Confirm or Deny: D&D4e would be going strong had it not been titled D&D

[pemerton]

By "screwy" I mean, "Having no immediately obvious, universally applicable narrative resolution that will, under scrutiny, completely satisfy all aspects of both process sim and fantasy/heroic genre tropes."

OK, I agree with that!

I think I've made it clear why I think they're hopeless as process sim (no connection to actual injuries, no debilitation etc). For that, I'll use the systems that deliver it. For me, hit points move all the PC-side narration (except for unconsciousness/death, depending on 1st ed AD&D or 4e) into the fantasy/heroic genre trope.

One of the characters specifically set up his character to sort of be the "anti-hero" rogue, the socially misanthropic, always-drunk-and-penniless guy. And yet, over and over, simply by playing to this character's "role" in the fiction, he ended up creating some of the most meaningful stories / fun hijinx----and yet STILL ended up being "the hero" in so many different situations. I suppose this might be "bad" if the player didn't actually want it to end up that way; if he or she really did want to be the anti-social, misanthrope non-hero. But my player loved it.

I'm not sure I've seen this exactly.

My table is, I think, more tolerant of diverse PC commitments and agendas (in terms of backstories, allegiances that actually matter in play, etc) than some D&D tables, where any PC vs PC disagreement or conflict is frowned upon. But because D&D is about party play (and 4e especially) there's also an unspoken understanding that players will find ways, from within the perspectives of their PCs, to "go along" - and as a GM I also do my best to frame situations and challenges that engage the whole party.

At least two of the characters in my game are fairly grim/dark - the paladin of the Raven Queen, whose marching song is "Death, death, death, death" repeated over and over, who sleeps standing up (because only the dead lie on their backs) and who shows pity for no one, least of all his fellow PCs; and the (now former) drow chaos sorcerer Demonskin Adept. The mechanics make the drow something of a show-pony; but he is also, in virtue of this, a solid member of the team (their main damage dealer). The paladin is a fairly low-damage character, but is the number-one tanker of solos in the party; his ability to function self-contained (he packs his own defences, hit points, healing and buffing) tends to reinforce his character as solitary and disdainful in relation to the rest of the party.

I don't think I'm describing the same thing as you did - so I guess the immediate answer to your question is "no" - but I can say that the 4e mechanics have allowed the players to express their characters in a meaningful way while nevertheless ensuring a type of integration into the party dynamic, even though that is not the innate disposition of the character. (The other PCs are party-players in combat in more obvious ways: the invoker/wizard clearly needs physical defenders, and is all about setting up for others, and is a servant of Erathis, a god of organisation; the cleric-ranger is a healer, buffer and "intervener" (eg defensive or retaliatory shots); the fighter is an Eternal Defender of Moradin, so his whole raison d'etre is other-regarding, and mechanically is a melee controller who coordinates closely with the sorcerer to optimise positioning for defensive and their mutual AoE purposes.)

Out of combat, the same personalities tend to show through: the ranger-cleric is a facilitator (strong skills are Nature and Perception), the paladin is grim and dour (Intimidate) or else steers a path of negotiations without regard to the rest of the party (best Diplomacy in the group); the invoker-wizard is the skill monkey, especially knowledge skills, who therefore solves the puzzles or sets things up so the group can proceed; the sorcerer is a Bluff-y, sometimes Diplomatic or Intimidating show pony (Acrobatics and Stealth are his physical abilities, both of which lend themselves to showboating on occasion ); the fighter is all about Athletics and Endurance, and often uses these to help the other members of his party, who tend to be somewhat on the physically weak side.

Something I enjoy - and I don't know if this is a feature of Savage Worlds play or not - is when the fiction pushes the players to play their PCs against mechanical type. For instance, the player of the dwarf is so passionate about something, and frustrated with how the other players are having their PCs engage a situation, that he comes in and makes the Diplomacy check to try and push things his way; or, in a combat, the sorcerer finds himself having to hold the front line. This is not necessarily where heroism comes to the fore, but it can lead to narrow and exciting successes, or to meaningful failures - meaningful because the player really put his/her PC on the line for a reason, and even if it didn't work out quite as desired something interesting happened in the fiction as a result.

I think 4e supports this better than AD&D because its approach to action resolution, consequences etc creates a more nuanced range of failure and partial failure conditions than simply alive/dead.

 

[pemerton]

But see, here's the thing---4e wasn't D&D. If you really wanted "D&D"---classic, absolute zero to super hero, Gygaxian, gamist-drifted-pseudo-simulationist D&D---4e was NEVER going to get you that game. It just wasn't.

