Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[Argyle King]

I know I'm not looking for another 3e or 3.5 remake from WOTC. I'm looking for 5e to a game which isn't 4e, but isn't 3e either. I want it to be the next step, hopefully its one that steps toward something more "realistic" and "simulationist" and less "gamist".

Ill conjure others to see if they feel as I do or if they want a "revisit of 3.x".

@Johnny3D3D , @Imaro , @pauljathome , @LurkAway , @El Mahdi , @Darren
What do you guys think?

I don't want a 3.5 version 2.0 either. ...I'm not even sure how the math of the nomenclature works for that.

Don't get me wrong, I loved a lot of things about 3rd edition and have fond memories, but I understand the need to do things differently. As I've said elsewhere, I simply have a love/hate relationship with 4E. There are some changes from 3rd to 4th which were so good that I do not believe I can go backwards and still enjoy 3rd; however, there were some changes which I feel so negatively toward that they taint the goodness I feel toward the rest of the game.

So... what would I have done with 4th Edition? (because I hate to whine and moan without offering anything)

Again, this is something I have said elsewhere many times, but I would have made much more use of the condition/disease track. I believe a lot of grittiness could have been added to 4th Edition by making things less binary; less simple yes/no.

Imagine if some of the save or suck spells from 3rd Edition were ported into 4th edition by using 4th's disease track. For a quick arbitrary example, let's say a mindflayer is trying to dominate you. First failed check and you move to dazed. The second goes to stun. The third goes to domination.

Some of you are going to read that and say... wait just a minute there; some effects work exactly that way. ---> Dazed (save ends) ---> first failed save leads to...

Yes, it is similar, but here's where my idea is different: You can get better on the disease track. Instead of only being able to move one way along the condition track; sliding further and further toward suck, you can attempt to shake it off. On the same token, you cannot instantly just shake it off with one save; you have to fight your way out.

Downside? I'd say the obvious downside is more book keeping. However, I believe that model would make things much more dramatic. Imagine the lone paladin trying to call upon the blessings of his god and purge his mind of enemy influence; in a life or death struggle with a vile mind eater.

What's nice about that idea is that it completely gets rid of saves too; I'll explain in a bit why that's nice... just hear me out. Instead of saves, we now can make abilities and skills more relevant. The previous example of a mindflayer might work something like a cross between how saves are now and the endurance check which diseases give. Maybe a will roll. Your will defense would determine if the initial effect hit or not. After being put under the influence, you'd then need to make will rolls to shake it off. No need for fancy modifiers or extra mechanics; just getting more mileage out of the numbers which are already on the character sheet instead of inventing a new mechanic.

So, why do I feel dumping the 4th Edition model for saves is good? Well, I ended my last paragraph by saying there's now no need for an extra mechanic. The defense numbers are already there; the disease/condition track idea is already there... now they work together as opposed to tacking on the idea of a d20 save roll.

Also, remember how broken the original orb wizard was? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it may have been more balanced if recovering from a condition worked differently. Perhaps instead one massive penalty to a save, the normal orb ability was to make recovering more difficult in a manner similar to bumping a skill check DC up to the next difficulty class. That may be a terrible idea too; I don't know; I'm not somebody who gets paid to do this. It just seems to me that it was obviously way too easy to stack orb penalties onto a single d20 roll vs a base number of 10 -for every type of save- and make the odds virtually impossible. By spreading the idea of saves across a broader mechanic, I believe it would be possible to also spread those penalties out more and have things work smoother as opposed to dumping all the math onto one roll and trying to fit it all in.

There are other ways to use the condition track to. How about crafting or repairing broken equipment? Let's say your sword gets broken somehow. What if that meant your sword now had the broken 'disease.' To improve the condition your sword, you needed to make some sort of 'heal' (I'm not sure what 4E skill would fit) check on your sword. On a success, it moves one step toward being repaired. Failures would mean it is beyond your ability to repair it, and you'd either need to wait until leveling up to try again or you'd need to seek out the blacksmith in town to fix it.

My point for bringing any of this up is to showcase that there are plenty of mechanics available in 4E which were good mechanics, and would have worked perfectly fine to bridge some of D&D's past editions and outlook with that of the more gamist ideals 4E wanted. For some reason, they just weren't used. What I described is still more streamlined than 3rd's crafting rules; meanwhile, it's complex enough and offers a 'real' enough explanation for what's going on when you roll the dice that I feel it would satisfy me.

