A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been

[pawsplay]

Two things. First, we established upthread that the "traipsing" reference is from Races and Classes, and also that on this point R&C is in express contradiction to W&M.

I stand corrected on the quotation. I hope the larger point was not lost? Even before 4e was in print, design descisions were made that negatively impacted my interest.

Second, from the fact that someone somewhere in the gameworld might traipse through a fairy ring, it doesn't follow that the actual game played is shallow just because no PC ever traipses through a fairy ring and talks to a little person. Presumably many NPCs in the gameworld are also having sex, having children, going to church, etc, but in most of the time in my games sex doesn't come up in anything more than a peripheral way, the PCs don't have kids, and the only time their church visits actually come up in game is when they want healing or other magical benefits. I don't think this makes my game shallow, though, because there are other worthwhile themes to be explored in a fanatsy RPG besides sex, family and organised worship (worhty as these themes might also be).

I didn't accuse your game of being shallow.

Now if you regard "traipsing through fairy rings" as a placeholder for all things of any thematic depth that might occur in a fantasy RPG, it would be a different thing. But in my view W&M makes it pretty clear that that is not the intention of the game designers.

It is a clear extension of the "it only needs stats if you're going to kill it" mentality that does, indeed, affect thematics. We are talking about thematic breadth rather than depth, though. 4e has adequate depth in a number of areas, such as character developments (the Paragon Paths being a good example) and complex encounters (skill challenges, dynamic battlefields). Depth in the economics is, in my opinion, significantly shallower than in 3e, beginning with the nonsensical rules for reselling magic items by PCs. But that is a secondary activity to first attaining those items. The lack of thematic breadth, however, is quite evident: little support for holdings and rulership, non-combat interactions, traipsing through fairy rings, mules, etc. As an analogy, 4e is like a big Hollywood movie that goes from one action scene to another, interspersed with some colorful dialog and some melodrama.

A gameworld can be consistent in salient respects without having a detailed or realistic economy. All that is required is that the economy of the gameworld not be salient. The 1st ed AD&D has some suggestions on how to make the economy non-salient - I don't think it therefore follows that the 1st ed AD&D is opposed to the notion of a consistent gameworld.

I agree. Was there something in this paragraph that was supposed to contradict what I've said before, or is this mostly continuity for the sake of what you are going to say next?

The sort of consistency I want in my gameworld is consistency in the broad sweep of history, of myth and of politics, and consistency when this is reduced down into particular (generally non-commercial) interactions with people and places. I want consistency in the difference between devil-worshipping tieflings and demon-worshipping gnolls. I want my sun-cult that combines worship of Bahamut, Kord, Pelor and Ioun to interact in an interesting and evocative way with the more mainstream cults of those various gods, in a way that doesn't strike the players just as arbitrary, but rather helps them engage with the nuances of the mythic history and resonance of the gameworld.

The presence or absence of rules to support an economic simulations is irrelevant to this. When I read The Hobbit or the LotR, if my first observation is that the more-or-less autarkic shire is presented as having a standard of living comparable to that of an England that was one of the centres of world commerce and production - an economically absurd notion - then I have probably missed the point. If the economic absurdity led me to conclude that the world was a mere facade, I think I would have doubly missed the point. Economics is just not a salient consideration for those particular fantasy stories.

You seem to be suggesting that anyone who doesn't care about the economics of the gameworld can only be playing a dungeon-bashing game. If you are, I think it's nonsense for the reasons I've given above. If you're not, then apologies for the misunderstanding, but I 've completely failed to grasp the point you're trying to make.

Whoa, there. Re-read. I was observing specifically that both 4e and 3e contain within them a functional dungeon-bashing game, usually taken as a sub-game of the larger experience. My point was that 4e and 3e differ in important details apart from the common set of components, while being similar within that realm.

4e tends to aim for the smooth montage, the expository transition, the leitmotif. 3e offers a wider set of tools for more diverse genres of experience. In the case of some players, that diversity may be unwanted. But in the case of 4e, the lack of that diversity is irreplaceable to those who want it. I'm not saying 3e is better, holistically and objectively, than 4e, any more than I would say filet minon is better than a cheeseburger. But proceeding from the goals of an RPG, as I understand them for myself and for others generally, I perceive 3e to be a better designed game, just as I perceive a well-prepared filet minon to be better than a cheeseburger made from standard chuck. Now, if you really want an cheeseburger, it doesn't matter how good the steak is. 4e does not provide a gourmet experience. It's fine to like it, but it just doesn't. Now, somewhere at out there, even as we speak, someone is making a cheeseburger from top grade sirloin, aged cheddar and gourmet jack cheeses, and a very fine yeasty bun, and good for them. That's about as far as I want to with that metaphor. Also, I'm getting hungry.

