Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[BryonD]

I made it pretty clear upthread that I'm using Forge terminology.

Noted. But I really don't care. *I'M* talking about what the perceived issues with 4E are.

What Collins talks about isn't about gamism in this sense. Being self-conscious about game elements as game elements is, probably, at odds with some sorts of simulationism (= exploration-based play). It isn't necessarily connected, though, to "step on up" play (= gamism, in the Forge sense).

Well, what he is talking about is pretty much a direct hit for the gamist elements that I find detracting in 4E. Quoting the forge seems a red herring to addressing the issue.

By narrativism, I mean a game in which the purpose of play is for the players and GM together to engage with and address thematic (moral, aesthetic) ideas in the course o play, and to express there own conclusions on these matters. If the gameworld or the mechanics already answer these questions (eg via alignment rules, dark side point rules, rules that tell us when a PC becomes evil and also tell us that evil PCs become NPCs, etc) then it doesn't serve this purpose so well.

I guess you have a slight point with alignment. But most people use alignment very loosely or ignore it altogether. I really don't think you are describing a 3E problem that needed solving.

The 4e warlock doesn't get mechanically tested, that is true. For me that is a virtue, because it leaves the field of interpretation and engagement open to the players and GM. Every time an infernal warlock uses a power, for example, s/he is drawing on the power of the Nine Hells. I think it's pretty obvious how a GM might use this to introduce thematic conflict into a game, and oblige the player of that PC to engage with that theme in some way as part of driving the game forward. (At present, I'm in a similar point in my game with a Chaos Sorcerer about to become a Demonskin Adept. And he's just retrained Diplomacy to Intimidate in order to support a rattling power. So he's providing his own answer to the question - Does chaos lead to corruption?).

This is great and I 100% endorse what you are saying here. But you are also backfitting the solution onto the system, and further you are doing that despite WotC statements to the effect that they left them as a specific part of the design approach. So what you are doing is great, but it doesn't make 4E itself any better, it just means playing 4E at your table would be a a hair improved against the average. (And I'm already willing to take much more than that for granted.)

Well, I could equally say that there are some people who seem simply never to have had the good fortune of getting into a really good narrativist game, where play is driven by the thematic concerns the players bring to the table, rather than by the desire to explore a pre-given fantasy world.

You could say it. I don't think it is a fitting rebuttal. When I talk about people having bad experiences with 3E, I'm talking about people actively describing how they went in with expectations and those expectations were not fulfilled. They wanted an experience and did not get it.

I'm not willing to concede that there are significant numbers of people seeking the game experience you describe. I mean, I've never had a great game of golf or Pokemon either. I don't expect that to change any time soon.

Not experiencing something you are not after is not at all the same thing as failing to get something you do seek.

I'm certain there are others who agree with you. But overall, I'm also certain your approach is an outlier. Usually when I talk to 4E fans they DON'T claim that 4E is different then 3E in these ways. The highly common response is that 4E does everything 3E does, only better and easier. Which ties back to my prior comment.

So for me, the strangest thing about this thread is being told by many of those critics that, in fact, 3E handles non-simulationist play just as well as 4e, and that it either also possesses these mechanics, or can repiclates them just as well, and that their express existence in 4e makes no difference to the sort of roleplaying that 4e can support.

I've frequently said that I think you can play 4E style using 3E. I'll still say that. BUT, I also readily agree that 4E is BETTER if that is what you want. I think 3E does 4E vastly better than 4E does 3E. But "vastly better" isn't really anything more than an academic observation.

I also agree that you can role play anything in 4E that you can in 3E. Of course you can. Role play ultimately is not between the covers of a book. But the level of satisfaction that the game is going to provide if you want a good model is going to be vastly different.

And example I've given before is that I can role play Superman in any system. But I'm going to find the experience far more satisfying in a PL15+ MnM game than I am in a 100 point GURPS game. And yet I can role play it just the same. Obviously the rules in the books need to provide quality feedback to the role play. And if you want the "in the book" feel, it is my strong opinion that 3E is Superman in PL15 MnM and 4E is Superman in 100 pt GURPS. If you desire something else, then 4E may rock on toast.

 

[LostSoul]

Only if the GM lets you. And if you, as a player, make it clear that this is why you're playing a warlock, why would the GM let you? Wouldn't the GM introduce situations into the game that make this pact stuff important?

Yeah, that's true. And it's also true that the Warlock spells - especially the Utility ones - carry a great deal of flavour that facilitates thematic play. I don't think it's quite enough, though. I don't think 4E goes far enough in either the reward cycles or DM/player advice to make thematic play the assumed mode.

I compare Warlocks to Sorcerers in Sorcerer*. The same kind of colour, but there's a huge difference in the amount of thematic material in play and - most importantly, in my opinion - how addressing that thematic play is reinforced by the mechanics and advice in the game.

And when you consider lines like "a devil-touched hunter using infernal spells to eliminate evil", what is one to make of a pact? My feeling is that Warlocks were designed to be Wolverine-type characters - growly and nasty but they are heroes and support the group when it matters. Obviously this is where we differ.

* - I lifted some things from Sorcerer & Sword for Warlocks in my hack. Great game.

 

[LostSoul]

I guess you have a slight point with alignment. But most people use alignment very loosely or ignore it altogether. I really don't think you are describing a 3E problem that needed solving.

It was never a problem with 3E. 3E was never designed to make moral and ethical dilemmas the focus of play. If you want to focus on such issues, 3E doesn't really work. I think 4E is a better game if that's what you want to do, though obviously not as much as pemerton.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I propose a new drinking game:

tired it....u drink ing gam too many muc h gotta lye dwn now

 

[BryonD]

It was never a problem with 3E. 3E was never designed to make moral and ethical dilemmas the focus of play. If you want to focus on such issues, 3E doesn't really work. I think 4E is a better game if that's what you want to do, though obviously not as much as pemerton.

This may seem like I being really picky here, but hopefully you will see that I'm not.

Moral and ethical dilemmas are a huge part of 3E "play". They are not all that significant to 3E "mechanics".

I think 3E was designed with the presumption that the parts between the covers of the books and the parts not there are assumed partners. And I really think that the "complete" game experience not only assumes this but does an excellent job of supporting it.

And I recognize the irony of saying that right after saying that Perm was putting his warlock options on top of 4E. But I think the difference is that he really is putting something in that the 4E designers left out by design. Whereas I believe the assumption of a purposeful tension in the narrative was presumed by the 3E designers as something the players would bring to the table and the rules needed to be there NOT to provide, but to support.

And that comes back to my original point. I think former 3E players who had poor experiences were missing key elements. And this presumed addition of tension beyond simple physical threat is one of those possible missing elements. But missing something the game was assuming to be present is completely different than adding something the game was specifically designed to exclude.

Respectfully, I strongly disagree that the material between the covers of 4E books holds a candle to the materials between the covers of 3E books for supporting an overall ethical dilemma oriented play style.

 

[pawsplay]

Are Skill Challenges gamist? Kinda, yeah, I can see they have some length in the G direction, so to speak.

But then again, they only lie weakly that way. The rules for them are not particularly rich - as an outright game, they're kinda boring, really. Also, the GM takes the description of player actions, uses that to determine modifiers himself, and has the players make rolls. That intervention step makes it hard for the players to strategize, because they don't know the rules. Between those two, I don't think SCs really do well in serving gamist agendas**.

If I turn my head a little, and recognize that GM intervention step - the part the GM has personal control of even if he's playing 100% by the book - I realize that this can clearly be made to play the narrativist line too, if I so choose.

Given the scaling nature of skill challenges, SCs are not only boring from a gamist standpoint, but without GM intervention, entirely arbitrary, barely more evolved than the rolepaying game equivalent of pachinko. In the end, you roll the die and see if you can beat a 7 or higher three times before you don't make it twice, or whatever. It's a crapshoot, almost literally.

So insofar as they are not futile and trivial, SCs operate on a narrativist level. The GM jukes the table in approbation of actions they consider appropriate, the players try to juke the table based on dramatically plausible answers to the problem. The only room for simulation is in the retroactive fluffing of the SC elements to match the DCs you specify and the pairing of ability to skill check. Simulation is not a meaningful part of skill challenges unless your world is literally a microcosm in the mind of some superbeing controlled by the GM, and the odds actually reflect the will of that being.

 

[LostSoul]

This may seem like I being really picky here, but hopefully you will see that I'm not.

Moral and ethical dilemmas are a huge part of 3E "play". They are not all that significant to 3E "mechanics".

I think that a large part of the game is determined by the mechanics. That informs player decisions. If you want to make moral and ethical dilemmas a big part of play, make it matter in your mechanics.

I think 3E was designed with the presumption that the parts between the covers of the books and the parts not there are assumed partners. And I really think that the "complete" game experience not only assumes this but does an excellent job of supporting it.

I don't think 3E does this at all - and in many ways, works against it (how you get XP, the nature of challenges, how a character changes when levelling up, system mastery, alignment restrictions - there are probably more).

In addition, I don't think 3E spends much time talking about how to DM in such a way to make moral and ethical dilemmas the point of play.

That's not a knock on 3E; I don't think it was ever designed to be that sort of game.

Respectfully, I strongly disagree that the material between the covers of 4E books holds a candle to the materials between the covers of 3E books for supporting an overall ethical dilemma oriented play style.

While I don't agree with pemerton that moral and ethical dilemmas are the focus of 4E play, I think it's a lot easier to play that way in 4E than it is in 3E.

 

[Hussar]

Given the scaling nature of skill challenges, SCs are not only boring from a gamist standpoint, but without GM intervention, entirely arbitrary, barely more evolved than the rolepaying game equivalent of pachinko. In the end, you roll the die and see if you can beat a 7 or higher three times before you don't make it twice, or whatever. It's a crapshoot, almost literally.

So insofar as they are not futile and trivial, SCs operate on a narrativist level. The GM jukes the table in approbation of actions they consider appropriate, the players try to juke the table based on dramatically plausible answers to the problem. The only room for simulation is in the retroactive fluffing of the SC elements to match the DCs you specify and the pairing of ability to skill check. Simulation is not a meaningful part of skill challenges unless your world is literally a microcosm in the mind of some superbeing controlled by the GM, and the odds actually reflect the will of that being.

Considering the lambasting I got from BryonD for making this sort of claim about 3e, I wonder if you will take a similar level of criticism from the same sources?

Yes, if you use a system without any input from the DM, that system will suck. Totally agree there.

IMO, 4e gives a great deal more guidance to the DM for how and where that input would be most effective, but, obviously there's some disagreement there.

I would also point out something. While I might ciriticise 3e for this or that, I most certainly would not characterize my 3e experiences as negative. I had a barrel of fun with 3e. I just find myself having more fun with 4e.

Then again, it could easily be "the new shiney" effect. I played 3e for almost ten years, weekly and sometimes twice weekly, so, I logged the hell out of a lot of hours in 3e. To the point where relatively minor issues can be magnified beyond their actual importance. Add to that, an almost weekly (and sometimes daily) discussion about 3e, and I'm pretty burned out on the system.

But, I'm also slowly realizing that this conversation is largely untenable. If we discuss 4e and don't absolutely follow the letter of the rule, then we're accused of intellectual dishonesty. But, if we apply the same discussion rules to other editions, we're accused of being poor DM's and not playing the game right. It's a no win situation.

 

[BryonD]

I think that a large part of the game is determined by the mechanics. That informs player decisions. If you want to make moral and ethical dilemmas a big part of play, make it matter in your mechanics.

Obviously we pretty dramatically disagree. But this right here is the heart of it.

I think as soon as you start trying to put mechanics on ethics, all you do is start setting up boundaries.
I think mechanics are for forces and resistences. They may be physical or social, or whatever. But they resolve conflicts of potential.

Ethics are about why the forces are aplied in a given way. Why you care how your forces are applied.

If you are looking for that between the covers of a 3E book, I agree you won't find it. But, as I said, I completely believe, I'd say I know, that 3E was designed with the presumption that the rules were there specifically to work with players who bring that to the table with them. And it is a huge element of how the game works great.

I *might* agree that 4E is *easier* to play for this, as it is for many other aspects. But, as I've expressed for other elements, I'm not as concerned about how "easy" it is so much as how rewarding the result is when done well. I'll give you "easier". But I'll keep much higher potential.

 

[BryonD]

Considering the lambasting I got from BryonD for making this sort of claim about 3e, I wonder if you will take a similar level of criticism from the same sources?

As much as I appreciate being the reference of an appeal to authority, it doesn't really map the same.