems for resolution? Presumably some do - those who play games with robust systems - and some don't - those who play games where GM decision-making is more important than mechanical system in determining outcomes. And then there are some who want to pretend they are using systems but are really relying on GM overrides - like the example [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] posted upthread!

As to whether there is a correlation between robust systems and player empowerment - that is my general experience, and it also seems to me to be borne out by the common labelling of robust systems as based around 'player entitlement' or rules-lawyering/munchkinism. But even if there is such a correlation, perhaps it is not universal. I can't say that there was never a player who became disempowered by having transparent resolution mechanics to deploy.

Or is the player empowered by leaving it free-form, so that you can do anything that the DM agrees that you can do, regardless of what's level-appropriate?

For me, the biggest question is what determines whether or not the GM agrees.

Then there are micro-questions, like the sort [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] raised upthread (in relation to "rulings not rules"): is it my job as GM to single-handedly make every decision, from first principles, about what new content may or may not be introduced into the fiction? Or is it the role of the system to carry a lot of that load? As a GM I prefer a game where the system carries a lot of that load - partly because it is less work for me, partly because it means I get to act as a game referee rather than as sole author (I enjoy the former role more than the latter), partly because I get to be as surprised as the players at what comes next.

In 4e, I've found that the approach to resolution actually straddles your two options: the fictional stakes are free-form, negotiated between players and GM in light of shared genre understandings, thematic flavour of PC build choices, etc; but the determination of whether or not those stakes are actually realised is handled via system.

 

[Sadras]

@Balesir and @AbdulAlhazred covered Illusionism well I think from the different perspectives. Clearly there are at least two view points on Illusionism - mine is closer aligned to @JamesonCourage.

To YOU its all meaningful in terms of the players directing the plot and you managing the pacing and tension, but to the simulationist mindset its all illusionary hokum, there's no 'real world', no objective time lines and whatnot written down.

To provide a perspective on your comment, in our current campaign there is a definite timeline in place, the PCs are aware that each day they delay in their primary mission, the setting is infected with changes (some good some bad).
On a macro level, their decisions about which main or side quest takes priority, where to travel to, the route taken, how they will travel and how often they rest affects the setting.
On a micro level, when utilising a map, the decision to go left or right might affect their resource spend, whether they are noticed, possible treasure found, information obtained..etc

Of course not even Gygax really did that, much. If you read all the old classic AD&D modules they're almost always arranged so that each room of any plot significance is described as being at a point of maximum drama.

Great observation.

Anyway, I'm just noting how in a simulationist agenda there are quite a few more ways to 'cheat' than you would account.

Spot on.

The pre-written timeline isn't any more real or objective!

It does provide a base to work from. The PCs are aware that side quest dalliances affect the storyline and possible outcome. Think of Time along the lines of hit points, powers and surges. Time is a limited resource which you can gain and lose depending on PC choices, same way that one determines whether to spend their powers or surges in combat.

These are the sorts of things I have in mind when I say that D&D doesn't really have the resources to handle time outside of a fairly narrow range of contexts.

You'd be surprised at some of the record-keeping some DMs out there have, but whether or not you think Time is not as accurately handled as Hit Points, that doesn't mean it cannot exist as a resource.

Outside of some way of putting the whole thing on a meaningful clock, I don't see the point of turning time into part of the stakes

I would say you are definitely wrong on this point as I have illustrated above where the PCs decisions matter a great deal to how the setting changes. Also one does not have to measure time according to seconds and minutes - one can use hours and days or even weeks. 4e even has time measurements for its combat rounds, rituals, short and long rests for precisely to cater to that playstyle.
Like the encumbrance rules of old, people use what they want, its doesn't invalidate their use of them though.

- its an invitation to GM fiat

What are you implying with this comment?

As I've said, in 4e the way you put it onto a clock is via a skill challenge.

That is certainly an option and I've used it, it works well, but it isn't the only possible way to resolve time.

