History repeats itself

[pemerton]

That's weird, since the precise opposite seems to be the design intent.

I get the impression that the design intent is to facilitate gamist play, sacrificing simulationist-facilitating rules where necessary.

But as others have noted before me, rules that facilitate gamist play can also (in certain circumstances, at least) facilitate narrativitist play. To what extent, and whether 4e rules are such, is being discussed on the Death of Simulation thread: I am moderately optimistic in this respect, Apoptosis and Skeptic are more doubtful.

Timing is based on 'encounters', not real-world equivalents

Which means that players' decisions about how to enage the gameworld are not hostage to the GM's decisions about the passage of time in the gameworld.

PCs are unique mechanically as well as for the fact they're player controlled (making them more obviously 'gamepieces' in my mind)

Which means that players are not hostage to simulationist/worldbuidling constraints in constructing the pieces with which they wish to engage the gameworld. Narrativist play benefits from metagame mechanics at the character build stage, and 4e is providing them (whether they are the right sort of metagame mechanics is a little unclear at present, of course).

non-combat skills are reduced to handwaving

This is not true, given that the Pit Fiend has both Bluff and Intimidate skill mods on its stat sheet. I gather that skills not relevant to engaging challenges (be they social, environmental, combat) are being reduced to handwaving - but I don't think that many people get emotional/social play excitement out of playing a crafting game. That sort of (simulationist) play sounds to me like the sort of thing a computer threatens to replace, by handling all the fiddly bits of craft checks and keeping one's accounts.

player spotlights that allow one player to show special skills are discarded in favor of 'group activity'

This is potentially an issue, if it prevents players making individually authentic thematic statements - but at the moment there is no reason to suspect this, given what we are being told about the range of options in character build and action resolution.

the vast increase in the detail level of the "assumed world" complete with history, racial relations, and so on, etc, etc, etc.

I don't know whether or not you've read W&M. My views about the impact of the PoL setting are based entirely on my reading of that book. And what it tells me is a couple of things: (i) in canonical PoL players have a significant degree of control over the incidence and character of adversity (I'm getting this from the sidebar on p 20, and the discussion of grey areas which I think is also on p 20) - this is a first for D&D, and greatly empowers players to do something different from computer gaming; (ii) PoL, by putting everyone on an equal footing with respect to backstory, significantly reduces the capacity of the GM or a well-read player to try to use superior knowledge of canon to control the narrative.

Everything about the design is focused on "Play consists of a group of Heroes who walk through a sequence of Encounters which are moderated/refereed by the Dungeon Master."

Roughly, what you have there is a description of a heroic fantasy RPG. It is as true of HeroQuest or TRoS as it is true of 4e, but would anyone deny that those games don't facilitate a type of social/emotional play that is lacking in WoW?

The key issue isn't that the game consists of heroic encounters refereed by a GM. The key issue is whether or not the resolution of those encounters - that is, the playing of the game, allows the players to engage in making a social or emotional statement. WoW does not permit this, because it does not give the players the right sort of control over the gameworld. 4e, by giving players a type of and degree of control over the gameworld (via the design features you have picked out above) that is unprecedented for D&D (at least since the early 1980s, anyway), seems like it may well permit this.

I'm not expecting that 4e play will give us thematic engagement of the sort that would win a Nobel prize for literature. But it doesn't have to, in order to give something very different from the WoW experience that might help keep the game (and RPGs more generally) alive. My view is that simulationist gaming won't do that.

 

[Umbran]

I just wanted to express my hearty agreement before the inevitable dogpile you are about to suffer commences.

You didn't have to quote the entire post to agree.

And let us get something clear to everyone - the rhetorical trick of trying to insinuate that there is something wrong with voicing dissenting opinion before it has been voiced is not acceptable. It is dismissive, insulting, apt to start argument, and generally increases the amount of rancor on these boards, rather than making this a nicer place to be. Please don't do it.

 

[Ipissimus]

I'd buy the argument if it weren't for World of Warcraft and its 10 million subscribers.

I personally don't think there's any doubt that WoW has affected the dev's decisions in developing the game. Something that popular in thier target market area is going to show up on marketing radar like the Death Star, particularly with DDO and it's problems.

Now, when you think about it, how easy is it going to be to translate 4E into an MMO? One numerical progression for stat bonuses, only one governing bonus from class, a vastly simplified spell system, the 'points of light' campaign setting... it's almost like they're preparing the system for eventual translation into an MMO, isn't it?

Not that I think tabletop RPGs are going to go away. If they were so insignificant in the scheme of things, why does WoW have a d20 lisence? And how many new gamers is WoW bringing to DnD? I know of at least one that I DM for.

Everything about the design is focused on "Play consists of a group of Heroes who walk through a sequence of Encounters which are moderated/refereed by the Dungeon Master."

