Yes. Realising this was what sold me on 4e. I had had a very low opinion of 4e. The PHB seemed a terrible mess of a book. It was playing a session of 4e in I think June 2009 that opened my eyes to the possibilities of a system that created an exciting narrative (at least in combat!) simply through players employing the action resolution mechanics (NOT story-creation mechanics) they were given.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules
- Thread starter Mark CMG
- Start date
Yes. Realising this was what sold me on 4e. I had had a very low opinion of 4e. The PHB seemed a terrible mess of a book. It was playing a session of 4e in I think June 2009 that opened my eyes to the possibilities of a system that created an exciting narrative (at least in combat!) simply through players employing the action resolution mechanics (NOT story-creation mechanics) they were given.
I understand what you mean, and I was attempting to do is my explain my opinion that it changes for me when you open up from a skillset like "combat" to a much broader "adventuring". Like any stereotype, the broader/simpler the abstraction, the more vulnerable to scrutiny. At some point, it breaks for someone somewhere.
For one person, maybe the breaking limit is when PCs become better at skill checks outside the adventuring sphere. For a gritty player, maybe it's the wizard who is always hanging at the back and pew-pew-ing magic from a distance, and therefore shouldn't gain base attack bonuses to melee. For a deep immersionist, it's the PC who put 5 skill points into Climbing halfway throught the adventure but didn't actually do any climbing. (I'm just using these as theoretical examples that you can't please everyone, not as examples of what I think are the most endemic issues).
If we're going with the scrawny wizard archetype and not Gandalf with a sword, then I picture the scrawny wizard as being powered by uber-magic, but underneath that magic, he's still an ordinary man, particularily with Conan sword-and-sorcery fiction.
If he gets into heaven with Heracles, there perhaps he is a mere mortal but still capable of incredible magic, like a sci-fi soldier in a a supersuit and plasma weapons. Or he made it into the heavens by undergoing some sort of arcane apotheosis, becoming 'one' with his magic. I'm not sure -- I haven't thought that far.
If what concerns you is that a simulationist game breaks at Epic level (or even Paragon level), the "Lore" edition can have a toggle on the maximum PC level, like E6 does.
So for yourself, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the breaking limit of simulation for you is a middle-ground between gonzo-super-heroic fantasy and gritty fantasy, is that correct? That it is incoherent because it tries unsuccessfully to merge gritty and gonzo?
Yet 3E/PF is considered a simulationist game by many. I know you don't. Myself, I am ambivalent on that. So we know simulationism is very subjective.
Thus recognizing that simulationism is so inherently subjective, I think a simulationist system might a) choose a specific fiction from which to build the rules, or b) have toggles to allow the group to set the fiction they consider to be simulationist and immersive and provide the appropriate tools.
If you choose (a), then clearly, the problem is not that everyone likes the same fiction (whatever drove people from 1E or 2E or 3E). But the entire foundation of the game is built on that narrative, so you either have to tolerate it or play another game. And even if the narrative is extremely compelling (say, a Game of Thrones RPG), it may be too narrow to have mainstream appeal.
But if you choose (b), you have to have an elegant system for adjusting the rules, which makes Mearls and Monte's articles so pertinent for me.
Here is what excites me about this dialogue:
1) Take the BEST aspects of every edition and every tabletop game
2) Core game (temp is 72 degrees) that is D&D purity
3) Segment all aspects of the game that can be added, ignored or turned up/down
4) The game can be turned down to freezing (almost no tactical rules)
5) The game can be turned up to BLAZING (highest degrees of complexity)
6) DM/player contract involves "level-setting" what the participants want from the game
Yes, yes, yes.
Example, we want a game that's light on tactics (no movement rules), heavy on backstory, roleplaying, and character development. Episodic, able to run 3-5 encounters in about 2 hours, we will be playing it over Google Hangout/Skype 2 or 3 times a month.
Example 2, SAME GAME SYSTEM, switches gears to host a MASSIVE TACTICAL BATTLE in which the forces of zhentil keep and allies move upon Daggerdale. This is played in "minis" scale, in person, should last 6-8 hours, 1 encounter and INCLUDES the heroes in the battle. The outcome of the battle informs the game.
Yes, yes, yes.
1) Take the BEST aspects of every edition and every tabletop game
2) Core game (temp is 72 degrees) that is D&D purity
3) Segment all aspects of the game that can be added, ignored or turned up/down
4) The game can be turned down to freezing (almost no tactical rules)
5) The game can be turned up to BLAZING (highest degrees of complexity)
6) DM/player contract involves "level-setting" what the participants want from the game
Yes, yes, yes.
Example, we want a game that's light on tactics (no movement rules), heavy on backstory, roleplaying, and character development. Episodic, able to run 3-5 encounters in about 2 hours, we will be playing it over Google Hangout/Skype 2 or 3 times a month.
Example 2, SAME GAME SYSTEM, switches gears to host a MASSIVE TACTICAL BATTLE in which the forces of zhentil keep and allies move upon Daggerdale. This is played in "minis" scale, in person, should last 6-8 hours, 1 encounter and INCLUDES the heroes in the battle. The outcome of the battle informs the game.
Yes, yes, yes.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
There is no particular problem with lopsideness from a wide spread of DCs in a version of D&D--provided that you are willing to narrow the supported playstyles. Or rather, there are problems with it, but you can find counters that will work well enough for some playstyles. However, if the intention is to support 4E and 3E style (and possibly pre-3E style as well, in a separate, common core piece or otherwise), then the counters won't work very well anymore.
Now, you could obviously get around this by keeping the wide DCs, but using an entirely different set of mechanics for skills, separate set of DCs, etc. for "Legend" and "Lore" options. But if you go that route, might as well make two separate games. There won't be enough common stuff to even pretend they are related.
BTW, and related to the more recent discussion about simulation, one of the reasons that you might want to make this sacrifice to support more playstyles, is that the playstyle of the 3E/PF group is not really purist simulation. They wouldn't care for a purist simulation version of D&D anymore than they would 4E. (On average they wouldn't. Some would enjoy various pieces of that effort.) So making the "Lore" side more like Runequest or Rolemaster is not going to make them happy.
Simulation in D&D has nearly always been mainly pretense. There are things that you don't look at too closely. There are times when the rules get ignored to get that result you want (as pemerton said of 2E play). 3E caters to this pretense on one level. If you extrapolate logically from 3E RAW, it falls apart. But there is enough of it there to satisfy some people that they are simulating a coherent world. They learned to ignore expanding hit points and other such. (I'm convinced this is the core of why healing surges are so vilified by this crowd by the way. It's not that healing surges are what they are. It is rather that the surges constantly call attention to the simulation nonsense that is expanding hit points.)
Mainly, this illusion is maintained by saying things are such and such in plain text--whether the mechanics support those statements or not. 3E built some D&D-ish rules that at least tried to hit the ballpark of what a lot of those statements said. In contrast, 4E throws up its hands on a lost cause, and pulls the curtain away. 2E was early Wizard of Oz. 3E was about making the Wizard more than a mere fraud. 4E said the important thing is that the wicked witch gets melted and we get back to Kansas.
But you might notice that one of the reasons that people were quite happily drifting Basic and 1E play into their own divergent styles is that for most people, it got played in a relatively narrow scale (compared to D&D in general, if not other games), and thus people were able to so diverge in the drifting. If the fighter has +1 scale mail, a +2 shield, and a couple of magic weapons, while the rest of the party has similar stuff, then the pretense of simulation can be reasonably maintained. Or I can play it like a Fafhrd and Gray Mouser story. Or any number of things can happen. (We'll all have to bend around problems in the rules doing that with Basic or 1E, but that's because of other issues, not scaling.)
