A Wrought Iron Fence Made of Tigers

[I'm A Banana]

Forked from: Interesting Gamist vs Simulationist View

In the thread Flavor first vs game first a number of people expressed the idea that mechanics simply working isn't good enough. That mechanics must also fit with the narrative of the game. In other words, the view that you should start with a certain flavour, then design to that flavor.

If you go the other way around, it seems very artificial and unsatisfactory. It lights up people's detect hooey meters and brings the mechanics too far forward.

I stumbled recently on something that helped me understand this a little bit better. I'm especially a fan of this quote:

What I'm saying is that I like games where the story and gameplay go hand in hand, while in most JRPGs story and gameplay are kept either side of a wrought iron fence made of tigers.

4e has become quite a bit more like the "JRPGs" than D&D has historically been. This is the siloing, in a nutshell: gameplay and story are kept on either side of a wrought iron fence made of tigers.

What this means, practically speaking, is that you get things like Aeris's death in a world filled with potions that bring the dead back to life. Or plots that run on rails that, no matter what option you choose, THOU MUST undertake the quest.

In 4e D&D, you get copious amounts of hand-waves, plot devices, and snarky "you're taking the game too seriously!" condescension (that last, admittedly, more from message board posters than from the books themselves).

I like a game where the mechanics and the story work hand-in-hand. 4e lost some of that, in its zeal to silo everything away. Now we have mechanics that do their thing, but no context, no real effect, for any of them. I can raise the dead, heal the wounded, blast fire from my fingertips, and slay an army of soldiers, but, for all intents and purposes, that doesn't matter one whit outside of the context of killing things and taking their stuff.

I don't like that. That's not a game that helps me tell a story or play a role. That's a game that helps me kill things with flare, but CRPGs do that better. Killing things with flare is important, but it shouldn't force the story to play second fiddle. They should reinforce and advance each other -- my ability to kill things with flare should inform the story that I tell, and vice-versa. As it is, there is such a deep disconnect, that it is hard for me to enjoy it.

This mostly is a problem as a DM, because as a DM, I am in the biggest story-creation mode. I want the game to inform the story, and I want to be able to have my story inform the game. But everything exists in a vaccuum. Nothing affects anything else. There are no consequences, no ramifications, for a monster, or an ability, or a particular rule. Likewise, there are no consequences or ramifications in the rules for a particular villain, a particular plot point, or a particular storyline. If I'm an ooze, I can still be tripped. If I'm a quadriplegic blind man on a skateboard, I can still use my class powers.

So, do you think there's some meat, here? Is this a more useful way to look at the game than G/S/N wordvomit? Does this reflect anyone else's problems with 4e? If someone is a fan of 4e's hard siloing, do you not need or want the game and the story to go hand-in-hand? Why not? What are you doing that I'm not?

Discuss and debate!

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I dunno if it exactly follows what your saying, but I find that 4e works quite well at integrating story-narrative and also gameplay.

Take for instance, Powers. Besides their mechanical objective they have a very good narrative objective, by combining a combination of moves into a few dice rolls it allows the players more time to narratively weave the combat together. Thus allowing more of a continuous flow from non-combat to combat.

The same idea follows suit with Skill Challenges, by having a basic mechanic that is easily followed and can be taken in multiple directions it can more easily develop a narration that flows with the rest of the game/plot.

For your example of the ooze, with how loose and easy the Powers are to do mechanically I can describe a "trip" in many different ways that work for a ooze.

I guess it is a individual thing, but as a DM I have found that the way the mechanics are laid out and how they don't have as much direct and pin-point specific mechanics it means I can more easily thread a story around them.

 

[WayneLigon]

But everything exists in a vaccuum. Nothing affects anything else. There are no consequences, no ramifications, for a monster, or an ability, or a particular rule. Likewise, there are no consequences or ramifications in the rules for a particular villain, a particular plot point, or a particular storyline. If I'm an ooze, I can still be tripped. If I'm a quadriplegic blind man on a skateboard, I can still use my class powers.

Two of the most common complaints I heard about 3E was (1) that it was difficult to modify anything because the systems worked so tightly hand in hand that it was like a Jenga tower, and (2) that you were given class abilities and then it seemed like a significant number of monsters were created that had immunities to those class abilities or ways to negate them, leaving people wondering why they'd bothered.

So, I don't think there is a way to satisfy both sides.

 

[Delta]

I totally agree. I've been saying the same thing for about 10 years since I was at a computer game company and seeing the same thing happen there. Version (1) made by auteur game designer with story & mechanics working hand-in-hand. Version (2) made by a team with separate people responsible for mechanics vs. story, and not quite meeting in the middle.

What's JRPG?

 

[greyscale1]

Having played and DMed 3.5 and 4e, I can't really say that I've ever felt this 'siloing' effect.

