Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5776120" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is all true. When I said that the label is a guide, I meant that it guides because it is applied to something that follows the prescription.The benefits of this (for me, at least) are what I tried to articulate in my Rolemaster vs 4e comparison.The distinction is clear (I think), and it's one that [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has posted about a lot in the context of 4e.I see it as a contrast between "mere colour", on the one hand, and fictional positioning that matters, on the other hand. I think we can all agree that, in 4e, this sort of fictional positioning often doesn't matter to the immediate action resolution at hand, and hence is in danger of collapsing into "mere colour". I say "often doesn't matter" and not "never matters", because sometimes fictional positioning clearly does matter to action resolution - for example, if a monster has ice walk than it matters what sort of difficult terrain is on the battlemap, or if a character wants to climb up or over something than the line on the battlemap becomes more than merely "blocking terrain" - it's ficitonal nature matters to action resolution.But beyond these sorts of cases - which I find are more common than some 4e detractors contend (and are a reason for following the encounter design device in the DMG, about having lots of interesting terrain and so on, that the DMG does not itself articulate) but I will agree are not universal - I endeavour to make the fiction matter to the unfolding story, and the possibilities to which it gives rise. So, for example, the players have an incentive to narrate things - to add colour - if that leds them build up the story of their PC and the situation, whether because it facilitates some immediate page 42 manoeuvre, or because it situations their PC in some more long term way within the narrative. And I have an incentive to narrate things - to add colour - if that helps me set up the unfolding narrative in various ways - even as little as following up on a fear effect like the Enigma of Vecna's by using that to establish an ingame rationale for an NPC doing something (like choosing who to attack next), or using it to build a future dream sequence, or as a flashback in a skill challenge, etc.I think the 4e DMGs would have been stronger if (i) they had emphasised the importance of keywords as anchoring the mechanics in the fiction (the rules as printed only talk about the mechanical interrelations of keywords), and (ii) they gave more advice and ideas on how to make the fiction matter beyond the immediate context of the resolution of a particular action.I'm a "Story Now" sort of guy, but like stories that are mostly light but really put the fantasy tropes to work in delivering these light stories (think 70s/80s Marvel super hero storylines, or the 1981 Excalibur movie).And I (and the players for whom I GM) like mechanically crunchy action resolution, especially in combat.I GMed Rolemaster for over 15 years. This is a great system for rich PCs whose character and personality is mechanically expressed, and it has crunchy action resolution, but it has a lot of the classic simulationist mechanics that get in the way of Story Now (although at mid-to-high levels the magical abilities of the PCs give quite a few workarounds).For me, 4e is pretty well tailor-made - thematically light but trope-heavy fantasy RPGing with crunchy combat mechanics, and none of the simulationist stuff that gets in the way of Story Now. It does what I was trying to get out of Rolemaster without having to push it and pull it. My scene framing and pacing is pretty light-handed, I'm sure, by the standards of ultra-focused indie GMs, but I find the game mostly delivers what I want in these respects without me even having to do anything very special to achieve it.When our 4e campaign finishes - probably not for at least another couple of years, at the current rate of progression - I don't know whether I'll try another 4e campaign, or look at 5e, or try and run a Burning Wheel game. There are some clever elements to BW in its blend of simulationist mechanics (the Adventure Burner, especially, emphasises the use of DC-setting and skill applicability to define setting) with more Story Now priorities (action resolution in terms of intent and task, especially for failures, and also the incentives that the artha system and the advancement system provide to players to move away from standard simulationist play).The vibes I've got from Legends and Lore, and especially Monte Cook's contributions, have struck me as somewhat reactionary. But there's not a lot of information to judge on.</blockquote>

Verification