And just to be entirely clear, I'm not advocating that the scaling in 5E be more tight. I am saying that if the game is going to have options and/or whole supplemental variants that are going to cater to the 4E and 3E/PF crowds (and older gamers) all at once, then tigher scaling is a necessary prerequisite to having coherent rules. Plus, being completely open about my dog in this fight, I think that such scaling in such an effort would impose some discipline on the whole design that would have some other benefits in the long run (e.g. regarding power creep). However, it would be a tricky, very ambitious design, and is hardly my money or reputation riding on it.
Last edited:
I was just re-reading this. Although some have been hinting at levels being incompatible with a simulationist game, I've avoided thinking about eliminating levels, because I believe I read an article by Mearls that levels was one of the sacred cows of D&D (along with ability scores, etc.) that were essential to the game.
As we discussed, in 3E, levels primarily represent combat experience, and in 4E, they represent adventuring experience. Let's call it a heroic Combat Level and an Adventuring Level, respectively.
One thing I didn't like about 3E NPC rules was that it was applying Combat Levels (with attack bonuses, hp, etc.) to a non-combatant. Really, the level should be indicative of their life experience. A blacksmith should have a Blacksmith Level where 1 is apprentice and 5 is Master and you get x skill points per level and maybe a Str bonus. That's just a theoretical example, I'm not advocating actual Blacksmith Levels except maybe in a complicated game (although using that as a general guideline for NPC creation might be useful, I'm not sure).
Some questions - if a scrawny rogue is hanging back at every battle and allowing everyone else to do all the fighting, does he get xp towards a Combat Level? If a fat scholary wizard never helps anybody around the dungeon and keeps a nose buried in his book, does he get xp towards an Adventuring Level? If the game is sandboxy, is it justified to eliminate scrawny rogues and fat scholarly wizards from the game, or do you allow them as viable characters? If the latter, does the player want to receive a Combat Level or Adventuring Level and why?
All this musing is to suggest to me that a truly sandboxy Lore edition might be quite different than the Legends edition, not just by toggling of core rules, but by toggling the quality of levels as well.
So the Legends edition definitely uses Adventuring Levels as an extension of 4E. Published adventures are designed for optimal focus around super heroic Adventuring Levels.
For a sandboxy Lore, maybe you put a cap on Combat Level like E6. Maybe you allow the player to choose 2 bundles/add-ons with each level -- every level, it is recommended to pick up one Combat bundle and your Class/Power Source bundle, but a player might choose something else (with appropriate limitations). Maybe the DM hands out bundles depending on what you experienced in the narrative. Maybe if you completed an adventure without any combat whatsoever, you don't get to pick up a Combat bundle at all.
If Lore is not sandboxy, then what kind of Levels and pre-defined type of narrative is going to capture a segment of the market beyond 4E?
Just brainstorming here, because I think the question of what is a level is quite relevant to what is a simulationist/immersive game.
Last edited:
I agree with this. Which is why I think that "Lore" is going to have to find some other way to differentiate from PF/3E, and think your sandbox idea upthread might be one interesting way.
I don't know. I don't see any obvious reason why WotC could compete with Paizo if it went back in a PF/3E direction.
What is this specific sandbox idea? I found CJ's idea of a published Core ruleset that is sandboxy, but I can't find his idea of a Lore edition that is sandboxy.
Yes, that's what I found, that the Core is sandboxy. So how is Lore differentiated from PF/3E when the Core is sandboxy, and if Core is sandboxy, what is simulationist Lore that CJ doesn't think will attract RM players and you don't think will attract PF/3E players?
I think that CrazyJerome and I agree that 3E/PF, and D&D more generally, is not really purist-for-sytem simulation (because non-sim elements like hit points, and in classic D&D saving throws, are so integral to the game).
Now CJ didn't say that simulationist Lore won't attract RQ/RM players (at least I don't think he did). He said:
And I agree with this. I think that making "Lore" truly purist-for-system sim won't attract the 3E/PF crowd. And I think it won't attract the RM/RQ/GURPS/HERO crowd either - they've already got the games that they like.
