D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Enrahim]

Well...it's not really any of those things.

I want to frame scenes that inspire the players to take action*, in order to find out what that action is, and what reasonable consequences should result from it.

*I originally wrote "dramatic action", but I meant that in the sense of "significant" rather than "like a scripted drama". Leaving it in place would be rather likely to instantly inspire a particular, tedious reply of "AH SEE YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC STORY WRITTEN" except I don't.

In my understanding this is a perfect description of a "Eero Tuovinen simulationistic" agenda (My example descriptions wasn't intended to describe the only possible agendas in each mode)

A follow up question - do you think you would be frustrated if a player suggested a really cool action that sort of do not make full sense given the scene you framed? Or if a player find an amazing exploit in the rules that force a consequence that doesn't seem reasonable in light of the fiction to you? Or if one of the players insisted in not engaging actively with the scene, as they (reasonably) don't think their character would be inspired to action?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In my understanding this is a perfect description of a "Eero Tuovinen simulationistic" agenda (My example descriptions wasn't intended to describe the only possible agendas in each mode)

Which is really, really funny, given how many folks have said that simulation would be impossible in a game like the one I run

 

[Enrahim]

Which is really, really funny, given how many folks have said that simulation would be impossible in a game like the one I run

Yes, that is really the big problem with the term. There only relationship between the daily language term and the proposed technical term appear to be that the technical term was historically thought to include the daily language phenomenon. That make the term useless in most conversations

By the way, did you see the follow up questions I edited into my previous post?

 

[FrogReaver]

Where did I say that I dislike all the previous iterations of D&D?

Here.

For me, 4e D&D is the version of the game that actually gives me what I wanted from D&D when I first learned about it and played it.

 

[Enrahim]

Right. I just see, mechanically, a slight variant of d20 almost straight out of 3.5e. Saves are translated into defenses, and traditional spellcasting is loosened and turned into a ritual system, while the plethora of other kinds of abilities, plus combat spellcasting, are reworked as AEDU powers (which is a modest sized change, but 5e makes changes that are not much less radical).

Fully agree.

Where 4e actually departs from the past is in terms of allowing for more player-facing game. That is what ACTUALLY evoked hostility! It wasn't powers and such. It was the very notion that GMs are not lords unto themselves of all things.

It is an interesting observation, but I do not feel this fully tracks either. The majority of the vocal complaints I experienced was around combat focus and feeling like playing WoW. There was some background noise about people not liking the process of making a magic item wish lists being spelt out and formalized (that likely was effectively a widespread informal practice at that point, but 4ed revealed more of the sausage making). But that concept was so loosely integrated with the rest of the stuff that plain ignoring it would be more trivial than ignoring the grid combat of 3ed.

 

[pemerton]

Quite a ways upthread pemerton wrote...

... which I read to be saying that risk mitigation isn't really part of the purpose of play in narrative games. Do you disagree? Or perhaps I'm reading too much into either what you or he wrote?

So for some initial clarity: meaningfulness is something that the participants in a game experience.

Then, when we talk about managing risk, there are two things we can talk about: choices by the players, and events that happen in the fiction.

The latter are part of playing one's character: different sorts of choices manifest different attitudes towards risk.

The former are part of "winning the game". In a game that is based around engaging the fiction now, without a "finish line" to get to, there is no "winning the game" by reducing or avoiding obstacles. There can be shaping of the fiction, and trying to control elements of that; but it's not as if there are not going to be obstacles/checks required.

Here's an example of Torchbearer 2e play - TB2e has a "fail forward" orientation in its action resolution, which I can elaborate on i you like, and "good idea" is its version of "say 'yes'":

In my last Torchbearer session, the PCs entered a chamber with a sarcophagus, and behind that, on the wall, a black tapestry that they wished to loot. They had reason to believe that something sinister was in the sarcophagus. Therefore, before opening it, one of the players had his PC bundle up the tapestry in a "harness" made from rope, so that if the PCs had to run he could pull it along by the rope.

I adjudicated that action in the following way: I told him that the tapestry was bundled, and this would mean that if the PCs had to leave in a hurry he could make a Labourer test to bring the tapestry with him.

The PCs then opened the sarcophagus, discovered the Barrow Wight inside, and temporarily subdued it long enough to put the lid back on and flee the chamber. At that point I called for the Labourer test: the player rolled the dice, equalled or beat the required difficulty (I can't remember which) and hence in the fiction it was established that the character was pulling the tapestry along with him.

<snip>

In the scenario I've just described, the player is reasoning about the shared fiction: there's a tapestry, there's a sinister sarcophagus, there is a likely need to flee, the PC is carrying rope, the player has been a truckie in real life and knows how to tie knots, the player describes the PC bundling up and roping the tapestry so its ready to be dragged out in a hurry.

