Manbearcat
Legend
To be fair, the Disease Track has absolutely nothing to do with Come and Get It, so really, why bother discussing it?
Too true!
D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e
- Thread starter S'mon
- Start date
- Status
Too true!
D'karr
Adventurer
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Obviously, 4e is too video-gamey.
Libramarian
Adventurer
Why, you HEATHEN!
I don't know that it matters in terms of whether people like a game or not, though it could, but we all do get stuck in certain ways of thinking about any given game. I do it too. Going to cons is good, you run into totally different ways of thinking about your favorite games.
I like my way of playing D&D, I have a consistently enjoyable game with a very little prep and DM stress. I don't feel any pressing need to expand my gaming horizons but if DDN had really clear and focused procedural advice for running a more story-based game with scene-framing I would give it a go.
[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], what you say about clever play resonates with my own experience. The sorcerer PC has a lot of forced movement, plus Thunder Summons; and the fighter has a lot of close bursts - they like their combos!
The paladin and ranger, on the other hand, tend to play in a much more solo style.
[MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION], and on the pigeon-holing issue - I think it is a big help to have a sense of what a game is trying to do with its design, and how its designer(s) intended it to be used. Conversely, when this is opaque (eg for me, the first time I read the HeroWars rulebook, or - a couple of decades earlier - the Classic Traveller boxed set) then you can read as much as you like about die rolling procedures, how to change numbers on the sheets based on what is rolled, etc, and still not have a clue what the game is about.
My own view is that there is no real substitute for clear text - Burning Wheel is the best example of this that I know - but for I think there are some players who don't like such overt metagame commentary in their rulebooks, which can force hard choices on a publisher like WotC.
The paladin and ranger, on the other hand, tend to play in a much more solo style.
[MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION], and on the pigeon-holing issue - I think it is a big help to have a sense of what a game is trying to do with its design, and how its designer(s) intended it to be used. Conversely, when this is opaque (eg for me, the first time I read the HeroWars rulebook, or - a couple of decades earlier - the Classic Traveller boxed set) then you can read as much as you like about die rolling procedures, how to change numbers on the sheets based on what is rolled, etc, and still not have a clue what the game is about.
My own view is that there is no real substitute for clear text - Burning Wheel is the best example of this that I know - but for I think there are some players who don't like such overt metagame commentary in their rulebooks, which can force hard choices on a publisher like WotC.
A thought that was prompted by some of the comments on p 42, trump cards, the disease track, etc:
I think one major cleavage in action resolution systems is whether processes and outcomes are meant to conform to a pre-given "credibility test", or whether processes and outcomes are meant to be used to determine what is credible within the gameworld.
Two games that are clearly in the former category: HeroQuest revised and Marvel Heroic. Both have explicit text to this effect, stating that before a conflict is framed and resolved it has to be clear to everyone what is going on, and how it is going to work within the fictional constraints (including especially genre constraints). This is how both those systems handle the "Superman and Jimmy Olsen" problem - instead of relying on huge numerical differences in ability ratings (which then cause all sorts of headaches in system design and the actual process of resolution), they rely on extra-mechanical framing constraints. So when Jimmy's player puts together a dice pool to pull Lois Lane out of the wrecked car, it may not look very different from Superman's dice pool to throw the burning petrol tanker into the nearby lake; but Jimmy's player can't frame a "throw truck into lake" conflict at all, because that would violate credibility.
Some games that clearly fall into the latter category: Classic Traveller and Runequest; DC Heroes (at least the original version - I have no idea how this game has evolved); Rolemaster.
An interesting intermediate case: Burning Wheel. (The mechanics mostly set the parameters for framing conflicts; but credibility constraints set the parameters for narrating consequences, especially consequences of failure.)
I think 4e is an intermediate case too. Page 42, and skill challenge resolution, are mostly in the first category. A lot of combat resolution, though, is in the second category. Simple skill checks can be in either category, I think, depending on how the GM approaches things.
My feeling is that most 3E/PF players - at least the active posters on these boards - play 3E as a second-category game (ie the mechanical resolution system is used to settle questions of credibility, rather than vice versa). (How this is reconciled with hit points as a combat mechanic I don't entirely understand.)
I think classic D&D may have been a bit more intermediate in its approach. Eg Moldvay Basic talks about how to adjudicate a player whose PC is losing a fight, and wants to jump over the edge of the cliff hoping that s/he will land in a stream below. From memory the suggested survival chance is 2%; but simply applying the falling rules the chance would be 0%, which implies to me that Moldvay regards the falling rules not as a determiner of credibility, but rather as a mechanic whose use and application is itself to be shaped by prior application of a credibility test.
I hope the above made some sense.
I think one major cleavage in action resolution systems is whether processes and outcomes are meant to conform to a pre-given "credibility test", or whether processes and outcomes are meant to be used to determine what is credible within the gameworld.
Two games that are clearly in the former category: HeroQuest revised and Marvel Heroic. Both have explicit text to this effect, stating that before a conflict is framed and resolved it has to be clear to everyone what is going on, and how it is going to work within the fictional constraints (including especially genre constraints). This is how both those systems handle the "Superman and Jimmy Olsen" problem - instead of relying on huge numerical differences in ability ratings (which then cause all sorts of headaches in system design and the actual process of resolution), they rely on extra-mechanical framing constraints. So when Jimmy's player puts together a dice pool to pull Lois Lane out of the wrecked car, it may not look very different from Superman's dice pool to throw the burning petrol tanker into the nearby lake; but Jimmy's player can't frame a "throw truck into lake" conflict at all, because that would violate credibility.
Some games that clearly fall into the latter category: Classic Traveller and Runequest; DC Heroes (at least the original version - I have no idea how this game has evolved); Rolemaster.
An interesting intermediate case: Burning Wheel. (The mechanics mostly set the parameters for framing conflicts; but credibility constraints set the parameters for narrating consequences, especially consequences of failure.)
I think 4e is an intermediate case too. Page 42, and skill challenge resolution, are mostly in the first category. A lot of combat resolution, though, is in the second category. Simple skill checks can be in either category, I think, depending on how the GM approaches things.
My feeling is that most 3E/PF players - at least the active posters on these boards - play 3E as a second-category game (ie the mechanical resolution system is used to settle questions of credibility, rather than vice versa). (How this is reconciled with hit points as a combat mechanic I don't entirely understand.)
I think classic D&D may have been a bit more intermediate in its approach. Eg Moldvay Basic talks about how to adjudicate a player whose PC is losing a fight, and wants to jump over the edge of the cliff hoping that s/he will land in a stream below. From memory the suggested survival chance is 2%; but simply applying the falling rules the chance would be 0%, which implies to me that Moldvay regards the falling rules not as a determiner of credibility, but rather as a mechanic whose use and application is itself to be shaped by prior application of a credibility test.
I hope the above made some sense.
Libramarian
Adventurer
I'm pretty touchy and can be turned off by games for what other people of a more game design=engineering bent would consider superficial reasons, but at the same time I appreciate clarity about what the game is trying to do and how to play it, a lot.
Clarity turns me on and makes me want to play, because clarity means that if I try it and don't like it, I can be reasonably sure that I don't like it, rather than I'm a bad DM, or a bad player or whatever. It makes me want to try it as an experiment.
Clarity turns me on and makes me want to play, because clarity means that if I try it and don't like it, I can be reasonably sure that I don't like it, rather than I'm a bad DM, or a bad player or whatever. It makes me want to try it as an experiment.
Manbearcat
Legend
@pemerton That's a great post and quite clear, although I can't xp (It seems like I've xped a million people but the refresh isn't coming up...I don't know if it was lengthened in the board changeover).
Further, I agree with your classifications of each of those systems. Take the design considerations that make up that "credibility test":
1) "What is thematically or tactically cool/fun"
2) "What is challenging/engaging for the most number of participants for the most amount of table time"
3) "What is genre relevant"
4) "What diversifies and broadens potential narrative outcomes"
5) "What logically follows from the accepted genre conceits and the physics constraints of cause and effect within the game world"
Depending upon where you place these in the building framework for your design considerations will dictate the degree to which the rest will fall in line. As such, this is why games with 5 as the apex consideration will tend to crowd out 4, 1, and sometimes 2 toward the periphery (or further) of the design considerations of those games.
Further, I agree with your classifications of each of those systems. Take the design considerations that make up that "credibility test":
1) "What is thematically or tactically cool/fun"
2) "What is challenging/engaging for the most number of participants for the most amount of table time"
3) "What is genre relevant"
4) "What diversifies and broadens potential narrative outcomes"
5) "What logically follows from the accepted genre conceits and the physics constraints of cause and effect within the game world"
Depending upon where you place these in the building framework for your design considerations will dictate the degree to which the rest will fall in line. As such, this is why games with 5 as the apex consideration will tend to crowd out 4, 1, and sometimes 2 toward the periphery (or further) of the design considerations of those games.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Yeah, though in all fairness I suspect Pemerton is WAY ahead of WotC in terms of using 4e in clever ways. I also think they missed the mark in presentation and tone. Or at least they could have presented a game in a way that would have worked well for more different people. I like the actual game they ended up with pretty well myself, but I guess I think there are some very much cleverer shops out there when it comes to how you actually present a game. WotC should really farm out D&D or something.
The thing about DDN is it bugs me for neglecting to be a good game. I just can't really get over that. It COULD be used to do the things that 4e does, but better, but not until they can get unstuck on their 'everything 4e is bad' trip. Not convinced that will happen before the end of the DDN product design phase sadly.
Wow, it's 06:37 this morning and already Pemerton has broadened my gaming horizons.
The 3e 'rules as physics' thing I think definitely relates to 'processes and outcomes are meant to be used to determine what is credible within the gameworld' - 3e is an extreme case, but I think even pre-3e defaulted to that, subject to a 'reality check' - the reality check being weakened or removed in 3e because the rules themselves seem to present as determining game-world reality.
4e to my mind moved quite strongly towards a stakes-based "processes and outcomes are meant to conform to a pre-given "credibility test" - and this is something I like about it, that the rules are not there to determine possibilities; the GM sets possibilities and then dice resolve. This leads to a feeling much closer to dramatic fiction - it's much more narratively satisfying IME. But a lot of people try to run 4e 3e-style, with the process determining the range of possible outcomes (I know I did), and it's not well set up to do that. When it occasionally does try to do that, as in the rules on jumping, it's irritatingly klunky.
- Status
Similar Threads
