R. Thompson : D&D still a sim/gamist RPG

[smathis]

What I say, is that an important Sim part linger in 4E, the one R. Thompson talks about :

Good roleplaying = playing characters consistently with their definitions.

It is so much important, that such behavior is mechanicaly rewarded.

So, help me to understand.

You're choosing to ignore rule changes in 4e that I've gone over exhaustively that show 4e is the first edition of D&D to throw a bone to the Narr playstyle and instead latch on to the opinion of one WotC developer to support an opinion that 4e will not support Narr play?

As if Rodney Thompson was the only person working on 4e?

As if all WotC designers/developers had some sort of Zerg hivemind mentality?

I've given you concrete mechanics (Non-Combat Encounters) that could've come straight out of HeroQuest. These are slated to appear in 4e. Not only do they give players a limited amount of Directorial control for NCEs but players get XP for them too. Reward structure, right there, built in. And this is in D&D.

I've given you mechanics that show that 4e is, without a doubt, moving away from Sim -- in a big way.

And, yet, because Rodney S. Thompson thinks good roleplaying is about immersing yourself in your character, somehow that overrides the actual game of 4e to prove that 4e is exactly how you say it is.

It is at this point that I deduce that "System Matters" less to you than winning an argument.

I'm not sure there's anything anyone can say that will help clarify how skewed your opinion on 4e is. But know that it's skewed.

And currently the mechanics do not support it. Despite what Rodney "Who gives a Flying Byahkee?" Thompson says about it...

 

[smathis]

You're still rolling for damage, doesn't that give you enough gradation to narrate along?

Fumble - miss - minor success - success - major success - crit?

Not really.

First, the actual attack roll is tangential to the effect (unless of course the player rolls a crit or a fumble). You could roll a 12 and then follow with max damage. Or roll an 18 and only roll a 1 on damage.

Second, this still doesn't help with skill checks. And, more than combat, I think that's where this kind of thing is needed.

And I'd really want to do it off the attack or skill roll so that I can push those results into the follow up contest. Mountain Witch has a simple (and simply wonderful) way to handle this by basically divvying up Narrative rights based on the roll.

It would be easy enough to hack into any version of D&D and wasn't honestly expecting anything of the sort in 4e.

Still, it seems like an easy rule to implement to say if you roll the DC or up to 3 higher you only get a minor success and a minor failure is up to 3 below the DC. It just seems to me that the binary nature of pass/fail mechanics is a bit behind the times.

Again, not a huge dealbreaker and I'm aware that such is not all that important to most people. But it really is a simple hack that could add a lot of Narr possibilities to D&D.

 

[wgreen]

Again, not a huge dealbreaker and I'm aware that such is not all that important to most people. But it really is a simple hack that could add a lot of Narr possibilities to D&D.

<hong>WHY DOES NO ONE LISTEN TO ME?!?</hong>

Okay, then. How does adding degrees of success and failure add to the game's ability to allow players to address Egri-style premise?

-Will!

 

[marune]

So, help me to understand.

You're choosing to ignore rule changes in 4e that I've gone over exhaustively that show 4e is the first edition of D&D to throw a bone to the Narr playstyle and instead latch on to the opinion of one WotC developer to support an opinion that 4e will not support Narr play?

As if Rodney Thompson was the only person working on 4e?

As if all WotC designers/developers had some sort of Zerg hivemind mentality?

I've given you concrete mechanics (Non-Combat Encounters) that could've come straight out of HeroQuest. These are slated to appear in 4e. Not only do they give players a limited amount of Directorial control for NCEs but players get XP for them too. Reward structure, right there, built in. And this is in D&D.

I've given you mechanics that show that 4e is, without a doubt, moving away from Sim -- in a big way.

And, yet, because Rodney S. Thompson thinks good roleplaying is about immersing yourself in your character, somehow that overrides the actual game of 4e to prove that 4e is exactly how you say it is.

It is at this point that I deduce that "System Matters" less to you than winning an argument.

I'm not sure there's anything anyone can say that will help clarify how skewed your opinion on 4e is. But know that it's skewed.

