This thread is neither about the merit/flaws of RPG theory nor about its definitions. If you don't want to talk about RPG theory in 4E, just ignore this thread.
I argued in a previous thread that 4E is “abashed”, i.e. 4E is incoherent regarding the promoted creative agendas (G and S) but that a minor drift could make it a coherent G game.
Why another thread?
First, IME, incoherence in D&D is the main reason for much of the problems at the table and the endless debates on these boards.
Second, I failed to prove my point to some posters that appreciate this theory (at least pemerton and buzz).
Thus, I’ll re-work my argumentation here with more examples.
My view of 4E is that is should promote a G agenda at the encounter level and let the players/DM chose how they operate at the adventure/campaign level (e.g. no obstacles for any agenda).
I see two kinds of fluff text and a mechanical part of 4E that cause incoherence.
The first kind of fluff text is the one saying to players how to play their characters.
The second kind of fluff text is the one saying to the DM how to handle the game.
The mechanical part is the reward system.
First kind of fluff text
PHP p.8 : When you play your D&D character, you put yourself into your character’s shoes and make decisions as if you were that character.
A character (and his shoes) is 4E is defined by his ability scores, his class, his race, his feats, etc. but also with an alignment, an appearance, some mannerisms, some personality traits and some background features, and in some case a patron deity (PHP p.24).
However, on p.18 (PHB) we find this: D&D is a roleplaying game but not necessarily an exercise in improvisational theater. Sometimes, the role you play is defender or leader—the character you’re playing is engaged in combat and has a job to do so that your team comes out victorious.
Following these two advices may put a player in a “lose-lose” situation, either he put his character’s shoes and do action A or follow his Combat-Role and do action B.
A simple solution is to always follow Combat-Role first, and then finds an appropriate way to rationalize that decision vs. the character’s shoes, including changing them to reflect an evolution of the character.
One good thing: in the levelling section, players are not asked to follow some kind of organic progression of their character when choosing new powers/feats.
Second kind of fluff text
On PHP p.6 we find : The adventure is the heart of the D&D game. It’s like a fantasy movie or novel, except the characters that you and your friends create are the stars of the
story.
If players are said to expect that 4E game sessions will give out a story, we are in trouble.
First, let’s set apart transcripts and stories, the former is a simple series of fictional events while the later has a meaningful beginning / end, which show to the reader/watcher some theme/message.
Can a story arise from a 4E adventure/campaign? Yes. Does a story will arise each time? No. Why? Because a G agenda while fun and player-engaging, is known to often lead to a meaningless ending (TPK in the middle of an adventure) or to a dead-end after one or more failure (3E was terrible on this, because it was hard to create new challenges on the fly).
D&D players who absolutely wanted to have a story as the result of their efforts usually switch to an S agenda, giving the DM a “storyteller” role. Usually, this is done in an awkward way, for example by fudging dice rolls.
DMG p4 : Although the DM represents all the PCs’ opponents and adversaries—monsters, nonplayer characters (NPCs), traps, and the like—he or she doesn’t want the player characters to fail any more than the other players do.
and…
DMG p4 : The DM’s goal is to make success taste its sweetest by presenting challenges that are just hard enough that the other players have to work to overcome them, but not so hard that they leave all the characters dead.
This can be interpreted by DMs as “make sure the players don’t fail, but make them believe it can happen”.
Metagame section on p. 15 (DMG) : Discourage this by giving players a gentle verbal reminder: “But what do your characters think?” That’s the same as “character’s shoes” and it is fixed in the same way.
the reward system
The reward system works when the players succeed, but it is not as easy when the players fail.
The problem is to be sure that success lead to faster advancement than failure .
For example, if a failed skill challenge to walk trough as maze is failed and the players then face encounters that give them more XP than a first success would have given, something is wrong.
The key of handling failure is given in DMG but is not underlined: A failure must be followed by a higher risk of “TPK”, i.e. a hard encounter.
As harder encounters give more XP, we need Quests XP to balance it out; failures meaning that fewer quests will be successful.
I’ll try with come up with some numbered examples on this issue.
Many D&D groups have put XP as reward away, leading to an S agenda where levels are only a way to place boundaries on Exploration.
That’s long enough for a first post, I’m waiting to see what you have to say about it.
