A Wrought Iron Fence Made of Tigers

[Andor]

I'm with Kamikaze Midget on this one. The disconnect between the rules and the in game rationalization are disruptive to me.

If my buddy is playing a paladin and uses bolstering strike to give me some temp HP, what did my character just experience? How would he describe it over drinks in a bar to someone who had never seen a bolstering strike used? How about a fighters "Get over here"?

Similarly the disconnect between flavor text and action leave me unsure what my character can do. EG: A rogue an use blinding barrage to throw knives into the eyes of 9 different people in a single throw. Could he throw 9 knives at once to make a ladder for Mr. Furious to climb up to rescue his GF? Why/Why not?

It is true that the mutability of the fluff has advantages. Replace a Paladin's radiant damage with Necrotic and BOOM you have a warrior of darkness. Replace it with plants and you have a combat gardener. But about the 5th time you make a new class with a search and replace swap it all starts to seem kind of pointless. And the structure of 4e hinders some of the coolest classes 3e ever came out with. A totemist or Binder is almost impossible to do with 4e and they were two of the most flavorful and story generating classes I've ever seen. I can't look at them without new characters and societies and back stories brewing up in my head.

When I look at the best parts of 4e I get 10 seconds of cool action scene footage, but not societies and anthropology essays spinning out of my subconscious.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, D&D is just about running out of healing surges, arrows and trail rations while deep in enemy territory, and you wonder if you can kill an orc archer (and eat him) to stay alive long enough to get back to your FLPoL. Not nearly as sexy.

Is it about that?

D&D 4e doesn't have starvation rules. It doesn't have fatigue rules. It doesn't have rules about weapon breakage. If you've run out of healing or magical ammo, you just take a quick nap, and you're ready to go again in the morning. If you run out of arrows, pick up a rock and throw it and it works almost as well (less damage, sure, but it'll carry whatever ranged weapon attack you need).

All of those kinds of rules would certainly support this "dungeon survival" game, and I think I'd really enjoy playing the kind of game where your resources are truly sapped and the danger is that you know you're going to run out if you don't do something soon.

But I don't see those rules in D&D 4e. I see them more in earlier editions (and, really, the earlier you go, the more you see it). 4e characters auto-refresh their powers as long as they can get a night's sleep, so they're not seriously in danger of running out of resources most of the time.

Maybe the problem is that that story 4E tells is about killing things and taking their stuff, and you would prefer something else?

I'm pretty okay with that, but Diablo does it better and with flashier effects. I'd hope for some context, maybe. Some character development. Some advancement of archetype. Something beyond combat. At least as much as Diablo has. 4e has nods to that resolution, but they are broad and general, rather than specific and evocative.

You want "rules" that dictate breeding cycles and preferred source of dietary fiber?

I mean, when I'm writing up my campaign world, I think about stuff like that, but I don't want Mearls to waste his time "playtesting" whether the local herbivore population could actually support a hunting dragon. I'm 100% okay with coming up with that rationale myself. (And I do. The local dragon is best thought of a as a Queen Kobold (like a Queen Bee) that rests in the center of a mountain (instead of a hive) and is brought ignaeous rocks by its drones (kobolds). Its digestive system breaks them down, extracts all the heavy isotopes to power a nuclear reaction (fire!), and it poops the carbon leftovers in tiny, highly compressed little pebbles (diamonds and other gemstones, depending on impurities). Inert metals (such as gold and silver) are regurgitated. No herbivores are harmed in this process.)

I want rules for whatever the game wants to help me do at the table, which includes telling the story, playing the role, and making up the fluff. "Make Stuff Up" doesn't help me. This doesn't give me direction, inspiration, or evocative reasons to roll some dice and crunch some numbers.

If the game thinks fantasy ecology is important and wants to evoke the feeling of being a Natural Philosopher in a world full of fantastic beasts, it should support that. I need to know the answer to the question "What do I do when the swords get sheathed?"

4e's answers seem to be either "Whatever you want!" (which is useless to me) or "Unsheathe them for the next battle!" (which is useful, but rather redundant, and pointless to me since videogames generally do the battle thing with more appeal than D&D).

