D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[pemerton]

I remember it as being Burning Wheel - by Luke (I forget the last name).

Luke Crane.

A rule that said that the players could if they decided they didn't like a GMs ruling, override it. I may have it out of context though. I remember a big kerfluffle at RPG net about, and looking into the rulebook at a local gameshop, and saw that, and thought "Nope not for me".

In D&D I think it is understood that if a player describes his/her PC as having a certain hair colour or eye colour (and those fit within the permissible range of hair colours for the people of the campaign world), or a certain sexuality, or a certain fondness for plain clothes or fancy clothes, or some other thing personal to the PC and mechanically insignificant, then the GM does not have authority to change that description.

Similarly, if I say "My guy doesn't like snakes", the GM can't override my decision about what my PC does or doesn't like.

And then getting into the nitty gritty of action resolution, if I roll an attack or save or damage die, the GM generally doesn't have authority to change the number that I rolled, and that I feed into the action resolution mechanics.

But all these limits on GM authority are implicit. The books don't spell them out. (And at least one limit is disputed: namely, whether or not the GM has the prerogative to fudge his/her own die rolls performed in the course of action resolution.)

Burning Wheel is a lot more forthright and upfront in stating clearly what authority the GM has, and what authority the player has, over the content of the fiction and the processes of action resolution. I haven't got my book in front of me, but the closest thing I can think of to what you describe would be a characterisation of a GM as "cheating" if the GM calls for retests when the circumstances haven't changed (as part of the Let it Ride rule).

The analogue of this in D&D would be a GM who insists that an NPC is not dead even though a player has reduced the NPC to 0 hp. (And there is nothing else going on, like regeneration or resurrection.) But whereas D&D is vague on where the GM's limits lie, BW is fairly clear.

I do know just from reading the rules that I would hate to play in the game, but then I am fairly hardcore sim - and about the furthest you could be from nar.

BW's core build and resolution mechanics are pretty sim - objective DCs, stats and skills, Lifepaths for PC generation, etc - but it has a few key rules that push it in a narrativist direction, especially Let It Ride, and it's rules for adjudicating failed checks.

 

[pemerton]

A more narrativist approach does not permit the mechanics to dictate the pacing of the game. That wouldn't make sense for that type of game.

I would want to put it slightly differently: a more narrativist approach doesn't permit fidelity to ingame causality to dictate the pacing of the game.

Where the mechanics are defined in igname causal terms (eg 1 min/lvl durations), then my version and your version end up the same.

But where the mechanics are not defined in such terms, my version can depart from your version. So, for example, pacing driven by recovery mechanics isn't inimical per se to narrativsit play, provided that those recovery mechanics are based around dramatic and thematic considerations (eg as is somewhat the case for 4e - extended rests are still a problem, but easily houseruled eg in [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION]'s fashion) rather than around the passage of ingame time (as is the case for pre-Wand of Cure Light Wounds D&D).

 

[pemerton]

Whoa now, D&D combat is conflict resolution?

<snip>

I would say D&D's traditional combat engine(s) are basically task resolution, even if fairly abstract ones at various times and iterations. (Part of its problem, IMO, is its inconsistency in this regard.) 4e, AFAICT, made it pretty explicitly so. Of course, this may be an open question

You flag it as an open question. I tend to regard the question as settled - hit point style combat is conflict resolution, via task+consequence (as per your Vincent Baker quote - though this may have been less so in classic D&D, because the morale and evasion rules introduced an extra dimension into the game that complicated the determination of consequences, and hived them off from the main task-resolution component).

My problem with it is that, prior to 4e, it tends to make "death" the only consequence - so it's conflict resolution with very narrow and unhelpful stakes.

4e has some new method for addressing Narrativist stakes and premises that isn't in previous editions?

Do tell.

<snip>]

4e's mechanics may provide a lot more "story" and setting elements (color, etc. usually denigrated as "fluff"), however I don't see anything in 4e that does this in a particularly "Narrativist" manner.

I think the packing of PC build elements in 4e is quite important. I think of them as something of an alternative to the "flag" function of HeroWars/Quest descriptors or BW beliefs: instead of the player getting to set them him- or herself, s/he chooses them from a really long list that WotC sells to him/her!

D&D has always had these "colour" flags, of course: I'm a dwarf, or an elf, or a hobbit. 4e is different, in my view, in embedding central thematic issues into many of those choices. In 4e, being a dwarf, or a dragonborn, or a tiefling, or a drow, matters within the cosmological conflict that underpins the game. (Some of the colour choices are weaker in this respect - elves and halflings in particular as races, and some of the more pedestrian paragon paths, like (say) Pit Fighter.)

The same permeation of the cosmological conflict, and the themes it connects to, is found in the monsters which (as Worlds & Monsters explains) have been deliberately revised and in some cases rewritten to fit into the bigger picture in this way. (Eg Giants as the servants of the primordials; Azer and Galeb Duhr as dwarves who did not escape servitude to the giants ant titans; the relationships between undead, Orcus, Vecna and the Raven Queen.)

It's pretty vanilla narrativism, but 4e in my experience does enough to get out of the way (none of the mechanical and exploratory minutiae that get in the way of scene-focused play) and enough to offer support (via the various story elements I've just mentioned), to be a tenable vehicle for narrativist play. Of course it won't do anything that requires moving beyond either generic or distinctly D&D-ish fantasy tropes, but that comes with the territory.

Out of combat, I'm not sure 4e gets any better. I mean really not sure. The Skill Challenge mechanism presented in my DMG is something of a train wreck. It starts of sounding like some kind of Conflict Resolution mechanic, but then immediately explodes into a series of abstract (and to some extent, arbitrary) Task Resolutions.

The key is to look at it through the lens of Burning Wheel. In Burning Wheel, task resolutin + "let it ride" = conflict resolution. So, in a 4e skill challenge, task resolution + "N successes before 3 failure" = conflict resolution. This particular structure can impose some harsh discipline on the GM, and can test your narrative skills - but my feeling is no more than (say) narrating a BW Duel of Wits: a GM in a DoW is always going to have to narrate the response to a Dismiss, for example, having regard to whether or not it succeeded; and likewise a 4e GM has to narrate the consequences of a check in a skill challenge having regard to where it fits in the "N before 3" sequence.

Authority for stakes-setting and framing still resides with the DM.

Framing, yes. D&D 4e utterly presupposes GM authority over scene-framing. But that is not at odds with narrativism: I think it is pretty central to a standard narrativist approach (as per the Eero Tuovinen blog that I think I also linked upthread).

Stakes, though, are a more complex matter. The DMG on p 72 says

Define the goal of the [skill] challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal.​

But the DMG also says (on p 103) that

You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. . . Remember to say yes as often as possible!​

To which the PHB, on p 258, adds

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. . . Quests can also relate to individual
goals . . . Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

That implies a degree of player setting of goals, as well as player flag-flying.

The PHB also says (pp 9, 259):

Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it’s a noncombat encounter. . .

A skill challenge occurs when exploration (page 260) or social interaction becomes an encounter, with serious consequences for success or failure. . . [W]hen you spring a trap or face a serious obstacle or hazard, you’re in a skill challenge. When you try to persuade a dragon to help you against an oncoming orc horde, you’re also in a skill challenge. . .

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail.​

To me, that all implies that players get to set the goals for at least one important category of non-combat encounters resolved as skill challenges, namely, social encounters.

Now I'm not going to insist that any of the above is crystal clear. As is often the case with D&D, they are trying to do multiple (and contradictory) things at once, like supporting both adventure path play (which is about as anti-narrativist as you can get) and something much more player-driven. But I think it shows they are clearly envisioning, as one mode of play, players setting stakes and goals, in part expressed via play and in part expressed via various forms of flag flying, including quests, background, and incorporation of story elements into PC builds.

And the system mostly doesn't actively push against this (contrast AD&D 2nd ed, which, mechanically, does push against what it says play is meant to be about) and in some ways actually supports it!

Narrativism, AFAICT, doesn't really require much in the way of rules...so long as the participants want to engage in that aspect of roleplay.

In my thinking on this stuff I'm a pretty orthodox Forge-ite who has read a lot of Luke Crane, so I don't think I can agree with this. The action resolution mechanics have to be solid enough to deliver meaningful successes or failures without the exercise of GM force, or else the players' choices won't bite in the way that is needed to support narrativist play.

This is a big problem for Rolemaster, outside of combat: while the character build mechanics are great, producing these richly developed PC with flags all over the place, the non-combat action resolution mechanics are a bit of a let down, with more-or-less arbitrary GM setting of target numbers and no way, outside of GM fiat, of introducing and resolving complications in the course of resolution.

Part of the issue with D&D is that a heavily Narrative DM can't really run it without ignoring it.

<snip>

The sad part is watching part of group try to pick it up, and the other part just walk past it.

My narrativism is pretty light. The main technique I try to use is to open up space for the players to inject their own meaning and judgements into the situation, which means (i) following their flags, and (ii) renouncing plot authority. I don't presuppose what the right answer is. Which has resulted in deals for the redemption of slaves from duergar slave traders, swearing (limited) fealty to Kas, and murdering unconscious hobgoblins and helpless devil-worshippers in cold blood. But has also resulted in restoring a ruined temple of Erathis (with a side helping of Bane as part of a compromise deal, and with waterside thugs recruited to be temple guards and tarrif collectors), rescuing and redeeming a fallen paladin of Bahamut, freeing hobgoblins on their own parole, recruiting Bane-ite cultist child soldiers to be town guards instead, and honouring a promise, not entirely freely given, to spare the life of a Torog cultist in return for her handing over of information.

For me, the "now" in "Story Now" doesn't have to be right this very second. I'm happy with a gentle pace and things being light. I think of my game as in many respects really quite traditional. It's mostly from posting on these boards (and also the ICE boards) that I get a sense of the techniques that I use (like my approach to GM force - less rather than more - and my reliance on metagame considerations rather than extrapolation via ingame causality for scene framing) as being less than entirely conventional.

When I was running 4e, all the Narrativist stuff in my game was precisely as "extra regulas" as it was in previous editions.

I've done my best to explain why I think 4e is hospitable to a fairly vanilla, hackneyed fantasy narrativism in a way that earlier versions of D&D are not. But also read my next post!

 

[pemerton]

I look at 3E and think that it looks pretty inhospitable to narrativist play - a lot of grittiness serving no obvious thematic purpose (eg the skill rules, the combat manoeuvre rules), scry-buff-teleport issues killing scene framing and combat pacing dead, etc.

But then I can imagine someone looking at Rolemaster and thinking something similar. Yet I know that RM can be run vanilla narrativist, because I've done it. You have to push against bits of the system, which is a problem, but other bits of the system - like the mechanical depth of PC generation and evolution, and the decision structure to which some aspects of its action resolutin give rise - actually help support narrativist play.

So I'm not saying there can't be 3E narrativism; I'm just not sure how one would go about it. Hence any posts from those who have actually done it would be very welcome and illuminating!

 

[Ratskinner]

You flag it as an open question. I tend to regard the question as settled - hit point style combat is conflict resolution, via task+consequence (as per your Vincent Baker quote - though this may have been less so in classic D&D, because the morale and evasion rules introduced an extra dimension into the game that complicated the determination of consequences, and hived them off from the main task-resolution component).

My problem with it is that, prior to 4e, it tends to make "death" the only consequence - so it's conflict resolution with very narrow and unhelpful stakes.

Well, yeah, I suppose combat generally is that way.

I think the packing of PC build elements in 4e is quite important. I think of them as something of an alternative to the "flag" function of HeroWars/Quest descriptors or BW beliefs: instead of the player getting to set them him- or herself, s/he chooses them from a really long list that WotC sells to him/her!

D&D has always had these "colour" flags, of course: I'm a dwarf, or an elf, or a hobbit. 4e is different, in my view, in embedding central thematic issues into many of those choices. In 4e, being a dwarf, or a dragonborn, or a tiefling, or a drow, matters within the cosmological conflict that underpins the game. (Some of the colour choices are weaker in this respect - elves and halflings in particular as races, and some of the more pedestrian paragon paths, like (say) Pit Fighter.)

hmm...I would respond in two ways:

First, I didn't find that the cosmological conflict presented in 4e was very compelling or that it was very embedded in the mechanics. Certainly less than in In Nomine, for instance. It was embedded in the flavor/fluff that was written around the mechanics...but honestly, I tend to agree with those who think that 4e's mechanics really aren't that fundamentally different from previous editions. The AEDU architecture was certainly new, but at the "roll and resolve" level, nothing all that new, IMO.

Secondly, to have it as you describe would be a bad thing for D&D, IMO. (Perhaps it even was part of the hate for 4e.) One of the things people look for when coming to D&D as DMs is to write their own worlds/cosmologies/histories etc. Embedding a predetermined one into D&D restricts or eliminates that possibility. Yes, I know that there are an infinite number of apples that you can grow on 4e's apple tree, but sometimes people want to create their own pears, or oranges.

It's pretty vanilla narrativism, but 4e in my experience does enough to get out of the way (none of the mechanical and exploratory minutiae that get in the way of scene-focused play) and enough to offer support (via the various story elements I've just mentioned), to be a tenable vehicle for narrativist play. Of course it won't do anything that requires moving beyond either generic or distinctly D&D-ish fantasy tropes, but that comes with the territory.

Getting out of the way is not really enough to be Narrativist, IMO. (See below.)
[Edit: whoops, forgot to get around to it, but I think you understand what I was going to say from some of your comments.]

