New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character

[Mark CMG]

Some players do "character traits" well - one of the players in my Flashing Bladers game plays his "Don Juan" disadvantage to the hilt!

I see what you did there . . .






(Must spread XP around before . . .)

 

[The Shaman]

I see what you did there . . .

Careful - we don't want Eric's grandma to notice . . .

 

[Rolflyn]

I'm glad these things work for you. But they still skew the balance of your game (which may not be an issue for your group). 4E with no skills is a different game; nothing wrong with that, but for some play agendas it would need to be "labelled" as such. Simpler, then, it seems to me, to just have two games (possibly sharing some core mechanics).

In my view, it is not "simpler" by any economic definition to produce two entirely different lines of D&D RPGs to change a rather minor point. Going back to my magic item analogy, I don't think there needs to be "D&D Monster Manual II with magic items" and "D&D Monster Manual II without magic items". Similarly I don't think there needs to be "D&D emphasizing character skill" and "D&D emphasizing player skill." There just needs to be a simple switch so I can advertise to players we will be using the "blah blah blah" optional rule (where "Blah blah blah" is "inherent bonuses" or "player skill" or whatever to make the game fit the DM and play group's style).

 

[Balesir]

I think fundamentally where I probably am not on the same page with you is the Forge. I think the three categories make sense (but the three-fold model is really all I need for that--the forge elaborations just never clicked for me). I guess I am more concerned about the feel the game is trying to achieve than what the focus of the players

Yeah, I remember some of the original DNS discussions on rgfa, but the GNS of The Forge really is not directly related to that, despite the (confusingly similar) terms. GNS really is a laser-like focus on what the players (feel they) are doing in the game. What is their aim, moment to moment, is the question. Given this, I find it difficult to see how you can have a "balanced mix" - maybe overall you would like to do "all things, a bit", but at any moment you can only be aiming at one. Perhaps dividing play up (into combat, exploration, social navigation and overall planning, perhaps?) and aiming at different types of goals in each could work, but I still feel it might seem a bit "jerky" or "clunky" - sort of like a film where the cinematography style changes from time to time.

In practice, I think every group arrives at a player focus of their own; they then 'drift' the rules (by ignoring some rules and adding houserules) to support what they are doing.

(and have to admit I am not a huge fan of approaches where the players take on GM responsibities or where "gamist" concerns interfere with my suspension of disbelief--but that is just a preference).

My own conclusion at present is that there is no "correct way", so tastes and preferences are natural and perfectly valid. It's more a case, for me, of "horses for courses"; different styles of play, different "agendas" (and even "sub-agendas", going beyond the basic GNS divisions), require different approaches and mechanisms.

That said, whatever model works best for you, by all means use.

Indeed - this should apply to all.

Where I do agree with you is that 4E is absolutely a gamist (using the forge definition) approach to rpg design and probably the first edition of D&D to embrace some forge concepts.

It certainly supports a gamist agenda well, yes; whether this was a deliberate design aim I have no idea. It also supports Narrativism to a degree, as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has shown. The real loser, I think, is Simulationism.

I am going by memory. But I am fairly sure there were RM products in various forms released at least around 80-81 (I wasn't playing at that time, but I remember having some books with early 80s dates by the mid-to late 80s).

Wikipedia says the original "Law" books were released 1980-1982, so your memory is good

I see where you are coming from here. But my sense (and this is just my read of the land, I could be wrong) is that most gamers are really somewhere in the middle on these things (however you decide to categorize them). I think the majority of people aren't looking for focused play, but rather want a game that balances focus. To use Forge terms, they want a game that balances "gamist", "simulationist" and "narrativist" concerns. While I think there are a handful of people who come to the table with a very specific agenda, my insincts and experience tell me most people really want something more traditional.

I think most gamers don't think of GNS agendas at all, but have a habitual preferences, including a focus for attention during play, that they think of as "natural" and possibly even "universal". They therefore discard rules that "don't make sense" (i.e. don't fit their preferred agenda or other preferences) and add ones that do "make sense". A system that suits them, therefore, is one that is amenable to "drifting" in this way. Unfortunately, that means it isn't, as it stands unaltered, much good at anything. Even with drifting it doesn't become that good at supporting any one agenda, it just becomes tolerable. When a "tuned" system comes along, therefore, it simultaneously delights those whose "natural" agenda aligns with the focus chosen and appals those who now find it far harder to 'drift' the system to suit their own preference.

I agree to an extent (based on my above post). But I also think something more simulationist would have had broader appeal (I just think there are more gamers into this than something "gamist").

I think you may well be right, there, but the designers had to consider the engine they were starting with. I think that several of the features considered inherent to "core D&D" are essentially supportive of a gamist focus in play. Levels and experience points, hit points, armour class and action (rather than conflict) resolution systems all lean broadly towards supporting a gamist drive. I think, for D&D, gamist supporting was the logical choice; sadly, many were using D&D to support essentially Simulationist agendas, despite the dubious fit.

I don't think it is inertia. I just think things like GNS and The Big Model are very niche. They will be around from this point on for sure, but I don't think they are going to catch on as the way games are designed (and I think this is largely because of the split generated by 4E---which we both seem to agree was the first agenda-driven edition of D&D).

I think all of the GNS agendas have the potential to be a lot less niche than they are currently - each covers a lot of ground in terms of "variants", in fact. To some extent I think everybody has a GNS agenda - even if they don't think of it in those terms (and, after all, why should they?). It's a bit like Myers-Briggs Type Indicators in that way; the fact that you might never even have heard of them doesn't prevent you having one. The usefulness of knowing what yours is and what that means is open to debate - for both MBTI and GNS preference - but all I can say is that I have found understanding to be useful in both cases.

As to the split caused by 4E, that was, sadly, predictable and inevitable, I think. You might argue that it could have been avoidable, but I think that it would fit the description given by Von Clauswitz about war: "War cannot be avoided, it can only be delayed and, if you choose to delay it, is usually delayed to the advantage of your enemy". Eventually, I think, the split had to happen, as soon as a "mainstream" game with a single agenda focus came along.

I highly recommend it. It is a great game. On the whole it is a pretty balanced system (in terms of focus). But based on what you have said I believe it would appeal to you. I don't know if SW was the first, but I think that is where 4E got the "minions" concept from (I could be very wrong on this one though). The whole game is designed to simulate high adventure/action. So it is great for old fashioned swashbuckling and modern stylized crime settings.

"Minions" I think has been around for some while - Bushido's "Extras" were the first I am aware of.

I am keen to try SW, as I said - I get the impression it is broadly Simulationist (for action-adventure "reality"), but I'm by no means sure on that.

Smart tactical choices such as this simply require a degree of system mastery much like the old "read the monster manual" of previous editions.

Rules and system experience are the same no matter what game they are applied to.

I don't think in 4E it is like "read the monster manual" (although you could do that, as well), because it's less about knowing "facts" about the game than grasping the "coup d'oeil" - spotting where the systems may be used to advantage and seizing upon that. It's not so much a learning of "standard tricks" (although, again, that is possible) as of seeing the opportunity for new ones. There are so many opportunities for such rules interactions that the scope for new "gotchas" may even be unending.

I think Belasir mentioned DQ in a previous post. I'd like to praise that as a game from 1980 that had a remarkably clear set of rules that were well written and well cross-referenced (IIRC). It provided an excellent tactical battle game at the heart of the system along with an evocative magic system. I played DQ2 for most of the 80s and it was great for its time (and I can appreciate why it was to Belasir's tastes too)

DQ is a great system, yes. If you want Sim D&D I think DQ does a really good job of it - I converted all manner of D&D monsters to the DQ system and had great fun with it. I think I still have a conversion of the old White Dwarf adventure "Irilian" for it, somewhere.

Secondly, there has been a lot of talk of GM fiat - and I feel that the word "fiat" is both technically correct but inherently slightly perjorartive. Interestingly, we also talk about DM's being the arbiters of the rules - but we don't want them being arbitrary.