They're both completely valid answers, I guess, but I think the game would be a lot stronger if it supported doing something -- that's something specifically, not anything generally -- after the combat was over.

I agree with those who have said Dnd has always been full of abstractions that you have to handwave to get along with the story.

This isn't about some lack of "realism," though. This is about how story and game should go hand-in-hand to support each other (like the examples I posted above, which are no less abstract than some of 4e's biggest abstractions!), and, from where I'm coming to it, about how 4e drives a wedge between the two, seemingly intentionally.

So if anyone wants to list some specific 4e points they feel truly show the tiger fence then let's debate them. But just saying 4e mechanics "doesn't support a story" doesn't really hold a lot of weight with me.

4e doesn't let stories affect mechanics, or vice-versa, but this usually makes a better game for me. 4e mechanics support "a story," in the general sense of there are rules there and you can tell a story using them, but they don't support any specific story, which makes them suffer in my mind.

As far as specific points, I'll re-post what Merric posted above, because it's a pretty good example of the wrought iron fence made of tigers.

In situations like this, DMs are encouraged to change the flavor of what is happening without changing the actual rules governing the situation. For example, the ooze could be so disoriented by the blow that it suffers the same disadvantages as if it had been knocked prone until it spends a move action to stand up effectively shaking off the condition.

Another example I gave just above was 4e's monster creation system, which gives you the numbers, but nothing to do with them. It assumes you already have something to do with them. I want rules and story to go hand-in-hand, so that the story I'm telling affects the mechanics I use to tell it, and the mechanics I use to tell the story affects the type of story that I tell. 4e's monster mechanics, and these "ooze tripping rules," drive a wedge between them so that it doesn't matter what story I'm telling, the power basically works the same, and it doesn't matter what the power's description says it does, it's not going to affect anything outside of the next five minutes (for the most part).

 

[Cadfan]

On the other side, 4e's monster creation rules don't support any specific story. They don't give you a society or an ecology or a strong theme or a reason for existence or a motive or an archetype. They give you some numbers. What you do with those numbers is left up to your whims and wildnesses.

In other news, I cannot use my printer to bake bread.

Monster creation rules aren't there to magically generate an ecology for a monster through some kind of crazy, never-before-invented-in-the-history-of-gaming procedural script. Monster creation rules will generate an ecology for a monster about as well as Sanity rules will create a monster in the first place.

As for the rest, I stand by what I wrote. Feel free to disregard the lengthy discussion on the trade offs between rules bloat, the "we shouldn''t have nice things" attitude, and just trusting the DM to handle edge cases. Instead, argue further that when you went on and on talking about how the alleged disconnect between mechanics and flavor disrupted your ability to tell stories, you didn't mean that it "disrupted" your "ability" to "tell" "stories."

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.

Unsupportable lunacy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

SPOILERS FOR SELF-EXPLANATION
[sblock]

Instead, argue further that when you went on and on talking about how the alleged disconnect between mechanics and flavor disrupted your ability to tell stories, you didn't mean that it "disrupted" your "ability" to "tell" "stories."

I never claimed that, though. I didn't talk about how it disrupted anything. I don't think 4e does disrupt anyone's ability to tell stories.

I have said, a couple of times now, that I am finding that I prefer a game where the two reinforce each other (such as the Sanity rules in CoC), rather than being separate from each other (such as the monster creation rules in 4e). 4e's rules don't work together with any story because 4e leaves the story a blank sheet to let the DM fill it in, independent of the rules.

Unsupportable lunacy.

I just think you're not understanding me. Here, let me try to explain myself better.

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 referring to the link I provided, these examples are specifically mentioned as disconnects between the rules and the game. In these videogame examples, these are places where you would expect to be able to have freedom, that you really don't. You can't bring Aeris back and you have to go on the quest, even if it would make sense that other things happen.

In the next paragraph, I go on to say how this applies to D&D:

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).

To elaborate on this point, what you get, specifically, are such things as:

1. the 4e monster creation rules, which give you numbers without a story, and
2. the rules for "tripping oozes," as pointed out above, that show you that numbers and story are completely independent of each other.

