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

[pemerton]

The deeply problematic part come if you start making claims of the form that the set of interests that do not match with two distinct techniques are the same. And this seemed to be what the forge project was about - abstracting interests, under the assumption that there was a one to one correspondence between the (very few) interest categories it found and a sizable set of various techniques.

I don't really follow this. Are you able to give an illustrative example?

In this example the GM has prepared a major piece of lore, and have several ideas for things they would like to express. Curiosity for what the other players are bringing to the table is not part of the prime motivation.

Yes. And that it - as per Tuovinen's essay, which follows Ron Edwards pretty straightforwardly - a mode of simulationism. Which is what I posted.

Could you imagine it might be possible for me to state "I really like to make up good stories as a form of self expression. It is so nice to have the other players as an audience!" without you reflexively pointing out that "then you might want to consider a system with reduced GM powers compared to trad"?

Huh? I haven't done that. If you want to do what you've just described, you need a system with strong GM powers.

In this context I would say that the key observation they had was that if a GM is primarily interested in self expression, this particular interest is poorly compatible with the standard system used in RPGs everywhere of an "allmighty GM".

I don't follow this at all. An "allmighty GM" approach is pretty handy for the GM to engage in self-expression.

I challenge you to find a way to formulate a motivation that would describe why someone would prepare an elaborate setting like this for a narrative game?

Setting-based narrativist play is not as widely discussed as character and situation-based play, but Edwards gives examples here: The Forge :: Narrativism: Story Now. At the time he was writing, the standout example was HeroWars. I think 4e D&D is another example. The point of the setting is to establish the theme/premise/moral line that play is concerned with. As well as some fun colour.

Edwards had a fuller essay on setting-based narrativism 10 to 15 years ago, but it doesn't seem to be online anymore.

 

[Micah Sweet]

However 3.5 needed to be firebombed anyway mechanically for a few reasons, so it made sense to do a cleanup.

And yet, Pathfinder existed in a financially successful state for many years. Weird.

By what metric did 3.5 "need to be firebombed"? Was it the, "I don't like this system and want official D&D to be something else" metric?

 

[AlViking]

I always saw swarms as just a mechanically-useful way of handling hundreds or even thousands of tiny creatures - biting ants, bee swarms, Pied-Piper-esque numbers of common rats, etc. - that each individually had 0.05 of a hit point and each did 0.1 hit point damage on a hit but en masse could still pose a fairly major threat at times. The individual creature still is what it is but it's only in aggregate that they matter much beyond the very basic nuisance of getting bitten or stung.

I've never really used mobs as such; even if there's lots of minor foes attacking a party I'll still roll individually for them as much as I can. As such, each individual monster still is what it is, its stats and hit points etc. don't change because of what it's doing or who it's fighting.

I've occasionally used mobs for things like zombies. A single zombie shouldn't be all that dangerous, but throw enough all packed together because they don't care about survival and it can be an issue.

 

[AlViking]

I'm taking that you are referring to this: "My singing attracted the attention of a guard, who had heard the word on the street, and didn't like the look of this rag-clothed Dark Elf."

I don't know why that is seen as not involving an in-fiction causal connection.

Would the guard have shown up if your check had been successful?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Mechanically the changes are pretty straightforward. As I said in another post, the real change is in attitude towards the players. While 4e certainly supports a kind of trad play, it's much more transparent. A GM cannot fudge or play by some hidden set of rules. On top of that it is well-suited for Narrativist play with the way lore is keyed into play, quests, etc. But any of this could have been accomplished by 3.5. However 3.5 needed to be firebombed anyway mechanically for a few reasons, so it made sense to do a cleanup.

Conceptually 4e is a significant departure. Mechanics wise, not that much.

Is there anyone who agrees with this not a fan of 4e?

 

[zakael19]

Setting-based narrativist play is not as widely discussed as character and situation-based play, but Edwards gives examples here: The Forge :: Narrativism: Story Now. At the time he was writing, the standout example was HeroWars. I think 4e D&D is another example. The point of the setting is to establish the theme/premise/moral line that play is concerned with. As well as some fun colour.

Stonetop is pretty straightforwardly designed to be setting/exploration based narrativist play, which makes sense based on its 4e->DW roots with the idea of the Town itself being a major focus of play inspired from the dropped “Storming the Wizard’s Tower” game from the Bakers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As I posted upthread, I think I know my mental states better than you do.

Then your statement makes no sense to me. Sorry I can't understand it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, but the fact is, they existed. The concept that a creature could have different stats depending on who it was fighting and who it was accompanying was established pre-4e - that you didn't like them, or didn't use them, or rationalised them away doesn't stop them existing. As I said, the difference isn't in kind, it's in degree.

-edit Bats, for example, have stats both as individuals and swarms in 3e

How did the stats of swarm creatures change based on who they were fighting?

 

[Gimby]

How did the stats of swarm creatures change based on who they were fighting?

In precisely the same way as you might treat a creature as a different weight class in 4e. Whenever the GM decided it was more sensible for you to do so, largely for administrative reasons or to make a creature more challenging over a larger level range.

 

[AlViking]

In precisely the same way as you might treat a creature as a different weight class in 4e. Whenever the GM decided it was more sensible for you to do so, largely for administrative reasons or to make a creature more challenging over a larger level range.

I don't remember ever seeing that. Sometimes individual creatures joined many others of the same kind to become a swarm but that's an entirely different thing.