D&D General Railroads, Illusionism, and Participationism

[Numidius]

I am convinced beyond doubt that the use of powers, spells, rituals is allowed in 4e skill challenges by RAW.
Thanks folks, what a relief

 

[soviet]

And no one said that some clear cases could not be clear win cases, but honestly, do you have to take the extremes to try and make a point ? Because most the cases are certainly not that clear cut. And in the first cas, you had fun, so you won as a player, even though your character lost... as a character!

The point was 'can you lose at D&D?' and it seems we agree that yes, you can. I suggest that anytime your character dies, or you fail to complete an important goal, you have lost/are currently losing. And any time those things are not happening... you are winning. But almost every session will contain inflection points where it is possible to lose, or to start losing. Winning and losing is a constant tension in D&D.

I definitely agree that losing can still be fun though!

 

[Lyxen]

4e D&D is not rigid, in my experience of it. That seems to be something you're bringing to it.

No, from all your accounts, you are barely playing 4e, you ignore most of the rules and transform fighting a tough boss in 3 rolls that the boss cannot even make (probably because you realised that there was no way for the PCs to even scratch him at the time). This has nothing to do with the way 4e has been written. The rigid rules (once more, explain to me how you can only hop on the battlefield and not truly fly ? Ah yes, because 4e is totally incompatible with 3d) don't cause you a problem, since you ignore them, so you don't have to maintain the consistency.

Good for you if it's the game that you like, but honestly, claiming that it's because it's 4e leaves me baffled.

As for Skill Challenges, claiming that having a formal structure enhances creativity is like claiming that driving like when you passed your license enhances your chances of success driving in Mad Max. Although, with the fact that you ignore the rules probably means that it's as free form as it can get, but then again, why the structure ? What does it bring ?

You are the one who seems to be bringing the rigidity! A dangerous precedent? Some of us call it playing the game.

And I've never seen a game of 4e played that way. I'm not even sure what it brings being 4e.

I can't remember now whether the players generated some effect that allowed the paladin to hang onto Ygorl as he teleported; or whether Ygorl was deliberately holding the paladin to him as he teleported. I know that Ygorl was dragging the paladin through waves of chaos and entropy as he teleported: mechanically attempting Arcana checks to inflict damage.

Yeah right, a boss with 25 intelligence preferring trying to roll arcana checks against a DC of 40 (and failing miserably three times) instead of using any of his awesome powers makes total sense. There are effectively reasons for him having at will teleport (at least the ridiculously underpowered version of 4 which is like a misty step) and phasing.

Makes total sense in the narrative,

Part of skilled play is using the fiction - as @Ovinomancer and @Campbell have mentioned.

That's not the way other people define it, and again, I'm pretty sure that I would not feel very proud of bringing Ygorl down in terms of skilled play if played like you did. And what narrative ? Oh yes, I'll grapple something that looks like this and is a lord of entropy ? Really great idea.

In the context of 4e D&D at Epic tier, that fiction includes the cosmological context in which the PCs - including a demigod, a Sage of Ages, an Eternal Defender, an Emergent Primordial and a Marshall of Letherna - are operating. Engaging with Ygorl, grappling him, holding onto him - and then trapping him in the Crytsal of Ebon Flame - is what the game is about.

Not in my games, it's not, because how do you grapple a being more or less made of smoke, who can teleport and phase ? Come on...

 

[Lyxen]

The point was 'can you lose at D&D?' and it seems we agree that yes, you can.

You can, if you're not having fun.

I suggest that anytime your character dies, or you fail to complete an important goal, you have lost/are currently losing.

Again, not necessarily. You character might have lost something, or not gained it, but did you have fun playing it ? And, most importantly, in most of the cases, it's not binary. Moreover, despite some claims, nothing about this is said anywhere in the rules.

And any time those things are not happening... you are winning. But almost every session will contain inflection points where it is possible to lose, or to start losing. Winning and losing is a constant tension in D&D.

For characters, not for players

I definitely agree that losing can still be fun though!

Having your character lose can be a lot of fun, it all depends on how it's done indeed, which goes to show that the two are certainly not linked.

 

[soviet]

You can, if you're not having fun.