There are other examples, all throughout the rules, of this siloing occurring. This hard siloing is a Bad Thing for me, because:

I like it when the game and the story go hand-in-hand.

Examples of this include

1. Sanity from CoC
2. Fear, Horror, and Madness checks in Ravenloft
3. the Jenga tower in Dread
4. Vile Magic in the BoVD that dealt ability score damage to cast

Feel free to disregard the lengthy discussion

I will, because it seems that you have not well understood me (I don't think you were the only one, so I may not have been being very clear), so a lot of that discussion isn't about anything that I really raised the topic to discuss. If you understand me better, and still think they apply, go ahead and put them back up, and I'll do my best to respond. If you still think I'm arguing about the disconnect actively hindering anything, perhaps it would be better to just not post in the thread? That's certainly not the conversation I want to have, because it's not something I actually believe to be true.

Rather...
[/sblock]

I want to see if others have this same sense that rules/story cross-pollination is a good thing, and perhaps talk about some systems that do it very well, and some systems that don't, and what makes the best kinds of these rules and what attempts weren't so successful and what can be done to inject this into any gaming experience and....

Et Cetra.

 

[IceFractal]

I'd say it's not that it doesn't support the story, it's that it doesn't inform the story. 4E's rules are very effect-based, which is great if you already know what story you want to tell and just need to fit the appropriate components to it. What they won't help you with is generating inspiration for a story, or providing a logical next step to an ongoing one. I guess I'd call this property generative or "cause-based".

For instance, 4E monsters - they are generic enough they can be easily reflavored to fit your needs. So if you know you want fire-breathing wolf monsters that attack the PC in a medium-sized group in open terrain, you can simply find a monster of the appropriate level and role and flavor as needed. But conversely, it's hard to draw much inspiration from a monster's stats - you can't look a demon, see what it can do, and use that for an idea of what plans it might try, as you could in previous editions.


An example that might clarify things a bit:
Ultimate Effect-Based Character Creation - HERO system. You can make any type of character, down to fine details, with the exact abilities you want. But you have to know exactly what those abilties are, because the game isn't going to guide you in the slightest (though the DM hopefully will).

Ultimate Cause-Based Character Creation - Traveller. There's a thread somewhere on rpg.net where someone goes through the entire lifepath process randomly, and manages to generate a character with history, quirks, goals, rivalries and more - starting from absolutely nothing.


Personally, I like a system with a bit of both, because while I like the game to give me some inspiration, I also have my own plans for stories and characters. I can definitely see where Kamikaze Midget is coming from - for a campaign that's more about exploration than nonstop action (combat or otherwise), having rules that wait for you to give them purpose can make the DM's job a lot harder.

 

[Set]

While I see where you are coming from, Kamikaze Midget, it seems to me that quite a few of the rules choices in 4E were designed specifically to get rid of story-mangling effects, like quick and easy long-range teleportation or ressurection (by moving them into rituals).

I still prefer 3e to 4e, personally, but I do believe that the designers wanted to try and have the powers presented not mess up the narrative, and the powers / rituals divide, as well as the daily / encounter / at will mechanic, both serve that purpose pretty well, answering pesky questions like 'why don't they just ressurect everyone, and rulers live until they die of old age?' and 'why don't wizards lead with maximized empowered twinned scorching temporal oblivion every single combat?'

The narrative is different than it would be in a game world that works under 3e assumptions, but it takes a world like Eberron or the Forgotten Realms, explicitly designed around (or adapted to, over many years) these assumptions, to serve 3e rules mechanics, while a more 'generic fantasy' world would be better served by 4e rules, where 'scry and die' or 'polymorph into a war troll' or 'war priest casts righteous might and spanks the warriors' concepts aren't as germane to the world.

