Is 4E coherent, incoherent or abashed? (RPG theory stuff inside)

[Roger]

"A skill challenge's complexity, combined with its level, defines its value in experience points. A skill challenge is worth the same XP as a number of monsters of its level equal to its complexity." -- 4e DMG, pg 74.


Succeeding at skill challenges looks like a fine way to acquire XP to me.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[marune]

"A skill challenge's complexity, combined with its level, defines its value in experience points. A skill challenge is worth the same XP as a number of monsters of its level equal to its complexity." -- 4e DMG, pg 74.

Succeeding at skill challenges looks like a fine way to acquire XP to me.

Of course, the problem is that 1 skill challenge XP is < than 1 combat + 1 trap XP.

 

[Paka]

Incoherence doesn't mean that there's more than one GNS dingus present, most game sessions blend different bits together at different times. Incoherence means that they are present in an incompatible manner.

And we can't say that they are present in an incompatible manner unless we have an example of play.

So, Skeptic, I ask you, have you played 4e where the session turned out to be a dysfuctional mess due to the incoherence in the text?

 

[Roger]

Of course, the problem is that 1 skill challenge XP is < than 1 combat + 1 trap XP.

I'm not sure what leads you to believe that's the way skill challenges are normally structured. Of all the examples in the DMG and KotS, only 1 seems to have a 'more XP' failure result (Lost in the Wilds.) The vast majority have 'no XP' failure results.

Sure, any sufficiently-motivated DM could make up skill challenges that reward failure, but I don't think there's any evidence in the material to support the idea that the game has been designed to encourage it.



Cheers,
Roger

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not sure that "losing suck" is enough to avoid the "we don't care if we lose an encounter, because the DM will simply throw us some different ones".

Look at any purely G activity like boardgames, ccgs or sports. You will see people trying their damnedest to win even though there is nothing tangible at stake. No money, no women. It's winning purely for winning, because winning feels good and losing feels terrible.

I won't go in the D&D is popular, therefore D&D is a well-design RPG debate, sorry

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the research shows what most players want from a game and it ain't what Ron Edwards wants.

 

[GreatLemur]

Coherence: Within GNS theory, this is a general term for play where everyone shares a focused priority on a single GNS mode or functional hybrid. Game designs are said to be coherent if they clearly encourage play of this sort: in particular by having mechanics which support the GNS mode encouraged by the text.

Incoherence: Within GNS theory, play which includes incompatible combination of GNS priorities.

Dysfunction: Common Forge term, meaning simply role-playing which is not fun.

Thanks, Roger. That clarifies the issue a whole lot (although now that I understand skeptic's terminology, I know that I don't have enough of a grounding in 4e to really discuss this issue).

 

[Orcus]

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.

Not trying to "derail the thread" but this issue has always existed in D&D.

From a "game theory"* point of view, the guy who does "what my character would do" and the party be damned is called a "tool" or a "dill-hole" and "isnt invited back to play," whereas the guy who "grudgingly accepts his combat role even though it causes some tension with his character and later roleplays through that tension" is called a "normal person" or a "grown up" and is a "welcome part of any game group."

Clark

*Note: the "game theory" referenced is called "being a grown up and playing a game and not crying and throwing a fit and killing the party cause its 'what my character would do'."

Guys, its a game. Play the game.

Sorry, I couldnt resist

Back to your regularly scheduled game theory discussion.

 

[marune]

I'm not sure what leads you to believe that's the way skill challenges are normally structured. Of all the examples in the DMG and KotS, only 1 seems to have a 'more XP' failure result (Lost in the Wilds.) The vast majority have 'no XP' failure results.

Hmm, I was simply saying that the XP for two encounters (combat + trap) is more than for one (skill challenge).

In other words, maze = 1000 xp, combat + trap = 2000 xp.

So it's better to fail the maze than succeed it and that's the strange thing.

 

[apoptosis]

Look at any purely G activity like boardgames, ccgs or sports. You will see people trying their damnedest to win even though there is nothing tangible at stake. No money, no women. It's winning purely for winning, because winning feels good and losing feels terrible.
T

But many people are really bored if losing is either not an option (playing a beginner in tennis, I will win, but there is not enjoyment in it) or if there is little difference between winning and losing (basically little stake in losing)

(if you win you get to pt A, if you lose you still get to point A).

I generally have begun to hate games like WoW because you basically cant really lose, you never have much at stake in the game.

 

[marune]

Look at any purely G activity like boardgames, ccgs or sports. You will see people trying their damnedest to win even though there is nothing tangible at stake. No money, no women. It's winning purely for winning, because winning feels good and losing feels terrible.

I make the assumption that gamist D&D players are trying to get an optimal advancement.

We have a problem if optimal advancement != succeed at every encounter.