<snip>

Saying "4e wasn't D&D" is no insult to someone who likes 4e. If I'm a 4e fan and someone says that, my response would be, "Damn right it isn't, and I like it that way."

It irritates me (quite a bit, as I've tried to articulate in this thread), but for a slightly different reason. It's an attempt to hold up what is, to me, a rather narrow conception of and approach to D&D as if it were the whole of the game, or at least its essential core.

I don't think that 3E is any closer than 4e to "classic, absolute zero to super hero, Gygaxian D&D". It has too little bounded accuracy compared to AD&D or B/X (especially in relation to AC and hit points); it replaces fortune-in-the-middle saves with simulationist saves, thereby dramatically transforming Gygax's Conan-esque fighter; it doesn't have the turn sequence or action resolution or wandering monsters to support Gygaxian dungeon-crawling. In all these respects, it's some sort of extension or development of non-Gygaxian 2nd ed AD&D play.

That's not intended as a slight on 3E, although a big fan would probably think it's not the most flattering description (especially in relation to the fighter - surely the most contentious class in 3E). It's intended to make the point that 3E represents one line of development from, and hence divergence from, classic D&D.

4e is another, and part of the reason I have quoted Gygax on hit points upthread, and referred to Gygax on saves, is to try and demonstrate how much of those aspects of Gygaxian D&D 4e preserves and develops. Plus, its integration of mechanics and story in its Monster Manuals in conjunction with its XP system means it will absolutely deliver the "story of D&D" in its default play: start with kobolds attacking the village, and with Tiamat or Orcus or other cosmological evil of choice. That's classic D&D!

For the stuff that is D&D to me - which is not its pseudo-simulationism, especially in 3E's version (when I play sim I play what I think of as genuinely sim games), but its mechancis like hp and saving throws plus its story elements and basic cosmological conceits - 4e is truer to D&D than any other version.

TL;DR: if "not D&D" means "not 3E", then sure, but 3E is not and never was at the core of my conception of D&D. For me, that is Gygax's AD&D and Moldvay/Cook/Marsh B/X. And now 4e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But see, here's the thing---4e wasn't D&D. If you really wanted "D&D"---classic, absolute zero to super hero, Gygaxian, gamist-drifted-pseudo-simulationist D&D---4e was NEVER going to get you that game. It just wasn't. <snip> Saying "4e wasn't D&D" is no insult to someone who likes 4e. If I'm a 4e fan and someone says that, my response would be, "Damn right it isn't, and I like it that way."

One: It's easy to say "it's not an insult to say X!" when X isn't being said to you, or about you/your preferences. Two: Most 4e fans I have encountered do not share your perspective on whether "4e is not D&D" is an insult. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's considered edition warring in some forums.

 

[Zak S]

"Dead" isn't an interesting result which is why it's a fascinating stake.

Threat of death isn't interesting because it's interesting to be dead, it's interesting because
nobody (including all the diverse character types) wants to be dead.

A good adventure allows diverse character types to use a variety of ways to
circumvent death and makes the disparate characters appreciate that diversity
because without it…they'd be dead.

 

[pemerton]

"Dead" isn't an interesting result which is why it's a fascinating stake.

I've got nothing against PC death as a stake, although I think it can cause problems - if it's allowed to be realised, then the game potentially comes to an end (depending on the structure and purpose of the game); and if, because of this, steps are taken to make it a purely illusory stake (see some of the current fudging threads) then its whole purpose as a stake has been undone.

But there are many other stakes that are as interesting as PC death. Most dramatic and adventure fiction doesn't rely on death as its sole, or even primary, stake.

 

[Zak S]

I've got nothing against PC death as a stake, although I think it can cause problems - if it's allowed to be realised, then the game potentially comes to an end (depending on the structure and purpose of the game); and if, because of this, steps are taken to make it a purely illusory stake (see some of the current fudging threads) then its whole purpose as a stake has been undone.

But there are many other stakes that are as interesting as PC death. Most dramatic and adventure fiction doesn't rely on death as its sole, or even primary, stake.

The fact that the game can come to an end is why it's such a great stake.

And, no, I don't think any other stake is as interesting in a game (not in dramatic fiction, a whole other form) as not getting to play the game anymore (or at least not gettng to play it in the same way). I challenge you to ame one.

That's why they have elimination tournaments in sports.

A character being blind or mad or not getting to do what they want right away is a more interesting RESULT, but a less interesting STAKE--since all of those things are still fun and still playing.

