Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6227763" data-attributes="member: 42582">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".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 <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/" target="_blank">"pawn stance"</a>. 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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification