Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3821900" data-attributes="member: 42582">Further to this, and to subsequent references to "DM-driven games":Are you really suggesting that there should be no communication between the GM and the players as to how they want to spend their time at the table? That just strikes me as bizarre. What happens if the players turn up with their PCs, one with a paladin and the other with a cleric of Nerrull? Or if the players take all CHA skills for their PCs and the GM tells them the campaign starts in the middle of a forest with no civilisation for hundreds of miles?I also don't see the connection between plot, in a game, and "GM-driven". Plots can be driven by players as much as GMs. I don't know Sorcerer very well, but I gather each player has to nominate a "Bang" for their character - some trait or background of the character which is an immediate vehicle for in-game complications. In HARP, players have to set goals for their characters, and they receive XP for achieving them. Both are examples of mechanics which allow the players to communicate with the GM about the sort of adventure they want their PCs to undergo.A game like Rolemaster does not have these sorts of mechanics, but the intricacy of its skill system allows the players to signal to the GM what sort of adventures they are looking for - if the PCs all have Social skills, the players are looking for a different game from one in which they generate PCs all with Outdoor skills. Likewise in 3E - if the players create a Druid, a Ranger and a Fighter with Riding and Climbing, they are pretty much saying "We don't want to play a city or underdark campaign."I don't know whether 4e will better facilitate this sort of player-GM communication - but it wouldn't be a bad thing if it did.I don't think that 4e will resemble Rolemaster all that much, because (i) Rolemaster has no metagame mechanics on the action resolution side, only on the character build side, (ii) Rolemaster aims for "mechanical illusionism" and I don't think that 4e will, and (iii) Rolemaster's simulationist impulses produce very clunky and hard-to-use rules in many places.I think 4e will have intricate character build rules, but only for "adventuring" skills (so craft and profession won't be part of it).I think 4e will have intricate action resolution rules which require complex decision-making by the players, based on their knowledge of the rules, within the context of the encounter (in this respect it may resemble some aspects of Rolemaster play).I think 4e will have metagame mechanics on the action resolution side (ie Action Points), but I'm not sure how (if at all) these will be connected to the reward system (ie XPs). My suspicion is that the game will assume as the metagame priority "overcoming challenges" and that Action Points will then be usable in any situation in which a player wants their PC to overcome a challenge. (In this respect, I think the Action Point rules won't be as subtle as similar metagame mechanics in HARP or other games - in that they won't give players quite the same capacity to state definite priorities for play).I think the game will not be very Hero-ish (and certainly not RQ-ish), because simulation will be a comparatively low priority in both the character build and the action resolution mechanics.I think it will not support your preferred playstyle all that well - but I don't agree with your suggestion that its rules-centrism will drive players away. I think the role of the rules in 3E is, for many players, an attractive difference from AD&D. And I just find it hard to believe that WoTC would misjudge market demand in the way you are suggesting.Obviously we have quite different ideas about what makes for fun roleplaying - and there's nothing wrong with that. But I do have to quibble with your characterisation of metagame play as "DM-driven". If the players set the priorities (in some of the ways sketched in my first paragraph above) then it is player driven (though not using their PCs as the vehicles).It would seem to me, in fact, that a game in which the players can only influence what happens by having their PCs interact successfully with the GM's world using the game's action resolution mechanics is one in which the GM is the real driver of the game - for by setting up their world in a certain way, they can determine what is or is not possible for the PCs to achieve. I think that this is what Mallus had in mind with his reference to "reading the GM's mind".</blockquote>

Verification