You are correct that the rules in 4e are more divorced from the story. However, as a 4e player I haven't felt that effect while playing, and as a DM, having those sorts of rules makes extensive editing, homebrewing, and winging it that much easier. (I liked playing in 3.5 and 4e equally, and would go back and forth if I had a another group. DMing however, 4e is hands-down more fun for me)

Honestly, the way you talk about it is very obviously anti-4e. I think this is a good possible discussion, one that could bring up many interesting points. However, the anti-4e venom in your first post might condemn this thread to just-another-edition-war.

Just sayin'


~Greyscale

 

[malraux]

I really don't see how a PC in 4e has any less effect on the larger story than in 3e, with the possible exception that in 4e, characters start with the presumption that they are heroes. But I never really felt that the 4 steps to a 3e grapple really ever moved a plot forward either. Your case would be stronger if you pulled examples from 4e rather than FFVII.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I guess it is a individual thing, but as a DM I have found that the way the mechanics are laid out and how they don't have as much direct and pin-point specific mechanics it means I can more easily thread a story around them.

Right, one my points is that I'm not a big fan of "generic mechanics." The reason I'm not a big fan of generic mechanics is because they do nothing to help me tell a story -- they are generic.

4e's siloing makes mechanics more generic. The flavor text has virtually nothing to do with the actual in-game effect. Likewise, any description of the effect has nothing to do with the rules.

For me, this is a Bad Thing. I think they should reinforce each other to generate a specific experience. This would make the game More Fun For Me.

The advantage, of course, is that they don't get in the way when you're trying to wrap your own thread around it. The problem with that is that if I want to just wrap up my own story, I will go write a story (collaborating with friends if I want to!). I want the game to help me tell a story, not just to get out of the way of the story....

Consider the paladin's cure disease ability in previous editions. It is utterly useless in combat, and shouldn't be used to balance the combat power of the class. I'm not claiming that this particular ability was perfect or implemented well or balanced amongst all the characters by any stretch, but it did help me to tell a story. My paladin player can help bring an end to the plague that is menacing the Easterlands. Or they can go head-to-head against the vile cult that is poisoning the sewers and bringing illness to the people. The rules (paladins get cure disease!) helps me to tell a story (if there's a disease around, my paladin will help fight it, so if there's a paladin in my group, maybe I should use a disease at some point!).

Honestly, the way you talk about it is very obviously anti-4e. I think this is a good possible discussion, one that could bring up many interesting points. However, the anti-4e venom in your first post might condemn this thread to just-another-edition-war.

If you get specific, I'll edit my post, but I don't actually have any venom for 4e. I'm not a big fan of it, and I'm trying to explore why that is, but I don't begrudge the choices that were made.

So any venom you detect isn't coming from me.

I really don't see how a PC in 4e has any less effect on the larger story than in 3e, with the possible exception that in 4e, characters start with the presumption that they are heroes. But I never really felt that the 4 steps to a 3e grapple really ever moved a plot forward either

They didn't. But 4e expressly made the silos between the mechanics and the flavor deeper; they have less of an effect on each other. I'm finding that I like it when these things affect each other, and I'm following out that idea.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

For some like myself. I find that both myself and my players prefer that the story doesn't seem to draw upon any specific mechanic that the characters have, to make it seem less like playing a game where certain mechanics are quite visibly apparent and more telling a collective story using a P&P mechanics.

I think though, what you wish is still doable, it can take the form of a Ritual that is needed, or a character having to perform a specific Skill Challenge, or hell a Warlock being a Warlock and having to deal with his Pact. I think it becomes even more noticeable when you hit PP and Epic Destinies cause then their specific focus can lead a story more and orient itself around the mechanics of the PP.

 

[demonsquidgod]

I dont know about the mechanics being generic but 4E seems to have definitely cut down on the mechanics informing the setting.

A paladin might have cure disease if they cast rituals and had the specific ritual. But all paladins do not cure disease. The world still functions as if disease exists and can only be cured by normal means. Every town does not have cleric or paladin like we have doctors.

4E is not a world awash in raise dead scrolls. It is filled with people who die of pneumonia and if you can cure the plague with your hands or bring the dead back to life the Holy Friggin Crap you are something special.

 

[Filcher]

Meh. *shrug* Doesn't hold water for me. Obviously it does for you, and I respect that.

My reasoning: Every previous edition of D&D was FULL of abstractions. HP? What the hell is a HP? Why isn't my character hurt until he keels over, dead? Why does my 10th level fighter have the same HP as a war elephant? Why doesn't armor diminish the damage I take, instead of simply making attacks miss? ...And so on. Just because we all accept them doesn't mean they aren't abstractions.

4E has its own set of abstractions, but opponents cry foul as if abstractions never existed in the game before. Suddenly the mechanics detract from the sacred story.

Huh? I don't buy it. Or rather, the mechanics might distract from the story in YOUR game, but they certainly don't in mine. I hope you have a version of D&D that works to support your vision of sword and sorcery roleplaying.