Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[The Human Target]

This is exactly the opposite of what I'm looking for in a game of the imagination. Lets take a look at whats happening here. The GM describes the situation; player nominates method.

Lets examine that bit for a moment. The player essentially chooses a programmed action from an available list. Its like a list of possible responses menu that the Terminator calls up. The player in this case is using an automated mechanical response and is interacting with the game mechanics instead of the game world.
The player selects a menu item and presses a button, presumably one that has been determined will have the greatest impact upon the present situation due to a variety of mitigating factors, all mechanical in nature. The button is pressed and the player watches the result to see if he/she will be rewarded with a success treat.

The game world and what is happening is a distant secondary concern being overriden by the grinding mechanical gears deciding on the best choice based upon how "the engine" runs.

This style of play is unsatisfying to me. Once the vehicle has been constructed (the character "build" is complete) the actual play of the game is largely an automated process. All that is needed to then play is a body to roll dice with some knowledge of rules interactions. The game world itself is a two-dimensional overlay "skin" draped over the mechanical engine. The biggest irritating thing about the whole process- nothing of consequence takes place without a mechanical process. The byproduct of such play is a group interacting with the resolution mechanics almost exclusively.

Why bother listening to descriptions of world elements if you can't really interact with them? Does it really matter about the details if, at the end of everything, all will come down to "make skill check X"? Players pick up on that quickly and cut to the chase with the ubiquitous "what do I need to roll'?

The end result of such a system is an automated process with little soul and no heart. The DM doesn't really need to adjudicate because the rules cover so much. The players don't need to interact with much because the resolution mechanics handle everything. The game practically runs and plays itself. I have better things to with my time than participate in games that don't really need me to function.

The best analogy the OP dicussed that relates to this issue is the hand drawn vs computer drawn art. Old school games are like the hand drawn art. They have a warmth created by the increased required human element that is simply missing in the automated programmed response systems.

All of this is of course, my subjective opinion based upon extensive personal experience. YMMV and all that.

I don't see how you came to these conclusions.

This is the kind of old school rhetoric that just baffles me.

 

[Balesir]

A: "The cowled warrior drew a curved blade, which shimmered with an indigo hue, silver runic forms along the blade caressed by the light of the moon."

B: "The warrior, wearing a long black and grey robe with a sash around his face, covering all but his eyes, which were dark brown or black, pulled a weapon from a scabbard - a scimitar of approximately three feet in length, with a slight to moderate curve, more like a katana than a sickle - but with a smoother sweep than a katana, like a crescent moon. The scimitar was dark blue-black in color and glowed faintly. Along the length of the blade, from about six inches from the hilt--which was curved liked a stylized and angular S--were symbols of some unknown language; the runes extended to about three inches from the tip. Each symbol was about half the width of the blade. The moon was very bright, so the runes - which were probably made of some kind of silver or white metal or stone - glowed slightly."

The main problem I have with the above is that the lack of detail in the first example risks everyone imagining something different for the same scene, which is ok when passively reading a book, but not ok when using that information in a shared setting to decide on PC actions. For me overly minimalist descriptions can lead to lots of mutual incomprehension, cognitive dissonance and wasted or counterproductive actions on the part of players. I find it jarring when my imagined scene turns out to be totally incorrect due to the relevation of more detail that would have been immediately obvious to any witness.

I very much agree with [MENTION=2656]Aenghus[/MENTION], here. With A, I can see either the player surprised (shocked, even) when the "cowled warrior" throws the dagger into his back as he runs out the door, or the GM wondering wht the PC doesn't flee when the player sees that as suicidal with a throwing-dagger armed enemy behind. B leaves no such room for a crucially mismatched pair of pictures to emerge.

There was a Forge-inspired game called "The Pool" where your character was a short paragraph on loose-leaf. Now that's a game facilitative to imagination. If you can imagine it, you can play it. This philosophy is present in varying degrees in FATE, 13th Age, and Numenara. By far I think 13th Age's Background mechanic best exemplifies how this philosophy can be integrated into D&D without disrupting the core of what D&D is.