And currently the mechanics do not support it. Despite what Rodney "Who gives a Flying Byahkee?" Thompson says about it...

Of course I'm a strong believer of "System does matter", and that's the point here.

My point is that the definition of what is good roleplaying (a.k.a. the goal of the game in a RPG) that will presented in the DMG is along the lines of what R. T. said.

This mixed gamist/simulationist definition of what is good roleplaying is a trademark of D&D from all the past editions and we will have it again in 4E.

Of course I would like to be proven wrong !

I perfectly agree that mechanically, much less emphasis is put on S and that the G elements are improved. However, the overall design of the game, look at Bill S. "Orcsus" guidelines in R&C where he says that the DM is more a storyteller than an opponent, is still too much a twisted G/S to make 4E easy to play with a N agenda.

 

[marune]

Please delete.

 

[apoptosis]

That's all you can do with a GNS argument. There's no set definition for those terms, so this entire thread will be a waste of back and forth "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" ad infinitum.

As we've seen so far, all you can do when someone brings up GNS is argue about GNS. The real meat of the matter (does D&D promote/hinder a certain style of play?) gets drowned in the semantic arguments over GNS.



Agreed entirely.

Completely disagree and you can find threads about GNS that were very coherent and not about arguing semantics. GNS is a tool to help you discuss certain aspects of gaming and game design. Like all other models it is only useful if you want it to be useful.

While I dont consider it the end all be all of RPG modelling, I definitely have found it useful.

 

[smathis]

<hong>WHY DOES NO ONE LISTEN TO ME?!?</hong>

Okay, then. How does adding degrees of success and failure add to the game's ability to allow players to address Egri-style premise?

-Will!

Please, let's not bring Egri into this. The poor guy's taken enough abuse already.

Having added degrees of success and failure would give us more options to assign Authorial control in D&D. Take Mountain Witch as an example...

Double Success: Player says what happens and something else too.
Critical Success: Player says what happens and some other minor good thing.
Success: Player says what happens.
Minor Success: Player says what happens but DM gives a minor complication.
Minor Failure: DM says what happens but player adds a minor good thing.
Failure: DM says what happens.
Fumble: DM says what happens and another minor complication.

D&D is missing those middle two. Where the player fails/succeeds but not completely.

Easy enough to add in. But without them, I think it makes dishing out who says what happens less interesting.

Something along the lines of...

DM: "You fail to outrun the guards but you manage to turn around a corner. Take a +1 on your next skill check."
PC: "Okay. So, I turn the corner into a Halfling festival parade. I attempt to blend in among the revellers."
DM: "Roll Disguise..."

Otherwise, it's just a "You hit", "You miss" kind of thing. Not very exciting when it comes to "Say what happens" because there are never any mixed results.

 

[marune]

Completely disagree and you can find threads about GNS that were very coherent and not about arguing semantics. GNS is a tool to help you discuss certain aspects of gaming and game design. Like all other models it is only useful if you want it to be useful.

While I dont consider it the end all be all of RPG modelling, I definitely have found it useful.

I made the decision to not answer to GNS bashing on this thread because my OP was clearly announcing a GNS discussion.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Minor and major successes/failures are not always appropriate... and if they are, just add a bonus...

if you jump over a pit, failing by one, just assume you nearly got over the pit, but now you land there prone...

in 3.5 there are some skills (balance) which say: if you fail by 5 or more you... what more do you need?

And as a general rule, you as the DM have to be fair and nice to your players... telling them: you missed the jump check by one, you fall into the lava sounds just wrong... telling them to make a reflex save/acrobatics/climb check to grab the edge seems more appropriate...

And if a player has an original idea to use a skill, just say yes if you could imagine it could work, and set the DC (not necessarily secretly)

 

[apoptosis]

I made the decision to not answer to GNS bashing on this thread because my OP was clearly announcing a GNS discussion.

I do find it funny that you Pemerton and I had a very coherent discussion about it (even if we sometimes disagreed on several issues, which is normal for any discussion) and never once ran into an argument of semantics.