April 3rd, Rule of 3

[Balesir]

There are sysytems that work like this. Herowars/heroquest for example. They tend to be highly narrativist systems. In fact in that system you could run an entire encounter while mixing magical, physical, emotional and social conflicts into the same event. The flipside of that is that you never know what actually happened until the final resolution. It's like 4e HP squared in that effect. When Joe took 8 points from the badguys AP pool in turn 4 was that a sword to the leg, or a reminder of a childhood friendship that brought a tear to his eye? You don't know until it's over and you match the narrative to the game effects. It is an extremely elegant system. Personally I find it lacks something in flavor however.

In the original RuneQuest game the different magical systems of Glorantha had very different mechanical implementations. In HeroWars they have the same distinct fluff, but all have the exact same universal resolution mechanics. The palpable, meaningful differences between spirit magic and mystisicm from the old days is gone, remembered only as a bit of handwaving.

Yes, I've played both HQ and RQ a fair degree, and, perhaps, more similarly to what I am thinking of for D&D, Pendragon (Greg Stafford's Arthurian roleplaying game - if you haven't tried it, run, don't walk, to your FLGS and beg, borrow, buy or steal a copy!).

My point would be that HQ handles the matter from a conflict resolution (as opposed to task resolution) angle and with a game generally aimed at addressing the mythic themes of Glorantha, rather than seeking emergent stories more indirectly via play immediately focussed on other things, as D&D tends to do.

I actually see several systems that address non-physical and non-combat conflict from a conflict resolution, non-Gamist angle; Burning Wheel is perhaps closest to what I'm seeking, but even that is not quite as "strategic" as I would really like to see. Several other "usual suspects" - PrimeTime Adventures, Universalis, Sorceror - also cover the gound. Another "close, but not quite" would be Call of Cthulhu. But, I see a gap in the "market" for a gamist game (which I think D&D is naturally constituted to handle well, due to its ties to level, XP and hit points, not to mention "Vancian" type casting and so on) that is set up to handle "tactical" social and exploratory conflict well.

We're drifting into the "What D&D isn't" thread here, I think. D&D has never had, nor attempted to have elegant or sophisticated social conflict rules. That has always been the purview of the GM. And in point of fact no matter what system you are playing or what the rules are it will always be the purview of the GM. The only way around that is troupe style play combined with social mechanics that also apply to the PCs. And you will not find a whole hell of a lot of D&D players, in my experience, who are not going to have a problem with the GM telling them how their character has to act.

D&D has not done this historically, I agree. But, as I say above, I think the style of game that the D&D combat system quite naturally (to me) trends towards - character resource and positional management to overcome in-game challenges - could be extended quite coherently and smoothly to cover social and exploration challenges in the same vein. Rather than a complete departure - as with, say, switching to a classless game or moving to a non-hit point based damage system - adding 'tactical' systems for non-combat play would seem like a natural extension, to me.

Different games have different social contracts between the players and GM. In something like a World of Darkness game, or Heroquest it is perfectly legitimate for a GM to tell someone their character has fallen in love, or had a fight with their spouse. The system has rules for it, and encourages that sort of social conflict.

D&D on the other hand has always had a sort of gentlemens agreement that while the GM might try to kill you at any second (which results in a lot of PCs who act like paranoid PTSD survivors who never, ever sit with their backs to a door) it is also a given that he does not tell you what your character must think or feel about any given situation. He might tell you your characters actions will look very odd to other people in the world, but your actions are your own even if they lead to you getting eaten by a grue.

Yes, this was why I mentioned Pendragon, and why I am looking for a system specifically unlike HQ and similar. The idea is not that the player character is forced to any specific behaviour unless the player signs up for that restriction first. In Pendragon, no knight has to have an extreme Trait (which might be "Chaste", "Proud", "Merciful" or the like) - but if the player chooses to pursue one such, and achieves it, then the character may be restricted by that trait in some situations. Why would the player choose to pursue such an extreme Trait? Because there are benefits to having them, of course!

This is the sort of general tenor I have in mind. A player might choose to take certain character limitations or leave their character vulnerable in the social realm in order to gain tools with which to better overcome certain other social challenges. Social interaction thereby becomes a game all of its own, as engaging - and in quite a similar way - to the game involved when combat challenges are to be overcome.