The Pool is interesting; it has a simple and naturalistic character creation method, but the "paragraph" is used to create resources ("traits") that the player elects when to use. It has very much fortune-in-the-middle resolution of conflicts rather than actions and the player has the option of determining outcome ("monologue of victory") on a win. Those features are what allow the light touch on character definition to work, I think.

Once the vehicle has been constructed (the character "build" is complete) the actual play of the game is largely an automated process. All that is needed to then play is a body to roll dice with some knowledge of rules interactions. The game world itself is a two-dimensional overlay "skin" draped over the mechanical engine. The biggest irritating thing about the whole process- nothing of consequence takes place without a mechanical process. The byproduct of such play is a group interacting with the resolution mechanics almost exclusively.

This depends how you define "mechanical process". I would say this:

a) Player envisions what they want the character to do.

b) Player communicates what they want to do to the GM.

c) GM envisions what they think the character does, based on the description given by the player.

d) GM decides what they consider the range of plausible outcomes, given how they see their model of the game world playing out the attempted action by the character, and selects some means of choosing from among those plausible outcomes. GM selects an outcome.

e) GM communicates what they envision as the outcome to the players.

f) Players picture what they understand the outcome to be, given the GM's description.

...is a mechanical process. There may or may not be written codes for the communications and written guidelines regarding the selection of the essential features of the outcome, but these don't, in themselves, make the sequence any more or less a "mechanic"; it's a mechanic already.

Where the written rules can help seems to me to be in steps (b), (d) and (e). Having "codes" for the use of specific resources or for specifically defined and understood character techniques helps to ensure that the player's and the GM's understanding of what is expected in terms of outcome is congruent (steps b and e). Written rules regarding the selection of outcomes (stage d) gives players some view of the "physics" of the game world that their characters would have an instictive and natural understanding of. Without written (or at least well explained and understood) context for at least stage d, the players are making mere arbitrary selections based on no useful information.

Your King and McCarthy analogy is interesting but, I think, a bit obfuscating because they're not quite apples vs. oranges, unless we're willing to to say that all art, all literature, music, etc is "equal" - and there's no degrees of quality or depth. I'm willing to say that we can't judge Miley Cyrus by the same criteria that we judge Miles Davis because they create(d) completely different types of music, but at the same I'm not willing to say that "some prefer Miley and some Miles" and just leave it at that. Miles Davis was a far superior musician than Miley Cyrus is, but more people "prefer" (your word) Miley Cyrus. Is this just a matter of cognitive style or is there something else at work? Dare we delve beyond the realm of "its all subjective" and look at words like "depth" and "quality"?

I see this as analogous to the difference between "motivation" and "values". "Motivation" is what makes you want to act - what you "like". "Values" are what you consider to be praiseworthy, admirable or virtuous. These two do not necessarily align for a single individual, never mind for a society or group. What is more, different people will almost assuredly have different sets for both of them. Motivation is an instinctive and natural thing; it is what it is and you generally can't fake it for any length of time even if you try. Values, on the other hand, are more intellectual things, and as such may be changed and/or faked with some effort. They are susceptible, also, to social pressure to have the "right" values and acceptance of particular values often denotes (or is used to simulate) membership of a specific culture or group.

Is any one set of motivations ("likes") somehow "correct"? Most would say "of course not"; you like what you like. But what about values? Most people would argue strongly that the values espoused by their culture are "correct", but I'm not really convinced. In cases where specific values have some consensus accross cultures maybe the argument could be made that the specific value concerned is "more virtuous" - and a scant few values are supported by rational argument - but I don't think any complete "set" of values can be claimed as "superior". A few might arguably be "universal", but that would have to be adjudged case-by-case.

 

[Manbearcat]

In your last 4E session how many player decisions that had a significant impact on the outcome of play didn't involve the use of a power, feat, skill, etc?

