4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[pemerton]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], the only Necromancer module I own (other than the free one - Amulet of Freya? - that I downloaded but have never really looked at) is What Evil Lurks. Which I think might be quite different from their standard fare. I've planned to run it but never actually got to it; but on paper, at least, it looks more 4e-ish than Gygaxian.

Also, interesting observation about Paizo APs. Should Paizo have been writing 4e modules, and WotC turning its 4e slogfests into AD&D/3E dungeon crawls?

 

[S'mon]

If you think "story" is the dominant consideration you'll want to group narrativism and high concept sim together.

But I agree with Ron Edwards that if you think player control over the direction and resolution of play is the dominant consideration you'll want to group narrativism with gamism, while high concept sim (with Call of Cthulhu as the poster child) will be a type of simulationism - the players simply "explore" a story that is determined by the GM, perhaps adding a bit of local colour in the way they portray their PCs but otherwise not exercising control over the direction of play.

TL;DR: I think "whose story?" is more important than "is there story?".

So I think I'm right that 'high concept sim' is basically a derogatory term.
From what you say here there seems to be an unnecessary conflation of non-Narrativist Dramatism with Railroading - linear story, just add a bit of local colour, etc. I don't see any reason why that should be the case. I could for instance decide to run an 'Action Movie Pastiche' game based on Expendables 1 & 2, using a ruleset that encourages players to have their PCs do Action Movie-esque things and get Action Movie-esque results. Savage Worlds or Feng Shui, perhaps. I am not engaging in any genuine Narrativist Premise - no genuine 'What would you do for love/money/honour?' type question. The characters are pretty much Stallone/Lundgren/Statham cardboard cut-outs. Yet there is absolutely no reason why this Dramatist/High Concept Sim scenario should require a linear scenario with pre-written results; I can set up the scenario but leave resolution completely open, although geared towards producing an Action Movie-type outcome. The first Expendables movie is actually a pretty good template for this (the second one sucked) with the island as a kind of sandbox environment for the PCs to do their thing, and the final outcome left very open.

 

[S'mon]

Also, interesting observation about Paizo APs. Should Paizo have been writing 4e modules, and WotC turning its 4e slogfests into AD&D/3E dungeon crawls?

Aye, I had the same thought about WoTC's slog-fest 4e dungeon-crawl adventures. They often seem designed to suck all the fun out of 4e, but would have worked at least moderately well in 3e. Really the exact opposite of the Paizo APs, which focus on thematic elements - but do often have some boring dungeon-wandering that works poorly within the context of the AP structure; they'd work better in a Wyattian 'skip to the fun' type approach. Playing Rise of the Runelords in Pathfinder recently we would spend most of a session 'exploring' largely empty, pointless-seeming dungeons we didn't care about to locate the BBEG villains we were after for the dramatic showdowns. The GM could have saved a lot of time by taking Wyatt's 4e DMG advice - 'long treks through endless passages aren't Fun'. Whereas of course in a Gygaxian-Castle Greyhawk type game the exploration is the main focus of play, and skipping it would ruin the game.

So, yeah: 4e GMs, use Pathfinder APs! 3e GMs, use WoTC adventures!

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION], the only Necromancer module I own (other than the free one - Amulet of Freya? - that I downloaded but have never really looked at) is What Evil Lurks. Which I think might be quite different from their standard fare. I've planned to run it but never actually got to it; but on paper, at least, it looks more 4e-ish than Gygaxian.

Their big products - Lost City of Barakus, Vault of Larin Karr, Rappan Athuk (AFAIK) - all very Gygaxian; like they say, very "Third Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel", to the extent allowed by the 3e ruleset. I expect Frog God's new stuff like The Slumbering Tsar follow that tradition.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Very broad skills, you get better automatically at everything over time (except trained-only skill uses), and the GM is encouraged to 'say yes' to non-standard uses of skills. Pus the DCs are geared towards success. There's a step-on-up element re skill use, with a bit of that mother-may-I that some people hate: "Can I use Dungeoneering to detect traps here?" "Can I use Bluff to fast talk the merchant into paying more for the magic item?"
Personally I think the system works well, is broad and flexible, and again doesn't result in My Fighter Sucks-ism, unlike in the 3e skill system. Used right it leads to characters who feel broadly competent, like swords & sorcery literary characters, or most action movie heroes.

Okay, thanks for the reply

I think this is a continuum, again. I've only seen Season 1 of Game of Thrones, so maybe the death rate ramps up later, but in those 10 episodes the rate of protagonist demise is not noticeably higher than the PC-perma-death rate in my recent 4e campaigns.

My campaigns usually feature a "high" death rate, so I'm used to a lot of deaths. But I also view the PCs are a lot of named characters, not just the "main" characters (like Eddard). Though, of course, your "protagonism" is different from Balesir's, and I think I land a lot closer to his than yours, for fantasy RPGs. I think I'd land close to yours with Supers, though.

