Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is it time for 5E?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5428850" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I largely agree with this. Paragon paths and epic destinies could help with this, but (i) they come too late in the PC's development, and (ii) there is very little advice to either players or GMs about how to integrate these aspects of the PC into the unfolding events of play.</p><p></p><p>More generally, there is a tendency - certainly in the fanbase, at least as I read them on ENworld, but also in the way that rulebooks and adventures for 4e are written - to assume that because a certain outcome for a PC is guaranteed at the metagame level, it is unnecessary or redundant to address it in the fiction. Thus, to give one example: because every PC who gets to 21st level is guaranteed an epic destiny, it is often said or implied that being epic has no meaning in the gameworld. Whereas what a good rulebook would do would be to give the players and GM the advice they need to construct and run adventures from which <em>PCs becoming epci</em> is the natural outcome.</p><p></p><p>Skill challenges raise a similar issue in relation to action resolution - how to order and narrate ingame events such that the outcome that the structure will deliver can be made to feel like a natural emergence from the ingame reality. But as far as I'm aware, the <em>only</em> bit of 4e rulestext that comes close to addressing this is the example of play for a skill challenge in the Rules Compendium - and because it is an example of play without any sophisticated commentary, you have to learn the lesson by osmosis. For example, we see the GM deciding that a failed Streetwise check attempting to identify building A, which also makes the 3rd failure for the challenge overall, leads to thugs who earlier had been Intimidated away coming out of building B to beat up the PCs. This is an example where there is a complete severing of the nexus between ingame causation and metagame causation, but the example doesn't even point this out - yet unless a GM becomes familiar with and skilled at this sort of ingame/metagame distinction, successful skill challenges can't be run.</p><p></p><p>The contrast with the rules for a game like HeroQuest, which tackles all of this sort of stuff head on from the start, is pretty marked.</p><p></p><p>This I don't agree with quite as much. Nothing in earlier D&D editions obliged you do do this sort of thing, and I remember GMing plenty of nameless, faceless Basic fighters (or not nameless, but with names like Kill 'Em Dead Quick).</p><p></p><p>I think there is a difference, though, in that in earlier editions if you <em>didn't</em> work out this sort of stuff about your PC then your PC had no depth at all, whereas in 4e (and perhaps 3E - I'm not experienced enough to make a confident call) the inherent <em>mechanical</em> depth of a PC can act as a sort of substitute for fictional depth.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, thanks for the interesting post. I'm a big fan of 4e, but over the past couple of months posts like this one have given me a better handle on why some people see it as mostly a skirmish game/dice rolling exercise.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5428850, member: 42582"] I largely agree with this. Paragon paths and epic destinies could help with this, but (i) they come too late in the PC's development, and (ii) there is very little advice to either players or GMs about how to integrate these aspects of the PC into the unfolding events of play. More generally, there is a tendency - certainly in the fanbase, at least as I read them on ENworld, but also in the way that rulebooks and adventures for 4e are written - to assume that because a certain outcome for a PC is guaranteed at the metagame level, it is unnecessary or redundant to address it in the fiction. Thus, to give one example: because every PC who gets to 21st level is guaranteed an epic destiny, it is often said or implied that being epic has no meaning in the gameworld. Whereas what a good rulebook would do would be to give the players and GM the advice they need to construct and run adventures from which [I]PCs becoming epci[/I] is the natural outcome. Skill challenges raise a similar issue in relation to action resolution - how to order and narrate ingame events such that the outcome that the structure will deliver can be made to feel like a natural emergence from the ingame reality. But as far as I'm aware, the [I]only[/I] bit of 4e rulestext that comes close to addressing this is the example of play for a skill challenge in the Rules Compendium - and because it is an example of play without any sophisticated commentary, you have to learn the lesson by osmosis. For example, we see the GM deciding that a failed Streetwise check attempting to identify building A, which also makes the 3rd failure for the challenge overall, leads to thugs who earlier had been Intimidated away coming out of building B to beat up the PCs. This is an example where there is a complete severing of the nexus between ingame causation and metagame causation, but the example doesn't even point this out - yet unless a GM becomes familiar with and skilled at this sort of ingame/metagame distinction, successful skill challenges can't be run. The contrast with the rules for a game like HeroQuest, which tackles all of this sort of stuff head on from the start, is pretty marked. This I don't agree with quite as much. Nothing in earlier D&D editions obliged you do do this sort of thing, and I remember GMing plenty of nameless, faceless Basic fighters (or not nameless, but with names like Kill 'Em Dead Quick). I think there is a difference, though, in that in earlier editions if you [I]didn't[/I] work out this sort of stuff about your PC then your PC had no depth at all, whereas in 4e (and perhaps 3E - I'm not experienced enough to make a confident call) the inherent [I]mechanical[/I] depth of a PC can act as a sort of substitute for fictional depth. Anyway, thanks for the interesting post. I'm a big fan of 4e, but over the past couple of months posts like this one have given me a better handle on why some people see it as mostly a skirmish game/dice rolling exercise. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Is it time for 5E?
Top