"Decisions" and "resolution of intent" in RPGs may be completely decoupled things. For instance, [for a local bit of anecdote with a contemporary 4e PBP I'm running, I can think from the top of my head right quick:

1) @Campbell and @LostSoul "decided" to attempt to reform their primary antagonist (agenda and ethos) mid-climactic battle. The intent was mechanically resolved (rather than by my fiat or theirs) but the decision to reform the antagonist was autonomous and driven by player-authored backstory and the emergent properties of our gameplay.

2) @pemerton and @sheadunne decided to put themselves in grave peril to save their companions from almost assured death by jumping from a balcony, 7 stories up, which was overlooking a Royal Garden (where 1 was taking place). They could have instead tried a group Athletics check which would have saved them from the considerable damage they took but it would have made them arrive later in the fiction, putting their friends at peril. The leap was mechanically resolved (and it hurt immensely) as would have been the group Athletics check. However, the decision to take the leap was motivated by valour, bravery and Big-Damn-Herodom...certainly not the impetus of mechanical resolution.

Both of those examples are "fiction-first" and they are one of many.

Your, yet another, 4e hitpiece is just out there...totally off the reservation of my experience or the experience of so many other who post here. I know its difficult to bridle your contempt but it would be awesome if you could make a better effort.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I apologize for dropping the ball yesterday - life intervened. But I really appreciate our conversation(s), which have been quite fruitful, I think.

I do want to try to pick up a couple threads.

However, I wasn't so much speaking to general preferences (this kobe hambuger is tastier than this ground beef hamburger) as I was focusing on how creativity bears itself out with respect to overarching structure, hard boundaries, and a continuum of resolution in the space between the boundaries. This is why I brought in Cormac McCarthy versus Stephen King. They diverge dramatically from one another with respect to the information overtly conveyed to the reader. Stephen King saturates you. Cormac McCarthy gives you little in the extreme (willfully obviously). However, there is no default measurables with respect to the output of creativity and imagination by the readership by proxy of the authorial inputs. You don't get "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" is conducive to a broad and rich imaginative experience while "The Shining" and "The Dark Tower" lead to a more narrow and less provacative imaginetive experience.

I cannot disagree with you here insofar as I understand what you are saying, but perhaps I haven't been clear with what I'm trying to express. I think we may be using the word "imagination" slight, but importantly, differently - or at least have a different understanding of what it "is." I agree with you if imagination is relatively static and has to do with forming images within one's "mindscape." But I see imagination as having multiple aspects or types, with not only a more passive image-perceiving aspect, but also a more dynamic activity, one that is generative.

What I am hypothesizing is that different kinds of "input" lead to different degrees, or quality even, of the generative or dynamic aspect of imagination. Or rather it could be that imagination runs a gamut from passive reception to active generation. On one extreme we have video games in which there is absolutely no generation of imagination, just reception of input. On the other we have an artist or writer facing the blank page, or a worldbuilder, and "creating something from nothing" (or, if we want to get metaphysically speculative, the primordial creator being generation the world from the causal void).

With Sephen King's prose, the reader's imagination can be more passive than with Cormac McCarthy's, where the reader's imagination is pushed more towards its generative mode. But both are much closer along the spectrum than the example of a video game vs. a worldbuilder.

I think that can be mapped to RPG theory easily enough. Regarding imagination, some thrive with less, or opaque, ruleset structure and higher resolution settings while, conversely, others thrive with tighter, more overt, ruleset structure, lower resolution setting but thematic exemplars to anchor their imagination to.

Yes, I agree. But this doesn't address what I'm calling the dynamic-generative aspect of imagination.

In total, I'm certainly not disputing that quality of (anything) can be discerned using precise metrics. I'm merely disputing the premise (at least what I think it is) that some systems (and their component parts; eg overt ovarching structure, information resolution, codified boundaries)universally provoke imagination and creativity better than others.