The key is to look at it through the lens of Burning Wheel. In Burning Wheel, task resolutin + "let it ride" = conflict resolution. So, in a 4e skill challenge, task resolution + "N successes before 3 failure" = conflict resolution. This particular structure can impose some harsh discipline on the GM, and can test your narrative skills - but my feeling is no more than (say) narrating a BW Duel of Wits: a GM in a DoW is always going to have to narrate the response to a Dismiss, for example, having regard to whether or not it succeeded; and likewise a 4e GM has to narrate the consequences of a check in a skill challenge having regard to where it fits in the "N before 3" sequence.

First, let me say that the terms "Conflict Resolution" and "Task Resolution" are of limited value, as described here. The critical factor to making the terms meaningful within a game is whether or not characters have explicit mechanically potent drives, motivations, goals, etc. By being explicit about them, you can put an end to the cycle of nested "motivations" the linked article talks about. Since D&D (in most of its incarnations) lacks such a thing, we're left with it as a muddied question.

Personally, I would say the mechanics of D&D are Task Resolution, because an individual roll rarely determines (by itself) the success of anything other than the specific task at hand. The fact that combining enough of these eventually leads to the resolution of broader character goals is neither surprising or noteworthy. As you've described it, every single rpg ever has conflict resolution.

<snippage of 4e quotes>
Now I'm not going to insist that any of the above is crystal clear. As is often the case with D&D, they are trying to do multiple (and contradictory) things at once, like supporting both adventure path play (which is about as anti-narrativist as you can get) and something much more player-driven. But I think it shows they are clearly envisioning, as one mode of play, players setting stakes and goals, in part expressed via play and in part expressed via various forms of flag flying, including quests, background, and incorporation of story elements into PC builds.

And the system mostly doesn't actively push against this (contrast AD&D 2nd ed, which, mechanically, does push against what it says play is meant to be about) and in some ways actually supports it!

I honestly don't find 4e skill challenge to be anything but a regulated, codified version of what myself, and most other DMs I know, have been doing since 2e. The funny part (given your last paragraph above) is how much it reminds me of 2e's DMing advice. I sadly no longer have my books to quote.

In my thinking on this stuff I'm a pretty orthodox Forge-ite who has read a lot of Luke Crane, so I don't think I can agree with this. The action resolution mechanics have to be solid enough to deliver meaningful successes or failures without the exercise of GM force, or else the players' choices won't bite in the way that is needed to support narrativist play.

I think I'd call myself a reformed Forge-ite. I think the Forgist thinking is somewhat useful, but often (especially as you get to some of the Narrativist things) somewhat muddy.

To me, what your saying above would speak to strong narrativist play. However, from the Story Now article:

Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing. "Address" means:

• Establishing the issue's Explorative expressions in the game-world, "fixing" them into imaginary place.
• Developing the issue as a source of continued conflict, perhaps changing any number of things about it, such as which side is being taken by a given character, or providing more depth to why the antagonistic side of the issue exists at all.
• Resolving the issue through the decisions of the players of the protagonists, as well as various features and constraints of the circumstances.

Can it really be that easy? Yes, Narrativism is that easy. The Now refers to the people, during actual play, focusing their imagination to create those emotional moments of decision-making and action, and paying attention to one another as they do it. To do that, they relate to "the story" very much as authors do for novels, as playwrights do for plays, and screenwriters do for film at the creative moment or moments. Think of the Now as meaning, "in the moment," or "engaged in doing it," in terms of input and emotional feedback among one another. The Now also means "get to it," in which "it" refers to any Explorative element or combination of elements that increases the enjoyment of that issue I'm talking about.

"Its that easy." I think its part of why so many Narrativist games are so simple. WRT D&D IME, Narrativist-minded folks tend to impose their own "bite" as part of the story. Skip to below.

This is a big problem for Rolemaster, outside of combat: while the character build mechanics are great, producing these richly developed PC <snippage>
I've done my best to explain why I think 4e is hospitable to a fairly vanilla, hackneyed fantasy narrativism in a way that earlier versions of D&D are not. But also read my next post!

I have, but I'll respond here. I think you're correct-ish. You seem to be a fairly G/n or perhaps N/g person. So, for you, a more gamist version of D&D does a lot better job of getting out of your way for the N bits. In your second post there, you express that you don't see how someone would go about playing 3e in an N manner. I assert to you that for an S/n or N/s person, 3e is hospitable in a way very similar to how 4e is for you. The key difference (I suspect) is which parts of the system would leap up and grate on the nerves. In both cases, the corresponding mechanical structures groove well with your expectations and ability to use the system, while the alternative structures provide no end of difficulty often kicking you out of your groove and forcing you to deal with system issues you despise.

