D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[SaffroN]

3.5 mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards world-building/simulation. Where the rules and mechanics are the strict and true laws of that world.

4e mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards narrative/story-building. Where the rules and mechanics are there to allow players to influence and engage in a narrative storyline through a world not as heavily dependent on strict rules to govern the way it works.

Nice Fallen Seraph. I couldn't have said it better.

I think if there has been a shift in paradigm, this is it.

 

[Baron Opal]

Ron Edwards has a lot to answer for.

More than you know, we went to the same college.

But, he is a bright and creative man who has bent his mind to the core of gaming. He seeks to know the whys and wherefores. Which, I actually am indifferent about, but he's interesting to listen to.

 

[hong]

The paradigm shift that I am experiencing seems to come from things that I am being told to pay attention to and ignore at the same time.

Like healing surges, for example. There are carefully-formulated, numerical rules governing their application in the game, and every player will have them carefully counted and dosed out for the duration of the gaming session...yet as the storyteller, every time someone uses one, I can only wave my hand and say "you feel better now, for some reason." The mechanics tell me to pay attention, and the story tells me not to. It hurts my suspension of disbelief.

...which is an odd thing to say. You would think that the hard part would be believing magic is real, elves walk among us as equals, and that unicorns frolic in yonder glade. But for some reason, I am really hung up on the nature of healing and damage.

See, if you'd used reserve points before, you wouldn't have this problem.

 

[Kurotowa]

Yes, I see the shift (they've pretty much said it outright in the podcasts), and no, I don't have a problem with it. Quite the opposite in fact.

World building is well and good, but I subscribe to the philosophy that what RPGs are for is fun. I sit down with friends and dice so that we can all have a fun time. Everything else either supports that goal or is a secondary priority. I'll agree that an internally consistent world build on a rational structure is a useful thing. But only as long as it doesn't get in the way of a fun game. And, let's be honest here, there's a great deal of range to work with in "internally consistent" and "rational structure" in a game world.

So the fighter is pulling off tricks that are nigh-impossible under the constraints of real world physics? So what? She's fighting a giant whose skeleton can't support his weight while her wizard friend throws imaginary fireballs and that non-existent elf sneaks up from behind. There's no reason to draw a line and portion this side of the game world as magical and free to act as it pleases, and that side of the game world as mundane and constrained by arbitrary standards of "realism".

If 4e is a game where the designers sat down to figure out as best they could what was fun, and then from there reverse engineered a game and setting that maximally supported that fun, I say good for them.

 

[1of3]

Why not let the designers explain that mysterious and new paradigm?

Addendum: The warlock is evidence of a philosophical shift within D&D R&D. When we did the 3.0 classes, we sort of asked ourselves "What would a barbarian be like?" and "What would a ranger be like?" The warlock arises from a different sort of question: "How can we design a class that provides this-or-that game experience for the player?" The warlock's not the only class like that, but it's a clear example.

Forget GNS. That indeed, that is what the Forge is all about, and that's 4E, too.

 

[nick012000]

The paradigm shift that I am experiencing seems to come from things that I am being told to pay attention to and ignore at the same time.

Like healing surges, for example. There are carefully-formulated, numerical rules governing their application in the game, and every player will have them carefully counted and dosed out for the duration of the gaming session...yet as the storyteller, every time someone uses one, I can only wave my hand and say "you feel better now, for some reason." The mechanics tell me to pay attention, and the story tells me not to. It hurts my suspension of disbelief.

...which is an odd thing to say. You would think that the hard part would be believing magic is real, elves walk among us as equals, and that unicorns frolic in yonder glade. But for some reason, I am really hung up on the nature of healing and damage.

I'd imagine it would be something along the lines of Rock Lee and Naruto Uzimaki's refusal to give up. They'll keep fighting and fighting, because their precious people are at stake, and protecting them is their ninja way. There might or might be flashback involved.

 

[Noinarap]

Are the two approaches that incompatible? More specifically:
- Isn’t there any other way to balance mundane classes vs spell-casters than the per encounter martial powers?
- couldn’t powers make more sense than “teleport or heal every time you off someone, just because you’re a striker or leader” and still be cool? really, i’ve seen Magic cards with more narrative consistency.

1) Yes- you could weaken casters dramatically instead of bringing mundane classes up a few notches and casters down a few. The powers that make pre-4e casters so much better are (theoretically) not at-will. So you either take away everyone's resources or you give everyone resources. Do you think the former makes for better games?

2) A little biased here, I think. Warlocks don't teleport because of their class role. They teleport because they just sent another soul to their dark masters and got a little burst of power in exchange. Clerics don't give temporary HP when they smite because of their class role. They do it because the divine energy they channel harms their enemies and shields/invigorates their allies. These explanations are not such a reach.

D&D has asked us to accept a lot over the years, and I can't see what makes these notions any more harmful to suspension of disbelief than the usual long list of glaring inconsistencies.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

D&D has asked us to accept a lot over the years, and I can't see what makes these notions any more harmful to suspension of disbelief than the usual long list of glaring inconsistencies.

Well, for each player, it is the length of that list that can differ before his suspension of disbelief breaks. And 4E very obviously adds a lot of the kind of rules that ask the players to "explain them away" to the already long list. For some, it simply stops being fun making up explanations for every second character power (differing each time by situation, company and storyline), just like it stops being fun for some to sit down 30 minutes for every single NPC in mid-to-high level games in order to stat him out correctly.

Different strokes, etc

 

[lutecius]

I think the things you're trying to fix (e.g. HP depletion and subsequent resting) are not problems in the first place. You seem to want to keep the speedy pace of play that 4e seems to suggest but by using different means to get there, where I'd rather see the pace slowed down to allow more realism and party caution back in, along with the idea of wise resource management.

I see what you mean. In a game more focused on intrigue than combat, it makes perfect sense. Fighting can be dangerous and it takes time to recover.
But it doesn’t work that well in a typical dungeon crawl with consecutive and increasingly tough fights (which is not very realistic in the first place, but is a common scenario)
The “15 minute adventuring day” was an issue for many players so I guess it had to be fixed somehow.

 

[lutecius]

I think there is a paradigm shift but it is not what you see it as.

I see it as this:

3.5 mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards world-building/simulation. Where the rules and mechanics are the strict and true laws of that world.

4e mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards narrative/story-building. Where the rules and mechanics are there to allow players to influence and engage in a narrative storyline through a world not as heavily dependent on strict rules to govern the way it works.

Well, I don't know about that. Take the per encounter/day martial powers.
Sure, they work from a narrative point of view. They can't be used ad nauseam like an at will power and they are the character's shtick because they are not available to other classes. So yes it makes these abilities special/cool.

But I don’t think the designers had this narrative approach in mind when they came up with this mechanism. I may me wrong, but I think the main concern was rather balance and streamlining. ie aligning martial powers with spell-casting

Whatever the intent, I am perfectly fine with all these goals, not with the implementation.
That you can only even try a “mundane” manoeuvre exactly once per day or encounter is just too artificial for me.

Likewise, I hate when a narrative device hurts believability in a fiction.