Getting back to where I started... again, it provides a way to tone down some of the hardcore 3rd Edition spells and fits them into a model which 4th Edition already contains. I just showcased one idea of how it might be possible to keep some ideas from previous editions by embracing the ideas and direction of the new edition. Yes, there's slightly more book keeping than the current model, but I also think it's more interesting than the current model. Instead of "the solo just failed his save against sleep; let's beat upon this bag of hitpoints until he dies" you get "crap, the dragon is starting to shake off the wizard's spell; we need to hurry before he comes to."

Plus, as I mentioned, it cuts down on the need to keep tacking on different mechanics. So, yeah, my model might be more complicated than the simple yes/no of a d20 roll for a save, but it's also less complicated in that more parts of the game can fit into it. Instead of having diseases, skill challenges, and saving throws use different mechanics, they can all work from this same model.

Now comes the question of how to scale difficulty. That's a good one. Personally, I dislike the number inflation which occurs from leveling up. As such, rather than having checks continue to turn into bigger and bigger numbers, I would signify harsher effects by lowering the amount of steps on the condition track or by having the initial state of the attack be further down the track.

So, a level 5 effect might look like this:

Healthy <--> Dazed <--> Dazed & Slowed <--> Stun <--> Domination

A level 11 version might look like this instead:

Healthy <--> Dazed & Slowed <--> Stun <--> Domination

or this:

Healthy <--> Dazed <--> Dazed & Slowed <--> Stun <--> Domination

Bold denotes where a target starts the track from.


...just an idea

 

[pemerton]

Just playing "realism"'s advocate for a moment, the other flipside to insulating the player from poor results is that everything becomes more or less equally effective, regardless of how silly, ludicrious or "gonzo" the DM thinks it should be.

Yes. Which in some ways takes us back to Vicious Mockery - weakening a slime by mocking Juiblex becomes just as effective a way to destroy it as setting a torch to it.

In my view, it is this feature of 4e which makes it not very suitable for classic Gygaxian or Pulsepherian play, in which the players' selection of means is meant to make a big difference to their PCs' prospects of success. At first, I thought this made 4e unsuitable for gamist play altogether (unless you make the sorts of changes that [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has done), but [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] explained to me a variety of "light gamism" to which 4e is well suited, namely, succeeding in combat via "cool and/or clever moves". For this sort of gamism, it is probably less important to differentiate between the damage done by different moves, and more important that the GM seed an encounter with opportunities for the players to have their PCs do interesting things.

So it seems to me that it boils down to whether you want to encourage more creative ideas (page 42 resolution) or better creative ideas (DM adjudication, assuming the DM is a reasonable, fairly knowledgeable indvidual whose views on what is possible are close to those of his players).

I assume by "better" here you mean better in the Gygaxian sense, rather than (for example) more innovative or more entertaining.

if Page 42 is meant to handle much of the supposed grunt work of figuring out things not covered by the rules (which as I noted were easily handled in other editions by an Ability score check or Skill check), then why wouldn't a DM prefer to slim down the "powers" list to remove things easily handled by Page 42? Why not run a whole game, or most of it, with nothing more than Page 42?

I guess it's a matter of personal preference, but I still like my crunchy bits.

Likewise. For me, this is an important difference between 4e and games like HeroWars/Quest and Maelstrom Storytelling.

But in principle what you (Mark CMG) suggest is feasible, I think, if there were guidelines to balance conditions against damage.

My own experience with systems like this aren't problematic (in the DM-may-I way that I have seen a few detractors describe over the years) and tend toward a more shared storytelling experience. I do agree it engenders (rather than "requires") more creativity and roleplaying among all participants but perhaps that's not a direction D&D can easily go on its current trajectory. Though this does seem odd considering how much Page 42 is praised by the more vocal adherents of 4E that I generally see posting here and elsewhere. Maybe there is room for greater flexibility in this area than is currently perceived in the community? Thoughts? Would this move forward an agenda of nods toward realism as well?

I think there is a lot of scope for WotC to develop this, via examples in adventures, published guidelines, etc.

 

[pemerton]

...just an idea

Can't XP you again yet, but good post.

 

[Imaro]

Nor does it explain what Rob Heinsoo meant when he said that 4e design was influenced by indie RPG (=narrativist, or do you disagree?) design.

