Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 6008779" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Well, yeah, I suppose combat generally is that way.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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. 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.]First, let me say that the terms "Conflict Resolution" and "Task Resolution" are of limited value, as described <a href="http://gamingphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/09/conflict-and-task-resolution.html" target="_blank">here</a>. 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. 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. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /> I sadly no longer have my books to quote. I think I'd call myself a reformed Forge-ite. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> 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 <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">Story Now</a> article:"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. I have, but I'll respond here.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.</blockquote>

Verification