Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4132228" data-attributes="member: 42582">Agreed.By "rules" you seem to mean character build and action resolution mechanics (or perhaps some subset of them - for example, I don't know if you consider the alignment aspect of D&D, for example, which in 3E ramifies through character build, action resolution and encounter and campaign design to be part of the rules or not - or the treasure guidelines in so far as they pertain to scrolls, which in turn ramify importantly into Wizard character build mechanics).I think the rules of an RPG are more helpfully conceived of as also including a good deal of what you are calling "guidelines", such as reward systems (which also ramify into character build, and in 3E - via aspects of the magic system - into action resolution), distribution of narrative control, the basic principles of scene/encounter design (this overlaps with the narrative control issue), etc. These further aspects of a game have a significant impact on how it is played.I haven't seen anyone suggest that 4e will be rules light. The least familiarity with the direction of late 3E in terms of cahracter build and action resolution mechanics would nobble that thought."Streamlined", "faster" and "less (GM) preparation time" seems to be related claims, and there is a growing body of evidence that these claims are largely correct - ie that GM preparation time is less per unit of game mechanical output (perhaps not less overall if the GM chooses to spend freed-up time on other tasks) and that real-world resolution time per player turn (though not necessarily per combat) is also less than in 3E."More flexible" is particularly ambiguous. I think the system is more flexible in that it reinforces 3E's support of gamist play while also offering a degree of support for narrativist play. (It undercuts simulationist play, but I'm one of those who is sceptical of D&D's ability, in any iteration, to provide strong support for such play without extensive house ruling.) The increased number of player turns per combat, combined with the wider availability of encounter powers and situationally-useful at-will powers also (I think) contributes to a sense that PCs are flexible in the way they respond to combat challenges. The skill challenge rules I suspect give a similar sense of PC flexibility in responding to skill challenges."More narrativist" and "player enabling" are related notions, as narrativism, like gamism, is an approach to play that can only thrive if players are enabled to make meaningful choices. I think 4e does this, through increased emphasis on character build, on player input into action resolution (eg skill challenge rules as discussed in this thread), on reduced GM control over worldbuilding (as strongly implied by the explanation of the gameplay signficance of PoL in W&M)."More character focused" can mean a lot of things. Character build mechanics are being emphasised to at least the same degree as 3E, if not moreso. The emphasis on the sinlge PC as the vehicle for play (which 3E increased compared to eg 1st ed AD&D with its extensive henchmen and follower rules) is being increased, with the reduction in emphasis (at least early on) on Summoning and Cohorts. The only natural interpretation of this claim that makes it the case that 4e is less character focused is if "character focused" means "supports character immersion in favour of metagame". There is little doubt that 4e increases the prominence of metagame considerations in play."Roleplay enhancing" is equally ambiguous. If "roleplay" means "immersion" then we have a game that does not enhance roleplay. If "roleplay" means "player participation in meaningful decision making" then we have a game that does enhance roleplay. I don't find it helpful to debate what is really roleplaying, so would prefer that this sort of description of a game just be abandoned.I think that Lost Soul has answered this point well, so mostly I'll just voice my agreement with his replies: depending on how those parts of the rules that you prefer to characterise as guidelines are written, prickish behaviour can be made more or less overt (that is more or less able to cloak itself in the rules and thus present itself as non-prickish).The notion that different rules cannot have different consequences in this regard - which I take it you are putting forward - I think is false.I don't think those are what LostSoul would describe as "cool descriptions in play". I think they are really somewhat banal descriptions, which it is the aim of the new skill challenge system to move beyond. The way that it moves beyond it is roughly this: instead of the player describing what action the PC performs (as in all your examples), and waiting for the GM to tell him or her the consequence of doing it, the player describes how his or her PC does something that contributes to the success of the party in relation to the challenge (which requires describing not just the action but various of its consequences, plus elements of the gameworld context in which it occurs) and the GM and other players then build on that description in resolving the rest of the challenge. Harr's example upthread illustrated this (eg as a result of the skill challenge, something is now known about the history of devious traps in the gameworld which otherwise would not have come to light).</blockquote>

Verification