I agree with you when you use the word universally. I'm speaking in terms of generalities - which I find meaningful, especially when utilized flexibly and not subscribed to in a rigid manner.

My concern, as someone interested in human imagination and creativity, is that the cultural trend is towards more passivity, more of the receptive mode, and I feel that the trend of Dungeons & Dragons has loosely followed this, with and emphasis on more passive modes with "New School" editions, 3e and 4e. This isn't to say that rules are bad, or even that passive imagination is bad, but I'd prefer to turn it around and put the cart back behind the horse.

 

[Mercurius]

The main problem I have with the above is that the lack of detail in the first example risks everyone imagining something different for the same scene, which is ok when passively reading a book, but not ok when using that information in a shared setting to decide on PC actions. For me overly minimalist descriptions can lead to lots of mutual incomprehension, cognitive dissonance and wasted or counterproductive actions on the part of players. I find it jarring when my imagined scene turns out to be totally incorrect due to the relevation of more detail that would have been immediately obvious to any witness.

I agree if it is just that - "detail that would have been immediately obvious to any witness." But the thing is, everyone experiences things differently. I feel that as long as the DM includes the relevant information, what is "immediately obvious to any witness," some flexibility and divergence of perception and resulting action isn't a bad thing, and is even more true to life.

For me the DM is the players window onto the gameworld, and starving the players of information, for any reason, risks robbing them of the opportunity to be effectively proactive. My primary motivation is not to just imagine the gameworld, but to take action within that gameworld, action that makes sense to the other players within that shared world.

But at where do you draw the line between "information starvation" and "information overload?" This would obviously vary per DM and player, and I'm guessing most would be between my two examples somewhere. But the point of the first was not to starve players of information, but to not inundate them - and allow the words to be seeds in their minds, to generate their own images.

Oh, and I think the OP shot the messenger in his original post, in that 4e made abundantly manifest that there are many differing tastes amongst D&D players, some not compatible. IMO this has been the case since the beginning of the hobby, but concealed by the lack of internet and popularity of houserules making every game individual.

I'm "he," by the way!

I think the point is that while 4e said this, they didn't support those different styles of play, or at least only in a vague sort of way, and instead offered and supported a rather specific style of play, especially combat, that was quite different than the lineage of D&D.

I personally didn't mind and was willing to try it out, and enjoyed it for a few years. But at some point I started wanting a more "traditional" theater-of-mind approach.

 

[Mercurius]

I don't think so. In classic D&D, and in D&Dnext as currently written, the player cannot nominate the resource whereby a challenge will be tackled, unless either (i) the challenge is a very straight forward combat one, and the player is nominating an attack, or (ii) the resource the player is deploying is a spell. Otherwise the player has to specify an action that his/her PC might like to attempt, and wait for the GM to nominate a relevant resource (eg a stat check in Next, or a d% roll in classic D&D). I don't know what the 3E norms are in this respect.

OK, I see what you mean - you're talking about a greater degree of player choice - choosing resources - rather than character choice, as the player acting as the character within the world of the story itself.

To me this is part of the "problem" with 4e - what you explain here, where a player is running their character like a game piece, rather than the player running their character like a character within a story.

This isn't about right or wrong, but the tone of the game changes.

While saving throws were fortune-in-the-middle, we could think of fighters as tough, and resilient, in the Conan or Aragorn model, and therefore give them appropriately robust saving throw numbers, without worrying, at the point of design, what that toughness correlates to in the fiction. Indeed, in his DMG Gygax offers as an example of a successful save vs dragon breath the possibility that the PC ducked into a narrow (and hitherto unnarated) crevice in the rock. That is, Gygax endorsed (i) Schroedinger's crevices, and (ii) that fighters are more likely to encounter and get the benefit of them than magic-users.

