Roles in Roleplaying Games

[JamesonCourage]

I also find traditional D&D mechanics make for boring combat.

This might be true to some, not to others. However, any combat that is important to the story, the PCs have a good chance of failing, and that is dangerous will produce drama and tension. Pretty much regardless of system, in my experience. I find that those factors are so much more important than the mechanics of the individual system.

Of course, mechanics can determine how easy or hard it is for PCs to fail, or be placed in danger (or potentially how important it is from a story perspective). So, yes, games can have a definite impact on that based on their mechanics, but really insofar as they relate to those three factors. Take my 4e bandits on the road example: the PCs will just use their dailys and are at full healing surges. No story, no real chance of failure or danger. No tension or drama. But, compare it with the fight with the BBEG when they each have a single healing surge left.

The 4e game engine and system definitely affect danger/chance of failure, and thus drama and tension. That is, sometimes it makes the fight less dramatic and with less tension, and other times it makes it more dramatic, and with more tension. I think that combat roles have much less to do with this.

Scry-buff-teleport is also, in my view, a mechanical phenomenon. (Which "first lucky strike" encourages.) It doesn't even depend on having access to scrying, to teleportation, or to buffing! What it depends upon is mechanics which make it possible (i) for the PCs (and hence the players) to gain advance knowledge of when a fight will take place, and (ii) for the PCs to benefit, in the ensuing combat, from deploying their resources in advance and/or in an opening surprise salvo.

Even at low-levels in classic D&D this can be done to an extent using invisible and silent scouting, and then casting Sleep and/or Hold Person and/or backstabbing.

Again, though, this is purely how the game mechanics interact with story, chance of failure, and danger. I don't see any strong relation to combat roles.

This sort of thing can, of course, happen in other games. But at least in my experience, in a game like AD&D or RM it will be a result of changes in luck with the dice (every Rolemaster group has their story about the time a player rolled double-open-ended-high to pluck victory from the jaws of defeat). In 4e it is also, to a significant extent, a result of the players' clever use of their PCs' powers and action budget.

Which is where roles come in. Because it is the existence of focused PC builds that helps create the mechanical intricacy of the interaction between powers and the action economy.

Um, if players just picked powers from pools, they'd get the potentially the exact same interactions. They'd just get more. They'd get to splash a healing power, or a controller power, or a defender power. They'd get to be half defender/half controller. They'd still have exactly what you're describing above in terms of clever use of PC powers and action budget, as well as giving players many, many ways to make their own luck.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the clear argument for combat roles based on what you've presented here. If I've missed something, though, let me know, because I am curious. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

This might be true to some, not to others.

Yes. I took that to be implicit in the "I find" in the sentence that you quoted.

However, any combat that is important to the story, the PCs have a good chance of failing, and that is dangerous will produce drama and tension.

What I personally like in an RPG combat engine is that it be able to produce drama and tension even though the PCs do not have a good chance of failing. (Because if the game is to (i) last 30 levels with a high degree of PC continuity, and (ii) have an average of at least one combat per session, and (iii) not to have a cheesy amount of resurrection, then it had better be the case that most combat are ones that the PCs do not have a good chance of failing.)

AD&D generally, in my experience, does not do this. Because it is generally a system of pure hit point attrition, if the PCs are almost certain to win then this becomes clear early on, and combat consists in rolling dice until the hit point counter reaches zero.

4e, on the other hand (in my experience, at least) does do this.

One way to generate drama and tension even though the PCs are almost certain to win, is that the certainty in question be conditional on mechanically clever play by the players. Rolemaster is better in this respect than Runequest, because it has many more player decision points in its action resolution mechanics. 4e in turn has more, and also ameliorates the effects of die rolls (whereas RM, with is open-ended rules and its crit and fumble rules, exaggerates the effects of die rolls).

What 4e also does better than RM is to mechanically configure things in such a way that the players' mechanical decisions will also tend to produce little microcosms of story - rising drama, climax, denouement, etc - within the course of the resolution of a single combat.

I find that those factors are so much more important than the mechanics of the individual system.

For the reasons given above - plus others - I don't. I wouldn't go so far as to say that combat in Traveller or Runequest (and other BRP games) is tedious, but it certainly has a crap-shoot element that I don't find very satisfying.

Of course, mechanics can determine how easy or hard it is for PCs to fail

That is one thing that they can do. I'm not at all sure it's the most important thing. The way in which the mechanics create decision points, and make those decision points matter to the overall prospects of success, seems to me generally more important.

