D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[Ahnehnois]

But glaring plot holes and failures of internal logic in the movie will pull me out (not terribly familiar with the new batmans but saw the first one so I think I get your point).

The third one unfortunately was guilty of these. But the first two I totally bought, despite conceits and errors, because they made the effort.

I also dont think the goals of a film and of an rpg are the same (at least not for me).

No, but film/TV is generally the best analogy I can think of. The process used to make a film has a lot of similarities to DMing, and the final product has a lot of similarities to a game session. But there are also many differences.

The goals of an rpg aren't really the same as anything other than an rpg.

 

[Guest 85555]

The third one unfortunately was guilty of these. But the first two I totally bought, despite conceits and errors, because they made the effort.

I saw the first one in the theater and the second in on bootleg (wasnt paying much attention to it and was very forgiving of any flaws because it was such a poor quality dvd). Havent seen the third yet. The first one I bought as well. Mostly because the fight choreaography, while still over the top, was a little closer to ground level for my tastes (it had the feel of real fighting over movie fighting to me if that makes sense--but was still highly cinematic).

No, but film/TV is generally the best analogy I can think of. The process used to make a film has a lot of similarities to DMing, and the final product has a lot of similarities to a game session. But there are also many differences.

The goals of an rpg aren't really the same as anything other than an rpg.

I understand. I only bring this up because often in these discussions, I see people use making it feel like a movie or book as a measure of succesful design assuming that is what everyone else wants from the game. Even people who both want their game to feel like Conan often mean very different things by that (some people want a certain kind of structure, others want a general vibe in play, while others may be looking for particular outcomes, etc).

 

[Imaro]

There are also different types of immersion. For instance, I play a lot of FATE-style games which provide narrative control options for players, and I tend to find that these systems can reduce my level of immersion in an individual character, but at the same time they enhance my immersion in the setting and story.

Yeah I can definitely see this...

Very much so. Its one of the reasons I like FATE so much. That experience is one of the goals of FATE design, and I think its very successful in that regard.

I think, in general I agree with this, moreso with versions of FATE like Dresden Files, where the whole group takes part in creating the setting...

Good point! For me that's the same sort of theme 4e hits.

-O

Hmmm, I think one big difference between FATE and 4e is that FATE is very up front about the type of experience (all players will make multiple leaps between actor and author stance). You're either going to enjoy both playing a specific character and having to also take author stance and the type of play it engenders, thus enjoying a game like FATE or it's going to be something you're just not looking for as a player and enjoy the hard delienation between GM and player roles.

4e on the other hand, IMO, seems like it's trying to straddle the line between traditional actor-stance rpg while sprinkling in semi-hidden dashes of author-stance switch up in some of it's mechanics and advice, while also making some of those same elements non-author stance in nature (the prime example being that some powers force one to take author-stance, while others seem to only require actor-stance)... I think for those who have enjoyed D&D's predominately player=actor-stance style, this creates dissonance and grates on their immersion and enjoyment of the game. For those who play more games like FATE or enjoy the experience that shifting from actor stance to author stance brings to an rpg, they are more likely to enjoy 4e. Personally I think the number of people who enjoy traditional player=actor stance rpg's is a greater number than those who want to exert narrative control or authorship and play a character during the game... I also believe that player=author-stance is easier for most casual gamers to grok... of course that's purely annecdotal put it's the impression I get.

 

[pemerton]

4e on the other hand, IMO, seems like it's trying to straddle the line between traditional actor-stance rpg while sprinkling in semi-hidden dashes of author-stance switch up in some of it's mechanics and advice, while also making some of those same elements non-author stance in nature (the prime example being that some powers force one to take author-stance, while others seem to only require actor-stance)... I think for those who have enjoyed D&D's predominately player=actor-stance style, this creates dissonance and grates on their immersion and enjoyment of the game.

This doesn't fit with my own experience for two reasons.

First, for me D&D has not always been actor stance - hit points, in particular, have never been about actor stance. They are a luck/fate/divine providence mechanic, which (in my experience) players refer to all the time in making decisions for their PCs and for the party as a whole. And when the table is sitting around talking about the depth of their reservoirs of luck, in my view that is not actor stance. It's a discussion about a metagame resource. (There are other elements of D&D that are similar - eg worrying about saving throw bonuses, or about XP that might be lost to level draining, but hit points are the one that stand out for me as almost ever-present in play.)