Me? Well, I suspect I'm pretty much straight N. I don't care too much about whether the mechanics are S or G, and as a player I'm often accused of being the one most likely to care about the story, act "cinematically" etc. The most annoying thing to me is when the mechanics (S or G) slow things down. "Unrealistic?" "Unbalanced?" to me these are both overcome (possibly) through clever framing, presentation, and narration. I have issues with 4e and 3e because to me, both impose a whole lotta rules without a lotta of benefit (just in different ways.)

But then, I'm not sure I totally agree with the GNS framework. The "N" part seems so qualitatively different wrt rules design and the amount of participation necessary, that I suspect it should really be apart from the G-S axis. At the very least, I find that it is ill-defined due to the prejudices of the Forge crowd.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

BW's core build and resolution mechanics are pretty sim - objective DCs, stats and skills, Lifepaths for PC generation, etc - but it has a few key rules that push it in a narrativist direction, especially Let It Ride, and it's rules for adjudicating failed checks.

Thanks for setting me straight.

As for taste, I prefer task resolution approach, and pure actor stance. The only impact I want on the game world is what I can achieve by the actions of my character - so I don't narrate what the success means as a player, because the character cannot decide that in fiction.

But that is taste.

I

 

[pemerton]

First, I didn't find that the cosmological conflict presented in 4e was very compelling

That would be a problem, then, I fully concede. To easily get narrativist play out of 4e I think you have to work with what's there, which means it has to speak to you. (This is partly what I had in mind when I talked about being limited to typical fantasy tropes.)

or that it was very embedded in the mechanics.

I don't think it's strongly embedded in the action resolution mechanics (with some exceptions, like divine radiant damage and its effect on undead). I think it is strongly embedded in many story elements - and not only monsters, but elements of PC build, like race, paragon path, epic destiny, and some powers (probably warlock powers the most, and ranger powers the least).

And I think it can emerge out of the way those story elements unfold through the action resolution mechanics. Both PCs and monsters, in the way they play - because of their traits, powers, etc - tend to push the story one way or another in a thematically suggestive, sometimes even thematically rich, way.

I gave some examples of what I have in mind on a thread we both posted in a few months ago.

On that occasion, in reply to my expressed preference for mechanics that will generate a thematically engaging story, you expressed a preference for the story emerging from the decisions of the players and the GM. I think that difference of preferences is manifesting itself again, to some extent at least, in this current conversation!

I tend to agree with those who think that 4e's mechanics really aren't that fundamentally different from previous editions. The AEDU architecture was certainly new, but at the "roll and resolve" level, nothing all that new, IMO.

For me, it is things like the Deathlock Wight, the Chained Cambion, and the paladin's Valiant Strike - all examples from that earlier thread - that are different. It's not the components, but the way they are assembled and put to work by the game. This is what Worlds & Monsters promised. And what was delivered, at least as I've experienced the game.

to have it as you describe would be a bad thing for D&D, IMO. (Perhaps it even was part of the hate for 4e.) One of the things people look for when coming to D&D as DMs is to write their own worlds/cosmologies/histories etc. Embedding a predetermined one into D&D restricts or eliminates that possibility.

That may well be true (about it being a source of dislike). Although some of what is interesting to me - like the Chained Cambion or the Deathlock Wight - is independent of the cosmology.

Getting out of the way is not really enough to be Narrativist, IMO.

<snip>

"Its that easy." I think its part of why so many Narrativist games are so simple. WRT D&D IME, Narrativist-minded folks tend to impose their own "bite" as part of the story. Skip to below.

<snip>

You seem to be a fairly G/n or perhaps N/g person. So, for you, a more gamist version of D&D does a lot better job of getting out of your way for the N bits.

I don't think there's any special evidence that narrativist games have to be light. The Riddle of Steel is not light. Burning Wheel is not light. The Dying Earth is a bit lighter than those two, but not especially light.

I do have a preference for fairly intricate mechanics - and those mechanics can potentially support gamism as well as narrativism. (I think Ron Edwards is right in saying that some mechanical systems can be tweaked in either direction - he gives as examples Tunnels & Trolls and Marvel Super Heroes TSR-style).

But I think some sort of robust action resolution mechanics are fairly central to narrativsit play, for the reason Eero Tuovinen gives: because without them, the player has to participate in deciding the consequences of his/her choice for his/her PC, which tends to rob it of the character of being a hard or forced choice.

And I also think it can be enough for the mechanics to get out of the way - which is to say that I think vanilla narrativism is possible:

Sh*t! I'm playing Narrativist
In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. . . Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all. . .