The mechanics of skill challenges provide one example of how mechanics can produce a situation of gripping drama even when success by the PCs is guaranteed. Because a certain number of successful checks are required to win in a skill challenge, the fictional positioning generated by the making of each skill check may make a significant difference to the final outcome even though that outcome is guaranteed to be a successful one. For example, in a social negotiation, it may be that in order to generate the requisite number of (say) Diplomacy checks (and hence Diplomacy successes) the players have their PCs offer various compromises, which then signficantly shape the final outcome of the negotiations.

Or consider a quite different example, from games like HeroWars/Quest, or The Riddle of Steel: if a player gets his/her PC into a conflict that engages all the PC's relationships, passions etc - so that in TRoS all the Spiritual Attributes are contributing bonus dice, or in HW/Q all the relationships etc are contributing augments - then the PC will have only a very small chance of failure. But this should still be a gripping challenge, because in order to have all those mechanical benefits in play, the player must have maneouvred his/her PC into a situation in whch everything the PC (and presumably, therefore, the player) cares about is at stake.

4e doesn't have this particular feature in its combat resolution, of making emotional/thematic connections contribute to success. (At least not directly. The closest it comes that I can think of is with radiant-heavy divine classes fighting undead.) But the same sorts of reasons that make even easy skill challenges potentially drama-laden apply to 4e combats. Decisions have to be made, and these have implications for fictional positioning.

I think that combat roles have much less to do with this.

<snip>

this is purely how the game mechanics interact with story, chance of failure, and danger. I don't see any strong relation to combat roles.

<snip>


I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing the clear argument for combat roles based on what you've presented here. If I've missed something, though, let me know, because I am curious.

I think your focus on chance of failure and on danger is distracting you from what I believe to be the more significant mechanical issue, namely, the character and importance of player decision points in action resolution. And this is where combat roles make their contribution.

if players just picked powers from pools, they'd get the potentially the exact same interactions. They'd just get more. They'd get to splash a healing power, or a controller power, or a defender power. They'd get to be half defender/half controller. They'd still have exactly what you're describing above in terms of clever use of PC powers and action budget, as well as giving players many, many ways to make their own luck.

But if every PC has the capacity (for example) to open up access to healing surges in a similar way, or to debuff enemies in the same sort of way as does a defender or a controller, then the force of a range of decision points is blunted.

Questions about who to heal when, and how, become sharpened when it matters that the healer is unconcious or not. Questions about how to shape or reshape the front line become more pointed when it makes a signficant mechanical difference who is trying to hold that front line. Conversely, the more homogenous the PCs, the less sharp these questions and the less at stake in these decisions - where "the stakes" aren't necessarily success or failure (in my experience, at least, 4e is very forgiving of a wide range of player decisions) but rather the character of the play that results from the decision (both its mechanical character, and the fiction that correlates to those mechanics).

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yes. I took that to be implicit in the "I find" in the sentence that you quoted.

And yet, as interesting as your personal views on your home game are, I'm speaking within the context or what people might like in general. Generally speaking, in this discussion, I'm more interested in what you think gamers might like, not what you might like.

What I personally like in an RPG combat engine is that it be able to produce drama and tension even though the PCs do not have a good chance of failing.

You might be confusing "chance of failing" with "danger". That is, they aren't the same. If the PCs are escorting a diplomat, then the diplomat being killed would mean the PCs failed. If they're on a timed mission, then being stalled long enough that the time lapses would mean they failed. Sometimes failure means PC death, yes, but I associate that more with danger than chance of failure.

With all of this in mind, I'd much rather have a system that allows chance of failure be a constant than danger, though I like both in my games. I like each combat being dramatic and filled with tension, and I think most people would agree. That means I'd rather most (and only most) combats have as many of those three characteristics as possible, chance of failure and danger included.

One way to generate drama and tension even though the PCs are almost certain to win, is that the certainty in question be conditional on mechanically clever play by the players.

I'll have to say my mileage has varied on this statement. While it's a fun mental exercise, it's not really going to generate drama with me, because I'm savvy enough to win if the encounter is designed in such a way that my mechanical cleverness will consistently allow me to win. It's a fun game, for sure, and it might produce tension (with die rolls), but it probably won't add drama inherently.

Again, that will happen by having a chance of failure, and/or by being in danger, and/or by being important to the story.

