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

[wgreen]

Please, let's not bring Egri into this.

What, you mean let's not bring Narrativism into this?

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.

Okay, I get you now. But I think you're talking more about narration rights than Narrativism, which clouds things a bit. D&D doesn't have them (i.e., only the DM ever has them), even in 4e (from what I can tell). The skill challenges just appear to be a form of Conflict Resolution, nothing more. Which is awesome, and somewhat Narrativism-facilitating, but a different issue from narration rights.

Thanks for the clarifications.

-Will!

 

[smathis]

What, you mean let's not bring Narrativism into this?

Nah, I mean Egri. I doubt the poor guy is even aware of the flamewars Ron Edwards' adoption of his writing has caused over the years. Edwards was clearly intending to use Egri's writing on plot and premise in a roleplaying context. So I consider that Edwards' baby, not Egri's. Any confusion as to its context, terms or execution rests at Ron's feet, not poor Lajos'.

Much in the same way Herbert Spencer is responsible for Social Darwinism, not Charles Darwin (as many people suppose).

Okay, I get you now. But I think you're talking more about narration rights than Narrativism, which clouds things a bit. D&D doesn't have them (i.e., only the DM ever has them), even in 4e (from what I can tell). The skill challenges just appear to be a form of Conflict Resolution, nothing more. Which is awesome, and somewhat Narrativism-facilitating, but a different issue from narration rights.

Thanks for the clarifications.

-Will!

Yup. I was talking about Narration Rights. It goes back to what I was saying earlier about indie-game designers checking the theory at the door. I mean, where's the premise in HeroQuest? Or Shadows of Yesterday? Pretty much the same place it is in D&D. Yet, HQ and tSoY are considered vastly more conducive to Narr play than D&D.

Premise isn't hard-wired into any of those games I mentioned. Not like it is in DitV, MLwM or even Sorcerer. I can accept that. Actually, I prefer it because it means I can use the same rules to explore many premises, rather than a variation on themes.

My statement earlier about "doing Narr" in D&D if I have minor successes/failures was more about being able to dish out Authorial and Directorial control to players at the table. I associate those more with Narr playstyles because:

1) Narration rights are almost always a part of Narr-supporting games' rulesets, whereas premise often is not
2) Premise often builds and creates itself organically and dynamically through play, even in rulesets that don't support or promote such

As to whether D&D supports this already, I mentioned repeatedly that this was an easy hack to insert. I was making an observation that not having support of it at the core rules level (beyond handwavy DM stuff) seemed a bit behind the times. That's all.

 

[apoptosis]

Nah, I mean Egri. I doubt the poor guy is even aware of the flamewars Ron Edwards' adoption of his writing has caused over the years. Edwards was clearly intending to use Egri's writing on plot and premise in a roleplaying context. So I consider that Edwards' baby, not Egri's. Any confusion as to its context, terms or execution rests at Ron's feet, not poor Lajos'.

Much in the same way Herbert Spencer is responsible for Social Darwinism, not Charles Darwin (as many people suppose).



Yup. I was talking about Narration Rights. It goes back to what I was saying earlier about indie-game designers checking the theory at the door. I mean, where's the premise in HeroQuest? Or Shadows of Yesterday? Pretty much the same place it is in D&D. Yet, HQ and tSoY are considered vastly more conducive to Narr play than D&D.

Premise isn't hard-wired into any of those games I mentioned. Not like it is in DitV, MLwM or even Sorcerer. I can accept that. Actually, I prefer it because it means I can use the same rules to explore many premises, rather than a variation on themes.

My statement earlier about "doing Narr" in D&D if I have minor successes/failures was more about being able to dish out Authorial and Directorial control to players at the table. I associate those more with Narr playstyles because:

1) Narration rights are almost always a part of Narr-supporting games' rulesets, whereas premise often is not
2) Premise often builds and creates itself organically and dynamically through play, even in rulesets that don't support or promote such

As to whether D&D supports this already, I mentioned repeatedly that this was an easy hack to insert. I was making an observation that not having support of it at the core rules level (beyond handwavy DM stuff) seemed a bit behind the times. That's all.

TSOY is considered more narr not because of premise but because it rewards narr. The keys are all about rewarding character (player) goals which focuses the story around the characters goals. While not shoehorning characters into the keys as they can be bought off for instant rewards allowing for more player control.