Which suggests that "Lore" has to be 3E/PF-ish, which is to say simulationist only in some respects, perhaps more than merely superficial or peripheral (cf 3E grappling rules) but with big non-simulationist chunks remaining (especiallly in core combat resolution).
I have been imagining a situation-based "Legend" and a sandboxy "Lore" - with "Legend" tweaking the dials in a fashion that makes the non-simulationism clear, while "Lore" adds in a few bells and whistles to generate the minimum appearance of simulation that is 3E/PF (with the sandboxy scenario design being one of those bells and whistles).
This is probably a bit of a departure from CJ's initial idea - because it is locating the sandboxiness in "Lore" rather than in Core. Core, on my version of CJ's idea, is neutral as between sandbox or situation as the basis of scenario design.
What I liked about CJ's idea, and am keeping in my version of it, is that it gives "Legend" something to do that might attract 3E/PF players back - because Paizo on the whole does not focus on sandboxing but on adventure paths.
On my model, then there would be four versions of D&D:
*"Core", published by WotC, with a stripped-back PC build and action resolution chassis, with the focus on the GM preparing a scenario or reading a simple module and the players being able to jump right in - because so much of the context and the subtlety of scenario design and action resolution would be contibuted by the participants (and especially the GM), the play of Core could easily be drifted in a variety of directions, but wouldn't particularly support any of them - the expectation would be that players would migrate to one of the other three versions that suited their preferences better;
*"Legend", published by WotC and offering a non-simulationist mechanical experience with the focus of play being on the situation as a site for either light narrativism or light gamism, the rules being written so that minimal drifting is required to go one way or the other (think 4e as an example);
*"Lore", published by WotC and offering a pseudo-purist-for-system experience with Gygaxian naturalist and gamist (as in "playing to win") elements, and the focus of the fiction being on sandbox setting exploration (this would be classic D&D but realised via 3E-ish mechanics) - depending on how the GM sets up the sandbox and how the players tackle it, the gamism might drop out and we drift to a type of "merchants and explorers" simulationism where most of the focus of play happens outside the context of the action resolution mechanics, at least until some of the more obscure and specialised supplements are put onto the market;
*Pathfinder, published by Paizo and offering a pseudo-purist-for-system experience with strong high concept and gamist elements, with the focus of the fiction being on the players' experience of preplotted adventure paths - if the GM starts fudging, then the gamism drops out and we've drifted to pure 2nd-ed style high concept simulationism (with or without an illusionist cloak, depending how blatant the fudging is).
*"Legend", published by WotC and offering a non-simulationist mechanical experience with the focus of play being on the situation as a site for either light narrativism or light gamism, the rules being written so that minimal drifting is required to go one way or the other (think 4e as an example);
*"Lore", published by WotC and offering a pseudo-purist-for-system experience with Gygaxian naturalist and gamist (as in "playing to win") elements, and the focus of the fiction being on sandbox setting exploration (this would be classic D&D but realised via 3E-ish mechanics) - depending on how the GM sets up the sandbox and how the players tackle it, the gamism might drop out and we drift to a type of "merchants and explorers" simulationism where most of the focus of play happens outside the context of the action resolution mechanics, at least until some of the more obscure and specialised supplements are put onto the market;
*Pathfinder, published by Paizo and offering a pseudo-purist-for-system experience with strong high concept and gamist elements, with the focus of the fiction being on the players' experience of preplotted adventure paths - if the GM starts fudging, then the gamism drops out and we've drifted to pure 2nd-ed style high concept simulationism (with or without an illusionist cloak, depending how blatant the fudging is).
I personally doubt that this model is commercially viable, because (i) Core will leak to Pathfinder, and (ii) maintaing both Legend and Lore will be a lot of work for WotC. But that's just a gut feel from someone with no business or publishing experience whatsoever!
Last edited:
