The roots of 4e exposed?

[heretic888]

No, and I don't think they were hijacked by edition warriors than anyone else - they were hijacked by people who thought that the GNS approach was convoluted and, ultimately, useless. Simulationist, gamist, and narrativist work far better and more easily among gamers to describe rules and the various tensions they exhibit between simulating some process, making it more playable but more abstract, and reflecting a story-telling element manipulated by the player more than the character in the system.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Shasarak]

True, but in this case it seems to owe to willful ignorance moreso than linguistic evolution.

Mmmhmm, I am not sure I would put it down to willful ignorance. There are definitions of Games, Narrative and Simulation already that do not seems to match 100% with your definitions.

Its mostly the elements of 4E that make it amenable to Story Now play in general, although GMs are free to ignore much of these elements (and clearly quite a few did). I actually think the Skill Challenge framework is important here and how much it gets utilized by a 4E table (as well as how it gets used) is probably a pretty good indication of how much Story Now play is happening there. The MM math and Rule 42 also makes improvisational, non-scripted play much easier to pull off compared to typical DnD structural elements. The length and complexity of 4E encounters makes meaningful Stakes as well as alternatives to victory other than Kill All The Orcs pretty important to successful play. Player-authored Quests (which feed into the game's reward cycles) and other player-chosen fictional tags (themes, paragon paths, epic destinies) are other ways to emphasize Story Now play as well.

Of course, tables can ignore or de-emphasize all these elements (a popular example is the milestone-based leveling, which in my opinion minimizes player contributions and actions in regards to the game pacing schedule) and stick to wholly GM-authored outcomes. 4E just makes it a tinsy bit harder to do that if you follow the advice in the DMG1 and especially the DMG2.

I should qualify this however that a good deal of what gets passed off as "not being railroady" is still 100% GM-authored outcomes and isn't really Play To Find Out What Happens in my opinion.

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I can certainly see how some of those features framed in a different context can look the way you say. Certainly looking at some of the encounters that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has created gives me more appreciation of the type of thing that you can do with a well crafted encounter.

From my perspective, the fact that 4e plays so well to this type of set piece encounter means that it would play much better in a railroad type adventure where every encounter is well crafted in advance. The 3 room Delve format of adventures for example rather then a free form Cave of Chaos adventure.

I know that in my group the skill challenge mechanic felt more like using your skills to solve a puzzle rather then using them in a Narrative sense, which is why I would have classified it as a Gameist mechanic rather then a Narrative one. I know that in my experience there was very much a feeling of looking through your Skills to find the best one and then trying to somehow fit that to the situation, very much the opposite of eschewing any kind of predetermined plot.

In any case it is very interesting to try and look at these situations from a different angle.

 

[Shasarak]

I believe that railroading is an exceedingly unsatisfactory experience in any edition of pretty much any RPG. I only say "pretty much any RPG," because I suppose there might be one out there I don't know enough where you're supposed to railroad and it's fun.

There are definitely degrees of Railroading. Honestly I dont see anything wrong with the DM saying that they have brought this Adventure path and who wants to jump on the Adventure train. There is still plenty of Player agency within the concept to have fun as long as you are not bringing a Paladin to a Pirate fight.

 

[heretic888]

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I can certainly see how some of those features framed in a different context can look the way you say. Certainly looking at some of the encounters that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has created gives me more appreciation of the type of thing that you can do with a well crafted encounter.

From my perspective, the fact that 4e plays so well to this type of set piece encounter means that it would play much better in a railroad type adventure where every encounter is well crafted in advance. The 3 room Delve format of adventures for example rather then a free form Cave of Chaos adventure.

Yes, but I should note that Story Now doesn't mean No Prep At All. You can certainly prepare potential encounters the PCs may face. However, in a Story Now context what you would also do is a) allow for multiple pathways for "defeating" the encounter, b) make sure each encounter is meaningful to the shared fiction, c) do not pre-prepare outcomes for any given encounter, and d) do not assume the PCs will ever face your encounter.

I would also add I think 4E does not do the "dungeon delve" format of adventure very well at all and that most 4E adventures are poor examples of what to do with the system (with the possible exceptions of Reavers of Harkenworld and Madness at Guardmore Abbey).

I know that in my group the skill challenge mechanic felt more like using your skills to solve a puzzle rather then using them in a Narrative sense, which is why I would have classified it as a Gameist mechanic rather then a Narrative one. I know that in my experience there was very much a feeling of looking through your Skills to find the best one and then trying to somehow fit that to the situation, very much the opposite of eschewing any kind of predetermined plot.

I think the key here is to begin and end with the fiction during each "turn" of the skill challenge and also to move the scene forward especially during failed rolls.

 

[Shasarak]

Yes, but I should note that Story Now doesn't mean No Prep At All. You can certainly prepare potential encounters the PCs may face. However, in a Story Now context what you would also do is a) allow for multiple pathways for "defeating" the encounter, b) make sure each encounter is meaningful to the shared fiction, c) do not pre-prepare outcomes for any given encounter, and d) do not assume the PCs will ever face your encounter.

I would also add I think 4E does not do the "dungeon delve" format of adventure very well at all and that most 4E adventures are poor examples of what to do with the system (with the possible exceptions of Reavers of Harkenworld and Madness at Guardmore Abbey).