Now I am biased as TSOY is my favorite fantasy RPG

I agree with most of what you say. Though I think premise generally doesn't create itself during play very often unless the rules support it as it tends to be an issue of convenience unless it is rewarded (generalization i know and there are definitely probably many exceptions in play)

 

[wgreen]

Okay, I get you. I'm a little reluctant to bring narration rights into the picture when discussing the direction of D&D, if only because the very concept, IME, scares the living crap out of a lot of traditional players and DMs alike. The Forge has had plenty of threads started by nervous would-be GMs of these kinds of games who were worrying themselves sick about what to do when the players inevitably start establishing large swaths of fact about the game world.

(In practice, it's not a problem because it all depends on how much [or, if you prefer, "what kind"] of authorial power the players are granted.)

Anyway, I see narration rights as being basically one form (of many) of Conflict Resolution, which does a lot to support Narrativist play. Since CR can be had without narration rights (and 4e seems to have a little of the former), and the latter can be so scary to those unfamiliar with them...

You know. Baby steps.

-Will!

P.S. On that note -- anyone out there who's worried about skill challenges should try running The Pool for a couple of sessions. You'll never worry about them again.

 

[Kraydak]

The difference is as much in the zeitgeist as it is in the rules. Look at how many people have been saying that the player getting to roll a History check to escape guards is silly; 4E is about trying to overturn that preconception, and it's doing that by loosening up the way that skills can be applied. So yes, the encounter can be modified to suit the character's schtick, and how that happens is as much in the hands of the player as the DM. The DM still retains veto power, but the point is that purely negative roleplay -- "I am an asskicker because when it comes to non-asskicking situations, I do nothing" -- is to be minimised.

But, you see, the history check, or even worse the acrobatics (crowd gathering check) or *especially* the halfling hiding in a saddlebag check *were* silly. In 3e, those ideas would have been nixed because they were silly. In 4e, their silliness is ignored, which to me means redefining the world to allow the characters to use their schtick, even if it doesn't make sense. Which circles back around to my argument.

Thogg in 3e, btw, wasn't an ass-kicker because when it came to non-asskicking situations he did nothing. It was because in *potentially* asskicking situations, he always chose asskicking (and heck, he chose that in even the most marginal of cases). In non-asskicking situations, he did whatever an ass-kicker would choose to do in circumstances where ass-kicking is contra-indicated. I have *no* complaint over boosting the options available in such circumstances. In fact, I approve. That is irrelevant to the situation at hand. In 3e, the character defined the *response* to the situation. If 4e is going to be different (which the blog implies), the only way for that to work is for the situation to be defined *for* the character. A case of cart before the horse.

...

If your current approach to the game is the same as the zeitgeist described, then yes, 4E will feel samey to you. But if so, then where's the downside? You'll be doing exactly what you're doing now, with no big jarring paradigm shift or anything to worry about.

Sure, but then why the blog? My argument is based on the implications of the blog, under the assumption that the blog had reason to exist. If you assume that blogs that claim to be about how 4e is cooler than 3e are *actually* about how 3e is cool, then I have no problem with their content. I will, of course, complain about theoretically hard working devs wasting their time writing them.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

So far, it seems that the only specific simulationist thing is the reward for playing in character. Aren't characters also part of the narrative? And what in RT's blog says that part of acting in character is not developing that character?

i went back and took a good look at that blog post, and I'm finding it extremely difficult not to think that the OP of this thread is based on a massive mistaken reading of the original blog post.

Let's actually link to the blog post: http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=48904&pagemode=2&blogid=2100

OK, now that people have had a chance to read the think, let's think for a bit.

Why? Because he says that players should be rewarded both for :
...
2) Acting in character, or "roleplaying" (I don't like this definition of roleplay, but anyway).

Later, skeptic makes it clear that he thinks that Thompson's definition of roleplaying is "Acting in character".