They saw the black tapestry hanging at the end of the hall (pack 5). Golin rolled it up and tied it with a rope, ready to haul it out in a hurry if necessary. I treated this as a good idea.

<snip>

The PCs decided to leave the dungeon - which meant going back up the rope into Megloss's house - Golin successfully hauling the tapestry behind him (Ob 3 Labourer).

I don't know if you would characterise this as "risk mitigation" or not. But it is obviously different from (say) resolution in the Tomb of Horrors. The players can't avoid the making of rolls at the moment of crisis, which is how the system works: but can shape (for instance) what skill is tested (eg in this example, Labourer).

 

[pemerton]

Where did I say that I dislike all the previous iterations of D&D?

Here.

For me, 4e D&D is the version of the game that actually gives me what I wanted from D&D when I first learned about it and played it.

Huh? The post you're quoting doesn't say. or imply, that I dislike all previous versions of D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, because the person who thinks recognition and acceptance is good is clearly the villain, and the people who think rejection and exclusion are awesome should totally be catered to at every breath.

And yet you clearly don’t accept that some people feel 4e d&d isn’t real d&d. Essentially you keep trying to exclude them.

I'm saying that people being exclusionary and hostile to other people's fun are a problem and should never be catered to for any reason, yes.

But they aren’t being hostile to your fun. Saying 4e doesn’t feel like ‘real d&d’ to me isn’t saying that you or even they cannot have fun doing it.

If you think that that means I'm rejecting their opinion, maybe it's because there's something actually wrong with that opinion.

Nothing is wrong with their opinion. Just like nothing is wrong with feeling like 4e is real d&d and also the best version of d&d ever.

Except they LITERALLY ARE by declaring that it isn't D&D.

For them! They are declaring it isn’t d&d for them. Why is that so bad? Why are they an evil bad person for feeling that way?

That's literally what is actually being said. It is openly "your fun isn't allowed in this community". It is "your kind aren't allowed here". That's why I will not, cannot, accept this as a "valid opinion".

No one here in this community is saying that you cannot have fun playing 4e d&d or can’t belong to this community if you like it. Literally no one. You are not being excluded.

 

[FrogReaver]

Huh? The post you're quoting doesn't say. or imply, that I dislike all previous versions of D&D.

Yes it does.

 

[pemerton]

I think the forge project of trying to find general patterns relating interest and system was deeply problematic

Here's a post I made over 10 years ago, that quotes a bit about how some resolution methods facilitate certain sorts of approaches to play:

Ron Edwards discussing fortune in the middle:

Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates Narrativist play . . . It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent goofs​

By chance, I was just reading an extract from a new FR sourcebook on the WotC side, and came across this "grandmaster training" power that PCs can acquire:

Drizzt’s Kick * Level 8 Uncommon
Drizzt innovated this attack when he found his swords locked with an opponent during training in Menzoberranzan.

<snip>

Daily Attack (Minor Action)
Requirement: You must have missed an enemy with a melee attack during this turn.
Effect: You make a melee basic attack against the same enemy. On a hit, the enemy grants combat advantage until the end of your next turn.​

Why is this interesting? Compare the flavour text and the requirement: they show that the 4e designers acknowledge that a miss, in 4e, need not be a feeble or failed attempt, but could in fact represent expert ability thwarted by an equally expert foe ("locked swords").

Here is another pertinent quote from Ron Edwards:

Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things:

*Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict;

*Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion.

*More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se.​

This seems to me to capture 4e pretty well. I think it helps explain why Balesir, chaochou and other can play gamist 4e, and I can play narrativsit 4e, without anyone having to do a great deal of rewriting or ignoring of the rules. is a particularly unsatisfactory RPG for those who not only want to be there, but want to get there by daydreaming before play even starts.

"Fail forward" also fits into this - system for input rather than explicitly delivering the outcome of a declared action.

Some methods are facilitative of certain approaches, or not well-suited to others. In this thread it's been noted that "fail forward" is a technique that fits better with some than other goals of and approaches to RPGing. If that's the "project of trying to find general patterns" you're referring to, then I don't think it was "deeply problematic". And was certainty not dogmatic: Ron Edwards talks about "vanilla narrativism" (and that was how I (i) recognised what my play group was doing with RM, and therefore (ii) worked out why certain aspects of RM resolution kept causing issues in play); Eero Tuovinen in the blog that's been discussed recently in this thread recognises gamist CoC play; etc.

(Here are the links for the Edwards quots: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html; The Forge :: Gamism: Step On Up)

EDIT:

If it is that you had this grand vision about a cool setting and the potential stories in it that you really wanted to share with your players, then probably narrativism.

That sounds like simulationism to me. Narrativism is about player proactivity in respect of theme and meaning.