4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[marune]

This is roughly what Buzz said upthread, I think. I'm interested to see what the PHB and DMG say about alignment, clerics and paladins in this respect - these seem to be the areas in which the tactically optimal PC can be hardest to make work. Though the desingers have certainly helped out be getting rid of all the gods of basketweaving.

On the bright side, Clerics and Paladins can do whatever they want, they won't lose access to their prayers.

On the dark side, they have listed some "things do to to please your Gods" and some of them can conflict with tactical choices in combat.

 

[marune]

Nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. It's about a big stone dungeon that delimits the scope of the game. Inside the maze, you can do anything. It is precisely the freedom players are granted that made the dungeon design so appealing. Classic D&D is free of such shackles as "dramatic appropriateness," "loyalty to the genre" and so forth. Arbitrary restrictions are simply not present; the game presents physical restrictions, even in such strange things as wizards being unable to wear armor (not untrained in it, or unwilling, but unable). It is the new breed of RPG that is full of "arbitrary restrictions", although they are not arbitrary to the author.

I mostly agree with your response, it is possible to have Narrativist play even with a fully mapped dungeon ahead.

IMHO, the only kind of play where forcing the players to limit themselves to the dungeon is bad would be Purist-for-System Sim.

 

[marune]

Not. Railroading.

Conditions are not railroading. Without limitations, you have no game at all.

QFT.

 

[pawsplay]

Read.The Rest of. What I wrote.

If you define railroading as something that restricts a choice that should be available according to the game, then a game's design can't have any effect on railroading.

That is correct. Railroading is a meta-game maneuver by the GM.

 

[eyebeams]

I mostly agree with your response, it is possible to have Narrativist play even with a fully mapped dungeon ahead.

This is not supported by any system where the dungeon is the primary source of conflict unless the dungeon is designed to address a narrative premise. This of course is a type of dungeon that almost never exists when people actually play D&D.

IMHO, the only kind of play where forcing the players to limit themselves to the dungeon is bad would be Purist-for-System Sim.

And yet, people enjoy it.

 

[marune]

This is not supported by any system where the dungeon is the primary source of conflict unless the dungeon is designed to address a narrative premise. This of course is a type of dungeon that almost never exists when people actually play D&D.

Of course, the encounters would be tailored for the characters/premise.


Here's a house rule I suggested in the Craft/Profession skills thread, what do you (all, not only eyebeams) think about it ?

PCs can have up to 5(feel free to change this number) background features on their character sheet.

A background feature can be called for to get the famous circumstances bonus (+2).

A player with less than 5 background features can create one on the fly when he needs the bonus. If the DM accept it (it would be good to ask the other players around), the background feature must be written down.

The DM may call a -2 circumstances penalty using one of the background feature. At this time, the player can choose to remove this background feature from his character sheet.

 

[eyebeams]

That is correct. Railroading is a meta-game maneuver by the GM.

By this definition, it's not something any game system can make better or worse, so how it is relevant to discussing a game system? It's relevant to talking about what happened on the day you played.

Plus of course, when meta-game decisions increase player enjoyment, it demonstrates that removing this privilege from the table is self-defeating.

 

[pawsplay]

By this definition, it's not something any game system can make better or worse, so how it is relevant to discussing a game system?

It isn't. You applied the term to a role-playing system, and I protested.

 

[eyebeams]

Of course, the encounters would be tailored for the characters/premise.

Sure. Of course, to many players this bespeaks a radical distrust in their abilities. It demonstrates such little faith in the players' ability to build a story by their actions that you are literally throwing them in a box to deal with a premise. The difference between this and railroading is empty rhetoric. Me designing a dungeon where an encounter symbolizes how you treated your mother badly is basically the same as me railroading you to confront it. There's just some dungeon-fantasy fluff to give you the illusion of being in control.

 

[marune]

Sure. Of course, to many players this bespeaks a radical distrust in their abilities. It demonstrates such little faith in the players' ability to build a story by their actions that you are literally throwing them in a box to deal with a premise. The difference between this and railroading is empty rhetoric. Me designing a dungeon where an encounter symbolizes how you treated your mother badly is basically the same as me railroading you to confront it. There's just some dungeon-fantasy fluff to give you the illusion of being in control.

You are really saying that tailored encounters (either for gamism or narrativivsm purpose) is the same as railroading ???