But is this what Rodney says? No. First, he quotes JD Wiker, "Is there some insurmountable obstacle inherent in the mechanics that prevents designers from introducing a set of rules that lets players play their characters a certain way?" He does this to highlight what he has previously said about players coming up with innovative ways around game challenges. Thompson continues, "What the non-combat encounter system in 4th Edition does is it not only lets people play their characters how they want to, it rewards it." This is a comment on a game mechanic that rewards tactics by the player, and so is gamist, but it is a comment about providing the freedom within the system so that this gamist activity takes place in the most narrativist way possible, that is, so that the player can shape the story of the game.

But what about the following quote? ""That's what differentiates a board game from a roleplaying game, I think. A board game rewards players for making choices that lead to victory. A roleplaying game rewards the player for making choices that are consistent with his character." This is not something said by Thompson, this is something that he quotes John Wick as saying. After that quote, Thompson writes, "What 4E's noncombat encounter system does is it lets you make a choice that is consistent with your character AND lets you achieve victory with that (or, at least, some modicum of success)." Even if we do read "consistent with your character" to mean play that rigid reflects a character with no narrative growth, this statement is about one possibility of the skill resolution system, not a core reward mechanic of the game geared specifically around character consistency.

To me, Thompsonwrites som ethings that are downright narrativist in their leaning. For example:

A roleplaying game should reward roleplaying as a means of encouraging roleplaying, but it need not be the sole method of encouragement. Building in the possibility of success when roleplaying puts the potential of reward out there for the players, but giving the Dungeon Master the tools to determine the outcome of playing one's role is just as important. In my mind, if a game is to encourage roleplaying, it should do so by rewarding the players, making it easy for the Dungeon Master to adjudicate (and, by extension, plan for and design adventures around), and not punish the players too much (some is fine) when they make a roleplaying choice instead of a victory choice.

To me, this indicates that part of what the system is designed to do is assist the DM in accommodating player additions to the narrative rather than building narrow victory conditions around pre-planned elements of the simulated game world.

Clearly D&D is not, and probably never will be a wholly narrativist game. It will always have gamist elements (if only because these encourage identification with the activity). It will always have elements of simulation (it is almost impossible to do away with them).

 

[smathis]

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.

I see your point. But my point is that we won't know what is going to be presented in the DMG until it's here. The point being made about Sim in 4e is speculation based on one developer's casual comment in his blog.

I hardly find that a reason to be up in arms.

And about the only thing I've heard from any of the developers about general DM roleplaying advice that will appear in the DMG is "Say Yes". Which is, IIRC, a tenet of Forge theory.

It's not Burning Wheel. Or tSoY. But it's a far sight closer than 2e or 3e.

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.

That depends on what Bill S. means by "Storyteller". It's obvious he's trying to tone down the adversarial portions of the role. But I've also read, in W&M I believe, that the D&D team wanted to make it more clear that all participants are responsible for their own "fun" and that of everyone else at the "table" as well.

That's Social Contract and Creative Agenda in action.

In D n frikkin' D

Granted, it's not [insert your favorite indie game here]. But I think it's a giant leap forward.*





* - for D&D

 

[TwinBahamut]

Sorry for taking so long to respond to this Kraydak, but you and Hong post way too early in the morning for me...

Lemme try to use an example. Thogg the barbarian is an ass-kicker by nature. The edition doesn't matter, ass-kicking is what he does. Now, in 3.X, Thogg is (frequently!) confronted with situations where ass-kicking is non-optimal or even counterproductive. Thogg cannot always repond to situations with ass-kicking, and an outside observer would determine that Thogg is an ass-kicker by noting that he chooses the ass-kicking option more often than the average, and that he chooses it even in cases where it is a poor (hopefully not catastrophic) choice.

I think you probably could be a bit clearer here by stating whether this is a player preference, chosen character personality, or simply a specialized character build... All three have a similar result, but there are pretty significant differences between them for a discussion about roleplaying potential. That said, I think I understand what you mean.

In 4e, going by Rodney's blog, the goal is that Thogg gets rewarded for choosing ass-kicking as his choice.

Actually, Rodney said something more along the lines of "we will not penalize a sub-optimal choice so much that it impossible".

This requires the circumstances be such that ass-kicking is, in fact, a productive option. An observer of 4e would determine that Thogg is an ass-kicker by noting that Thogg *encounters* an unusually large number of situations where ass-kicking is a good option, but given the set of encounters Thogg has, he won't be choosing ass-kicking an unusually large number of times.

