Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[Raven Crowking]

What elements of the 4e modules are you talking about, by the way?

This is something to discuss over pints at the pub, if you really can't find any examples of "these monsters never aid those monsters, no matter what."


RC

 

[Herremann the Wise]

4E as a whole has extracted a lot of simulation out of the game. It has been a deliberate attempt to err on the side of "that doesn't make sense" rather than "that kinda sucks" gameplay-wise. That does not jive with a lot of people who like their gameworld to make sense though.

The first sentence I agree with. The last sentence I strongly want to dispute - a gameworld with 4e healing surges might be a bit on the gonzo side, but there is nothing about it that doesn't make sense (ie there need be no retconning, nor any stupid narration). It is this suggestion that 4e players are tolerating nonsense in their gameworlds that makes me buck up a bit.

Fair enough (although remember I'm talking about 4E as a whole here rather than just the hp mechanic). Rephrase the last sentence to:

That does not jive with a lot of people who prefer "that kinda sucks" gameplay-wise over "that doesn't make sense".

An example of such a player/DM would be Celtavian on "that" thread who argued why he thought many of the features of 4e felt artificial to him.

For myself, I'm really enjoying our 4E campaign but there are a few purely gamist elements of 4E that give it a different feel to previous campaigns our group has played. While these elements bother my "that does not make sense" reflex, I can appreciate why Mike Mearls and others have taken the game in the direction they have.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Calithena]

In retrospect, I think this may be a false dichotomy for RPGs. Certainly a hard topic though. I think I'm a 'flavor first' person through and through, but it all depends on some difficult issues. Another thread for me I think.

 

[pemerton]

The Healing Surge mechanic allows you to "overcome" any wounds you have described, but there is a little more going on then that:

<snip>

2) If you drop below 0, there is a realistic chance of dying per RAW. This invites us to describe the wound taken as something like in 3E - heavy arterial bleeding or something like that. But if you take a second wind or the Warlord inspires you to stand up, you're back in the game at regular capacity. This means that either you magically regenerated, or that the wound wasn't as bad as it seemed. But this means that you are unable to create descriptions for hits that are definite. You must stay vague, providing description that can be interpreted either way, since what "really" happened is only decided once you spend a healing surge or die.

Is this good enough for a summary? I hope I didn't misrepresent any position.

You did leave out various options that simulationist players would probably reject, from Intigo Montoya - despite my otherwise mortal wound, I get up and continue the fight - to Aragon in the Two Towers movie - a dream of my destiny wakes me from my swoon - to all other sorts of possible narration - eg the Warlord's Inspiring Words attract the attention of Kord, who staunches my bleeding and raises me to my feet.

 

[pemerton]

I support the idea that, if there are no meaningful consequences in the game, you might as well be sitting out.

I think most players agree. But not all players agree that meaningful consequences for them are utterly coextensive with meaningful consequences for their PCs.

Tough. You fought some kobolds and you died.

<snip>

Tough. You fought a mummy, and there were consequences.

<snip>

Tough.

<snip>

Sorry, but this is exactly what I mean about real accomplishment.

Normally it would be the PC who died, or fought the mummy. But it is the player who suffers consequences (eg having to sit out of the game) and who presumably is aiming at accomplishments. It is possible to have consequences and accomplishments for the player without those real-world consequences and accomplishments corresponding to any particular fictional consequences or accomplishments that accrue to a PC in the gameworld.

I have no interest in playing Candyland.

I refuse to sacrifice satisfaction on the alter of fun.

<snip>

I realize that this style of play isn't for everyone, but, well run, it is surprising how many people enjoy it.

<snip>

Again, I know that this isn't for everyone. 2nd Ed specifically tried to promote that "artificial propping" playstyle beause there are some people who wanted it that way. Making good decisions is ultimately hard.

I buck up a little in response to the suggestion that those who prefer narrativist to 1st-ed style play are playing Candyland and can't make hard decisions. The point of metagame mechanics isn't to "prop up" those who can't cope with a certain sort of gamist play. It's to provide the mechanical tools to achieve a different goal of play.

There's also something else a bit bizarre going on here. I'm prepared to accept that there is a fairly evident sense in which the typical firefighter is tougher than the typical playwright. But I can't really take seriously a rhetorical tone that suggests that a person who wants to play 1st-ed style AD&D is more courageous, in some admirable or virtuous sense, than is a person who wants to play an RPG with narrativist goals in mind.

my nine-year-old daughter seems able, not only to grasp that death means death, but to grasp why death means death makes the game better.