GOT =/= Moldvay/Gygax Fantasy Effin Vietnam.

Agreed. As always, play what you like

That's a very fair point, and it explains why I have said several times that I would have loved to see systems written for 4e that worked much more like the combat system does, but for social and exploration situations. I think a real opportunity to make a complete "rules as manual for the world" game was missed, there.

You have said that multiple times, and you saying that makes a lot of sense to me. Very consistent with this conversation, I think.

Having said that, though, I do find 4e to be a significant improvement on earlier editions in this respect, for two main reasons:

1) The broad skills are distinct enough for it to be pretty clear which one might apply to any given (attempted) action. In practice, I haven't found there to be overly much "mother may I?" in the sense of "can I roll this skill instead of this one?" - but there has been some. The fact that every character is at least minimally competent helps mitigate, here, too. In 3.5 the difference between the 8th level fighter with +15 or so Climb and the Wizard with +1 (if lucky) made it really crucial that the Wiz didn't (ever) have to roll Climb...

Depending on what's going on, couldn't it be almost as bad? A level 10 Wizard rolling at +4 or +5, while a level 10 Fighter rolls at +15? If you're using scaling DCs, stuff that challenges the Fighter will basically be impossible to the Wizard, won't it? And if it's an achievable challenge for the Wizard, the Fighter basically automatically succeeds, doesn't he? That's fairly similar to how it worked in 3.5. Though, I do admit that gap has been closed.

As for the distinct skill thing, I think that clarity helps a lot, yes. That's why I'm for a lot of defined uses for skills. It puts the defined tools in the hands of the players, and they can reliably exercise those rules to achieve effects that interest them as players.

2) The structure of Skill Challenges - with xp awards and difficulty guidelines attached - I find really does help. It's far from perfect - I would have much preferred if it had been massively expanded upon and it was definitely explained poorly to begin with - but it was better than anything found in any previous edition by a country mile, IMO.

I agree; in my post, I mentioned skills being problematic, as well as "skill challenges, to a much, much lesser degree." I think that Skill Challenges -even without XP components- can really sort of blur things. The mechanic is more intended "player does something in line with a skill's spirit in a vague sense", which seems less "mother may I" in a sense (though, like I said, it could be circumvented still). But, in essence, I agree about Skill Challenges helping in the "control over one's character" department. As always, play what you like

 

[Bluenose]

Ramathilis' question is of course an INTERESTING one, but my observation is that I come from an era of D&D (the early days, I started playing when Blackmoor was released or thereabouts, and my DMing really started with Holmes Basic) when there was almost no canon. Not only was there not canon but the attitude of those days was that canon was BS. The mark of a real serious DM was to create everything from whole cloth. Sure, you probably used the more typical canonical monsters, orcs, dragons, whatever by default as they were in the Monsters and Treasure book, but nobody could make up EVERYTHING. The whole book only had about 50 monsters in it anyway, and they were kinda vaguely defined.

So, NO! @RAmathilis, D&D FOR ME is contrariwise not at all all of this detailed lore which was in any case grafted MUCH MUCH MUCH later in the history of the game, a dozen years after our playstyle and attitudes were set. All the 2e piling up of lore and settings and whatnot? To our group it was sort of puzzling, why spend your money buying OTHER PEOPLE'S lore??!! The idea was to be judged on the creativity and interest of YOUR lore and to validate it and flesh it out with play. Our group spent a dozen years trying to understand the workings of The Mountain and why the fate of heroes was always tied to walking one mountain path. It was COOL. Yeah, there were dragons and liches and beholders and whatever in that campaign and a LOT of that material was drawn at least partly from other D&D sources, but that DM wasn't going to drop stuff on you a certain way because it came out of a book, and if someone said "but a Succubus isn't a Devil, that can't happen, that's wrong!" we'd have all been like "WTF? What's he on about?"

I mean I can look at all the FR stuff Ed Greenwood did and that other people did and its like "Cool! They did a lot of neato stuff", but its not any more "correct" or deserves any more respect or pride of place than any other lore anyone else made up just because TSR printed it.

I can't XP you, but I'm from the same era and have the same experiences. It's not that I don't like reading other people's settings, but I do not understand why or how it becomes canon and altering it is a big deal. It's not as if all versions of D&D had the same canon. The "Nine Alignments" isn't remotely part of BD&D, for example, yet some people attempt to insist that without them the game isn't legitimately D&D.

I agree strongly - and this is why 4e plays differently than and produces different stories than earlier editions (and is not particularly suitable for many old-school scenarios, as I found out running 'Vault of Larin Karr' in 4e). "You have this power - what do you do with it?" is much more reminiscent of (lowish-level) Superhero comics than of Gygaxian tropes.