Once you decide to frame everything in process simulation terms - and with the exception of the core hp and action economy mechanics 3E tends strongly in this direction - then fortune-in-the-middle abilities are ruled out. And without those sorts of abilities, fighters start to look pretty weak, because their abilities will be modelledon real-world human physiological and psychological processes, which are not adequate to the task of fighting dragons or resisting mental domination by vampires.

That was part of my point: because without viable fighters who can stand up against dragon breath and vampires, Arthurian romance-style RPGing is impossible.

But I was also alluding to a broader point: that process simulation mechanics close of a range of narrative possibilities that we can very easily imagine, and that conversely FitM can open such possibilities up.

Very interesting - and on a level of critical analysis of the game that I generally don't do. Very impressive, actually!

I think my issue isn't with the "FitM" rules as they do allow for what could be called "heroic narrative possibilities". My issue is with the net result of 4e mechanics that separate the player into the operator of the character as game piece on a game board.

I think what you are saying, in a way, is that 3e was a bit confused in that it was trying to be too realistic (simulative) in some respects (e.g. fighters), but not in others (e.g. spellcasters) - which created the infamous lopsided class power comparisons, which spellcasters far out-pacing non-spellcasters in double-digit levels.

The other extreme, though, is fighters with "powers." I would have preferred if they were given something akin to maneuvers and combat styles, and think that Essentials was on the right track in this regard.

In a more straightforward D&D game without powers and such, I can see incorporating some kind of luck or fate mechanic which non-spellcasters get because they don't consciously manipulate magical forces, and thus are "infused" with it subconsciously. So a fighter could spend "fate points" to empower an attack, sort of like an adrenaline rush, in modern vernacular - like when a mother lifts a car to save her child. This still involves a certain degree of player-character duality, but at least it gives players the opportunity to "power up" on occasion for a heroic deed.

When a character is low on hit points, and is in danger of being killed, and the players are wondering whether the player of the cleric can pull of a sequence of moves that will both (i) defeat the monsters, and (ii) save the dying PC, that is not imagining fear, and tension, and hope, and the possibility of leadership. That is experiencing those things. There is real fear that the PC might die, real tension arising from the uncertainty of the situation, real hope in the capabilities of the cleric player, and the real possibility of that player displaying leadership, turning the situation around and bringing his/her friends back into the action.

A game needs a fairly tight design to produce these experiences. If outcomes are foregone, there will be no tension. If all the big deals depend on GM fiat, there is no hope and expectation in relation to one's fellow players. (If the GM lies, there might be hope and expectation based on the illusion of possibility. But an illusion of possibility is not the same thing as actual possibility. Illusions are also prone to being dispelled.)

Again, this is will said. But again, my problem with 4e is that I found that players, at least in my game, would look at a bunch of cards and always decide their actions based upon those options written down in front of them, rather than what I experienced in older versions of the game where players would imagine themselves as the character and act accordingly. This opened the door to any number of possibilities, not just the printed out power cards.

Now 4e does, of course, have page 42. And at one point I found myself house ruling to try to encourage players to think outside of the powers box. But the result was that they rarely did. Maybe other games are different - I'm sure some players took page 42 seriously and ran with it. But I've hard enough similar anecdotes to mine to think that the very design of 4e discourages that sort of imaginative creativity - not overtly, but certainly through implication.

And flipping it around, from aesthetic dissatisfaction to aesthetic satisfaction - part of the point of my post was to make a case that if you want an aesthetic experience in RPGing that captures the feel of reactionary fantasy of the Excalibur sort, it may be that more avant garde techniques are what is required.

But that's never been the point of what I was talking about with regards to Excalibur, as I explained a couple times. I'm not talking about (nor opposed to) simulating Excalibur. I was talking only, or mainly, about the phrase "the secret that was lost," which I am relating to the experience of imaginative wonderment. The question - which I don't have a clear answer for, and am open to different views - is what role different rules and approaches have in relationship to imaginative generation. Among other things! I was riffing, improvising, not performing a pre-written symphony.