4e is facile. That is neither praise nor condemnation; that is what it is. 3e is baroque. It was be nice if all the unfun things were easy and all the fun things were deliciously engaging, but there is going to be tension between design goals, aside from different preferences between gamers.

Coming back around, there is nothing in 3e or 4e that is likely to significantly prevent you from playing out detailed scenarios with depth of world and character. However, what 4e offers is barely more than no system at all in such matters. Since I find 4e to be a mechanical monsters in the areas it covers fluently, that's no sale from me. Say what you will about 3e, you can buy a mule. NPC abilities could be interpreted as intelligently as can PC abilities, having the same "keywords." PC and NPC versions of the same race can use the same equipment. NPC merchants aren't insane monopolists who think they can force the world's greatest adventurers to sell them magic items for 1/5 of retail even though the items are usually sold used in the first place, and are actually likely to accept a favorable swap on similarly priced items.

If you don't miss that, no problem. 4e will make your life easy. Pay attention to what you think is fun. But I think it's clear, going back to the OT, that many if not most D&D players want a little more there, there. That's one reason 4e has not sold as well. Monsters don't have ecologies, merchants don't have comprehensible motivations, and some PCs don't seem to physically belong to their own race.

 

[pawsplay]

I said right after launch that a great deal of the furor with 4E--well, at least the intensity of it, was not because of what was changed but the pretenses that were dropped. It wasn't just dumped, it was dumped at the party, with a "I'm just not into that anymore".

I don't see how they could have kept the design as they did and softened this blow much. In fact, I think some of the PR spent on trying to soften the blow was probably counter-productive.

Someone of it was definitely counterproductive.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I know not everyone agrees with me on this. Some people think that a simulationist ruleset can be plugged into any world. But that is not my experience. In my experience, a simulationist ruleset tends to create its own pressure to prioritise some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play.

The only part of that I disagree with is that it is too narrow. It is symptom not limited to simulationist rulesets. I don't recall who started it, but there was this quote floating around a few years back along the lines: "You can do any game you want with GURPS, but it will be the GURPS version of that game."

I found that so true. It was certainly my experience running Fantasy Hero in the Forgotten Realms. It was great fun, but to call it exactly Hero or D&D is misleading. It was very much "FR D&D done the Hero way."

What happens with non-sim games is that they prioritize or subordinate on different axes (at least usually--you get some similarities just by them all being games). If a particular axis doesn't chafe the players sitting around that table, though, they'll not likely notice it being present or excluded.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It is a clear extension of the "it only needs stats if you're going to kill it" mentality that does, indeed, affect thematics. We are talking about thematic breadth rather than depth, though. 4e has adequate depth in a number of areas, such as character developments (the Paragon Paths being a good example) and complex encounters (skill challenges, dynamic battlefields). Depth in the economics is, in my opinion, significantly shallower than in 3e, beginning with the nonsensical rules for reselling magic items by PCs. But that is a secondary activity to first attaining those items. The lack of thematic breadth, however, is quite evident: little support for holdings and rulership, non-combat interactions, traipsing through fairy rings, mules, etc. As an analogy, 4e is like a big Hollywood movie that goes from one action scene to another, interspersed with some colorful dialog and some melodrama..

It is a clear marker of how far apart we are on this question that it would never once have occurred to me to put "depth", "character development" and "paragon path" in the same sentence.

It's interesting that you should mention Hollywood, though. Because when I mentioned Disney World pirates up thread, I very much had in mind that 4E was at base, a Pirates of the Caribbean movie. And 3E is the Disney World ride. What one will, I hope, use them for at the game table is so much richer than either.

 

[shadzar]

I know not everyone agrees with me on this. Some people think that a simulationist ruleset can be plugged into any world. But that is not my experience. In my experience, a simulationist ruleset tends to create its own pressure to prioritise some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play.

So you assert that a component when added can be difficult to remove or ignore if that component creates its own pressure to prioritize some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

So you assert that a component when added can be difficult to remove or ignore if that component creates its own pressure to prioritize some, and subordinate other, aspects of the gameworld in the course of play?

Depends on how entangled it is wiith other components or even implied assumptions of the ruleset as a whole, and also depends upon how much this particular component bugs the people at the table.