By "PC choices" I assume you mean "player choices", because illusionism is something that happens in the real world (between GM and players), not in the fiction. And when I say "I'm not seeing what the illusion is" what I mean is that I don't see what choice was invalidated.

That is an interesting take on things.

So DM fudging die rolls falls under illusionism but DM fudging a map (right or left) because it is in the fiction does not fall under illusionism for you. Do I understand it correctly?

Finally is DM fudging a map - DM fiat?

 

[Starfox]

Also I find it more than a little ironic that a fan of a game where it is okay for healing to take place from a totally mundane source... thinks that music has to be magical to affect someone...

Sine I can no longer add a comment when I give XP, I explain it in a post instead. This is great!

Now I am confused at the interface here; did I just make this post (and am I thus now double posting) or is this some kind of reaffirmation I have to make to see if I am really posting?

 

[pemerton]

in our current campaign there is a definite timeline in place, the PCs are aware that each day they delay in their primary mission, the setting is infected with changes (some good some bad).
On a macro level, their decisions about which main or side quest takes priority, where to travel to, the route taken, how they will travel and how often they rest affects the setting.
On a micro level, when utilising a map, the decision to go left or right might affect their resource spend, whether they are noticed, possible treasure found, information obtained..etc

<snip>

It does provide a base to work from. The PCs are aware that side quest dalliances affect the storyline and possible outcome. Think of Time along the lines of hit points, powers and surges. Time is a limited resource which you can gain and lose depending on PC choices, same way that one determines whether to spend their powers or surges in combat.

There are three references in this quote to what the PCs are aware of and/or are choosing.

Should I read that as "PC" or "player".

It goes without saying that, in my game, the PCs - certain imaginary beings in an imaginary world - are aware that every hour of delay could spell doom for the prisoners, so they have reason to make maximum haste.

The question at issue, though, is not about what the PCs think and do - it's about what the players think and do.

In the examples you give, do the players know how their decisions to delay will change things? If they do - to give a crude example, if they know that resting for one day will add one demon to the evil army, but let them recover sufficient hit points to take on two extra demons - then I agree that time is a genuine resource.

I personally have never played a D&D game where the role of time on the GM side of things is so constrained and knowable by the players. The only GM whom I've personally seen post about using such precise techniques is [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION].

If the time line is all secret from the players, however, so all they know is that stopping to rest will power them up a measurable amount (say, replenish a spell load-out) but will make things worse by some indeterminate degree, then I don't see how there is meaningful choice. There's just a gamble.

You'd be surprised at some of the record-keeping some DMs out there have

I don't think so! I'm not ignorant about record-keeping. I'm a little bit sceptical about the details of the action resolution. Moldvay Basic and Gygax have very tight time rules for dungeoneering, and somewhat tight time rules for walking through the wilderness, for building castles and dungeons, for healing and for spell research. 3E has time rules for crafting.

But I've not seen time rules for many of the other activities that PCs in a contemporary game might undertake.

Furthermore, in Gygax's D&D long-term time was mostly a resource to be used in competition with other players - his examples in his DMG make that clear. And dungeoneering time is mostly about handling wandering monster checks. In neither Gygax nor Moldvay is there any serious discussion of how players can use time as a resource to beat cultists performing rituals, or evil overlords raising armies, or anything of that sort.

In the examples that you and [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] are discussing, you are positing time as a player resource to be used to win against the GM (as in - get there in time the prisoners are saved, otherwise the GM declares them dead). That's fine, but as I've said I'm far from clear how, in the typical case, the players are meant to choose a winning strategy.

I have illustrated above where the PCs decisions matter a great deal to how the setting changes.

The impression that I got is that player decisions affect the passage of time, and this then leads the GM to declare certain changes in the setting. To me that looks like the GM is making the changes, but on a clock that is set by the players.

Like the encumbrance rules of old, people use what they want, its doesn't invalidate their use of them though.

I'm not saying anything is invalid. Or valid, for that matter. I'm just trying to work out what is going on at the table.