The point of death is it creates the greatest fear in the game: fear of the fun going away.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The point of death is it creates the greatest fear in the game: fear of the fun going away.

I don't find fear exciting. Particularly "fear of the fun going away," since that doesn't even really get the adrenaline pumping. The risk is "fun is gone," the reward is "status quo is maintained." Pretty crappy trade-off there: either nothing changes, or things change for the worse.

As for naming something as interesting as that, bit of a trap question, don't you think? What with "interesting" being 100% a matter of taste. I find mathematics and particle physics incredibly interesting (the latter being one of my potential career goals, in fact). One of my best friends has essentially no interest in either, except when I broach the subject, because he respects the enthusiasm of others (as do I when he talks about the occasional thing I have no interest in). How, exactly, do you expect anyone else to name something that *you* find more interesting than it? Particularly when you've just said you don't think there IS such a thing?

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have to agree with death being about as exciting a stake as you can have in a game. I've played in games with other stakes (or where the threat of death just wasn't that big a specter due to the focus or premise) and those are fine. I have no problem with that stuff. But death is the ultimate stake in my opinion. Especially in games where returning from the dead is either an impossibility or more of a challenge.

The distinction Zak is making between interesting result and interesting stake is definitely useful. Being pro-death on the table as an interesting stake doesn't mean you are opposed to interesting results as well. You can have both, and when you remove death as a possibility, for me at least, it drastically reduces the excitement of the game.

Personally I like having lots of stakes on the table. I don't think D&D has ever really been that game though (and I don't think 4E really did anything to make it that game either). But the there has always been enough of a blank canvass with D&D you can make it that if you want to. There has always been the difficulty in D&D of how you cut off someone's arm for example. It can certainly happen. If the players strap down an NPC and cut off his arm, his arm is gone for sure. It was just never one of those things that the system really allowed to organically arise during combat. You either had to wing it or it simply didn't come up.

 

[Wicht]

I don't find fear exciting.

I absolutely respect your opinion on this, and suppose it is possibly true. However, I will humbly point out, that if what you say is true, you are in, I suspect, a very, very small minority.

For the majority of the human race, fear is exciting. Thus the popularity of ghost stories, horror movies, and roller coasters. The appeal of most games to the larger populace is, to a very real extent, based on the potential for losing, though most people don't realize it. Most people think of games in regards to winning, but generally, for one to win, someone else has to lose. Thus the screaming cheers at ball games, the yells of the fans during the races, and the cries of excitement when a group of friends around a table rolls some dice. Games in which nobody on any side has the potential for loss are generally derided and largely unappealing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I absolutely respect your opinion on this, and suppose it is possibly true. However, I will humbly point out, that if what you say is true, you are in, I suspect, a very, very small minority.

Not surprising. I'm well-acquainted with the notion that the way I think about something is, in all probability, strange and alien to most other people.

For the majority of the human race, fear is exciting. Thus the popularity of ghost stories, horror movies, and roller coasters.

Heh. Funny you should choose those examples. Ghost stories either leave me utterly unfazed, or make me feel paranoid and anxious. Horror movies are largely the same; if the horror actually 'gets to me,' I don't feel catharsis, I feel like crap, and if it doesn't 'get to me' then I don't really feel anything at all about it. And roller coasters--which I have ridden, multiple times even--aren't exciting, they're terrifying, in a whole-body-quivering, fervent-sincere-prayers kind of way. The endorphin and adrenaline rush is why I do it, but even then I can't handle more than one or two rides before I have to stop for the day; the experience is exhausting and, again, somewhat paranoid.

I totally agree that people enjoy these things, to do otherwise would be foolish. But I do not grok enjoying it, since (when they 'work') they induce in me feelings which I severely dislike (other than the side-effects of the hormonal rush that occurs, which as I mentioned earlier, D&D game death doesn't cause for me).

The appeal of most games to the larger populace is, to a very real extent, based on the potential for losing, though most people don't realize it. Most people think of games in regards to winning, but generally, for one to win, someone else has to lose. Thus the screaming cheers at ball games, the yells of the fans during the races, and the cries of excitement when a group of friends around a table rolls some dice. Games in which nobody on any side has the potential for loss are generally derided and largely unappealing.

Well uh...unless I'm mistaken...your own examples show situations where someone can "lose" without "dying." I never said I don't find loss exciting. I just think that the specific kind of loss associated with in-game death is rather...bland. A tradeoff between status quo and oblivion.