 

[BryonD]

Who have you got in mind?

Are you honestly claiming the whole "4E doesn't feel like D&D wars" didn't happen?

 

[BryonD]

I disagree with this.

In pre-4e, you are controlled by a pre-defined narrative that you, as a player, are not permitted to change. The DM can change it, of course, but, the player's actions are pre-defined and the player cannot vary that definition on his own.

In 4e, you control what happens and then figure out a narrative.

Ok, since you quoted my "In 4e..." part word for word, I'll just accept that we agree there.

I completely reject your description of pre-3e. But we have also established that there are such radical differences between numerous aspects of our play experience that I'll just write it off as that.

The idea that the player's actions are in any way predefined in 3E is simply boggling to me.

We agree that in 4E you backfit the narrative on the mechanics. For the story building experience I want, that is a fatal flaw. The mechanics should be a slave to and always react to the narrative. The narrative should never look to the mechanics. IMO.

 

[Sunseeker]

We agree that in 4E you backfit the narrative on the mechanics. For the story building experience I want, that is a fatal flaw. The mechanics should be a slave to and always react to the narrative. The narrative should never look to the mechanics. IMO.

It seems more like in such a system the mechanics would simply preemptively tell you "no you can't" and so you adjust your approach ahead of time because you know you'll never be able to climb that tree or jump over that gorge. Can mechanics even exist in such a system, if your narrative needs Jim to jump a gorge, then Jim jumps the gorge, regardless of if the mechanics say they could or couldn't. In a highly narrative approach, you don't really need mechanics, players win if the story needs them to win, players lose if the story needs them to lose. It's like replaying LOTR. Aragorn can't die, he can't even leave the rails.

When a narrative is being generated as the game progresses, I think there's some level of give and take. The mechanics tell you if you can or cannot do what you want to do. The narrative outlines what you'd like to do. Between them lies what actually happens. You may want to jump that 100ft chasm, but there's no way you jump check will succeed, so instead you attempt to throw a grappling hook to the other side. Mechanics MUST have a say in what happens, either pre or post, otherwise the mechanics might as well not be there at all.

 

[Balesir]

The narrative should never look to the mechanics. IMO.

I would put it a little differently to [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]: because RPGs are a shared imaginary series of happenings, mechanics will always determine the narrative absolutely - it's just that the mechanics might not be what they seem to be.

The mechanics in use are what determines the outcome of game events in play. What may be printed on some piece of paper is irrelevant; if the DM's aesthetic sense is what determines whether an action succeeds or fails, then that is the system.

I sometimes think that half (or more) of the confusion arising in discussions of what mechanics/system is good/bad arise due to a failure to understand this simple point. If a system is there in writing but you are not using it to determine what happens in play, then that is not the system in use. Some other "system" (obviously) is.

 

[Hussar]

The idea that the player's actions are in any way predefined in 3E is simply boggling to me.

Why?

How do you pick a lock in 3e? The mechanics tell you EXACTLY what you need and how you do it, down to how long it takes to pick a lock.

How far can your character jump in 3e? The mechanics tell you EXACTLY how far your character can jump and there is nothing the character can do (barring magic which is allowed to break the rules) to change that.

How can you knock someone prone in 3e? The mechanics tell you EXACTLY the only way in which you can knock someone prone (again, barring magic which is allowed to break the rules) and you may not knock someone prone in any other way.

The entire POINT of process based simulation mechanics is to pre-define how your character interacts with the game world. That's not a flaw, it's a strength.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I would put it a little differently to @shidaku : because RPGs are a shared imaginary series of happenings, mechanics will always determine the narrative absolutely - it's just that the mechanics might not be what they seem to be.

The mechanics in use are what determines the outcome of game events in play. What may be printed on some piece of paper is irrelevant; if the DM's aesthetic sense is what determines whether an action succeeds or fails, then that is the system.

I sometimes think that half (or more) of the confusion arising in discussions of what mechanics/system is good/bad arise due to a failure to understand this simple point. If a system is there in writing but you are not using it to determine what happens in play, then that is not the system in use. Some other "system" (obviously) is.