Again, not necessarily. You character might have lost something, or not gained it, but did you have fun playing it ? And, most importantly, in most of the cases, it's not binary. Moreover, despite some claims, nothing about this is said anywhere in the rules.



For characters, not for players



Having your character lose can be a lot of fun, it all depends on how it's done indeed, which goes to show that the two are certainly not linked.

I think it just shows that you have conflated two different things - winning/losing, and having fun/not. These are to a large extent separate axes.

 

[Maxperson]

If my character is killed by a random wandering monster without having managed to complete any of their objectives, that is called losing the game. I may have still had fun. I might play again with a new character. I still lost.

No you didn't. You experiences a setback and Soviet Jr. comes in to take the place of his father, carrying on his hopes and dreams.

if my character kills the Dark Lord through luck and clever tactics, and as a result rescues their loved ones, saves the kingdom, gains three levels, and finds a vorpal sword +3... that is called winning the game. The game is literally rewarding me for my efforts and successes.

No it isn't. The game hasn't ended. Soviet Jr. continues on with that vorpal sword and keeps looking for the eighteen fingered man that killed his father.

There are no traditional win/loss in RPGs. In Monopoly, winning ends the game. In Chess, losing ends the game. Traditional win/loss ends the game. In D&D this is not the case. In your first example, only Soviet Sr. lost. You the player continued on with the game, because the game was not lost. In the second example, Soviet Jr. won, not you the player and the game continued on because you did not win.

Now, the players can decide to end the game at a spot that coincides with a PC victory or loss, but that's still not the player winning or losing the game, as the win/loss of the PC did not dictate the ending, player choice did.

 

[Maxperson]

Indeed, moreover, even for individual fights, there is no clear "win/loss" state. First, death of a PC is rarely final, but it can be a drain on resources. Second, maybe the fact was won but too many resources were expanded to continue, so is that a win or a loss ? And I'm not even speaking of cases like when the PCs flee and survive, of win but do not get their hands on the document or rescue the princess.

I don't agree with this. Two sayings apply to your example. First, "Victory was costly." applies very well to a situation where you win a fight, but expend too many resources. Second, "You can win the battle, but lose the war." applies very well to a fight where too many resources cause you to have to turn back and fail the quest.

Not every fight will have a clear win/loss for the PCs, but I think most will. If the enemy is dead, driven off or captured, the PCs have won that fight. If the PCs are dead(TPK), had to flee or captured, they lost that fight.

So even for the PCs, the Win/Loss conditions are never clear and they certainly do not appear in the rules, whereas the only win condition that appears for players is having fun participating in the story. @Helpful NPC Thom might think this wrong, but it harkens back to the origins of the game, and I've been playing that way since then.

We don't need rules to tell us that the PCs are capable of winning or losing a fight.

 

[Helpful NPC Thom]

You, um, didn't answer the one question I asked.

And you just got done saying that skilled play is different for different games.

Yes, leveraging the fiction is an example of skillful play, one that coincides with the OSR notion of player skill.

You're conflating win/loss states for the PCs with win/loss states for the game. They aren't the same. The PCs can win by beating the dragon. The players do not win by defeating the dragon.

This is something I didn't consider. I suppose you are correct. I retract my earlier statements.

 

[Lyxen]

I think it just shows that you have conflated two different things - winning/losing, and having fun/not. These are to a large extent separate axes.

Exactly, one is for the PCs (and it does not exist in the game as a win/lose conditions, no rules about whatsoever), and the second one is for the players and it's clearly explained for example in the introduction to the PH, but also as early as Moldway Basic.

 

[Maxperson]

This might help some folks like @soviet understand our position better.

Let's go back to his example, "if my character kills the Dark Lord through luck and clever tactics, and as a result rescues their loved ones, saves the kingdom, gains three levels, and finds a vorpal sword +3... that is called winning the game. The game is literally rewarding me for my efforts and successes."

What exactly was Soviet rewarded with? It wasn't a vorpal sword. He can't go out into his back yard and cut a tree down with it snicker snack. He didn't get any levels, nor saved any loved ones or a kingdom. Those are all imaginary things that don't exist outside in the real world. In the real world all he personally received was enjoyment(Presumably. It could have been a boring, unsatisfying fight) from his imaginary PCs getting some imaginary things.