Many people mistake low time-scale techniques like Director stance, shared narration, etc, for Narrativism, although they are not defining elements for any GNS mode. Misunderstanding this key issue has led to many people falsely identifying themselves as playing Simulationist with a strong Character emphasis, when they were instead playing quite straightforward Narrativist without funky techniques. . .


Jesse: I'm just still a little confused between Narrativism and Simulationism where the Situation has a lot of ethical/moral problems embedded in it and the GM uses no Force techniques to produce a specific outcome. I don't understand how Premise-expressing elements can be included and players not be considered addressing a Premise when they can't resolve the Situation without doing so.

Me [ie Ron]: There is no such Simulationism. You're confused between Narrativism and Narrativism, looking for a difference when there isn't any. . . .


You cannot get emergent Narrativist play specifically through putting more and more effort into perfecting the Simulationism (which requires that the Narrativism cease), no matter how "genre-faithful" or "character-faithful" it may be. I consider most efforts in this direction to become reasonably successful High-Concept Simulationism with a strong slant toward Situation, mainly useful for enjoyable pastiche but not particularly for Narrativist play at all.

The key issue is System. Narrativist play is best understood as a powerful integration and feedback between character creation and the reward system, however they may work, in that the former is merely the first step of the latter in terms of addressing Premise. Whereas the usual effect in High-Concept Simulationist play is to "fix" player-characters appropriately into the Situation for purposes of affirming the story-as-conceived . . .​

Once the mechanics "get out of the way of addressing premise" - and the sense I had in mind is that they don't drag the focus of play onto other stuff like tracking time, and worrying about who has which iron spike in which pocket of which backpack, etc - then the GM can frame situations that speak to the players, and the players engage them via their PCs. That's vanilla narrativism.

In 4e, the reward system does not have a lot of bite, in my view. It operates at a high level, rather than being tightly integrated into action resolution and moment-by-moment play: by playing the game (which is basically all you need to do to earn XP and get items), your PC progresses through the tiers, and therefore the ingame stakes - which express the metagame thematic concerns - get higher and higher, culminating in the cosmology-shaking showdown with Lolth, Vecna, Orcus, or whomever else is at the centre of play.

This also reinforces my view that 4e is limited in the range of narrativist play it can support. I think this is a natural consequence of it being a mainstream fantasy RPG.

let me say that the terms "Conflict Resolution" and "Task Resolution" are of limited value, as described here. The critical factor to making the terms meaningful within a game is whether or not characters have explicit mechanically potent drives, motivations, goals, etc. By being explicit about them, you can put an end to the cycle of nested "motivations" the linked article talks about. Since D&D (in most of its incarnations) lacks such a thing, we're left with it as a muddied question.

I don't agree that they have to be explicit. Flag-flying - even informal flag flying - can do the job (otherwise vanilla narrativism would not be possible). And I don't think they have to be mechanically potent either. Relationships are mechanically potent in HeroWars/Quest, for example, but not in Burning Wheel. I think it is sufficient that, via the action resolution mechanics, the players can express and pursue their PCs' drives and motivations.

I would say the mechanics of D&D are Task Resolution, because an individual roll rarely determines (by itself) the success of anything other than the specific task at hand. The fact that combining enough of these eventually leads to the resolution of broader character goals is neither surprising or noteworthy. As you've described it, every single rpg ever has conflict resolution.

I don't agree. In 3E, for example, there are two ways of running Diplomacy. One is to ignore the published rules, and adjudicate "how much friendlier" the NPC gets based on some general sense of whether the player's roll was high or low. How much is enough? What is the DC? Are retries permitted, and if so how many, and what has to be offered to trigger a retry? The rules are silent on all this - hence, no conflict resolution.

Alternatively, you can run via the published DC chart, giving rise to the notorious Diplomancer. No conflict resolution here, either, because the player doesn't have to frame a conflict, nor specify a task that will satisfy his/her intent, to deploy the mechanic. I actually think that Diplomacy used in this way is a player scene-framing mechanic - the GM says "You meet a surly NPC" and the player of the Diplomancer makes a roll and gets to say "No I don't - the NPC is friendly!".

The key feature of a skill challenge is that it turns task resolution into conflict resolution via finality on retries, coupled with an obligation on the GM to narrate outcomes with reference to metagame concerns (did or did not the PC get what the player was after) rather than mere extrapolation from ingame causaion. (I can't remember if you've participated in any of the "gorge" threads, but that's the sort of thing I have in mind.)

(I'm going to finish this post by calling on [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION], because I quite like my take on 4e's reward system from the vanilla narrativist point of view, and am curious what he thinks of it!)

