Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[Fenris-77]

I assume that you are talking here about the action resolution mecanics.

But not, for instance, the rules about who gets to say what. I don't think that those "fade into the background" any more in (say) Prince Valiant than in (say) Rolemaster.

Yes, but not just those.. I'm talking about the extent to which I have to shift my attention from the situation at hand to consulting a rule or mechanic, a part of which is how easy a given rules set is to internalize (and thus consult far less regularly).

I'm not 100% that this is what @Lanefan means, but I think I'm at least close.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not saying that's unfair, but I also don't think that was the marketing plan. It's not super important though. I didn't care for 4E either, so I do understand.

How does a marketing plan take that tack without meaning to? That makes no sense to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Even in RPGs I do like, I still prefer it when the rules get out of the way whenever it's reasonably possible than they can.

Yeah, I see this kind of comment fairly frequently, and I know I’ve seen you say it plenty of times. To me, it makes about as much sense as saying “I prefer the roleplaying to get out of the way” when talking about RPGs.

I enjoy the game. I enjoy the way the rules help shape play and help determine what happens next. I love the way that the game and the roleplay combine to create a unique experience.

Wanting either of those elements to “get out of the way” strikes me as an odd desire.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, I see this kind of comment fairly frequently, and I know I’ve seen you say it plenty of times. To me, it makes about as much sense as saying “I prefer the roleplaying to get out of the way” when talking about RPGs.

I enjoy the game. I enjoy the way the rules help shape play and help determine what happens next. I love the way that the game and the roleplay combine to create a unique experience.

Wanting either of those elements to “get out of the way” strikes me as an odd desire.

To me, the point of playing RPGs (as opposed to running them or worldbuilding) is to explore an imaginary world through the specific lens of your character. If not having to refer to the rules more than you feel is necessary helps with that goal, I see zero problem with it

 

[Fenris-77]

How does a marketing plan take that tack without meaning to? That makes no sense to me.

Trying to do something different and interesting isn't the same as exclusionary. The fact that people felt that way is something else. The fact that they felt that way doesn't mean that was the intent, however. "I feel like the game excluded my tastes and preferences therefor it was designed to do so" isn't a valid argument. I'm not denying that people didn't like 4E, I didn't like it much either, but I wouldn't dream of trying to say that 4E was designed to exclude my gaming tastes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Trying to do something different and interesting isn't the same as exclusionary. The fact that people felt that way is something else. The fact that they felt that way doesn't mean that was the intent, however. "I feel like the game excluded my tastes and preferences therefor it was designed to do so" isn't a valid argument. I'm not denying that people didn't like 4E, I didn't like it much either, but I wouldn't dream of trying to say that 4E was designed to exclude my gaming tastes.

I would. They deliberately made a more specific, targeted game than they did previously. By definition that excludes folks who prefer the things they didn't target or stopped targeting. That doesn't make it a bad game by any means (not withstanding my personal dislike of 4e), but it doesn't change what I see as exclusionary compared to previous games made by WotC and TSR that WotC decided to use the same name for on their new game.

 

[TwoSix]

I would. They deliberately made a more specific, targeted game than they did previously. By definition that excludes folks who prefer the things they didn't target or stopped targeting. That doesn't make it a bad game by any means (not withstanding my personal dislike of 4e), but it doesn't change what I see as exclusionary compared to previous games made by WotC and TSR that WotC decided to use the same name for on their new game.

I really think that wasn't their intent, though. They simply assumed that the kinds of changes they were proposing were a natural evolution of gaming style; almost no one at the time (2006-2007) had any idea that the TTRPG base was actually going to fracture into different kinds of gamers preferring different kinds of games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I really think that wasn't their intent, though. They simply assumed that the kinds of changes they were proposing were a natural evolution of gaming style; almost no one at the time (2006-2007) had any idea that the TTRPG base was actually going to fracture into different kinds of gamers preferring different kinds of games.

I can see them thinking it was a good idea, but regardless it is exclusionary. I just think they were basically ok with it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

To me, the point of playing RPGs (as opposed to running them or worldbuilding) is to explore an imaginary world through the specific lens of your character. If not having to refer to the rules more than you feel is necessary helps with that goal, I see zero problem with it

Okay, but you can do that through freeform roleplaying, right? So what makes an RPG a preferable alternative for that goal if the rules get in the way?

In freeform, the rules are entirely out of the way, right?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, but you can do that through freeform roleplaying, right? So what makes an RPG a preferable alternative for that goal if the rules get in the way?

In freeform, the rules are entirely out of the way, right?

Because it's not binary, and I think you know that. It's a spectrum. The rules are just as important for play as roleplay, but the exact desired proportion for active play at the table will I think understandably vary from player to player.

Do you really think the people arguing for less in-your-face rules interaction as a player at the table actually want no rules at all? Are they just kidding themselves in your opinion?