My daughter is more comfortable eating with cutlery than with chopsticks. I'm not sure that anything very definite can be inferred from the fact that a child shares the tastes and/or habits of her parent.

 

[GlaziusF]

Simply put, if my actions don't determine the consequences of game events, there is no point in deciding what to do at all.

Bob is playing a fighter.

Bob's fighter is charged by an orc with a greataxe.

The orc rolls a natural 20, critting Bob for 51 damage.

Bob fails his Fort save.

If you like, replace "orc with a greataxe" with any one of the many spells from the 3E compendium that may as well read "save or die", from color spray on up.

The only action that Bob took was not to run like hell at the first whiff of conflict. Everything after that was random dice and out of Bob's hands. Exactly what should Bob have done differently?

 

[Fifth Element]

Again, my nine-year-old daughter seems able, not only to grasp that death means death, but to grasp why death means death makes the game better.

Much of this post was very condescending. What's the point of the above comment? That even a child can see your preferred playstyle is better? Where does that leave those who disagree with you?

Children believe a lot of things to be true that simply aren't. At that age they also often need to see the world in terms of right or wrong, good or bad. Shades of grey are more difficult to comprehend. As in, some people might prefer it one way, but it doesn't mean that way "makes the game better." Different strokes for different folks, as they say.

 

[Fifth Element]

I refuse to sacrifice satisfaction on the alter of fun.

I don't understand this at all. I believe most people who play games find fun to be satisfying.

Or is this a "D&D...serious business" type of deal?

 

[Hussar]

Glazius - I would point out that your post has been repeated many, many times in many many threads, and it will never, ever get a satisfactory answer. You are apparently at fault for getting anywhere near combat at all, despite the game focusing on combat. It's a strange sort of conceptualization.

In an attempt to wrench this topic away from this sidebar, I pose the following question to all and sundry:

Why was 3e adopted so strongly over 2e? If the priority of design should be flavour first, then 2e should be considered a much better game than 3e. 2e's flavour, and by many accounts, 1e's as well, is considered superiour to 3e. Yet, 3e is far and away more popular. What accounts for this success?

To my mind, it's because 3e actually took a look at what was happening at the table and designed to that. 3e was routinely criticised as being flavourless - all crunch, no fluff and so on and so forth. But, the reason for this was because the designers were trying to build a game that works at as many tables as possible.

Another big criticism of 3e was the disempowerment of DM's. The rules do take away a great deal of power from DM's compared to earlier editions. But, they don't give that power to the players. The rules keep the power for themselves. Why would the designers do that? Because having transparent baseline mechanics that everyone knows makes for better play at the table. Less chance of "Oh, no, you cannot possibly swim in armor, you drown" moments.

And yes, I do think that makes for a better game.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Why was 3e adopted so strongly over 2e?

I think most groups were ready for the change.

If the priority of design should be flavour first, then 2e should be considered a much better game than 3e. 2e's flavour, and by many accounts, 1e's as well, is considered superiour to 3e. Yet, 3e is far and away more popular. What accounts for this success?

There is a difference here between flavour of the supplement variety, and mechanics that perhaps more accurately represent the flavour they are trying to. I think 3E was more successful at the latter than 2E - YMMV and vice versa with the former. Getting away from Thac0's and tables was a step in the right direction.

Another big criticism of 3e was the disempowerment of DM's. The rules do take away a great deal of power from DM's compared to earlier editions. But, they don't give that power to the players. The rules keep the power for themselves. Why would the designers do that?

I disagree to a degree. I think power was taken by players who soaked up the rules. This meant that the "rules-power" as it were was held by the DM mainly but also with certain players as well. There was a sense by those players that a sucky DM's call wasn't going to ruin their gaming day (as could sometimes happen in 2E). However, in some groups with players that did not wish to study their PHB in between sessions, I think you could get a certain disenfranchisement for those players. They were now outsiders, at the mercy of those who knew what was going on.

4E has looked to include these players by focusing on exceptions based design. As long as you have an idea on the basics, everything you really need to know is on your character sheet/power cards. All players can now focus on the adventure at hand rather than fixating on the rules or how things work. In this regard, while it has sacrificed a lot of simulation, it has cleaned things up for groups that may have had issues in this regard with 3E.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise