Mearls' Legends and Lore: Miniatures Madness

[Matt James]

When the time came for a new edition, we got 4e, which is really Andy Collins' version of the game.

You need to qualify this statement, as it completely invalidates everything else you say.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Charm spells were never good at taking enemies out of a fight. There was usually a clause about hostile actions breaking the effect; in 3.5 any threat from you or your allies against the charmed creature broke the spell (and you got a +5 to save if you were in combat when the spell was cast).

The point of charm magic was to be a non-combat effect. The succubus works her wiles on you and you become entranced, not a dominated thrall but not entirely free-willed either; she can worm secrets out of you, induce you to help her out in seemingly harmless ways, and so forth. In combat, the 4E version works out okay. Out of combat, it's mostly useless unless the DM makes up an entire new ability to cover it. If you want to do that making-up, more power to you; but I would prefer to have guidelines from people who've put some thought into it and tested it in play. That is, after all, why we pay money for this stuff.

OTOH most of this kind of action is going to be either off-stage or involving NPCs. There is such a large variety of ways DMs may want to handle it that my feeling is the 4e devs simply decided that such things as how or if a Succubus can mess with your mind outside of an encounter is best left open ended. It isn't like they haven't provided mechanics that can be used for the purpose. An SC or just use of various skills is pretty straightforward. A player being charmed by the succubus makes a DC whatever WIS check for instance, and maybe they will use Insight or Perception ahead of that to avoid getting in the situation to start with.

 

[LostSoul]

With that clarified, I would say that it is eminently reasonable that you should have these preferences in some roleplaying games - but (a) I don't think that those methods fit D&D 4E well, and (b) that you seem to prefer them for every single roleplaying game you play I regard as blinkered narrowmindedness, I'm afraid. My only question would be, if that is the only type of game you wish to pursue, why on earth are you starting with D&D as your system?

I think that those methods do fit D&D 4E well in certain circumstances - obviously not as far as I wanted to go with my hack, but with general "page 42"-ish rulings.

As for (b), that's not entirely true; I do have preferences, but I can enjoy different types of games (Houses of the Blooded is one that springs to mind).

Paul Czege's comments would be apt in this case if the game was restricted to a single GM and a single player. Several games, though, have distributed authority over resolutions without (allowing) 'self resolution'. Universalis' definition of "complications" springs immediately to mind as an example. None of these techniques, though, fit "gamist" or "challenge-based" play - which is what I want when I select D&D as the system.

It should come as no surprise that I didn't enjoy playing Universalis! I've only had two or three experiences with the game, though. But to focus on your first sentence - can you unpack this idea for me? I don't understand how that is the case. (Do you mean any one GM and/or player, or one-on-one type games?)

So, the game you are "challenging" them at is "guess what the GM is thinking"? Sorry - I'll stop now.

That's a good question. That's something I have struggled with; how is it not "mother-may-I" play (assuming that's what you mean).

I think it has to do with the impartiality of the DM. Do you think this is possible? (That is, you can avoid mother-may-I play if the DM makes rulings impartially.) If so, is it desired or necessary? Can you get the same benefits in some other manner?

What do you think?

If it's not the "one, true way" why are you advocating it as the desirable direction for the development of D&D 4E?

Let me try to sum it up again: "D&D 4E is good at the job it set out to do; if you think it could be improved for that purpose I'm all ears, but if you don't like that purpose, why not pick a system that suits your purposes better? That is what I do when I want a game with different goals".

It seems to me that many of the "edition war" type arguments boil down to attempts to control/advocate/influence the core play goals of D&D as a system. Such arguments are bound to be futile and will furthermore make for a less focussed - and hence poorer - D&D. Surely, a more productive line would be to ask what other games fit your preferred goals better, and how might they be improved to focus better on your chosen aims?

I think it's desirable because it's what I prefer! I also think that challenge-based play is better served with the "rulings, not rules" model; I think this makes it easier to challenge the player, since players can think "outside of the box". That may not be true, it might be the flavour of the challenge that's the difference.

 

[LostSoul]

With 3.x and especially with 4th Edition D&D, I think the designers have actually returned D&D to its 'roots'. They have recognised the "DNA" I mentioned earlier and aimed to create a game system that is optimised for that purpose. I love the result. I can understand that those who wanted to use D&D for other aims prefer earlier editions - essentially because their lack of optimisation for "gamist" or "challenge based" play means they are better for other styles of play, in a similar way to which a hacksaw with no blade is better for use as a hammer, because there is no blade to break or cut yourself on!

I don't agree that 4E is designed for challenge-based play. I don't think the reward cycles of the game promote "stepping up" to face more difficult challenges. There are, I think, 3 issues with challenge-based play in 4E:

1. Treasure is rewarded by character level;
2. Extended Rests are not a limited resource;
3. Dead PCs can be replaced by new PCs of the party's level.

I think what 4E focuses on is the story of your heroes in a world that needs them. pemerton has made some good arguments on how the various rules interact to feed this goal. Where I disagree with him is on the amount of thematically-charged material in the game.

 

[Balesir]

It should come as no surprise that I didn't enjoy playing Universalis! I've only had two or three experiences with the game, though.

I won't claim to be surprised, but this is fine - it supports a play style you don't like, no problem there. I cited it simply as an example that confining resolution authority to the GM is not the only way to ensure that resolution authority is not in the hands of the one who chooses and/or the one who faces the challenge.

But to focus on your first sentence - can you unpack this idea for me? I don't understand how that is the case. (Do you mean any one GM and/or player, or one-on-one type games?)

Very simply I meant to say that if you have more than two players (i.e. more than one GM and one 'player', if you have a GM) then you have more choices than "the GM" to handle resolution authority without having a player handle resolution authority for their own/their character's challenges. Simple logic of numbers, is all.

That's a good question. That's something I have struggled with; how is it not "mother-may-I" play (assuming that's what you mean).

I think it has to do with the impartiality of the DM. Do you think this is possible? (That is, you can avoid mother-may-I play if the DM makes rulings impartially.) If so, is it desired or necessary? Can you get the same benefits in some other manner?

What do you think?

"Mother-may-I" is a rather dismissive simplification, but in essence, yes. To put it in a more nuanced way, the GM's beliefs, knowledge, mood, biases, social relationships and internal picture of the setting and situation of the game will inevitably colour their judgements and choices. They will first of all colour their view of how the action develops in the fiction, and then both as a result of this and independently they will colour their judgements about the results of actions in the fiction. If players are given incentive to "beat" other elemets ('challenges') in the fiction using their own guile, skills and luck, they will be naturally impelled to try to understand and relate to the GM's beliefs, mood, biases, etc., since a clear understanding of their situation will tell them that this is the most likely way to achieve their aims.

I find this "game" somewhat divisive and tedious - possibly because I have played with a fairly stable group of players (though not all play at one time) for many years. I see two ways to avoid this situation happening:

1) Have some external reference that decides most points of judgement. This does not have to totally nail down everything, but it should at least enable the players to understand a framework that allows them to predict judgements for the majority of cases without the need to examine the GM's predilictions or mood. This framework is sometimes called "the rules".

2) Encourage some focus of play other than the players using their own guile, skills and luck to overcome in-game challenges. That is not to say that in-game challenges will not happen - characters having goals and meeting resistance in reaching them is a natural part of any interesting setting - but that the players will not be invested in using their own minds and wills in overcoming them to any great degree.

I fit your "challenging players to think outside the box" in the second of these, even though that might seem strange. It involves asking players to find interesting new areas to "explore", rather than asking them to formulate effective (and possibly novel) strategies within a strictly defined set of rules.

I think it's desirable because it's what I prefer! I also think that challenge-based play is better served with the "rulings, not rules" model; I think this makes it easier to challenge the player, since players can think "outside of the box". That may not be true, it might be the flavour of the challenge that's the difference.

As I say above, this seems to me to be "challenging the players to explore new concepts" rather than "challenge them to beat in-game challenges". It can be fun and is a very valid way to roleplay, but it's not what I mean by "challenge-based play", which is much more akin to challenging someone to a game like chess, with fixed rules within which novel strategies, or simply effective old strategies, might be applied.

I think that, if you want to encourage this sort of thing, you would be better served to approach the play differently than D&D. I'm speculating, but I'm guessing that challenging the players to "guess what the GM would like" and then making clear that "the GM would like out-of-the-box solutions like this and this" could work, to a degree. But then all the bulk of the D&D rules are doing is being dragged along as baggage; the core of the game is (a) the GM will reward you for having ideas like this, (b) the xp/level and character powers stuff in these books is the material that will be used to reward you. If that is the case, why not jettison much of the D&D system and focus on the game you want to play?

I don't agree that 4E is designed for challenge-based play. I don't think the reward cycles of the game promote "stepping up" to face more difficult challenges. There are, I think, 3 issues with challenge-based play in 4E:

Fairly clearly I beg to differ I agree that 4E is not completely without issues - what system is? But let's look at the ones you list:

1. Treasure is rewarded by character level;

Treasure in 4E is, to my mind, part of the levelling process. There is a "standard" rate at which characters are expected to gain treasure, treasure is (or, rather, was until the ill-conceived - in my view - 'Rarity' system came along) in the control of the players, within the confines of resources (money) and powers (Ritual casting). Treasure I see therefore as a character attribute, similar to powers and feats. Items are part of the "armoury" that the players have to overcome the challenges that comprise the game.

2. Extended Rests are not a limited resource;

Correct; they are the way that the players control the extent to which they "step up". Nothing stops them from being wusses and chasing the "five minute workday". But, with possible explanation and some clarity of vision, they might find that it is more fun to "step on up" to further challenges before they recharge once more.

It's easy to see xp and levels as the reward system in 4E, but I think using it as such is problematic. Play at level one has to be fun; play at all levels has to be fun. Saying "you might get some neat payoff after being bored and frustrated for a few weeks" is never going to be a good sell to a prospective group. So make play at all levels fun, and add milestone rewards - brilliant!

Levels are also, as I pointed out in a discussion with pemerton, a form of "step on up". So, you succeeded in manipulating those paltry powers to achieve victory - try now with these powers and resources as well! The real "fun" comes not from the rewards, in the end, but from the exhilaration of "stepping on up" to (escalating) challenges as a player (not as a character).

3. Dead PCs can be replaced by new PCs of the party's level.

Yes - see the last point! 'Dying' is a failure - and it should be undesirable - but the real reward is not from the levels or the treasure, it's from the play of the game itself (which is actually true of all modes of play, but that's an aside).

The focus of the game, here, is not the game world, or the characters themselves - it is the player's interaction with these things to face down challenges. If they fail, so be it - failure is an inevitable part of facing challenges - but they should be allowed to pick themselves up and carry on, because it is, at the end of the day, only a game.

I think what 4E focuses on is the story of your heroes in a world that needs them. pemerton has made some good arguments on how the various rules interact to feed this goal. Where I disagree with him is on the amount of thematically-charged material in the game.

As I noted above, I had/am having a discussion with pemerton in another thread. Between you, you are advocating the other two clearly identified focusses for roleplaying besides Gamism as being "most viable" for 4E D&D. As an advocate of the third focus, I naturally believe you are both wrong, but I do enjoy hearing your arguments and responding to them! So far, though, I think I have more cogent reasons for believing that 4E is primarily suited to supporting 'Gamist' or "challenge based" play, and that when playing in other modes the best option is to redesign the rule system from scratch - possibly retaining some of the D&D colour and 'genre details'. I think it's very sad that the controllers of the rights to that colour and genre detail are unlikely to develop another roleplaying game using them. This leaves us with D&D either (a) not satisfying many of its players who would rather play with a different focus but love the colour and genre details, or (b) D&D being modified in ways that, the designers think, will better support the other foci, but will in fact just compromise its utility for 'Gamist' play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think you guys have maybe gotten a little too theoretical? At least for my tastes, lol.

Here's the thing though, I don't think 4e is so much about stepping up to bigger challenges. Character advancement at least really isn't about that. The challenge level of the game is pretty much designed to be the same at all levels. An orc is a stiff challenge for a 1st level PC, and Orcus is (well, should be) a stiff challenge for a 30th level PC. You can push yourself as a player when you feel like it, but advancement is more a narrative device than anything else. You're a farmer's son, you hack up a whole bunch of monsters etc and you evolve into a mythic hero. Sure you have more powers, hit points, etc, but that's just all fluff really, a device to give an appearance of progress. I don't know what the nature of short rests or any of that even has to do with it.

IMHO what seems to drive all these debates is 4e's emphasis on using a fairly fixed set of mechanics and asking you to build the narrative around that instead of attempting to drop the job of running a world simulator on the DM, at least in combat. But note that this is VERY much limited to what happens during combat and to a lesser extent other challenges. All it is for is to lighten the load on the DM, and look at 4e, almost every DM that runs it says the same thing, it is a game with a much lighter DM load than 3.x.

The thing is, the story is every bit as much in the hands of the people at the table and they play fundamentally the same roles as they ever have. At best you're splitting some VERY fine hairs here. Table dynamics have MUCH less to do with rule systems than with who's at the table anyway. The differences between versions of D&D for example are really pretty trivial unless you're drilling down to the smallest details. My group will play through a 4e or 3.5 or other systems adventure in pretty much the same way. I know this, we've been doing it since around 1980... I just don't obsess about rules, they aren't that important.