Second, the players in my 4e group have played almost exclusively D&D and/or Rolemaster. Some also played a bit of Top Secret back in the day. But they have no trouble getting into 4e, and those who like to get into character do so as much in 4e as in the other systems that I've played with them. As I've said in the past, Come and Get It may in some logical sense involve director stance, but when it's actually played at the table it can be done without leaving the PC perspective: "As they come towards me I gut them all!". And there is a reason for this - the player, to use the power, does not have to introduce any new, previously unspecified element into the share fiction. It's quite unlike the ability in (say) Burning Wheel to use a knowledge or perception check to introduce some new fact into the gameworld. It's much more like (for instance) a mage describing some action by his/her familiar, which has never interefered with immersion on the part of any mage player I've gamed with.

I'm not disputing that some people don't like Come and Get It, in part because of its effect on their immersion. My point is that this can't be attributed to any general phenomenon like "preference for first-person play" or "familiarity only with traditional RPGs".

I think the number of people who enjoy traditional player=actor stance rpg's is a greater number than those who want to exert narrative control or authorship

Again, I think you are mischaracterising the sorts of authorship demands that 4e makes on its players. Declaring as part of a power usage that a group of nearby NPCs move towards you is quite different as a play experience from (for instance) expending a Plot Token to declare that there really is a pot plant on the balcony that you can drop on your pursuer's head.

I also believe that player=author-stance is easier for most casual gamers to grok.

My 4e group has only one player whom I introduced to RPGs (via Rolemaster). From the beginning he took it for granted that, as a player, he had a role to play in setting up backstory related to his PC (family, alliances, nemeses etc). It would never have occurred to him that his role in the game would be limited to generating a PC and then learning about the content of the shared fiction from the GM entirely via in-character experiences.

 

[pemerton]

I generally don't sweat telling the players about specific kinds of Limits the bad guys might have, though the situation is always the best measure of how much the players might know. One cool thing is to reward players who spend a Transition Scene picking up an information-based resource on the villain (or grab one during play) by also telling the player what the villain's Limit is.

Thanks very much for the reply.

The OM gave me the impression that the main function of Resources is to grant bonus dice to subsequent actions. Whereas your reply here, plus some Transition scene descriptions in the Civil War book, give me the impression that spending a PP to accrue a Resource can be a bit more like (say) picking up a clue in Trail of Cthulhu. In the latter circumstance, would the player also get a bonus die if the clue became relevant in action resolution?

For instance, if a player spends a PP in a Transition scene to learn about a villain's weakness (say a Pscyh resource in "friendly conversation" with the villain's mentor), as well as the info that can then be exploited when the villain is confronted, should they get a bonus Resource die when resolving that confrontation?

 

[Imaro]

This doesn't fit with my own experience for two reasons.

First, for me D&D has not always been actor stance - hit points, in particular, have never been about actor stance. They are a luck/fate/divine providence mechanic, which (in my experience) players refer to all the time in making decisions for their PCs and for the party as a whole. And when the table is sitting around talking about the depth of their reservoirs of luck, in my view that is not actor stance. It's a discussion about a metagame resource. (There are other elements of D&D that are similar - eg worrying about saving throw bonuses, or about XP that might be lost to level draining, but hit points are the one that stand out for me as almost ever-present in play.)

The difference is that hit points, as a mechanic, do not force you to play from author stance. I could definitely see a player who wants to stay in actor-stance not making decisions in the manner you are speaking of (it does seem like the choices a gamist player would lean towards though), since nothing inherent in the game forces him to... as opposed to our favorite whipping boy CaGi, where no matter what, you will decide where the DM's character's has in fact decided to move if you use the power... or as another example, some of the warlords powers where you will decide where another PC you do not control has moved as an intrinsic part of using the power.

Second, the players in my 4e group have played almost exclusively D&D and/or Rolemaster. Some also played a bit of Top Secret back in the day. But they have no trouble getting into 4e, and those who like to get into character do so as much in 4e as in the other systems that I've played with them. As I've said in the past, Come and Get It may in some logical sense involve director stance, but when it's actually played at the table it can be done without leaving the PC perspective: "As they come towards me I gut them all!". And there is a reason for this - the player, to use the power, does not have to introduce any new, previously unspecified element into the share fiction. It's quite unlike the ability in (say) Burning Wheel to use a knowledge or perception check to introduce some new fact into the gameworld. It's much more like (for instance) a mage describing some action by his/her familiar, which has never interefered with immersion on the part of any mage player I've gamed with.

The player made them come towards him... when he physically moves them (and chooses exactly where they go) on the grid, how is he not now in author stance? As to your familiar example, it's different. I can play the familiar as either a seperate character, an extension of my character... or let the DM play him (with my PC commanding him) and avoid the issue alltogether... so no, deciding and moving characters explicitely under the DM's control, is not the same as controlling (for all intents and purposes) a character resource/abiltiy you have.

I'm not disputing that some people don't like Come and Get It, in part because of its effect on their immersion. My point is that this can't be attributed to any general phenomenon like "preference for first-person play" or "familiarity only with traditional RPGs".

