A Wrought Iron Fence Made of Tigers

[Barastrondo]

I understand your point. It's something I've run across before in other games: a certain level of pre-existing structure and specific subsystems help channel play a little better, and they also make it easier for the people running the game to get immediate ideas if they don't have any of their own.

The trouble with this approach with D&D as a rule is that D&D is a pretty flexible thing. You can get away with subsystems more when you have a more limited setting and can focus on the stuff most likely to pop up in genre. The Fear/Horror system is a good example of that: it's usable for Ravenloft, because it can justify its presence thanks to the likelihood of it coming up. On the other hand, it would be one more thing to keep track of in regular "define-your-own" D&D. That can contribute to the "bloat" problem.

I tend to take the side that some examples of mechanics that inform potential narrative are good, but I don't want to be drowning in them. A good example from the Storytelling system is that you have specific subsystems meant to reinforce the experience of being a given supernatural creature, like the general actions that cause degeneration or the methods by which you regain your power, but you also have a core system that's about mixing and matching Attributes and Skills as you see fit to cover a wide variety of actions. Similarly, 4e puts a lot of emphasis on skill challenges and the DMG's page 42, both of which are meant to make it easier to create a wide variety of effects and run stuff on the fly without as much page-flipping. I really like this, particularly in a setting I'm homebrewing. Because generally speaking, the more subsystems I'm presented with, there tends to be a point of diminishing returns, where a greater percentage of them are either (a) rulings I don't agree with, or (b) too much bother to use.

I find it difficult to say "yes, I like them" or "no, I don't" to the overall premise of there being more mechanics that have notable ramifications on the setting. For example, I like the rules for Delirium from Werewolf: The Apocalypse, where they help to explain several horror movie conventions like humanity not being aware of the supernatural or the primal fear a werewolf causes. On the other hand, I'm not thrilled about the ramifications for magic item creation in 3e D&D, because they're hard to ignore or work around if you want a game with a generally lower magic level. And because they're inbuilt into the game's expectations, you have to change a lot of other things if you want to alter the item creation rules: rejigger monsters, give out higher stats to PCs, things like that. So mechanics that inform the story — it really depends on the execution. I like the execution of 4e, mostly, but I'm also the kind of person who tends to bring in outside inspiration more, therefore I don't need as much coming from those books. So I can certainly see your point of view, even if it isn't mine.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

Ok, ok.

Is rules/story cross-pollination a good thing? For me and mine, no. I like writing stories and making worlds. I have no intrinsic love of learning new rule-systems. So a rule-system that allows me to play in many worlds is better than one that's closely married to just one (or just one genre). For instance, I bought and played Burning Wheel a couple times. Very imaginative. Thought provoking, even. Quite capable at running some fun games. But impossible to play in any non-Lord of the Rings situation. The Tolkien-nesse of the Lifepaths was baked in. Even just doing a "same world, different campaign", like pirates or ancient civilizations, was not supported. I'd have to rewrite half the system to play even a variation on that theme. Their answer to this problem was to sell you a new set of books for each genre/theme they feel like supporting. Blech.


What can be done to inject this into any gaming experience? New rule layers. The "blandness" of 4E's mechanics make it well suited to being tweaked, because they won't interfere with whatever flavor you're trying to evoke. You could layer a Sanity or Survival system on top of the 4E system, and then rather than having to learn a whole new game you'd be playing ("4E with Sanity rules").

This tweakability is why I think 4E is great for reviving the most flavorful settings, like Ravenloft and Dark Sun. You could easily layer Horror, Dehydration, Defiling, Corruption, Starvation, Fatigue, etc. on top of 4E, in whatever combination supports the setting you want to invoke.

By the way, if there are any 3PP writers/publishers in the audience, this is your queue.


One last point though:

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).

This is a legit gripe for the "this isn't a Jackie Chan movie" crowd. I just laughed when I saw these rules and said "No." In my campaign improvised weapons can only be used for Basic Attacks, and improvised range weapons only do 1 +1/2 Str damage.

I guess my game is more "Dungeon Survival" than "only by the book D&D" because of my having read the starvation rules, enforcement of the Endurance skill, and "common sense" rulings on improvised weapons. I know lots of people hate that sort of thing though, so I understand why it's not default.

Maybe you should write a book: The Big Book of Optional Rule Systems To Make 4E More Engaging.

 

[Voadam]

There are some things in 4e rules to inform the story, though less than in previous editions IMO.

Monsters have great art, their general power level, and their specific roles and abilities. You can suss out that goblins are shifty and for low level challenges while gnolls are more opportunistic pack hunters and a little tougher. These can be bases for inspiration.

Rules effects that impact story: How hard is it to travel? To raise the dead? To heal? To cure diseases? To divine information magically? To power up/acquire/create magical items? How competent are 1st level PCs? How much combat staying power do they have? What are the PC class powers? What are the PC race powers? How are skills handled and defined? How do you subdue someone? What sorts of things can be done in combat?

My problem is not really that they siloed stuff (I love ravenloft but have not used the RL horror rules in either second or third edition as they lead to mechanical play experiences I do not want to have) so that flavor can be changed to taste. For me it is more that some elements (such as Monster Manual monsters or the god descriptions) do not provide enough of a base flavor default. Too much "make up the description yourself".