If arbitration of existing rules is all that is subject to fiat, it wouldn't bother me. The sticking point is the GM deciding success or failure as a rule. In this case, the GM will be using some set of criteria or mechanisms in his or her head that are invisible to the players and (unavoidably) biased. If such criteria are logical I would rather have the logic written down; if they are aesthetic I would rather the aesthetic judgement was more democratic.

So, my question, for Balesir really, is when one is playing your style of game as detailed above and you find a rule that is in the rulebook and known to all but not clearly stated as it transpires that the players have different interpretations of the rule do you then.

a) Go by the DM's interpretation of the rule.
b) Discuss comunally the correct interpretation of the rule until the correct undertanding of it is clear, which may take a while.
c) Go for a quick consensus of the probable meaning and find a definitive understanding later - possibly by consulting the internet etc. The GM charing the discussion.

We would go with the GM deciding an interpretation on the spot and a debate about a long term "fix" afterwards. 4E has been exceptionally good at not having many of these. Not that it has had none, but compared to other systems it has had few and the developers have been fairly good at rectifying them.

This isn't really a case of "GM fiat" that I object to; the fact is that there is a rule - it's just ambiguous or poorly worded. Where I dislike it is when there is no rule - or, rather, the rule is "the GM makes up the rules and applies them without the players knowing what they are".

Here we must agree to disagree - a referee is part of the system, and has been for centuries, as in Kriegspiel, the ultimate source of the gamemaster.

I think you misunderstand me. What I am saying is that the GM, in making the judgement calls required by the written system, must use some criteria of some sort. We don't really have a "random selector" in our brains, we select based on some sort of criteria - generally either logical or aesthetic in nature. This is what I am saying is "the system" - the criteria used by the GM in making the selection. This "system" might be perfectly good as a game system, even - my objection to it is that (a) if it is logical in nature it is hidden from the players and (b) if it is aesthetic in nature it is limited to the tastes of one player in the group.

Neither of these are decisive objections, but they do explain, I think, why I dislike GM adjudication as a game mechanism. If you are comfortable with GM 'fiat' as a resolution mechanism, knowing the consequences, then I bow to your preference - I simply do not share it.

 

[Rolflyn]

This "system" might be perfectly good as a game system, even - my objection to it is that (a) if it is logical in nature it is hidden from the players and (b) if it is aesthetic in nature it is limited to the tastes of one player in the group.

I'm missing why aesthetics can't be shared beyond one player in the group.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Yeah, I remember some of the original DNS discussions on rgfa, but the GNS of The Forge really is not directly related to that, despite the (confusingly similar) terms. GNS really is a laser-like focus on what the players (feel they) are doing in the game. What is their aim, moment to moment, is the question. Given this, I find it difficult to see how you can have a "balanced mix" - maybe overall you would like to do "all things, a bit", but at any moment you can only be aiming at one. Perhaps dividing play up (into combat, exploration, social navigation and overall planning, perhaps?) and aiming at different types of goals in each could work, but I still feel it might seem a bit "jerky" or "clunky" - sort of like a film where the cinematography style changes from time to time.

In practice, I think every group arrives at a player focus of their own; they then 'drift' the rules (by ignoring some rules and adding houserules) to support what they are doing.

I think the Forge dogma on there only being one effective focus at any time is based on the assumption that some, "Serious Gaming Is Going On." And for such gaming, I can see that dogma having some validity. And then the more purist Forge adherents might assume that, "Serious Gaming Is Going On," or you are one of those oft-mentioned "Cheetos" players. And never the twain shall meet.

What actually happens at my table is that we switch creative agendas constantly, sometimes in a few seconds, with all kinds of social cues making this relatively smooth. And in addition to the three creative agendas, we also have agendas for: 1.) Social fooling around within the game itself--aka Monty Python and Princess Bride references, in-game jokes, puns, and more. 2.) Purely casual gaming where out of game socialization is mixed in, food, etc. I suppose that the last is simply, "Not Paying Attention," to a lot of folks, but it is nevertheless a central part of our Actual Play. We wouldn't have played together for 24 years now, had it been absent. So it is at least foundational.