Funny... that sounds like every RPG ever made, even LARP. The key word is encounters. Sure, 'encounters' can mean a combat encounter and these are the bread and butter of DnD. In the end, alot of the game is about killing monsters and taking their stuff.

Of course, an encounter could also be a masqued ball, carousing in a tavern or merely bumping into someone in the street. Particularly if they impliment a social combat style system (ever have a particularly suave player with the CH 6 Half-Orc Barbarian try talk his way out of an encounter out of character? Then had play stopped while you convinced him that his illiterate character failed his Diplomacy check because no matter how well the player can speak, his character can only say 'Hulk Smash'? This is one reason why 'social combat' is a good idea.).

In the end, if you want more varied encounters at your table, WOTC can't do much about that except give you the tools with which to create them. How you handle the game is up to individual DMs and their unique groups. What WOTC can do is provide us with the tools to create characters and their worlds as well as a robust system of guidelines in which they can operate with the suspension of disbelief. With that basis, we then go on to create the sense of adventure ourselves.

An good example is the new traps system. If you think about every trap you've ever seen in a movie, from the star wars garbage compactor to the mirror room in Conan or even the bits in the DnD movies, there's not much reason why any character couldn't work those out. Sure, the rogue is better at it, but anyone could think to shatter the hourglass, start breaking mirrors or wedge a metal strut between the closing walls to buy some time. This system means you can throw more varied traps at your players, maybe even a dungeon of nothing but traps, and still make it exciting for everyone involved.

 

[The Little Raven]

Now, when you think about it, how easy is it going to be to translate 4E into an MMO? One numerical progression for stat bonuses, only one governing bonus from class, a vastly simplified spell system, the 'points of light' campaign setting... it's almost like they're preparing the system for eventual translation into an MMO, isn't it?

One numeric bonus for progression is not a trait in MMO games. For example, in WoW, Agility becomes Attack Power (damage) for hunters and rogues on a 1-to-1 basis, but doesn't help warriors in terms of AP at all, who gain a 1-to-2 trade-off between Strength and Attack Power, respectively. Intellect provides a bonus to critical strikes with spells on completely different formulas for each spellcasting class (which actually varies with level as well). The idea that D&D would be done with simpler math to make it easier to turn into a video game is a fallacy. Video games use complex math because of the fact that it allows a higher degree of granularity (in terms of probability, character progression, AI and all that) for developers, and because the computer handles it, not a human being.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

That's weird, since the precise opposite seems to be the design intent. Timing is based on 'encounters', not real-world equivalents, PCs are unique mechanically as well as for the fact they're player controlled (making them more obviously 'gamepieces' in my mind), non-combat skills are reduced to handwaving, player spotlights that allow one player to show special skills are discarded in favor of 'group activity', the vast increase in the detail level of the "assumed world" complete with history, racial relations, and so on, etc, etc, etc. Everything about the design is focused on "Play consists of a group of Heroes who walk through a sequence of Encounters which are moderated/refereed by the Dungeon Master."

This strikes me as an interesting spin. I can see how your points do lead nicely to your 'gamepieces' conclusion, but I don't know that this is a better conclusion than a narrativist one.

I don't consider myself an expert in narrativist games by any measure, but I can't think of one that doesn't use 'encounter' or 'scene' as time units. Certainly, I've never seen one that used a real world analogue. And most of them involve a pretty hefty amount of non-combat skill handwaving.

Player spotlights are also pretty non-narativist in that they disenfranchise a lot of your potential storytellers in any given spotlight moment.

And 'fluff' world detail is often the bread and butter of any rules light system. Particularly one that offers the option of depth.

Maybe we're seeing a division between troupe and character driven styles of story oriented play?

Or perhaps the difference between a story game as run by the storytellers and one that is dictated by the story?

Or maybe we just have entirely different ways of interpreting the significance of the same data.

 

[Lizard]

This strikes me as an interesting spin. I can see how your points do lead nicely to your 'gamepieces' conclusion, but I don't know that this is a better conclusion than a narrativist one.

I was talking about the game losing whatever veneer of simulationism it had and charging whole-hog into gamism. I've never considered any version of D&D to be narrativist or aspire to it, so I can't really reply to the rest of your post.

I'm concerned about being forced to define everything as "encounters" in order to know when a player can use an ability, for example. If someone uses a minor spell to impress barmaid, does that mean this is an "encounter" with the barmaid? Does it mean that if the other PCs are at the same bar, an "encounter" has begun for them, as well, with their abilities recharged? Does the encounter end when the barmaid slaps the PC? When they leave the bar? When two of them stay in the bar and two others decide to go down to the docks and look for a mercenary to hire? Are the two who stayed behind still in the same encounter, and the other two now heading for a different one? Can you "force" an encounter to begin in order to gain mechanical effects? Can you artificially prolong an encounter for ditto?

