D&D 5E Merwin said it better than Schwalb

[Incenjucar]

It's worth keeping in mind that different group will play the same edition in exceedingly-different ways.

For me, 4E was incredibly narratively-liberating, as the combat portions required little effort or planning on my part, allowing me to focus on story even while in a huge combat, while other people get distracted by the very same combat and the story falls away from them. 3E and 2E, on the other hand, were much more interesting for me as things to play around with on my own than with people, while others find that they get drawn into the story because of all the details required to play it. For others, every edition is just another edition and they play more or less the same regardless.

 

[pemerton]

Even in your answer here "elemental and cold wand" remains flavor text.

In AD&D - at least Gygax's AD&D, which is what the Giants' players are playing - these are not mere flavour text. They are also rules text. How do we know that an elemental is a hard-to-control denizen of another plane? Because in certain circumstances it will turn on its conjurer. How do we differentiate a cold wand from a fire wand? Because the former can freeze water and the latter ignite timber.

Perm said this was a mischaracterization.

In your reply to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] I can't work out what your word "this" is referring to.

Here is the sentence that I said was a mischaracterisation of 4e: "the "math works" 4E approach also divorces the story distinctions from the mechanical nuance." The story distinctions are not divorced from the mechanical nuance. They result from the mechanical nuance - whether this is the nuance of keywords, the nuance of action economy, the nuance of skill descriptions, or the interaction of all these things plus other mechanical elements.

The mode by which story distinctions are derived from mechanical nuance is, of course, different from (say) Rolemaster or Runequest. (It's not terribly different from Gygax's AD&D, though.) But there is no divorcing of one from the other. That is what I am saying is a mischaracterisation.

You show me text from any, and I mean "any" book that says you must create an effective character.

Gygax's AD&D utterly takes this for granted. Read the closing pages of his PHB (before the Appendices). He talks about how "skilled players" play the game - including, for example, making effective selections of spells, equipment and the like.

I can tell you we don't run our games like a movie. Imagine a movie where Bruce Willis could die, or a book where Drizzt could make the wrong decision and die. Movies and books have everything planned out and nothing, not even the tiniest bit, will ever change. D&D is not like this because it involves chance and decision making.

Movies and books don't write themselves! They are authored, and when they are being authored then chance and decision-making come to the fore.

The trick with an RPG is to (i) reconcile the contributions of multiple authors, and (ii) bring it about that all the participants, even the GM, are surprised by the outcome. It turned out that it took around 30 years of RPG design to solve this particular puzzle. (Prior solutions generally solve (i) by putting the GM in charge, but thereby fail to solve (ii) - the GM, being the decider, is not surprised.)

I like to know what my PCs powers are because that will determine the story I write and what I plan. If there's a tracker in the group I can know that I should be prepared for tracks. And as I narrate fights descriptively, I need to know what powers do.

I need to know what and who the PCs are. This doesn't require mechanical definition, though - natural language descriptors can do the job, and if the system is good then the mechanics that the players choose for their PCs will give effect to those natural language descriptors.

4e players tend to just go in throwing down power cards and assuming things work. "I move here, shift here, and attack. I rolled a 15 so I hit and deal X damage."

<snip>

In a lot of ways, during the most recent editions, there was very little difference between being a DM running monsters and a player engaging in PvP. You stop being a DM and just become another player rolling dice, only competitive not cooperative.

Imagination is optional, not required.

Whose imagination? If you are saying that the GM being like a player means imagination is not required, are you saying that players don't (have never?) needed to use their imagination? But the GM does?

In any event, a GM who plays monsters as the players play their PCs is in my view misplaying. The players' job is to advocate for their PCs. They should be pushing for their PCs. Whereas the GM's job is to frame and oversee the resolution of the ingame situations. The GM should be controlling NPCs and monsters so as to drive the game forward by putting the right pressure on the right player at the right moment. This is a very different job from that of a player, and a GM who doesn't do it well will lessen the overall quality of the play experience.

I think in terms of narrative, which might end in a fight in numerous locations, wherever the PCs are when they discover the villain.

How do you learn who the villain is?

It's from looking at my own games and published modules. There's a LOT more cases of rooms being barren because the encounter can carry the interest rather than the encounter being "meh" so everything else has to be unique and interesting. Modules that if you converted things to an earlier edition would be boring as dirt.

I'm not really seeing the connection between "story and imagination" and "rooms being barren". If you mean that rooms aren't described (as far as furnishings, architectural and decoration style, etc) I haven't noticed 4e adventures to be wildly different from adventures for other editions. Can you give examples?

But for me the bigger point is that, when I think story, I don't think "Eclavdra keeps her spare capes in the second drawer of her tall boy." Of the original WotC 3E modules there are two that I have used and enjoyed: Speaker in Dreams, and Bastion of Broken Souls. With the former I cut out a lot of the cruft (random and/or pointless encounters). With the latter I ignored the stupid dungeon crawl at the end, as well as all the "so-and-so always attacks" nonsense. What I liked about both is that they had strong thematic hooks: in the former, a baron held hostage to a Cthulhu-esqu cult; in the latter, an ancient pact among the gods that is bringing doom to the world, and can only be resolved by treating with a banished god who was exiled precisely for his objection to the pact in the first place. Room descriptions don't figure in my memory of either scenario.

And while I'm sure those sessions were fun to play it reads terrible. It was like chewing tinfoil. I couldn't get through both. Opposed to fun D&D stories that are actual stories.

If I am trying to work out what happened in a gaming session I don't want a story. The events of any session - boring or gripping, the most dramatic player decision-making or the worst railroad of all time - can be reproduced as a passable story by a half-decent writer. When I read an actual play report I am looking for a report of the play - who decided what, and for what reason, and how did it affect the resolution of the game.

From those play reports I can tell that I'm not the only person who has found ToH a tedious thing; and I can tell that I'm not the only one who has played with a group that likes to deploy its resources effectively when the GM is pouring on the pressure.

It sounds like you *really* like tactical play and that kind of game much more than story.

I have less and less idea of what you mean by "story". But anyway, you can read any of my many actual play reports on these boards to work out what I enjoy in FRPGing. (Here is the most recent one.) The simplest summary would probably be "PCs who are on a collision-course with the gameworld's mythic history". Though I can also enjoy smaller-scale political games too.

What you describe as "really liking tactical play" I think is actually enjoying the rules working. If the rules don't work then the GM has to make up outcomes. At which point the GM is not going to be surprised, and also the players have lost the ability to determine what happens in the game.

That's fine, the last two editions had that in spades.

3E has basically nothing to offer me as an FRPGer. The fact that you see it and 4e as largely equivalent, whereas I see that one is well-suited for me while the other is hopeless, suggests even more that by "story" and "imagination" you mean something very different from what I mean in the context of RPGing.

Tactical play is cool. But it's really, really easy to use that as a crutch, to rely just on the combat encounters or the monsters to make things interesting and memorable.

I have no real idea what you mean by this, other than you seem to be implying that my game (or someone else's game a bit like mine?) is shallow.

I rely on NPCs and monsters to make things interesting and memorable because I think conflict is more dramatic than exploration. I don't find rooms - be they "barren" or rich in wallpapers and architraves - to be all that interesting or memorable. In 30+ years of RPGing, when I try to bring to mind a memorable room the only two that come straight to mind are the opening corridor of ToH, and the flooding vampire room that I used in my 4e game (adapted from the FR Sceptretower module, I think combining a couple of different rooms into one). What I remember are things that happened, primarily to PCs but often involving NPCs.

I don't see how that is a "crutch", as opposed to playing the game. (And I also don't see why monsters and NPCs, or conflict more generally, so often on these boards gets equated with combat.)

 

[The Black Ranger]

I'm not talking about them requiring particular feats*. In this context, more like asking folks to have some basic competence in combat, or not super-optimize, would be examples.



*Though, I played such a game, too - Star Wars Saga Edition, in which the GM stipulated that all PCs have Force Sensitivity. The requirement didn't kill us.

I don't get this.

Give me an example of a character that doesn't have a basic competence in combat.

 

[The Black Ranger]

This isn't about DM's fiat at all. But, again, I see this approach easily as disruptive as power monkey rules abusers. After all, I can always win as the DM. I don't care how powerful your character is, I can kill any character as the DM. I can do all sorts of bad things to a PC as a DM. So, getting around the power gamer isn't all that difficult. Particularly if you can point to chapter and verse where the rules abusive player is abusing the rules.

OTOH, you get players like what you are talking about, who refuse to actually engage the mechanics and then become this great big albatross around the neck of the party. As was said above, the other players can most certainly eject your PC if they choose to. If four people at the table turn to you and tell you that your character isn't tall enough to play, that's not their mistake.

I don't agree with this.

Ever see a module have "4 to 5 characters of levels 6 to 8 of above normal optimized builds?"

No, you only see 4 to 5 characters of levels 6 through 8. This maybe the spirit of Huassar's table, but it's not the spirit of D&D.

Just like I posed it to Umbran, give me an example of one of these dead weight characters.

 

[Pickles JG]

Just like I posed it to Umbran, give me an example of one of these dead weight characters.

Cleric of a Disease God who went around infecting anyone he could & refused to wear armour or carry weapons other than a club. The player was acting out as he did notwan to play D&D (we rotated systems) We should have just booted him, told him to grow up or come back later.

Low Dex rogue played by an old schoool friend of the DM who joined our 3e game played one session then came back more optimised. (I can't remember the specifics of his character other than it was supremley not optimised but when he returned he looked more like every other 3e rogue).

 

[The Black Ranger]

Cleric of a Disease God who went around infecting anyone he could & refused to wear armour or carry weapons other than a club. The player was acting out as he did notwan to play D&D (we rotated systems) We should have just booted him, told him to grow up or come back later.

Low Dex rogue played by an old schoool friend of the DM who joined our 3e game played one session then came back more optimised. (I can't remember the specifics of his character other than it was supremley not optimised but when he returned he looked more like every other 3e rogue).

Your first example is just someone wanting to ruin the game because he wanted to play something else.

Not sure what you're trying to say with the second one.

 

[Pickles JG]

Your first example is just someone wanting to ruin the game because he wanted to play something else.

Not sure what you're trying to say with the second one.

They are two real examples of characters without basic competence in combat.

(any more than I have competence in combat ie I could flail at people & might distract them)

My 4e character is a lazy warlord with no personal combat ability but loads of support for others so he does not really count.

 

[Nagol]

I don't agree with this.

Ever see a module have "4 to 5 characters of levels 6 to 8 of above normal optimized builds?"

No, you only see 4 to 5 characters of levels 6 through 8. This maybe the spirit of Huassar's table, but it's not the spirit of D&D.

Just like I posed it to Umbran, give me an example of one of these dead weight characters.

One of my more egregious examples comes from 2nd ed.

Lace and Steel had just been discovered in the area and I'm pretty sure the player (let's call him Richard) really wanted to play it instead of D&D.

I started a 2e game using the Indian mythos as presented in Deities and Demigods, and constructed the specialty priests. The first adventure was fairly typical introductory fare: the group had a map to a minor treasure.

Most of the group created typically effective 2e characters: two clerics, a Bard, and a Thief. Then there was Richard. Richard decided to build a Fighter. Great! The group could use some muscle.

Richard built a foppish dandy. He 2nd highest score was Charisma. He had NWP in dancing and etiquette. I think he put multiple slots in each.

His weapon proficiencies were arquebus, long sword, dagger, lance. He didn't specialise in any weapon.

More on the arquebus: it fired 1/3 rounds and only if you weren't attacked while loading it on the other two rounds. It was expensive and heavy. In short, it has no redeeming qualities other than it was a gun.