So a system that allows a certain amount of creativity and flexibility in the drift is often superior for us to one with a laser Forge focus. And it is not an accident that Burning Wheel is the Indy game that most appeals to us. BW is not laser focused on a creative agenda. It is laser focused on the central conceit of the game, which is that play is about what your character believes--within the confines of an often traditional game. Nothing more, nothing less. The execution of the rules happens to use a fair amount of narrative mechanics, but is also wedded to some hard-core gamist play (notably scripting) and nigh purist Sim (character burner lifepaths).

 

[Balesir]

I'm missing why aesthetics can't be shared beyond one player in the group.

Because only the aesthetics of the GM have an input to the resolution decisions. If the GM is the only one making resolution decisions, and those decisions are to be based on aesthetics, only the GM's aesthetics feed into the decisions. The GM might try to "take into account" the other players' aesthetic preferences, to the extent that s/he understands them, but this will inevitably be coloured by their own projections and assumptions.

[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION]: Thanks for an excellent explanation with food for thought. I think I still see a clear focus - despite definitely recognising both the "humour interjections" and the "social play/discussion of play" during gaming time. Maybe "laser like" is overstating somewhat, however (although that was referring to the focus of the game design, not the group, as such). The folk I game with regularly using 4E have been gaming together, on and off, for nearly 30 years - I agree that, without the social side, we would not have lasted that long, either.

P.S. Note to self - I must play more BW...

 

[ExploderWizard]

I don't think in 4E it is like "read the monster manual" (although you could do that, as well), because it's less about knowing "facts" about the game than grasping the "coup d'oeil" - spotting where the systems may be used to advantage and seizing upon that. It's not so much a learning of "standard tricks" (although, again, that is possible) as of seeing the opportunity for new ones. There are so many opportunities for such rules interactions that the scope for new "gotchas" may even be unending.

That is precisely the heart of the problem. When such combinations are discovered and implemented by clever players the trick in question is then declared "broken" and a rules nerf to stamp out clever play comes down like a hammer on the almighty altar of balance.

When the rules become the central focus of play they will come under greater fire from players attempting to find weaknesses. We see the results of this, constantly shifting goalposts and endless streams of errata all aimed at squelching the efforts of players benefitting from synergies that were included for that very reason.

The end result of all this nonsense is a game that is never complete.

 

[Hussar]

That is precisely the heart of the problem. When such combinations are discovered and implemented by clever players the trick in question is then declared "broken" and a rules nerf to stamp out clever play comes down like a hammer on the almighty altar of balance.

When the rules become the central focus of play they will come under greater fire from players attempting to find weaknesses. We see the results of this, constantly shifting goalposts and endless streams of errata all aimed at squelching the efforts of players benefitting from synergies that were included for that very reason.

The end result of all this nonsense is a game that is never complete.

When has D&D ever been complete? Every single month there was a Sage Advice column in Dragon, going back to the 80's, which did exactly what you're talking about.

And, let's not forget, that a fair bit of the errata you're point at has actually INCREASED character power as well. See the recent Warlock rewrites for more on that. Not all errata is nerf bat, although, to be fair, that's pretty common.

It's funny. They're completely between a rock and a hard place. When they didn't issue errata, people bitched constantly. Now they release regular errata based on feedback from players and people bitch constantly.

 

[ExploderWizard]

When has D&D ever been complete? Every single month there was a Sage Advice column in Dragon, going back to the 80's, which did exactly what you're talking about.

And, let's not forget, that a fair bit of the errata you're point at has actually INCREASED character power as well. See the recent Warlock rewrites for more on that. Not all errata is nerf bat, although, to be fair, that's pretty common.

It's funny. They're completely between a rock and a hard place. When they didn't issue errata, people bitched constantly. Now they release regular errata based on feedback from players and people bitch constantly.

Sage Advice. Really? Are you seriously suggesting that someone talking out of thier colon in a monthly magazine is the equivalent of the game designers altering the rules in the CB and compedium constantly?

Complete: Players Handbook, Monster Manual, & DMG

You can add whatever you like from Dragon or anywhere else or even just make up whatever additions you want.

The people who bitched constantly in Dragon were the ones who missed the memo about D&D being a game of the imagination and wanted thier DMing duties done for them with a rulebook.

Well they got that eventually.