 

[Ratskinner]

<snippage of lack of argument>
That may well be true (about it being a source of dislike). Although some of what is interesting to me - like the Chained Cambion or the Deathlock Wight - is independent of the cosmology.

For me, 4e made up for the Cosmology stuff by making monster creation/design so easy that I could re-work whatever I wanted in minutes, rather than hours. For other DMs...well, I guess not. ::shrug::

I don't think there's any special evidence that narrativist games have to be light. The Riddle of Steel is not light. Burning Wheel is not light. The Dying Earth is a bit lighter than those two, but not especially light.

<snippage of much about Narrativism and rules light>

I think I misspoke a bit so let me (I think) clear something up. (Sorry about the time you must have spent writing all that.)

In my head, I make a distinction between Narrativist play and Narrativist rules/systems. So, for instance, for play to be N, it doesn't necessarily need a strong N resolution system, for rules to be N, they do. (If that makes sense.) Admittedly, I deviate from the standard model in my feeling about N vs. G or S, which I'm sure doesn't help matters.

An N game (or mechanics within a game) doesn't have to be rules-light, but it also doesn't have any particular need to be rules-heavy.

I don't agree that they have to be explicit. Flag-flying - even informal flag flying - can do the job (otherwise vanilla narrativism would not be possible). And I don't think they have to be mechanically potent either. Relationships are mechanically potent in HeroWars/Quest, for example, but not in Burning Wheel. I think it is sufficient that, via the action resolution mechanics, the players can express and pursue their PCs' drives and motivations.

For N play, yes. For me to call it an N game, no. My current group has plenty of N play around Dwarf Racial Superiority/Insecurity, but the game we're playing isn't N.

The key feature of a skill challenge is that it turns task resolution into conflict resolution via finality on retries, coupled with an obligation on the GM to narrate outcomes with reference to metagame concerns (did or did not the PC get what the player was after) rather than mere extrapolation from ingame causaion. (I can't remember if you've participated in any of the "gorge" threads, but that's the sort of thing I have in mind.)

"gorge" isn't ringing any bells, so I'd guess not.

I think we just disagree here. Other than codifying the number of successes/failures the DM may require, I don't see anything particularly magical about Skill Challenges vs. cumulative in-game causation. Maybe that's because DMs like myself were running things in a much more "off the book" conflict-resolution style prior to 4e, or maybe not. I've been told I was running Conflict-resolution Fudge prior to even knowing what "Conflict Resolution" was. ::shrug:: I'm also fairly critical/skeptical of mechanics in general, when it comes to this kind of thing.

 

[LostSoul]

First, let me say that the terms "Conflict Resolution" and "Task Resolution" are of limited value, as described here. The critical factor to making the terms meaningful within a game is whether or not characters have explicit mechanically potent drives, motivations, goals, etc. By being explicit about them, you can put an end to the cycle of nested "motivations" the linked article talks about. Since D&D (in most of its incarnations) lacks such a thing, we're left with it as a muddied question.

What do you think about XP for GP? I'm not sure that's enough to provide the difference between task and conflict resolution that Vincent talks about, but maybe... Though I guess the only conflict there is PCs vs. the Dungeon.

(I'm going to finish this post by calling on LostSoul, because I quite like my take on 4e's reward system from the vanilla narrativist point of view, and am curious what he thinks of it!)

It makes sense to me. I don't see anything in 4E that would keep you from playing Story Now. That said:

I think that, if you're going to play that way, you have to take some time to add moral and ethical issues to the game. I don't think they are part of the initial situation of the game - in either the races, classes, or general background of the Points of Light world. ("The world needs heroes", yes, but that suggests High Concept Sim to me. I don't get a strong vibe of "What kind of hero will you be?" from the game.) As you play, the abilities and powers you get don't necessarily suggest more depth or breadth in addressing those issues, though some Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies do.

I don't think it would be very hard to make moral and ethical issues a key feature of play, though. I don't think anything really gets in the way.

[sblock=I blather on about my hack again]I wrote my hack with the purpose of supporting Step on Up play but I think it does more to add those moral and ethical issues into the game than regular 4E does. Warlock Pacts, Cleric and Paladin Oaths, and the relationship of PCs to Settlements, the relationship of Settlements to NPC Lairs, and how the PCs achieve their Goals and Quests all add a degree of moral and ethical issues.

e.g. In one campaign a PC killed the leader of a town and took it over because his Goal is to become a "Lord". The town had worked out a deal with a nearby goblin lair (about 40 combat-capable goblins and two or three times as many non-combatants) - the goblins could "goblin" (that is, steal) from the town without repercussion, but could not steal children and raise them as their own*. The goblin chieftain tried to make a deal with the PC - aid in killing an Oni who slew the chieftain's mates a couple of years ago - but the PC didn't go for it.