I never said EVERYONE who doesn't like CaGI has X, Y and Z characteristics... what I did do was note what I have witnessed and experienced, thus the annecdotal disclaimer at the end of my post.

Again, I think you are mischaracterising the sorts of authorship demands that 4e makes on its players. Declaring as part of a power usage that a group of nearby NPCs move towards you is quite different as a play experience from (for instance) expending a Plot Token to declare that there really is a pot plant on the balcony that you can drop on your pursuer's head.

I don't think it's as different as you claim it is... I get to control the actions of characters that are not my own...IMO... is very similar to changing the scenery. I mean that's all NPC's are is scenery, and I've overriden whatever the DM planned for them to do through using this power and instead made them move where I want them to go.

My 4e group has only one player whom I introduced to RPGs (via Rolemaster). From the beginning he took it for granted that, as a player, he had a role to play in setting up backstory related to his PC (family, alliances, nemeses etc). It would never have occurred to him that his role in the game would be limited to generating a PC and then learning about the content of the shared fiction from the GM entirely via in-character experiences.

So you have your experience and I have mine, most people that I've played with new to rpg's don't assume that they do anything beyond create a character by the book that they want to play. Now if the DM asks them about backstory and all that then they may think about it, but I don't think that's the typical response of a new player in their very first game of D&D (it certainly wasn't the behavior I saw from new people being introduced in encounters)... but again, annecdotal evidence and all.

 

[timASW]

If calculating the volume of an irregular hemisphere whenever a fireball is cast in a cave doesn't disturb your immersion,

Nobody does that.

how in the heck does tripping an ooze?

Have you never seen an ooze before? Your tripping a big blob that crawls around. Its physically impossible to trip it.

If having to reference at least three different tables to make an attack doesn't bother you,

I've never even seen someone do that. Much less do it myself. Thats a completely ludicrous strawman.

If having more HP than an elephant doesn't cause you to look in confusion, why in heck would healing surges bother you?

I in fact LOATH them both. So I use various optional rules instead. Either VP/WP or grim and gritty's rules.

I mean, heck, what does rolling for initiative actually mean in the game world? It's a complete abstraction. ?

No its not. Rolling for initiative is a test of your reflexes and awareness in the face of danger with the element of random chaos inherent to any violent situation.

It doesn't phase you in the slightest that you get one, and only one, opening to hit something per time period, no matter what?

Absolutely not. You only get so many chances to make a significant strike in any fight. If anything D&D's 6 second rounds are overly generous with how many chances they give you in any given time frame.

And it doesn't bother you that the other guy will ALWAYS get a chance to hit you back before you get to try again?

Nope. Taking a chance at that significant strike necessitates opening yourself up and taking a risk while you attack. Thus allowing your target to also having a chance to land a significant strike.

I'm honestly truly baffled by people who point to D&D as this highly immersive game. It boggles me to no end. Just how much of the system do you have to internalize and/or ignore to achieve that?

I understand how that can happen when your laboring under so many misconceptions about it.

 

[Obryn]

I probably don't understand this stance talk very well, but for me I can see the whole stance-switching argument. I just don't see it as a particularly big deal - it's an extension of how D&D has always looked to me. As I've said, though, I'm hardly Mr. Immersion, so...

 

[Hussar]

Nobody does that.

You've never cast a fireball indoors? Really?

Have you never seen an ooze before? Your tripping a big blob that crawls around. Its physically impossible to trip it.

But not impossible to impede in some form, giving the same effect as tripped.

I've never even seen someone do that. Much less do it myself. Thats a completely ludicrous strawman.

I in fact LOATH them both. So I use various optional rules instead. Either VP/WP or grim and gritty's rules.

Really? You've never referenced the weapon vs armor table, the to-hit charts in the DMG and possibly a third place to determine terrain/facing/flanking effects?

No its not. Rolling for initiative is a test of your reflexes and awareness in the face of danger with the element of random chaos inherent to any violent situation.

Yup, you've internalized and rationalized to the point where you do not even see the difference.

Absolutely not. You only get so many chances to make a significant strike in any fight. If anything D&D's 6 second rounds are overly generous with how many chances they give you in any given time frame.

ROTFLMAO. First off, for a long part of D&D, a round was one MINUTE, not 6 seconds. Secondly, I take it you don't watch boxing or really, any professional contact sport.

Nope. Taking a chance at that significant strike necessitates opening yourself up and taking a risk while you attack. Thus allowing your target to also having a chance to land a significant strike.




I understand how that can happen when your laboring under so many misconceptions about it.

And, I cannot see how you can rationalize all of this and NOT recognize what you are doing.

 

[Guest 85555]

I don't think it is particularly helpful to tell people they have internalized the rules to the point that they don't understand their own opinions.