You can still craft narratives, just not identical ones. The Paladin might not be able to cure disease a few times a week (which would just be terribly frustrating in a plague scenario, since he'd watch hundreds die in between his weekly cures, and possibly watch the one person he *did* save get re-infected and die anyway!), but might have to quest for whatever is necessary to work a ritual of curing that can actually save the town. Curing Disease becomes less a rules mechanic and more a story element. It does ask more of the DM, a little more 'oh, there's no rule for that, so here's what happens,' with the goal being, 'what makes a good story.'

Try to ignore the edition warriors, with their talk of venom and lunacy. You've got some valid points, but I think the worst of it is just a paradigm shift. Stories can still be told, and some stories are *easier* to tell under 4e, as there are less spells and effects that can ruin a dramatic story (by instantly Finding the Path or whatever). 'Traditional' D&D fare might not be exactly as it was, but I think that generic fantasy fare would be quite a bit easier to replicate, in many regards.

Granted, many 'traditional' elements of generic fantasy, such as summoning, necromancy, shapeshifting, scrying, divinations, mind control spells, etc. remain to be added to 4e, so it's hardly the ideal 'generic fantasy' system, but it seems likely that the designers are working on adding these elements. I haven't bought the new edition yet, but I imagine that I will, and I certainly have nothing against it. Like most 'grognards,' I've played dozens of different games over the years, and I've never been so fond of whatever edition I'm playing at the moment to feel the need to call someone a 'lunatic' or whatever for having a different view.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

[sblock=What do you mean by story?]First thing you should do is describe what you mean when you say "story" in RPGs. Does that mean the DM telling a story to passive players? The players playing PCs as protagonists, the DM providing opposition? All players as co-DMs / authors, not really getting into character? There are lots of ways to take it.[/sblock]

I find that the system helps me to tell a story. Here's why:

• Character creation. You create characters who are good at what they do. It's hard not to.
• Quests. Mechanical support for story, as in "What does the protagonist want?" Rewards for playing an interesting character.
• Systemized, abstract, complex conflict resolution mechanics. Hit Points don't mean much except how much fight you have left. Words can cut as deep as a sword.
• Systemized, abstract, complex conflict resolution mechanics, Take 2. Also known as skill challenges. This sub-system puts the characters into motion: a goal to reach, skills to get them there, and a systemized way of knowing when it's over. Needs work on how to use it, but I like it.
• Helpful advice on how to improvise. Page 42. Don't need to say any more.
• Helpful advice on how to create fit adversity. Also known as creating encounters and monster creation by level and type.

Take all of that together, what do you have?

A system that creates skilled characters who are driven to achieve their goals. They are put into conflicts that can be resolved in any way the character chooses. The opposition they face is enough to make them work for their goals, not too easy or too hard.

That is going to produce story if you are so inclined.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

 

[Obryn]

D&D 4e doesn't have starvation rules.

They're on page 159 of the 4e DMG.

It doesn't have fatigue rules...

They're kinda rolled into the Endurance skill.

... If you've run out of healing or magical ammo, you just take a quick nap, and you're ready to go again in the morning.

There are several effects - like the aforementioned hunger and thirst, and the disease track - that drain away healing surges. There's less long-term damage, like 3e's ability score damage, but some of that stuff is still around.

And magical 'ammo'? I don't remember any edition of D&D where a good night's rest didn't get all that back...

If you run out of arrows, pick up a rock and throw it and it works almost as well (less damage, sure, but it'll carry whatever ranged weapon attack you need).

Also at least 10% less to-hit, doing less damage, and with shorter range, FWIW. But still, yeah, in a pinch you can do cool stuff with whatever weapons are on-hand, Mr. Chan.

-O

 

[Umbran]

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.

I think this neglects something, and thus effectively overgeneralizes.

There are many types of story. There are many games. Each game helps some types of stories, is neutral to others, and is actively hostile to yet other stories. I think the issue isn't that 4e puts the fence between story and game. I think there's a fence between the game and some types of story, and that this has been true for every RPG ever made. If you find the right kind of story, you'll find no fence.

The rules are a tool, a means to an end. If you are using a screwdriver to drive a nail, you'll be frustrated, because you have picked the wrong means to your desired end. You should pick the right tool for the job, not curse the tool you happen to pick up for failing to do the job you want.