For equipment, he purchased silk and fur clothes, arquebus, sword, dagger, and an assortment of odds and sods not particularly adventure-related. <== no armour. Part of that was the gun cost multiple hundreds of gp; part was it didn't fit the image he had of the character. He said he'd get armour once he could afford gear appropriate to his station (i.e. full plate worth several thousands of gp). He wouldn't be caught dead in a lesser man's clothes.

First encounter outside of town was a small humanoid (goblin I think) party. The groups discovered each other at about 50 feet apart in light woods. The goblins start to charge and Richard... starts loading his arquebus. The rest of the group drop a couple of goblins. Round two, the goblins reach the party and engage. The fighter, wizard, and bard end up hacked to death before the rest manage to put the goblins down. Richard never managed to take a swing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That's fine, the last two editions had that in spades. Tactical play is cool. But it's really, really easy to use that as a crutch, to rely just on the combat encounters or the monsters to make things interesting and memorable.

And? It adds to the spice rack.

While 3e players are pretty confident in what they can do there are enough exceptions that they don't always assume their actions are a given, but experienced players who know the rules are good at not only knowing what they can do but all the monsters. 4e players tend to just go in throwing down power cards and assuming things work. "I move here, shift here, and attack. I rolled a 15 so I hit and deal X damage."
A DM in both systems will spend a lot of time asking their players "how does that work?" rather than the reverse.

In short in 4e in particular the world is richer and deeper because the players get to add things to it rather than the DM jealously guarding that ability for themself. This doesn't make things much harder to DM unless the DM thinks they need to know everything. Or rather it does in one respect. Confident players get up to more hair raising plans than players who know they are going to be slapped down. And hair raising plans are fun on both sides of the table.

In a lot of ways, during the most recent editions, there was very little difference between being a DM running monsters and a player engaging in PvP. You stop being a DM and just become another player rolling dice, only competitive not cooperative.

Imagination is optional, not required.

As it was in the beginning, it was in the middle, and it ever more shall be. In the entire history of D&D DMs have not required imagination. And the role isn't as privileged as some people would like to think - someone has come out with the Mythic GM Emulator.

I tend not to build encounters or even think of encounters. I think in terms of narrative, which might end in a fight in numerous locations, wherever the PCs are when they discover the villain. They might hunt a monster back to its lair or set a trap, or just encounter it on the road.

I like to know what my PCs powers are because that will determine the story I write and what I plan. If there's a tracker in the group I can know that I should be prepared for tracks. And as I narrate fights descriptively, I need to know what powers do.

As a GM you aren't the @*&# narrator. That was the mistake White Wolf made. You control the setting, not the PCs. If the PCs subvert your plans roll with it. This is when the GM actually requires imagination.

As for not preparing encounters in advance, normally in 4e I write mine in the session at the time I draw the battlemap.

Incorrect.

There is no such thing as level of effectiveness in D&D. You show me text from any, and I mean "any" book that says you must create an effective character. Now the DM can fiat his home brew however he see's fit, just like he can rule that only a fighter can choose greatsword.

What does level mean if not level of effectiveness? For the record, creating an utterly ineffective character is a common form of griefing.

Agree 100%. I've never claimed otherwise.

But I've never heard Sin City fans complain that Godfather fans didn't give their movie a fair shake.
And I've never heard a cat person complain that cats would be better off if dog lovers would stop being immature dog buyers.

I absolutely respect the love 4E fans have for 4E. But the market is what it is.

I've never heard Godfather fans claim that Sin City wasn't a movie and was instead a graphic novel. I've never heard cat people be praised for coming up with pseudo-intellectual reasons why dogs are inferior pets based on their not understanding doggy body language, and then this being taken up by cat lovers to shout down dog-lovers.

 

[BryonD]

I've never heard Godfather fans claim that Sin City wasn't a movie and was instead a graphic novel. I've never heard cat people be praised for coming up with pseudo-intellectual reasons why dogs are inferior pets based on their not understanding doggy body language, and then this being taken up by cat lovers to shout down dog-lovers.

I don't claim that there isn't pettiness on both sides. But it doesn't change the overall market demand.