This is where my reading of everything and your reading differ completely. The idea behind 4E is more that you can try to make your shtick work where it could not work in 3E, not that the DM tailors more encounters in which your shtick works.

Let me phrase this a bit differently...

Let us assume that Thogg's party is put into a situation where they need to resolve some kind of tricky diplomatic issue. 3E basically assumes that such a task will be resolved entirely by characters who have put skill points into social skills or have social class features. Thogg, who only likes ass-kicking, has nothing to do, since ass-kicking is useless. 4E assumes that, if the player is creative, he can find some way to make his ass-kicking more applicable to the diplomatic situation (though probably at lower effectiveness than usual), but at the same time he has the alternative of using a less-optimized skill and participating in the negotiations directly (because of the new skill system). In 3E, Thogg has no viable options (and thus no way of roleplaying through the mechanics), but in 4E, Thogg has several viable options (if a bit sub-optimal), one of which is ass-kicking.

As such, I interpret things in the exact opposite way that you do. In 4E, Thogg will have more places where he can choose to kick ass, and the choice is not forced upon him based on circumstances.

Again, going by the blog, 4e's design philosophy takes away roleplaying options from play, and puts them into character creation. Strange that an edition that explicitly tried to silo abilities to get character breadth seems to have an additional philosophy that rewards strong specialization. 3E's Thogg will be forced by circumstances to use his (poor) non-ass=kicking skills more than 4E's Thogg will be able to justify using his (better) non-ass-kicking skills.

At this point, you seem to be arguing a few different, slightly contradictory points, so I am getting confused again.

In your second paragraph, the important thing you dislike seems to be that 4E forces the DM to make situations in which Thogg can kick ass. In your third paragraph, you complain that 4E does not force a character to use sub-optimal skills. Both points seem very different than your original idea that 4E removes the ability of characters to choose their own goals (which is what I originally objected to). As such, can you please clarify your position somewhat? I am not sure what I am arguing against anymore.

Oh well, time to bring in what you said to hong.

But, you see, the history check, or even worse the acrobatics (crowd gathering check) or *especially* the halfling hiding in a saddlebag check *were* silly. In 3e, those ideas would have been nixed because they were silly. In 4e, their silliness is ignored, which to me means redefining the world to allow the characters to use their schtick, even if it doesn't make sense. Which circles back around to my argument.

I don't think this argument is applicable. Your decision that they were silly, and thus not useable in the game, is entirely your own subjective view as a player and/or DM. A DM who would nix such ideas in 3E will probably still do so in 4E. Meanwhile, as a DM myself, I would not have had a problem with those actions even in 3E. They may be silly (as in a bit humorous and off-the-wall), but that is no logical reason to nix them. If there is a thriving marketplace, there are likely crowds and saddlebags that the PCs can interact with. If there is a sewer, there is likely something mentioned about it in a history book the PC might have read in his spare time.

Thogg in 3e, btw, wasn't an ass-kicker because when it came to non-asskicking situations he did nothing. It was because in *potentially* asskicking situations, he always chose asskicking (and heck, he chose that in even the most marginal of cases). In non-asskicking situations, he did whatever an ass-kicker would choose to do in circumstances where ass-kicking is contra-indicated. I have *no* complaint over boosting the options available in such circumstances. In fact, I approve. That is irrelevant to the situation at hand. In 3e, the character defined the *response* to the situation. If 4e is going to be different (which the blog implies), the only way for that to work is for the situation to be defined *for* the character. A case of cart before the horse.

This just makes me even more confused regarding what I said above, but I think this is a matter of you interpreting things wrong.

There is no indication whatsoever that 4E tells DMs to tailor encounters to match the abilities of the PCs. All they are doing in 4E open things up so that players have more ways of responding to a situation.

Anyways, I think you should move on from the Thogg example... The vagueness of "ass-kicking situations" and "non-ass-kicking situations", and you assumption of an absolute distinction between the two (which I don't necessarily agree with), might be confusing the discussion more than helping it. Maybe we should use an example of a character who specializes in certain skills, instead?

 

[RodneyThompson]

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.

*snip*

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

My middle initial is H, and that's not my middle name.

 

[Nytmare]

My middle initial is H, and that's not my middle name.

Hector?