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

[pemerton]

And, as it quoted examples of contradictions in the argument presented

Well I don't concede that I'm in contradiction, as I pointed out in my response.

 

[BryonD]

I don't think this particular claim is true, and I'm not sure what you have in mind - the Andy Collins quote about game elements?

Huh? You don't know what I'm talking about, but you know you disagree?
Maybe that shows something about this whole debate.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not doubting for one second that every designer at WotC agrees that including ethics in your game play is a huge part of the fun. And I'm certain they do that in their games. But pointing out quotes (or at least vague references to documents) in which they endorse that as part of the gaming experience says nothing whatsoever about mechanical design. And specific quotes from the designers about the actual mechanics consistently support my point.

The two points are not incompatible. I'm certain the designers love ethics in their games. But they don't want them burdening the mechanics. They just want the "game piece" to be a good "game piece". And the same old theme of role playing "on top" of the system returns. You can do that.

But I find far more reward in systems in which these elements are integrated.

 

[Imaro]

I don't have an stance here*. Stances are for attack and defense. I'm not doing either.

They can also be for clarifying one's opinions on the matter being discussed and in no way directly lead to attacks or defense...

I mean, really - it isn't like anyone's ever come up with an objective measure of "gamism", "narrativism" or "simulationism", right? You can't hold up your gamometer to the 4e PHB, or drop GURPS into the narra-chromatograph, and have it ping a number back at you. Of course the thing is subjective.

I don't believe something being quantifiable or measurable is necessary for it to be the topic of a discussion.

It then follows that there's no particular reason to agree, no proof that could be offered. After a short while, you'd expect folk to agree to disagree. When you look at several pages of two sides staunchly defending positions and never budging, it starts looking somewhat like an ideological conflict, an ego conflict, or a thinly disguised edition war, none of which are of any real use to anybody.

Ok, I get it... you don't really want to talk about what the rest of us are discussing... that doesn't mean we aren't enjoying our discussion though, and as long as no one is out of line... all that boils down too is that Umbran doesn't personally find this discussion meaningful or engaging... I can understand and respect that, but it doesn't mean I or anyone else should have to stop enjoying the conversation we are having.

Pardon me if I thought stepping away from ideology, and back to practical matters might prove more interesting, and less aggravating.

First... if this discussion is aggravating and not interesting to you... well that's your personal opinion... I'm sure you're not the only one who feels that way so why not go start a thread on the aspects that you wish to discuss as opposed to trying to shut down or redirect the discussion in this thread?

Second...It's not always what you do, but how you do it. You jumped into the middle of an ongoing debate, without clarifying your stance or purpose, and quoted answers I had posted to one of permeton's questions. You then, again without clarification or explanation, began to bring up points that had already been hashed out in the discussion... and surprisingly enough agreed to by both sides... while referencing my quotes which were in no way addressing what you were talking about... now you're acting like the problem is you wanted to bring in another facet to discuss, when in fact it was how you went about it... All IMO of course.

*This is not exactly true - I've already revealed that I think GNS theory is weak sauce. I tend to think that entrenching sides over it is wasted energy.

So I guess you do have a stance and you haven't had to attack, or had to defend it... Hmmmm, intersting in reference to your first statement.

 

[nnms]

I just reread this thread from front to back. Here's what I learned:

If you have something negative to say about any edition of D&D, don't frame it in objective terms. As if your opinion of what you don't like is some universal measure of how to assess RPGs.

Similarly, if you see someone do the above, don't interpret it as an attack on what you love. Interpret it as them being ignorant about the objectivity of their subjective opinion.

As long as we have an "us vs them" mentality, the edition wars will rage on. Whether it's is OD&D guys lamenting how quickly RPGing lost it's way, or AD&D1E players talking about how Gygax's vision was so utterly betrayed by "Zeb the destroyer" or 2E players talking about how a Collectible Card Game company turned D&D into a table top version of a video game or Pathfinder players talking about how 4E is just WoW on the table top, or 4E players decrying OD&D as being the game of ego-trip DMs, it's all the same crap.

These people that play games you don't like. They're gamers like you. They're not in some rival camp that you need to do battle with. It's okay for people to like different things than you.

As for WotC's screw ups as a company, I think it's best to ask ourselves if our hobby focus is best spent on dwelling on those or playing games we love. Yep, they made some moves that pissed you off, but is winning an internet message board argument about it going to undo those changes?

I'm starting to find things about 4E that I don't like. I played it since before day one and have given it an honest go. Now I'm starting to implement some house rules to make it do more of what I want. I find myself referring to Dark Dungeons an awful lot as I prep my 4E games. Does that mean I think 4E without an old school influence added on is objectively bad, or good?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well I don't concede that I'm in contradiction, as I pointed out in my response.

No one said you had done so.

They seem pretty stark to me, though.

(Shrug)

No one would be arguing with you if you said "I find 4e better for narrativist gaming, based upon my style." It is only the (seeming) claim of being objectively better that is in contention.

RC

 

[tuxgeo]

Class of Page 42

For reasons unknown, the use of language in this thread suddenly became more classy and erudite. (Not sure why.) Examples:

< . . . >While I respect that you feel wronged in some respect, I can't discern how I have any ability to salve that wound. < . . . >

--> "can't discern how I have any ability to salve that wound."

Pawsplay - your post is just one in a host of posts really, and hardly the most egregious. I mean, it's not like you're claiming that it's the combination of unwritten rules and and assumptions that go beyond what's included in the 3e ruleset that makes 3e great. It's not you who's making drinking games out of things either.

--> "just one in a host of posts really, and hardly the most egregious."

Thankfully, AFAICT, no one is engaged in that. Indeed, the "drinking game" you mentioned was about the quality of the argument used to demonstrate that 4e was superior for "narrativist play" rather than the quality of the game. And, as it quoted examples of contradictions in the argument presented, it was useful from the standpoint of anyone actually following the argument who plays neither 3e nor 4e, and thus has no duck in the quackery.

--> "has no duck in the quackery."

<. . . > I have to draw comparisons to games (and GMing techniques, like my favourite quote from Paul Czege) that are the avant garde of RPGing, if it makes sense to talk about RPGing having an avant garde. Whereas our game is in most respects pretty mainstream fantasy. < . . . >

--> "if it makes sense to talk about RPGing having an avant garde."

I just reread this thread from front to back. Here's what I learned:

< . . . >

As for WotC's screw ups as a company, I think it's best to ask ourselves if our hobby focus is best spent on dwelling on those or playing games we love. Yep, they made some moves that pissed you off, but is winning an internet message board argument about it going to undo those changes?

--> ". . . if our hobby focus is best spent on dwelling on those . . ."

(Perhaps "engaging" might be a better term here than "winning," because at least one poster here (Aberzanzorax) has acknowledged having learned from other participants, and has thanked them for engaging in the discussion.)


Class of Page 42: Is the language on this page more classy because the antagonism became exhausted through attrition? Or because, after all, it's "Page 42," and 42 is the Answer? Or because time-pressures eased, allowing participants more time to refine their responses? Or because the extensive explanations and considerations allowed the participants to understand each others' positions more deeply? Or because the earthquake in Japan instilled a greater sense of perspective in those posting? Or just because it's the Vernal Equinox, giving everybody lots of new energy and feel-good vibes?

Perhaps some combination of all of the above? Or other factors entirely? (For example, the increased classiness might be a misperception on my part.)

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I think we may be talking about two different types of mechanics; I was thinking about how XP are awarded and how that contributes to changes in the character, not general action-resolution mechanics. Are those XP awarded for addressing thematic concerns? Do the changes made to the character from the acquisition of XP enhance or deepen our ability to explore a given theme?

I was, just now, reading through the XP section in the 3.5 DMG and it's actually got a hell of a lot more support for that kind of play than I expected! That's pretty cool. I think the "story awards" system could be tightened up, but that's just me.

I'm imagining playing 3.x with a narrativist bent now. You'd (well, I would) want to put a lot of focus on the flavour of various prestige classes and the goals that players create for their characters, making sure that you're using the story award system outlined in the DMG. I can see how advancing via story awards + thematic flavour of classes, prestige classes, and feats + players who are into that sort of thing would make it work.

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.

There are some action-resolution level mechanics in 3.x that deal with moral and ethical concerns: alignment-based spells. Then there are alignment restrictions to different classes. I'm not convinced that these would make it more or less difficult to play with a narrativist bent. You can make some powerful thematic statements by choosing to take actions that make you give up your Paladin abilities, for example.

This has been a very enlightening discussion! Thanks for that.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I'm not a big fan of the classic D&D paladin, for two reasons. First, because it's dependent on GM-arbitrated alignment descriptions, it is the GM's thematic conception that dominates over the player's. (...) 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.

You seem to be maintaining that:

(1) The 4E warlock is great for narrativist play because the GM can "introduce thematic conflict" with absolutely no support from the mechanics at all.

(2) The 3E paladin is terrible for narrativist play because the GM can "introduce thematic conflict" with some support from the mechanics.

This is a philosophical divide which I might disagree with on principle. But, more particularly, I find your position incoherent given the fact that you're using this argument (that 4E doesn't mechanically enable narrativist play) to support your contention that 4E mechanically enables narrativist play.

But, when I post exact rules quotes, none of which have been refuted beyond, "Well, a good DM just won't use those rules, why aren't you a good DM", and, if I stray a single syllable beyond the RAW of 4e I get monkey piled, why would I think that there is anything of value going to come from this conversation?

You seem to think you're getting criticized independently for these two stances. What I'm specifically criticizing is the hypocrisy between these stances. You say (paraphrasing), "3E has specific rules for X, so the DM has to use them. In 4E the DM can just make a judgment call for X." Despite the fact that 4E also has explicit rules for X. (And, in many cases, has virtually the exact same rules for X.)

I don't care if you want to adopt a position of "the DM has to use every single rule, guideline, and suggestion published in the core rulebooks for resolving situation X" or a position of "the DM has a great deal of latitude and flexibility in choosing which guidelines to use and when to use them".

But I do ask that you remain consistent in your position instead of engaging in rampant hypocrisy.

Huh? You don't know what I'm talking about, but you know you disagree?
Maybe that shows something about this whole debate.

I need to spread XP around, but that certainly was revelatory.

 

[pawsplay]

For reasons unknown, the use of language in this thread suddenly became more classy and erudite. (Not sure why.)

Ha! That's what happens when I type fast and off the cuff. The same things happens when I drink. I find myself carelessly dropping words, and they just go everywhere.