The goblins continued to "goblin" from the town and the PC assaulted the Lair. Which drew retaliation. The PC decided to force the townspeople to build a wall around town, and he didn't want to pay them for their labour. The townspeople became very upset - subsistence farmers don't have much free time, they wouldn't be getting paid for their work, and before the PC showed up they never had a problem with the goblins.

Interesting note: The player became frustrated because I was trampling on his Right to Dream - he wanted his PC to be a noble Lord, no questions asked. I questioned his PC's nobility and forced him to make decisions that would determine his PC's character. Would he be a fair and just ruler or a tyrant? It was up to him, he had to decide what kind of a ruler he would be, and he didn't want to make that choice.

* - I was thinking about making bugbears the grown human children of goblins.

I also created a ritual that goblins are fond of:

Craft Changeling
You build a likeness of the child you've kidnapped.
Level: 1
Component Cost: 125 gp + 1 or more healing surges
Category: Creation
Market Price: 50 gp
Time: 6 hours
Key Skill: Arcana or Nature
Duration: 1d4 weeks + 1 week per healing surge
You build an effigy of a child out of enchanted twigs, sticks, mushrooms, mud, the hair of the child, and at least one pint your own blood. Once complete, you place a jet gemstone enscribed with supernal runes or the fresh, still-beating heart of a small animal into the effigy. The ritual complete, your creation takes on the appearance of the child whose hair you've used.

Each pint of blood you use in the ritual drains one healing surge. For each pint of blood you spill, the changeling lives for one more week. You can feed the changeling more of your own blood to keep it alive after it has been created. In the last week of life, the changeling will weaken, grow sick, and finally die, turning back into a bundle of sticks and twigs. If the changeling lives for 13 years, it no longer needs infusions of blood and becomes a gnome.

The changeling appears as the child whose hair you've used. However, there are some telltale signs: the changeling has an unusual greenish tint to its skin or is very pale; it possesses your vocabulary and intelligence; it has a fondness for playing pipes; and it cannot stand the touch of cold iron (steel).

A child who is older than 1 year and a day cannot be used in this ritual.[/sblock]

 

[Neonchameleon]

I also think it's yet another product of lingering bad feelings over the tone of the 4e launch. WotC was so offensive, both in the product they put out and the way they promoted it, that many former fans have become defensive.

Calling 4e as a product offensive is pure edition warring that adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

Some of it is substance, though. "Creativity and flexibility" are in direct conflict with "balance", and WotC has drifted more and more away from the former and towards the latter.

You say that. But flexibility is in direct conflict with creativity. The "I win" button is the most flexible thing you can possibly have - and renders creativity pointless. Creativity comes into its own only when you have limits and challenges.

Sure, flexibility is in conflict with balance. But creativity isn't. Creativity and balance support each other.

Most of the errata for 4e has either been in the form of clarifications, rather than outright mistakes.

And most of the rest has been for a level of balance and polishing that no other tabletop RPG has ever touched.

Hmmm. While you have a point about monster-building, on the whole I'd say AD&D was much more obsessed with getting things physically 'right' than any other edition.

Weapon speed rules. Weapon vs. armor tables. Loads of other fiddly combat rules. The list goes on and on. Even demihuman level limits were given a justification in terms of 'realism'.

Frankly, Gygax was if anything a little too concerned with physics, at least to my taste.

The amusing thing is that so many of them are spectacularly wrong. Especially the weapon speed factors. A dagger is basically the slowest balanced weapon there is. In order to move the point of a dagger three feet you need to move your entire arm about two and a half feet. To move the point of a halberd six feet you need to move your hands about six inches.

Reverse the weapon speed factors and you get somewhere closer to realism.

Whoa now, D&D combat is conflict resolution? 4e has some new method for addressing Narrativist stakes and premises that isn't in previous editions?

Skill Challenges. Get the premises and stakes sorted, and run the resolution as a skill challenge, keeping matters behind the scenes. It works (at least once they fixed the things - I'm not defending the initial implementation).

I would say D&D's traditional combat engine(s) are basically task resolution, even if fairly abstract ones at various times and iterations. (Part of its problem, IMO, is its inconsistency in this regard.) 4e, AFAICT, made it pretty explicitly so. Of course, this may be an open question;

Skill checks are task resolution. Skill challenges tie them into scene resolution in a much more narrativist manner.