Again, if RPG theory isn’t your cup of tea, please don’t derail the thread.
I argued in a previous thread that 4E is “abashed”, i.e. 4E is incoherent regarding the promoted creative agendas (G and S) but that a minor drift could make it a coherent G game.
Why another thread?
First, IME, incoherence in D&D is the main reason for much of the problems at the table and the endless debates on these boards.
Second, I failed to prove my point to some posters that appreciate this theory (at least pemerton and buzz).
Thus, I’ll re-work my argumentation here with more examples.
My view of 4E is that is should promote a G agenda at the encounter level and let the players/DM chose how they operate at the adventure/campaign level (e.g. no obstacles for any agenda).
I see two kinds of fluff text and a mechanical part of 4E that cause incoherence.
The first kind of fluff text is the one saying to players how to play their characters.
The second kind of fluff text is the one saying to the DM how to handle the game.
The mechanical part is the reward system.
First kind of fluff text
PHP p.8 : When you play your D&D character, you put yourself into your character’s shoes and make decisions as if you were that character.
A character (and his shoes) is 4E is defined by his ability scores, his class, his race, his feats, etc. but also with an alignment, an appearance, some mannerisms, some personality traits and some background features, and in some case a patron deity (PHP p.24).
However, on p.18 (PHB) we find this: D&D is a roleplaying game but not necessarily an exercise in improvisational theater. Sometimes, the role you play is defender or leader—the character you’re playing is engaged in combat and has a job to do so that your team comes out victorious.
Following these two advices may put a player in a “lose-lose” situation, either he put his character’s shoes and do action A or follow his Combat-Role and do action B.
A simple solution is to always follow Combat-Role first, and then finds an appropriate way to rationalize that decision vs. the character’s shoes, including changing them to reflect an evolution of the character.
One good thing: in the levelling section, players are not asked to follow some kind of organic progression of their character when choosing new powers/feats.
Second kind of fluff text
On PHP p.6 we find : The adventure is the heart of the D&D game. It’s like a fantasy movie or novel, except the characters that you and your friends create are the stars of the
story.
If players are said to expect that 4E game sessions will give out a story, we are in trouble.
First, let’s set apart transcripts and stories, the former is a simple series of fictional events while the later has a meaningful beginning / end, which show to the reader/watcher some theme/message.
Can a story arise from a 4E adventure/campaign? Yes. Does a story will arise each time? No. Why? Because a G agenda while fun and player-engaging, is known to often lead to a meaningless ending (TPK in the middle of an adventure) or to a dead-end after one or more failure (3E was terrible on this, because it was hard to create new challenges on the fly).
D&D players who absolutely wanted to have a story as the result of their efforts usually switch to an S agenda, giving the DM a “storyteller” role. Usually, this is done in an awkward way, for example by fudging dice rolls.
DMG p4 : Although the DM represents all the PCs’ opponents and adversaries—monsters, nonplayer characters (NPCs), traps, and the like—he or she doesn’t want the player characters to fail any more than the other players do.
and…
DMG p4 : The DM’s goal is to make success taste its sweetest by presenting challenges that are just hard enough that the other players have to work to overcome them, but not so hard that they leave all the characters dead.
This can be interpreted by DMs as “make sure the players don’t fail, but make them believe it can happen”.
Metagame section on p. 15 (DMG) : Discourage this by giving players a gentle verbal reminder: “But what do your characters think?” That’s the same as “character’s shoes” and it is fixed in the same way.
the reward system
The reward system works when the players succeed, but it is not as easy when the players fail.
The problem is to be sure that success lead to faster advancement than failure .
For example, if a failed skill challenge to walk trough as maze is failed and the players then face encounters that give them more XP than a first success would have given, something is wrong.
The key of handling failure is given in DMG but is not underlined: A failure must be followed by a higher risk of “TPK”, i.e. a hard encounter.
As harder encounters give more XP, we need Quests XP to balance it out; failures meaning that fewer quests will be successful.
I’ll try with come up with some numbered examples on this issue.
Many D&D groups have put XP as reward away, leading to an S agenda where levels are only a way to place boundaries on Exploration.
That’s long enough for a first post, I’m waiting to see what you have to say about it.
Again, if RPG theory isn’t your cup of tea, please don’t derail the thread.