 

[radferth]

I think 4e rules are quite well suited to the support of a certain type of story. Sadly, for me, it's not a story I am particularly interested in. I know many of y'all are, so I can't say that the designers made a bad choice, just not the one that benefits me. I'll be using C&C or True 20 or maybe 3.5 if I'm running. I'll happily join in a well-run 4e game as a player. I may grumble that it's much harder to get inside my characters head during combat (as player, I'd be happier if its harder for mind flayers to get inside my head, but I haven't checked that), but if its the system that works well for you, you should totally go with it.

 

[Starbuck_II]

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?

Um, yeah you can. If the DM allows it. Any power with Creature in trarget can be used against objects.

But that would definately be a balance check/climb to do it. The problem if you thinking inside the box's box.
Think inside the box but not inside the box's box.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

This. I so often read some book or fable, or see some movie, and think "I want to do that!", that a too-much-setting-baked-in rule system would seriously crimp my style.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I think 4e rules are quite well suited to the support of a certain type of story. Sadly, for me, it's not a story I am particularly interested in ... I'll be using C&C or True 20 or maybe 3.5 if I'm running.

What kind of story can you tell with both C&C and 3.5 that you can't tell with 4e?

 

[MrMyth]

In the end, I think how well a system's mechanics work for a given story is going to be a matter of opinion. I found elements of 3rd Edition disruptive, while I find 4E works smoothly for everything I need it to do. In 3.5, since the system was so finely detailed with subsystems and mechanics for everything, it meant that any attempt to step outside of that for story purposes was extremely disruptive - in the very JRPG style you mention! (With Aeris's death as a classic example.)

Whereas, in 4E, since things are a bit more freeform, and the DM is a bit more empowered by the system, I find it much easier to tell a tale without being hindered by the mechanics behind it all.

So... mileage may vary. For some, having the mechanics so deeply intermeshed it assists them in telling a story. For others, it gets in the way.

I definitely don't think one system is better than the other, but I personally prefer how 4E does things for my own style of play.

 

[Cadfan]

Kamikaze Midget- I understand you perfectly well. Its simply that the leap from "The rules say that you can trip a 'target' and an ooze is a 'target' even though it doesn't make sense to trip a big ball of slime, and that bugs me even though DM override is explicitly built into the system to explicitly handle this sorts of problems," to "portions of the game are on rails now just like when cut scenes happen in video games" is unsupportable lunacy. If, perchance, you mean something other than that, you should avoid saying the crazy parts. The same goes for statements like "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." Seriously?

Look....

When I ignore your enraging hyperbole and leaps of logic, I find the following reasonable points hidden cunningly in places other than your opening post.

1. You like game systems to have genre-supporting rules that create flavor and facilitate crafting specific types of stories. For example, sanity rules in a game set in a Lovecraftian universe.

In response,

A) You're looking for some of these in the wrong places. Monster ecologies growing from monster creation rules is an unreasonable demand.

B) The degree to which D&D should emulate genre versus stay broad is a legitimate balancing act. What genre should core D&D emulate? The rules that facilitate a setting like the Forgotten Realms aren't necessarily the rules that fit best with Ebberon, and they're almost definitely not the rules that fit best in Athas or Ravenloft.

C) My personal preference is the same solution that 3e utilized- besides a core sword and sorcery / action movie feel, keep genre emulation in genre or setting books. I hope that 4e will utilize a similar system. Interesting rules for emulating horror plotlines, or war plotlines, have been written in the past for 3e, and can no doubt be updated for 4e. And the holy grail amongst those of us who feel this way, a Heroes of Intrigue book, is long since due. Maybe we'll get one in 4e, since we didn't in 3e.

D) Sword and Sorcery Action Movie is a genre, and the rules do emulate it. Its a broad genre, and one into which you can attach further adjectives (Sword and Sorcery Wartime Action Movie, Sword and Sorcery Romantic Intrigue Action Movie, etc), but it is a genre nonetheless. Perhaps your objection is really that you don't like the specific genre emulation you've been given?

2. You don't like edge cases, and want to avoid them as much as possible. For example, the application of a power that is themed as causing one's foe to overreach and stumble a few spaces when applied to an inanimate object that one could, if one chose, simply pick up and move. The DM advice and the advice from WOTC that says that you should simply presume that the player did some other act that had the same outcome is not satisfying to you.

In response, cross apply what I wrote above. There is a legitimate balancing act the designers have to engage in, in which they balance breadth of options, volume of rules, and the need for DM intervention. My personal taste is for a wide breadth of options and low volume of rules. I am ambivalent regarding the need for DM intervention, so 4e's solution (utilizing DM intervention to help keep volume of rules low even as breadth of options rises dramatically) is one that appeals to me. You apparently view "need for DM intervention" in terms of "places the rules and flavor don't fully match," and feel a disconnect. I suppose that's fair enough, but its important to remember that there are tradeoffs you would have to deal with if the rules system were written in a different manner.

 

[Mallus]

gameplay and story are kept on either side of a wrought iron fence made of tigers.

Yahtzee's phrasing is lovely as usual, but I heartily disagree.

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.

From my perspective, this is happened far more in 1e (especially the tournament modules), with the prevalence of plot-magic and spell-proof dungeon rooms that forced you to solve puzzle a specific way.

How does 4e result in Aeris's death scene exactly?

Or plots that run on rails that, no matter what option you choose, THOU MUST undertake the quest.

How is this not an edition-neutral problem related to bad adventure design?

I like a game where the mechanics and the story work hand-in-hand.

When has D&D ever been this?