To some extent I think of both Exalted's Creation and Glorantha. In the first of course you get the power at the outset, and how that affects you and how you affect the world is the focus of the game. In Glorantha there's the idea that one day you might become an Arkat, a Talor, a Pavis or Sartar or Argrath; how you make that happen and what that does to the world are questions you might end up facing. In fact I've sometimes thought I could run a Glorantha game with 4e, and I never thought that about any previous edition of D&D.

 

[S'mon]

Depending on what's going on, couldn't it be almost as bad? A level 10 Wizard rolling at +4 or +5, while a level 10 Fighter rolls at +15? If you're using scaling DCs, stuff that challenges the Fighter will basically be impossible to the Wizard, won't it? And if it's an achievable challenge for the Wizard, the Fighter basically automatically succeeds, doesn't he? That's fairly similar to how it worked in 3.5. Though, I do admit that gap has been closed.

That's like saying a 3e Fighter can't cast Invisibility - obviously there are some things a highly skilled PC can do that an unskilled PC can't. Athletic challenges that the Epic Fighter struggles to beat won't be beatable by the Epic Wizard's Athletics roll.
But the big difference from 3e is that at 20th or 30th level each PC is all-round competent in terms of mundane, below-Tier challenges; the Wizard has at least +15 climb and can shin up a rough cliff ok. He has at least +15 on STR checks and can break open a mundane wooden door, should such a thing present itself. And the Fighter has at least +15 Diplomacy and won't be a tongue-tied clod in social situations. He can't waltz into Hell and charm Asmodeus with his voice like the Bard PC maybe can, but he can court the Princess and if the GM throws a DC 20 Diplomacy check at him he won't be "I'll Get Me Coat" - unlike 3e.

Edit: 'Easy' at-level challenges also remain potentially doable across all levels, but do get a bit harder for areas you determinedly minimise competency in.

 

[pemerton]

I can't XP you, but I'm from the same era and have the same experiences. It's not that I don't like reading other people's settings, but I do not understand why or how it becomes canon and altering it is a big deal.

I'm 5 to 10 years behind you two (Moldvay Basic in 1982) but have a similar response.

It's not as if all versions of D&D had the same canon. The "Nine Alignments" isn't remotely part of BD&D, for example, yet some people attempt to insist that without them the game isn't legitimately D&D.

Having started with B/X, I'm not a big fan of AD&D's mechanical alignment, and prefer 4e's version of the original Law-Chaos divide.

In fact I've sometimes thought I could run a Glorantha game with 4e, and I never thought that about any previous edition of D&D.

I don't know about Glorantha in the full sense - it's a setting I'm intrigued by but don't really have a good handle on - but I certainly think 4e holds good promise for heroquesting.

 

[pemerton]

So I think I'm right that 'high concept sim' is basically a derogatory term.

I don't think that's fair. Call of Cthulhu is a great game, and by all accounts so is Pendragon.

From what you say here there seems to be an unnecessary conflation of non-Narrativist Dramatism with Railroading - linear story, just add a bit of local colour, etc. I don't see any reason why that should be the case. I could for instance decide to run an 'Action Movie Pastiche' game based on Expendables 1 & 2, using a ruleset that encourages players to have their PCs do Action Movie-esque things and get Action Movie-esque results. Savage Worlds or Feng Shui, perhaps. I am not engaging in any genuine Narrativist Premise - no genuine 'What would you do for love/money/honour?' type question. The characters are pretty much Stallone/Lundgren/Statham cardboard cut-outs. Yet there is absolutely no reason why this Dramatist/High Concept Sim scenario should require a linear scenario with pre-written results; I can set up the scenario but leave resolution completely open, although geared towards producing an Action Movie-type outcome.

Edwards agrees with you that Feng Shui is high concept sim!

You're right that I'm moving too quickly to railroading. But if the game isn't driven by the players' thematic choices, the theme, morals etc are going to come from the GM (or the system). For me, that's the salient feature of this sort of play.

 

[billd91]

One weird thing I've come across recently is that Paizo seem to write their Adventure Paths very much in the Superhero/4e mould, not the Gygaxian treasure-hunter mode, and the AP text is constantly straining against the 3e-based ruleset. It's really weird - they feel like they were written for a 4e-type game then shoehorned into a different game designed for a different purpose. I'm working on converting Curse of the Crimson Throne to 4e and I keep coming across "How to get around the 3e rules & default motivations so this adventure actually works" GM advice that in 4e I can happily ignore.

I'm quite familiar with the Paizo APs and I'm having a hard time seeing this. From my perspective, this is simply how RPG adventures that have evolved beyond simple listing of rooms and monsters should be. Default motivations for characters are based on their personality and background and most of those aren't governed by rules, nor should they be since the rules are simply a framework for operationalizing what the characters (PC and NPC) want to do based on their own internal logic.

Can you give me an example or two of what you mean?