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

[Lanefan]

I'm not saying that's unfair, but I also don't think that was the marketing plan.

May or may not have been the plan but the proof lay in the pudding. I wish I could remember the exact words he used but at a GenCon 2009 seminar promoting 4e, one of the WotC types (I forget if it was a designer or merketer, they might have had both there) - while walking in and before even taking his chair - started with loud and clear words along the lines of "Every D&D game you've played up to now is crap. Once you've played this D&D, you'll see what we mean".

He and two others then spent the next hour coming back to different variants on this theme in between introducing/explaining aspects and elements of 4e to us. It was an uphill fight, however, as they'd lost half the room with that opening line.

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.

Designed to exclude? Probably not. The marketing, however, presented a different message - as noted above.

 

[soviet]

May or may not have been the plan but the proof lay in the pudding. I wish I could remember the exact words he used but at a GenCon 2009 seminar promoting 4e, one of the WotC types (I forget if it was a designer or merketer, they might have had both there) - while walking in and before even taking his chair - started with loud and clear words along the lines of "Every D&D game you've played up to now is crap. Once you've played this D&D, you'll see what we mean".

He and two others then spent the next hour coming back to different variants on this theme in between introducing/explaining aspects and elements of 4e to us. It was an uphill fight, however, as they'd lost half the room with that opening line.

Designed to exclude? Probably not. The marketing, however, presented a different message - as noted above.

This alleged promotional seminar would have been 14 months after the game was released.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

The rules do two things:

1 - they provide a framework in which the freeform elements can take place
2 - in one way or another they provide an abstraction for things that cannot be roleplayed, such that those things can happen and be resolved such that the fiction can continue.

We can discuss the "one way or another" piece in '2' to no end, it's just arguing about the merits of one system over another.

The argument here, though, seems to be one of how loose or tight that framework in '1' should be, and over which aspects. Some players (and GMs) like a fairly tight rules framework around, say, in-game social encounters, while others (like me) prefer there be little if any framework around that aspect of things and that it largely be allowed to go freeform.

Which is to say, even in a moment of pure freeform roleplaying we're still playing the game; we're playing characters that were designed-created-built according to the rules of whatever system we're playing in, in a setting that may also have been designed according to rules or guidelines. It's just that in that moment of freeform RP all those mechanical elements have faded into the background and vanished.

 

[pemerton]

Here's a character sheet from Cthulhu Dark:

Name: Jack
Occupation: Longshoreman​

I GMed a session of Cthulhu Dark where someone played that character. The character was just as well-developed, just as capable of being roleplayed, as any AD&D character I can think of in my time playing AD&D.

I wouldn't play AD&D, or 3E D&D, or 5e D&D, if I wanted the rules to get out of the way.

 

[Lanefan]

This alleged promotional seminar would have been 14 months after the game was released.

Oh, it was; but I was in the room and I heard what was said. They might have been promoting one or two of the second round of core books, I don't remember; but the seminar was intended as an introduction to 4e for those who hadn't played it yet (which is why I went).

At a dimly-remembered guess I'd say there were about 50-75 people there; it's not like this was one of those empty-room seminars you can find sometimes at GenCon.

 

[soviet]

Oh, it was; but I was in the room and I heard what was said. They might have been promoting one or two of the second round of core books, I don't remember; but the seminar was intended as an introduction to 4e for those who hadn't played it yet (which is why I went).

At a dimly-remembered guess I'd say there were about 50-75 people there; it's not like this was one of those empty-room seminars you can find sometimes at GenCon.

So 14 months after 4e's release there was a roomful of Gen Con attendees who had not only never played 4e, but also didn't know anything about it and hadn't been exposed to any of the pre-release marketing or post-release controversy and discussion on forums and such? They were blank slates who were only put off the game by the anonymous marketer/designer/CEO's brash confidence in the product and dismissal of the previous edition, when WotC already knew how 4e was struggling and that their marketing had been poorly received, to the extent that they apparently had to put on outreach programmes for disaffected grognards who 14 months after release had never even tried the game?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't actually think they are strictly necessary, just helpful. They're tools.

Well, I was commenting on what @Micah Sweet shared, and his exchange with @TwoSix .

But if you don’t think they’re necessary, that they’re just tools… what are they tools for?

I think it’s also possible for tools to be necessary.

I mean, it has been explained to you several times already, even in this thread.

I asked a specific poster a specific question that, as far as I know, he’s not answered in this thread.

I mean… I have a rough idea of what @Lanefan’s game involves. It’s got plenty of rules that I’d never describe as “getting out of the way”.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The rules do two things:

1 - they provide a framework in which the freeform elements can take place
2 - in one way or another they provide an abstraction for things that cannot be roleplayed, such that those things can happen and be resolved such that the fiction can continue.

We can discuss the "one way or another" piece in '2' to no end, it's just arguing about the merits of one system over another.

The argument here, though, seems to be one of how loose or tight that framework in '1' should be, and over which aspects. Some players (and GMs) like a fairly tight rules framework around, say, in-game social encounters, while others (like me) prefer there be little if any framework around that aspect of things and that it largely be allowed to go freeform.

Which is to say, even in a moment of pure freeform roleplaying we're still playing the game; we're playing characters that were designed-created-built according to the rules of whatever system we're playing in, in a setting that may also have been designed according to rules or guidelines. It's just that in that moment of freeform RP all those mechanical elements have faded into the background and vanished.

But you can accomplish everything you’ve said without game mechanics.

Is it the uncertainty? Those moments when we’re not sure how things would go? Do you stab the orc or not?

A coin flip would get out of the way pretty easily! Why not go with that?

 

[Lanefan]

So 14 months after 4e's release there was a roomful of Gen Con attendees who had not only never played 4e, but also didn't know anything about it and hadn't been exposed to any of the pre-release marketing or post-release controversy and discussion on forums and such?

Can't speak for anyone else there in terms of their prior experience, if any, with 4e. For my part, I already had some of the prerelease material plus the first round of core books, and wanted to hear what these guys had to say about why they designed what they did and where things were going next. Genuinely curious.

I was not alone in being quite put off by their "every edition before this is [bleep]" approach, which I'd heard about previously but had taken to be overblown paranoia until I met it firsthand. And it was - or turned into - very much a marketing session; they were far more keen on promoting and selling the game to us than on explaining what thought processes lay behind its design.

In hindsight I wish I'd taped or video'ed the session, but oh well.

 

[Lanefan]

But you can accomplish everything you’ve said without game mechanics.

Is it the uncertainty? Those moments when we’re not sure how things would go? Do you stab the orc or not?

Do I try to stab the orc or not? That's my choice as player.

Do I succeed? Well, we can't role-play that out at the table very well and so we have to abstract it.

A coin flip would get out of the way pretty easily! Why not go with that?

It would, and I'm sure there's games that take that light of an approach. Taking the abstraction to a bit more of a granular level, though, allows us to a) play it out in more detail (the exact amount of which is, of course, variable by system to suit one's taste) and b) avoid the 50-50 death odds that a coin-flip system would represent when the Orc flips to see if he successfully stabs me.