If the GM has a secret timeline, and choices by the players about how to spend ingame time on declared actions for their PCs trigger new narrations from the GM, I can see that the players are part of a mechanism - the "clock" I referred to a paragraph or two above - but I don't really see how the players are making meaningful decisions. From their perspective, it just seems to be a gamble - maybe resting an extra day will be worth it in terms of benefit-to-cost ratio, maybe it won't.

In Gygaxian dungeoneering it is different, because the players know the rough odds of wandering monsters turning up, and so can make rational judgments about risks vs rewards.

If the timeline is, instead, about immersion in a "living, breathing world" then I can see that; but that doesn't make the players' choices more informed or rational - but I'm sure some players enjoy the fact that their choices are part of the mechanism of the GM's clock.

What are you implying with this comment?

That making time part of the stakes, in circumstances where the players don't have access to the GM-side information - eg how long it will take to run through a marketplace?; how long does an evil cultist ritual take? - is an invitation to GM fiat: to the GM making decisions (such as deciding how long these things take) which are not knowable to the players, or able to be factored into their plans, therefore tending to make the GM's choices more significant than the players' plans in actually determining the evolving content of the shared fiction.



That is certainly an option and I've used it, it works well, but it isn't the only possible way to resolve time.

That is an interesting take on things.

So DM fudging die rolls falls under illusionism but DM fudging a map (right or left) because it is in the fiction does not fall under illusionism for you. Do I understand it correctly?

Finally is DM fudging a map - DM fiat?

What fudging of a map are you talking about? That example was [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION]'s, and has nothing to do with me (except that I posted some thoughts about the hypothetical upthread).

My question to JamesonCourage was: when I decided that the players, upon bursting into the cultist chamber in the temple, would encounter the gnolls mid-ritual, what player choice was I invalidating? This has nothing to do with maps: the map I was using is found in H2, Thunderspire Labyrinth, as are some of the basic elements of the scenario that I was running.

But on the map hypothetical: if the players, having no knowledge about what lies left and what lies right, toss a coin, what choice is invalidated by the GM simply using his/her prepared material for the passage the players happen to choose? An analogue would be the players choosing to have their PCs go north rather than south, so the GM narrates a cold temple rather than a warm one. Without giving me some indication of what was at stake in the players' choice, you haven't shown me what the illusion is - ie what choice that seemed to be significant was in fact invalidated?

Without that, the choice to go north or south, to wear a red cloak or a blue one, to give your character the title "The Fey" or "The Sly", is just colour.

And the point is not rhetorical. I'm not denying that there can be stakes in going left or right - that's basically the whole of Gygaxian or Moldvay Basic play! But those systems have determinate ways of establishing these stakes, from mapping conventions to search rules to detection magic to systems for providing the players with rumours.

In your hypthetical of it mattering whether the players choose to have their PCs go left or right, what are you envisaging being the meaningful decision, and how are you envisaging that being invalidated?

 

[Manbearcat]

So DM fudging die rolls falls under illusionism but DM fudging a map (right or left) because it is in the fiction does not fall under illusionism for you. Do I understand it correctly?

Finally is DM fudging a map - DM fiat?

If

1) the agenda of the game is an exploratory simulation of a persistent, objective, hostile environment (a wilderness, a dungeon, etc)

and

2) the players are expected to make informed strategic decisions at a high level of resolution with respect to the map (eg climb up the ladder vs go through this trap door based on spatial, temporal and sensory context)

and

3) those decisions have legitimate immediate, imminent, or future consequences (possibly all three given the snowballing nature of resource-driven, exploratory play)

and

4) the GM is the medium by which spatial, temporal, sensory information, and their context/relation, is conveyed to the players so they can properly orient themselves and then make those impactful, strategic decisions

then

yes...fudging the map, covertly, is absolutely illusionism. Fudging the map overtly would be GM force. However, assuming all of the above is true, I would say that something such as overtly fudging a map is "GM without a job" rather than force...because what the hell player is going to stick around after that brash violation of the rules/social contract? It would only be done covertly if it is going to be done.

 

[TwoSix]

Without that, the choice to go north or south, to wear a red cloak or a blue one, to give your character the title "The Fey" or "The Sly", is just colour.

Let me take a stab at this, as it ties into some ideas I've had noodling around with for the past few days.

Let's define the main function of a RPG (any RPG, whether tabletop, computer single player, or MMO) as the identification with an avatar (a fictional construct under your control) with attributes that are customizable, and also progressible through achievement or time, with the avatar having a fictional place within a larger narrative. This is a broad definition, but it sweeps up games that are often considered to have "role-playing elements" such as Borderlands, kid games like Club Penguin, big budget CRPGs like Dragon Age, MMOs as diverse as World of Warcraft and ArcheAge, and TTRPGs as diverse as D&D, Shadowrun, and Savage Worlds. Cons to this definition are that it excludes dramatic one-shot story games like Fiasco. I'm not 100% happy with the definition, but it serves a purpose for further discussion.

Now, to go further afield, I'm going to propose that there is a binary at play in all RPGs: an exploration of conflict and an exploration of color. (Have to Americanize it, sorry [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]!)

The exploration of conflict is primarily about the avatar(s) progressing through the narrative, and overcoming narrative conflicts to achieve their progression within the greater fictional world. This is also the means in which most customizable and progressible options are opened in most RPGs. This is fighting through orc caves in D&D, or exploring the Air Temple in Final Fantasy, or completing the Icecrown Citadel in World of Warcraft. The avatar(s) have a goal (defeat X, or explore Y) and the referee, whether this be a DM, a game client, or a shared server, presents them with challenges that carry the risk of failure.

Exploration of color, then, is the gameplay where conflict, risk, and stakes are not present or fairly low-key. It's talking to the city guards to find out what's going on in the city in D&D. It's exploring a ramshackle hut in Skyrim to find materials. It's trying out new outfits in Club Penguin. It's building up your home with new furnishings in RIFT, or ArcheAge, or Star Wars Galaxies.

Every RPG allows for exploration of both tendencies in greater or lesser degree. But the tension always exists as to how much support each goal is given. For example, take the "4e is like WoW" meme. While there's some facile comparisons between the two ("Roles are like the MMO trinity!" "Powers are like pushing a button!"), I think there's a more subtle frame of reference that's only apparent if you've played both.

WoW, at release in 2004, while more conflict oriented than other MMOs, still had a lot of sandbox elements. Travel to new places took a very long time, forcing you to traverse large parts of the world's two landmasses. You could only enter dungeons and raids by travel to far-flung areas of the game. Progression through the game's end narrative required painstaking effort to find rare items. By 2008, much of the logistical challenges of the game had been modified. Flying mounts made travel less of a chore. Spells that used to require reagents had the need removed. Travel to the end-game challenges was ameliorated by the introduction of a Dungeon Finder, which grouped people together automatically and teleported them to a dungeon.

How does that tie to 4e? Both games (the change from 3e->4e and from early WoW to WoW with multiple expansions) emphasized a change in focus from stake-less play to play with larger goals, a change from a focus on color to a focus on conflict. WoW now emphasized the ease of getting into what it considered its main design focus, its dungeons and its raids. System changes were made to emphasize being in the conflict, rather than the journey to get there. The main changes to 4e were similar in nature. Combat was focused on challenging set piece encounters, rather than random encounters from exploration. Outside combat, the game was focused on skill challenges. What are skill challenges but a tool to turn non-combat situations into a focus on conflict? Goals are set, success and failure conditions are established. That quote "...let the players get to the adventure, and get to the fun" from James Wyatt emphasized the focus on conflict over color, which is why it became such a sticking point in the Edition Wars.

I believe that's why the loss of wizards and Vancian magic ultimately led to the rejection of 4e by so many. For those of us who love conflict play, we understood that wizards were the most powerful class because they had an incomparable ability to render conflict moot. A well played wizard is the ultimate tool for color focused play. A wizard epitomizes the triumph of logistics and planning (a hallmark of color based play) over plot challenges.