Ha, well that could explain the problems that I had trying to use that Screw Driver as a Hammer then. ;0)

Guardmore Abbey was far too late for me, I had stopped buying official adventures before then.

I think the key here is to begin and end with the fiction during each "turn" of the skill challenge and also to move the scene forward especially during failed rolls.

I have seen a lot of advice re: Skill Challenges and seen a few videos I think Matt Colvile did one or two. Honestly I am not sure what the set structure brings to the table that makes it better then just playing out the Narrative as it comes.

I think that the advice about failing forward is helpful though like for example instead of being stuck at a closed door on a failed roll you instead open it really loudly alerting everyone on the other side. Especially if you frame it so that the Players know what the stakes are before hand you can get a lot of Player buy in without the feeling that they are being screwed over by a capricious DM.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

AFAICT from the way they get used, they mean something like:

Simulationism: An irrational, uncompromising, preference not for an actual simulation (like, say civil war re-enactment), but for bad games that are bad in the ways a game would have to become if it were adapted to function as a simulation, instead - even though the games in question simulate nothing.

Narrativism: the Role half if the Role not Roll debate, fanatically dedicated to the proposition that bad rules make good games, and that it is impossible to RP if you touch dice. If you must touch dice, their relationship to the all-important narrative should be as abstract & non-deterministic as possible.

Gameism: the Roll opposite of Narrativism, gameists are shunned and reviled for their bizarre expectation that any RPG, by virtue of the G, could in any way be held up to any standards of what makes a game any good at all. (And, if I could squeeze any more any's into that, I would.)


Obviously, I don't put much stock in the Forge, creative agendas, GNS, Threefold theory, or Roll v Role.

Well, someone might have meant them this way, but it would be a caricature of how many of us use these terms, whether they're used in some sort of 'correct' way according to some place called 'The Forge' where I have neither ever posted nor ever read anything much.

I mean, you're being sarcastic, but these can be useful terms. I agree they were often just tossed about by those wanting to tar something as something though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I never really saw any real problem with reflavouring during the 4e era. I mean there are a few edge cases which could be abusive if a Player wanted to push it.

The latest edition of Gamma World used reflavouring even more then 4e did.

Welllllllllll, if the player actually literally is true to the reflavoring in the sense that NOTHING in the mechanics is impacted at all, then there should be no effect. At least in terms of the mechanical inputs to the game. As for the FICTIONAL inputs, and the implications in terms of fictional positioning, there's clearly an impact there. I am not sure it is proper to call it out as 'abusive', but I'm not sure what the abuse you are referring to is, actually, so I'm not positive. That is to say, I guess I could hypothesize that a player could start reflavoring things in order to undermine some GM devised story, but that would imply the game was already on rails, wouldn't it? I mean, it all starts to get a bit loopy once you get to that point.

I'd say then that "yes the story will be different" but many stories should have already been possible, so what's the issue?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Are you able to describe what makes 4e more or less railroady then other DnD games? I am just having trouble imagining how a 4e DM is less able to railroad (or not) then using other rules.

Not 'less able' in the absolute sense, but 4e militates against, or at the very least facilitates the divergence from, railroaded GM-driven scripts. You can do Story Now with 4e, quite easily. Even in more traditional play the game has the character that players are much less reliant on GM interpretation of the situation for fictional positioning and such. So GMs have a lot less leverage to simply dictate how things will go, at least without it becoming hilariously obvious that the 'game' part of the game is a joke.

 

[Shasarak]

Welllllllllll, if the player actually literally is true to the reflavoring in the sense that NOTHING in the mechanics is impacted at all, then there should be no effect. At least in terms of the mechanical inputs to the game. As for the FICTIONAL inputs, and the implications in terms of fictional positioning, there's clearly an impact there. I am not sure it is proper to call it out as 'abusive', but I'm not sure what the abuse you are referring to is, actually, so I'm not positive. That is to say, I guess I could hypothesize that a player could start reflavoring things in order to undermine some GM devised story, but that would imply the game was already on rails, wouldn't it? I mean, it all starts to get a bit loopy once you get to that point.

I'd say then that "yes the story will be different" but many stories should have already been possible, so what's the issue?

By abusive I mean things like re-flavouring your Adamantine sword as being retractable Adamantine claws that can pop out of your hand. The mechanics are obviously exactly the same attack, damage etc but the flavour is very different. And now you get questions like, if everyone else is disarmed then do you get dis "armed" or is it just your luck that you sneak your weapon inside? I could see a lot of DMs freaking out about something like that.

 

[Shasarak]

Not 'less able' in the absolute sense, but 4e militates against, or at the very least facilitates the divergence from, railroaded GM-driven scripts. You can do Story Now with 4e, quite easily. Even in more traditional play the game has the character that players are much less reliant on GM interpretation of the situation for fictional positioning and such. So GMs have a lot less leverage to simply dictate how things will go, at least without it becoming hilariously obvious that the 'game' part of the game is a joke.

I dont remember coming across the Story Now term. This article seems to have a very comprehensive description of it though so I will have to take the time to look at it in more depth.