This has come up on the religion thread that's ongoing at the moment. Many posters, when they talk about "imagining religion in D&D play", are looking for details about rites, and holy days, and the like. For me that is quite secondary. When I'm playing a religious PC, I don't particularly care what his/her rites are - I'll make them up as we go along if I need them. What I want is mechanics + situation that will have me praying to my god, in character, in order to resolve some ingame crisis, and feeling the urgent longing of prayer conjoined with the unshakeable hope of faith. If a system can't give me that - for instance, because it's framing and resolution mechanics don't differentiate between a devotee seeking help from a god and a rogue hoping to get lucky while playing at dice - then it is not going to give me the sort of immersive experience I am looking for, now matter how much detail it provides about the wording of my prayers or the shape and colour of my dice.

So what is it, exactly, that gives you "the sort of immersie experience" you are looking for? Can you pin it down? You seem to imply that it is, in fact, dependent upon the resolution mechanics. But what exactly?

 

[Mercurius]

I see this as analogous to the difference between "motivation" and "values". "Motivation" is what makes you want to act - what you "like". "Values" are what you consider to be praiseworthy, admirable or virtuous. These two do not necessarily align for a single individual, never mind for a society or group. What is more, different people will almost assuredly have different sets for both of them. Motivation is an instinctive and natural thing; it is what it is and you generally can't fake it for any length of time even if you try. Values, on the other hand, are more intellectual things, and as such may be changed and/or faked with some effort. They are susceptible, also, to social pressure to have the "right" values and acceptance of particular values often denotes (or is used to simulate) membership of a specific culture or group.

Is any one set of motivations ("likes") somehow "correct"? Most would say "of course not"; you like what you like. But what about values? Most people would argue strongly that the values espoused by their culture are "correct", but I'm not really convinced. In cases where specific values have some consensus across cultures maybe the argument could be made that the specific value concerned is "more virtuous" - and a scant few values are supported by rational argument - but I don't think any complete "set" of values can be claimed as "superior". A few might arguably be "universal", but that would have to be adjudged case-by-case.

A bit off topic, but a nice bit here. The academic/postmodern party line is to default to subjectivity, but of course the problem here is that you end up with such insanity that "all values are equal," which of course enables Egyptian female castration or Taliban abuse of women as being "culturally appropriate."

I think there is a good body of literature that points to cross-cultural development with regards to things such as values (and perhaps motivation). Psychologist Jenny Wade found, in a study of women, that people develop from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric in terms of their "sphere of concern," which is sort of the moral or affective cousin to values.

Or we could look at Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which is another kind of developmental scheme.

So whether or not there are universal values, they do seem to unfold in a somewhat sequential manner, if only loosely. A worldcentric value structure allows for a broader concern for others compared to an ethnocentric (or nationalistic) one.

 

[Balesir]

Again, this is will said. But again, my problem with 4e is that I found that players, at least in my game, would look at a bunch of cards and always decide their actions based upon those options written down in front of them, rather than what I experienced in older versions of the game where players would imagine themselves as the character and act accordingly. This opened the door to any number of possibilities, not just the printed out power cards.

Now 4e does, of course, have page 42. And at one point I found myself house ruling to try to encourage players to think outside of the powers box. But the result was that they rarely did. Maybe other games are different - I'm sure some players took page 42 seriously and ran with it. But I've hard enough similar anecdotes to mine to think that the very design of 4e discourages that sort of imaginative creativity - not overtly, but certainly through implication.

A couple of things spring to my mind, here. The first is that this is not my experience with 4E. I think it must be for some people, and I'm not sure why, but I generally see the players engaged with the position of their character (both literal and figurative) in the fictional space and their objectives before ever they consider what powers they have available. The powers are tools and resources available to achieve the ends they set themselves, not the determinants of their objectives. I think, perhaps, this type of play does require at least moderate facility with the rules (the general framework, not the specific rules for every power), but the players I play with have achieved a sufficient level some time ago.