To wit, if you assume, for sake of your encumbrance math perhaps, that people routinely tote 20 pound swords twice as tall as the character wielding them--then this assumption will likely matter not one whit to most of the people playing. Whereas if you insisted, "no swords," it might create more trouble. If the 20 pounds or the length of the sword annoys enough, they'll just change it. Assuming of course that this doesn't fatally break the encumbrance system which everyone agrees is great, and critical to fun play with said system.

Nonetheless, if my choices are 20 pound, double length swords or now swords--I think in that system I'll just drop the swords and keep that super encumbrance system. Because oversized swords bug the heck out of me, out of all reason.

But mainly, you've got your cause and effect backwards on this issue. It's not that rules artifacts that create such pressure are therefore difficult to ignore or remove. It's that things that are difficult to ignore or remove may cause such pressures. Get enough of them in a system pushed far enough outside its center, and eventually some of them will cause such pressures.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't recall who started it, but there was this quote floating around a few years back along the lines: "You can do any game you want with GURPS, but it will be the GURPS version of that game."

That quip obviously predates GURPS Fourth Edition, which can easily produce a number of different types of game. You have provided your own counter-argument. Even GURPS doesn't have to be the GURPS version of GURPS. You can sim any genre (inclusive of any worlds), provided you usefully identify what resolution systems and narrative events you want to sim.

I think that should be a foregone conclusion. After all, you couldn't play a game that didn't simulate anything at all. Surely, simulating something more and better shouldn't make it worse. It's possible to misallocate resources as to what needs in-depth resolution and what doesn't, but if you accurately identify you want, you should be able to discern a system that supports it.

(This of course ties into my belief that simulation does not compete with other experential goals, only with time and space itself, i.e. simulation is an activity that requires a quantifiable amount of energy. So much the worse for Forgie theory).

 

[pawsplay]

But mainly, you've got your cause and effect backwards on this issue. It's not that rules artifacts that create such pressure are therefore difficult to ignore or remove. It's that things that are difficult to ignore or remove may cause such pressures. Get enough of them in a system pushed far enough outside its center, and eventually some of them will cause such pressures.

That's the heart of my argument on the Profession skill thing; in most games, the incongruent elements exert almost no pressure. It becomes an issue if you try to play SimBarony.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

That quip obviously predates GURPS Fourth Edition, which can easily produce a number of different types of game. You have provided your own counter-argument. Even GURPS doesn't have to be the GURPS version of GURPS. You can sim any genre (inclusive of any worlds), provided you usefully identify what resolution systems and narrative events you want to sim.

I can't find it; so I'm not positive. But I'm pretty sure it was after GURPS 4E. But even if not, I can tell you that the guy that wrote it wouldn't back down one bit for GURPS 4E. "Sim anything" is not equivalent to "Sim in a certain fashion." To the extent that GURPS 4E provides alternative mechanics and subsystems, it may very well cover a lot of ground. But it doesn't cover all possible ground.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Broke this out separate:

I think that should be a foregone conclusion. After all, you couldn't play a game that didn't simulate anything at all. Surely, simulating something more and better shouldn't make it worse. It's possible to misallocate resources as to what needs in-depth resolution and what doesn't, but if you accurately identify you want, you should be able to discern a system that supports it.

(This of course ties into my belief that simulation does not compete with other experential goals, only with time and space itself, i.e. simulation is an activity that requires a quantifiable amount of energy. So much the worse for Forgie theory).

I agree that misallocation of resources for depth of resolution can be an issue. I disagree with the implication that it is the only such empediment, once having properly identified what you want to simulate.

If nothing else, there are opportunity costs in every choice made. If you want X, Y, and Z, you may be able to have them all at a reasonable level of detail, mechanical support, etc. However, the more you add to the list, the more likely some element, critical to a particular group, collapses under the weight of the whole.

People have criticized 4E for having way too many powers, and this being a result of a flawed design. No doubt some of this criticism is based on a perceived misallocation of resources. If only they had a shorter power list, they could have had room for more equipment, fluff text, skills, whatever. Whereas, I have criticized 4E for having way too many powers, but I don't want them to replace the excess with anything. As far as I'm concerned, the problem with too many powers is that it makes powers not nearly as good as they could be.

(3E fans not familar with 4E can substitute 3E feats for 4E powers in this discussion, and it still applies, though perhaps with not as much force. And not that 4E feats aren't showing signs of the same problem.)