A big piece of the other half might be failure to understand indirection in a particular context. When I was younger, I never could understand how so many otherwise capable people could study the C programming language and get so mixed up with pointers. But as I've aged, and seen the number of people who confuse "the model" with "the thing being modeled"--over and over again, I've started to understand it more. And it isn't even limited to particular things, like games. I caught myself making the same kind of error in some new (to me) stuff that I did a few years ago. It's almost as if these kind of things are something that has to be relearned in each field, with only the pattern itself showing up to clue you in that you might be going down the same old rathole.

 

[BryonD]

Why?

How do you pick a lock in 3e? The mechanics tell you EXACTLY what you need and how you do it, down to how long it takes to pick a lock.

You and I already had a detailed conversation abotu how you could EASILY pick locks with a spoon in 3E if that was established as part of the character.

How far can your character jump in 3e? The mechanics tell you EXACTLY how far your character can jump and there is nothing the character can do (barring magic which is allowed to break the rules) to change that.

And here you seem to be missing the point.

This is a GOOD thing and is exactly what I was saying. What the rules DON'T do is tell you TO JUMP. You describe your action and then the rules model the result. You pick the cause and then the game tells you the effect.

How can you knock someone prone in 3e? The mechanics tell you EXACTLY the only way in which you can knock someone prone (again, barring magic which is allowed to break the rules) and you may not knock someone prone in any other way.

The entire POINT of process based simulation mechanics is to pre-define how your character interacts with the game world. That's not a flaw, it's a strength.

Again you are missing the point. These are all examples of you pick the cause and the rules then figure out the effect. I love that.

In 4E you look at your powers and pick an effect. You use Come And Get It on a skeleton, it moves. You use Come And Get It on a guard, he moves. You use Come And Get It on an ooze, it moves. The EFFECT is established. You look at a list of potential EFFECTS and then you go back and think of narrative justification.

In 4E you pick and effect and then think of a cause. (The ooze will move.... and... umm... HERE is why) [aka "pop quiz gaming"]

In pre-4E you pick a cause and the rules tell you the effect. (I jump. You go.... THIS far)



EDIT: and interestingly enough, this is YET ANOTHER example of something that 4E fans spent the past several years PRAISING but now want to obfuscate.

 

[Hussar]

EDIT: and interestingly enough, this is YET ANOTHER example of something that 4E fans spent the past several years PRAISING but now want to obfuscate.

Eh what obfuscation? I AGREED with you. You characterize it in a negative way, but, essentially, I completely agree with your interpretation of how 4e works. So, who's obfuscating.

And, no, BryonD, you cannot "easily" open a lock with a spoon in 3e. Not unless you reject the rules or really, REALLY bend the idea of "improvised tools".

Look, we agree here. 3e dictates to you how things will happen. That's the whole point. That's where the strength lies. You want to do X, the rules tell you how you will do X. If you cannot, for some reason, do X in the manner the rules prescribe, then you cannot do X. End of story.

I cannot trip someone by having them stumble in a hole in 3e. I simply cannot do that because 3e does not give me, the player, the ability to effect that in the game world. 4e does. 4e allows me to take a stance beyond actor stance.

Now, this is not a good or a bad thing. It's simply different. I find it greatly liberating to not be entirely tied to the prescribed actions dictated to me by the rules. But, I'm also casting that in a fairly negative light because I don't actually like playing that way. It is not to my preference. You wouldn't characterize it that way because it fits with what you want. The reverse is true for how 4e works as well.

It's not a case of one set is better than another. It is a case that they are different and allow different things.

 

[pemerton]

Are you honestly claiming the whole "4E doesn't feel like D&D wars" didn't happen?

You said "A few short months ago any slight hint that 4E was a different game than prior versions was a mortal sin and insult of the lowest form".

Saying that 4e feels like D&D doesn't imply that 4e doesn't differ from 3E (nor, for that matter, any other). Games can mechanically differ and still have the same feel.

Indeed, this is the whole underpinning rationale of WotC's D&Dnext design.

There's also the point that not everyone - certainly not everyone you replied to in this thread - has treated the slightest hint of difference as mortal sin. I, for one, have reapeatedly posted since 2009 that 4e brought me back to D&D. If you want me to explain (again) how its differences from 3E and 2nd ed AD&D did this, I'd be happy to follow up with another post.