I'm not going to go through our normal back and forth dance since it never leads anywhere... but this is just wrong. An indie rpg is an independently published roleplaying game. An indie rpg can be simulationist, gamist or narrativist but it's defining characteristic is that it is independently published and creator-owned. maybe this explains some of the confusion I have in following your claims since you use the term indie rpg to mean narrativist... when that's not what it means.

 

[Imaro]

Failed my Will save...

His blog doesn't even talk about narrativist design. Nor does it explain what Rob Heinsoo meant when he said that 4e design was influenced by indie RPG (=narrativist, or do you disagree?) design. Nor does he say anything about Robin Laws work on DMG2, which cribs a good chunk of the GMing advice from HeroQuest Revised (presumably a narrativist rather than a gamist game). Nor the significance of "say yes" and other techniques discussed in the DMG, which come primarily from narrativist-leaning than gamist-leaning games, don't they?

And then there is also the recognised fact that similar mechanics, with a strong and predictable metagame dimension (ie mechanics that differ from simulationist ones in just the manner that 4e's do) can support either narrativist or gamist play, depending on what sorts of behaviours by the participants receive social endorsement at the table (see, for example, the discussion of this phenomenon here and here). For instance:

Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:

*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what.

*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.

*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.

*Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play.

Which is a really long-winded way of saying that one or the other of the two modes has to be "the point," and they don't share well - but unlike either's relationship with Simulationist play (i.e., a potentially hostile one), Gamist and Narrativist play don't tug-of-war over "doing it right" - they simply avoid one another, like the same-end poles of two magnets. Note, I'm saying play, not players. The activity of play doesn't hybridize well between Gamism and Narrativism, but it does shift, sometimes quite easily.
​

This passage picks up all the features of 4e that are being objected to in this thread (and its cousins on this board): immersion-killing author stance; fortune-in-the-middle ("Schroedinger's wounds"); exploration ("realism") negotiated among the participants subject to constraints from the mechanics, rather than delivered at every point in play by those mechanics.

Because 4e supports both aesthetic/thematic rewards (because of its integration of story elements with mechanical elements) and "cool move, dude" rewards, it can shift between rewards in the way Edwards describes.

I find it interesting that the main thrust of your argument centers around advice (as opposed to any rules or mechanics that actually support narrativist play in the game) found in the 2nd DMG (as opposed to anything in the first three corebooks). I'm sorry but telling me to "say yes" doesn't make a game's mechanics support narrativist play.

I mean your argument seems to basically boil down to... if the players all agree, 4e can be played in a narrativist style. Well duh, if everyone agrees not to use certain powers and to houserule healing surges then 4e can be played in a simulationist style... doesn't mean it supports said play or was created for it.

Mechanics wise I see a carefully balanced encounter system (for fair challenges)... I see a reward system for completing challenges that affects one's power and capabilities, (now random with the most current rules as opposed to parcels). I see the majority of 4e players I speak to disregarding or changing the fiction and fluff of classes and powers on a whim (as long as they don't change those carefully balanced gamist keywords, effects, etc)... and it not having an effect upon the game through any mechanics of the actual game.

This doesn't show the game is poorly designed. Nor does it show that it can't support a variety of non-simulationist playstyles.

Where did I say the games is poorly designed? I think it's got a very good gamist design. Narrativist... not so much, it doesn't, IMO, have any mechanics that support or empower a narrativist style (tons of advice in the DMG 2 after the "It feels like a boardgame outcry")... but nothing in the mechanics department that actually encourages a focus on or rewards narrative play. The most I can say about it in regards to narrativist play is that 4e doesn't fight against you if you want to use it for that style.

 

[LurkAway]

First, the phrase "fiction nods to rules" - which Raven Crowking and BryonD have both used in the past - I find unhelpful. All versions of D&D involved rules which shape the fiction - for example, in Basic D&D and 1st ed AD&D, PC clerics never use swords or spears.

I agree on the latter point, and that's why I intentionally worded it as "fiction nods to the rules" (emphasis on "nods"), just like rules that nod to realism. Why is one term unhelpful but not the other? I did a switcheroo to force a change of perspective.

More importantly, I find the analogy between the chess story, and 4e, completely unhelpful. Perhaps if a D&D campaign involved no action except for a solitary bard fighting only skeletons and oozes, than the analogy might get some purchases.

It's true that D&D isn't solely about bards insulting skeletons and oozes to death, but in all fairness, that's only one example for illustration. Your dismissal of the analogy is based on unhelpfully focusing on one branch of one tree instead of seeing the forest.