The second point is that I think the idea of constraints "stifling imagination/creativity" is to some extent a false one. The analogies to chess and so on have been overused, but look at art. While it might be true in principle that a wider range of expression is available with abstract art, it can hardly be said that representational art has ever lacked in variety or creativity! Limiting oneself to representations - even photorealistic ones - of real or imagined objects seems to leave ample space for flights of fancy. I think the same is true of RPG rules. The permutations and combinations that arise from rules that are hard and fast but designed to mix and combine in interesting ways has a value just as valid as - and to me more valuable than - totally unfettered free expression.

But that's never been the point of what I was talking about with regards to Excalibur, as I explained a couple times. I'm not talking about (nor opposed to) simulating Excalibur. I was talking only, or mainly, about the phrase "the secret that was lost," which I am relating to the experience of imaginative wonderment. The question - which I don't have a clear answer for, and am open to different views - is what role different rules and approaches have in relationship to imaginative generation. Among other things! I was riffing, improvising, not performing a pre-written symphony.

I have a different secret to ponder. Original D&D opened up a wondrous universe of possibility to us all, but to me it had a "secret that was never found" until much later. That secret was the role of the rules in communicating among the players the nature and conceits of the game world. The rules give the players a firm understanding of what their characters can do and what to expect of the world in response; my experience is that this liberates them to act with confidence in the game world and to genuinely feel that they have "competence" when playing a badass hero.

I'm not [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], but I think this is part of what he is getting at with his "version" of immersion. If my character is supposed to be a competent and skilled operator, but I have no real clue how the game world works in respect of the character's abilities, I do not feel "immersed" in my character. I know I'm supposed to feel confident and capable - but how can I when any action I take is based merely on a guess of what results it may have?

I think there is a good body of literature that points to cross-cultural development with regards to things such as values (and perhaps motivation). Psychologist Jenny Wade found, in a study of women, that people develop from egocentric to ethnocentric to worldcentric in terms of their "sphere of concern," which is sort of the moral or affective cousin to values.

This is indeed a byway, but I actually think there are some values that are absolute - they just don't cover everything like a blanket. Instead of specifying what sort of icecream you should like, for example, they simply say you should be honest about what you like and allow others to like what they like. They don't even rule out disagreeing with others but still allowing them to follow their own preferences. I think Piers Benn put it well; I don't remember the exact words, but paraphrasing: "tolerance is a good thing, but it's important to realise that I tolerate things that I disagree with, because tolerating what I agree with would be stupid".

 

[pemerton]

Mercurius, I don't what range of RPGs you are familiar with, and so I do not know what other games you are intending to pick up in your critique. You seem to be launching a salvo against a whole range of games, and not just contemporary ones either: you seem to be attacking any game in which the player's response, when the GM narrates a situation in which that player's PC finds him-/herself, is to consider what game mechanical resources s/he has to bring to bear.

This seems to pick up not only 4e but such "traditional" games as RQ, RM, Traveller and 3E. Indeed, it seems to pick up any game in which the player is expected to, and expecting to be able to impact the fiction via any technique other than "persuade the GM it's a good/fun idea".

what you explain here, where a player is running their character like a game piece, rather than the player running their character like a character within a story.

<snip>

My issue is with the net result of 4e mechanics that separate the player into the operator of the character as game piece on a game board.

<snip>

my problem with 4e is that I found that players, at least in my game, would look at a bunch of cards and always decide their actions based upon those options written down in front of them, rather than what I experienced in older versions of the game where players would imagine themselves as the character and act accordingly. This opened the door to any number of possibilities, not just the printed out power cards.

There is no contradiction between playing a game and imagining oneself as a character. The alternative to playing a game is to simply express desires for one's character, and have the GM tell you whether or not those desires are realised.

As soon as the igname fiction is changed in relation to a player's expression of a chara cter's desire without GM intermediation, we have an instance of a player "operating his/her character as a game piece" - that is, narrating changes in the gameworld outside the PC's inner life in ways that are somehow related to the player's conception of what his/her PC wants.