Different DMs will have different answers to all of these. The fact these issues don't seem to be a concern to the developers is what leads me to my "chain of encounters" conclusion. The game mechanics cannot function outside of "encounters", so the PCs just walk from one to the next.

To use an example I've used before, in a recent game, my PC was turned invisible and had to accomplish a task before it wore off. Failing to do so would lead to either a TPK or some serious political/social upheaval for our party. The spell was based on "minutes", not "an encounter", so there was a serious time limit. By most standards, the entire sequence would be "an encounter", so, there would be no way for a spell which lasts for the duration of an encounter to wear off!

And 'fluff' world detail is often the bread and butter of any rules light system. Particularly one that offers the option of depth.

Seems to me that it's someone else telling the story for you. To my mind, a game whose focus is not "Play in this universe" ought to have only enough fluff so that there's a bare baseline of commonality -- i.e, orcs are savage humanoids, not cuddly half-horses.

 

[Corinth]

Originally Posted by Corinth
Everything about the design is focused on "Play consists of a group of Heroes who walk through a sequence of Encounters which are moderated/refereed by the Dungeon Master."

That's not me; that's Lizard.

 

[Corinth]

I personally don't think there's any doubt that WoW has affected the dev's decisions in developing the game. Something that popular in their target market area is going to show up on marketing radar like the Death Star, particularly with DDO and it's problems.

That's another problem. Remember all those threads where people talk about how big of a factor D&D being first plays into its current position of dominance in TRPGs? Remember how there would be talk of what it would take to usurp that position? WOW successfully pulled that latter feat, stealing the top spot from Everquest and its rival Ultima Online; it is in that top spot in the MMORPG market now, and D&D already failed at its first attempt to directly fight WOW with Turbine's terrible handling of DDO...

Now, when you think about it, how easy is it going to be to translate 4E into an MMO? One numerical progression for stat bonuses, only one governing bonus from class, a vastly simplified spell system, the 'points of light' campaign setting... it's almost like they're preparing the system for eventual translation into an MMO, isn't it?

...and there is no way that a second attempt will fare any better so long as it attempts to follow the subscription-based business model. Warcry published an article about this recently. that folks ought to be familiar with as it does impact upon our situation, what with this new edition likely being the basis for that second shot at an official D&D MMORPG.

Not that I think tabletop RPGs are going to go away. If they were so insignificant in the scheme of things, why does WoW have a d20 licence? And how many new gamers is WoW bringing to DnD? I know of at least one that I DM for.

That license is dead, as is the RPG line, which never caught up to The Burning Crusade anyway (and thus is nigh unto useless for the target audience). Folks that quit WOW, much as we've discovered with D&D when speaking of TRPGs, rather quit RPGs altogether than go on to a substitute. The parallels are astounding, as the dynamics are just about identical; the WOW-to-D&D acquisition rate, at best, is statistically irrelevant and insignificant.

No, I think we have more to worry about.

 

[The Little Raven]

...and there is no way that a second attempt will fare any better so long as it attempts to follow the subscription-based business model.

And I disagree with Warcry's assumption that it's the model that is the problem.

In my experience, the content is the problem, since most MMO games seem incomplete and unpolished. WoW is a notable exception in this regard, which is why it became a juggernaut that even surprised Blizzard beyond their expectations (and made Vivendi immediately reverse the decision to sell Blizzard and all their other game divisions because of debts). People will pay a subscription service for something that provides a certain (high) level of quality.

That license is dead, as is the RPG line, which never caught up to The Burning Crusade anyway (and thus is nigh unto useless for the target audience).

The biggest problem I had with the WoW RPG is that it wasn't enough like WoW. The style is there in the art and all that, but the mechanics just said "Meh, another D&D world." instead of "THIS. IS. WARCRAFT!" like they should have.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Heh, I like how this thread somehow focused itself into every anti-4e person on the forum vs. Mourn...

The funny part is, the argument here is almost entirely about 4e's marketing, not the game itself, which seems kind of pointless - except that it's rhetorically useful for anti-4e arguments.

You guys have pointed out places where you think the WOTC people are too negative in their portrayal of earlier editions. I think the more relevant question is, are they right in those criticisms?

Reynard pointed out the CR system as an example of WOTC complaining about an element of 3e that really was suboptimal. Well... so what? Good for them! If it WAS crappy, and WE know it was crappy, and THEY know it was crappy, why should they mince words?

I'm thinking that if some of you guys stepped back a few paces from your rhetoric and thought about the systems you're defending, many of them actually could use some improvement. I think that, for example, the 3e grapple rules are a bit like 2e THAC0: the only reason you'd want to cling of them is out of sheer perversity. No, they don't ruin 3e or grind combat to a halt (for an experienced group), but they're annoying, and why SHOULDN'T they be fixed? And why shouldn't WotC poke fun at them for sucking, or make a point of saying that they'll fix them?