Perhaps the story might come to seem contrived - although personally I would still want a bit more of an account of what the story involves.

Yes, your distinction between green slimes that can't be insulted to death (because they have no self awareness) vs green slimes with an existential connection to a demon lord that can be nullified by insults (just because) does seem very contrived to me, like the boy who contrives to explain that queens move faster than slow obese kings just because.

Some surprisingly interesting stories can be built out of contrived elements.

Absolutely (like that rigged poetry contest) but overall, I feel that stories built on contrived elements are rather more shaky and don't nod to realism as much as I'd like. Perhaps that part of "realism" in the fantasy genre is to have that faux-sense of solidness and cohesiveness, whereas others are OK with world-building a Jenga tower.

 

[Imaro]

I'll leave the elaborations to D'karr, but will make a general comment. By setting a range of default DCs and expected damage, page 42 creates a "safety net" for players to try new and/or wacky things. It puts an outer limit on how badly a player can hose his/her PC by stepping outside the more tightly defined action resolution mechanics. (The flipside of this is that it also puts a limit on how successful any wacky stunt can be - for example, there is no "autokill" result on the default damage charts. How big a change this is to the effectiveness of old-fashioned "creative spell casting" will probably vary from group to group.)

...

More importantly, for me, has been the concept of default DCs and damage, and the limits on risk of failure and consequences of success, to which they give rise. For me, at least, it's quite liberating compared to more simulationist rulesets, which can lead to wacky stunts getting bogged down in attempts to draw on real-world likelihoods of success and consequence.

Ok, pemerton... I'm a little confused here. As with many things in 4e I have seen two interpretations of how to set a DC in 4e. The first is by the level of the characters in the game (this was how I originally thought it was suppose to be, but was told I was doing it wrong by numerous fans of 4e)... the second, is by the "level" of the challenge you are facing. I'm curious as to which of these you follow.

If it's the first then I can see an argument for it being a safety net and limiting the risk of failure and consequences of success... but if you're going with the second interpretation of the rules, then I don't see how it does any such thing. Since you are now baseing the DC on the "level" of the challenge the PC's are facing and nothing inherently stops them from facing challenges beyond their means... except the DM (which would make it like any other version of D&D).


EDIT: I'm also curious as to how you reconcile this with such things as the 9 different doors on page 97 of the Dungeon Master's Book with independent DC's based on their specific material... or even the hardcoded difficulties in the description of certain skills that seem based upon real world analogies? Again this seems like one of those areas that even 4e isn't sure what playstyle it wants to support with it's mechanics.

 

[D'karr]

Can you expand individually on how each of these examples is handled by page 42, please?

Sure, I don't have much time to type this all out right now, but I'll do a writeup to explain. Quick question as I'm not sure if you're interested in the examples, or the process. Would it make more sense to put an example of the thought process of how to arrive at these decisions rather than to give specific examples?

 

[tuxgeo]

His blog doesn't even talk about narrativist design. Nor does it explain what Rob Heinsoo meant when he said that 4e design was influenced by indie RPG (=narrativist, or do you disagree?) design.

[Emphasis added -- tuxgeo]

I'm not going to go through our normal back and forth dance since it never leads anywhere... but this is just wrong. An indie rpg is an independently published roleplaying game. An indie rpg can be simulationist, gamist or narrativist but it's defining characteristic is that it is independently published and creator-owned. maybe this explains some of the confusion I have in following your claims since you use the term indie rpg to mean narrativist... when that's not what it means.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and try to show that pemerton's words can be seen as making more sense than they appear to:

Pemerton misspelled "indie-rpgs" -- as in the website "the forge" of Ron Edwards. As we all know (or do we?), Ron Edwards moderates that "indie-rpgs.com" website; and he posts stuff about the narrativist playing style there. With his articles, the "indie-rpgs" website does promote a narrativist style, so saying that "indie-rpgs = narrativist" would have been more accurate.

It's merely a spelling thing: pemerton left out the hyphen and the terminal letter "s" in the part that I bolded in my quote from him, above.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sure, I don't have much time to type this all out right now, but I'll do a writeup to explain. Quick question as I'm not sure if you're interested in the examples, or the process. Would it make more sense to put an example of the thought process of how to arrive at these decisions rather than to give specific examples?

That'd be great, and it is process that I seek. As you have probably seen by the rest of the thread, my wondering comes from the sameness I see in how it was actually handled in other editions and also in its possibility as an overarching model for a full RPG.