The only game that I enjoy played in a way other than this is Call of Cthulhu, because that is a game about losing control. Otherwise, I am not interested in simply expressing my character's wants and having the GM decide what comes of that.

I would also add - there is a difference between "playing a character as a game piece" - ie having regard to the metagame - and "playing the character as a game piece on a game board" - which I take to imply what Ron Edwards calls "pawn stance". No doubt 4e can be played in pawn stance, but I don't think it's particular in that regard - the whole of Gygaxian play seems to have taken place in pawn stance, and I find it hard to imagine playing a module like Tomb of Horrors or White Plume Mountain in any other mode.

But I have never played 4e in this mode.

The other extreme, though, is fighters with "powers."

<snip>

In a more straightforward D&D game without powers and such, I can see incorporating some kind of luck or fate mechanic which non-spellcasters get because they don't consciously manipulate magical forces, and thus are "infused" with it subconsciously. So a fighter could spend "fate points" to empower an attack, sort of like an adrenaline rush, in modern vernacular - like when a mother lifts a car to save her child. This still involves a certain degree of player-character duality, but at least it gives players the opportunity to "power up" on occasion for a heroic deed.

I personally don't understand why metagame via the AEDU structure is widely regarded as pernicious, and metagame via Fate Points is widely regarded as acceptable, but I do acknowledge that this view seems to be widely held, at least on ENworld.

Part of the attraction, for me, of the 4e approach is that it produces a more granular rationing, which in turn produces more diversity in play and also allows more sophisticated interaction with the action economy.

dynamic activity, [/I]one that is generative.

<snip>

My concern, as someone interested in human imagination and creativity, is that the cultural trend is towards more passivity, more of the receptive mode, and I feel that the trend of Dungeons & Dragons has loosely followed this, with and emphasis on more passive modes with "New School" editions, 3e and 4e.

So what is it, exactly, that gives you "the sort of immersie experience" you are looking for? Can you pin it down? You seem to imply that it is, in fact, dependent upon the resolution mechanics. But what exactly?

I'm not pemerton, but I think this is part of what he is getting at with his "version" of immersion. If my character is supposed to be a competent and skilled operator, but I have no real clue how the game world works in respect of the character's abilities, I do not feel "immersed" in my character. I know I'm supposed to feel confident and capable - but how can I when any action I take is based merely on a guess of what results it may have?

What Balesir says here is certainly on the right track.

I don't find 4e remotely uncreative or "passive". In fact I find it puts intense demands on players, as it calls upon them to play their PC - to get inside that character, as expressed as a suite of mechanical resources plus story elements and inclination, and not simply to sit back and let the GM do all the heavy lifting.

Besides having the mechanical resources to actually express my character, the other part of the "immersive experience", for me, is having the play of an ingame situation reflect, and evolve in a way that reflects, the stakes for my PC. This is related to mechanics - because these will dictate, to a large extent, how ingame situations unfold during play - and also to the story elements that the game has the capacity to express and make matter. 4e has a narrower range in this respect than, say, HeroWars/Quest; and a different range from Burning Wheel (less grit, more fantastic romance). But within that range I feel it does a reasonable job of bringing characters to life in play.

 

[Minigiant]

One of the core conflicts of an RPG is that you are trying to playas the character but using the character's attributes and feates. This is the role of rules. When you make John jump over the hole, you are using John's abilty to jump and imagining John jumping. The rules or rulings determine whether or not John makes the jump and by how much. Because John is not you, there needs to be a frame of reference for the player to think like John.

And that is the issue. Finding the sweetspot of having the player be as informed about the world as the character at the same time not pulling the player too far into the reference informations (Da Rules or the DM ruling) that they do not move away from the character.

"Why would I make John jump if I don't know how far he can usually jump." That is one of the core sliding scales of RPG. How informed do you the players of their characters' abililty without giving them a feeling that you are locking all their actions down into the character sheet.