For the reasons given above - plus others - I don't. I wouldn't go so far as to say that combat in Traveller or Runequest (and other BRP games) is tedious, but it certainly has a crap-shoot element that I don't find very satisfying.

If you think that the 4e system alone makes for a more dramatic and tension filled combat without those three characteristics, as compared to a "first lucky strike" system that involves all three characteristics, all I can say is I deeply, deeply disagree. And I think most players would, too, but I can't know for sure. We're both just using anecdotal evidence, but at least I have Imaro on my side

At any rate, we're going to have to agree to disagree, here, because what you've expressed seems so far from my feeling on the matter that I doubt we'll reconcile it in this discussion. That's not to say that system isn't important in contributing to the tension and drama -I've indicated that it is- but I do believe that it's secondary to story, chance of failure, and danger.

That is one thing that they can do. I'm not at all sure it's the most important thing. The way in which the mechanics create decision points, and make those decision points matter to the overall prospects of success, seems to me generally more important.

This seems to lead to the same place I was pointing to: chance of failure. "Mechanics can determine how easy or hard it is for PCs to fail" is a comment on the mechanics shaping the "chance of failure" characteristic I've mentioned. You're thoughts, above, about "mechanics create decision points, and make those decision points matter to the overall prospects of success" seem to align with my point. It leads back to "chance of failure", with some systems helping or hurting more than others.

With 4e, I see no way in which combat roles particularly strengthen this. I've yet to see a compelling argument to indicate that they contribute to the chance of failure for a group, thus adding to the drama or tension of the combat.

I think your focus on chance of failure and on danger is distracting you from what I believe to be the more significant mechanical issue, namely, the character and importance of player decision points in action resolution. And this is where combat roles make their contribution.

And I'm positing that this will happen just as often without combat roles.

But if every PC has the capacity (for example) to open up access to healing surges in a similar way, or to debuff enemies in the same sort of way as does a defender or a controller, then the force of a range of decision points is blunted.

Only if everyone had every power. If we assume four characters, each with one role, we can assume that most of the ability to access healing surges is tied to one character. However, if we allowed PCs to access pools of powers, and even if it's evenly split (each PC has a power accessing healing surges), then drama and tension will still play out depending on how those resources are used. Each PC will have to contribute to healing whoever needs it as it arises, but can only do so at specific points (because they have one-fourth the healing potential of a regular combat role PC).

While this takes away a dimension of the game (combat roles), this adds a dimension to the game, with each PC having to time their healing abilities to help the group at large. Each PC has less "heals" to give out, and thus the decision to use that ability individually might carry more weight to the individual.

And, this is assuming everyone takes a healing power, which I doubt will be the case. I just don't find your assertion that "the force of a range of decision points is blunted" to be accurate, at least from where I'm standing. It makes more PCs have access to similar powers, yes, but players will still feel drama and tension when rolling damage, even though everyone gets that ability. I do not feel that watering down or eliminating roles in any way diminishes drama or tension.

Questions about who to heal when, and how, become sharpened when it matters that the healer is unconcious or not. Questions about how to shape or reshape the front line become more pointed when it makes a signficant mechanical difference who is trying to hold that front line.

Yes, but we can safely assume that not everyone will be able to fulfill all four combat roles. Because of that assumption, I think it's fair to assume that you'll still have something similar to what you have now: someone who is best at defending, or controlling, or being a leader, or the like. Or, you'll have a couple hybrid-style PCs, like a warlock or melee-controller (polearm Fighter with push/pull, etc.).

You won't have everyone be able to swap out interchangeably with one another on the battlefield, because while power choices might be robust, you have the same number of power slots to fill. I steadfastly dismiss the assertion that giving power pools to choose from would lower drama or tension based on what's been presented thus far. If that means we have to agree to disagree, I'm okay with that. It's not like I'm in this to "win" the discussion, and I do appreciate your thoughts. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

And yet, as interesting as your personal views on your home game are, I'm speaking within the context or what people might like in general. Generally speaking, in this discussion, I'm more interested in what you think gamers might like, not what you might like.

I think different gamers might like a range of different things. The same gamer can like a range of different things. Although at the moment I am GMing 4e, and enjoying it, I can easily envisage enjoying GMing other, different, games - HeroQuest, HARP or Burning Wheel at least. And I can easily imagine playing other, different, games that I wouldn't want to GM myself.

I think there is a reasonable amount of evidence that a reasonable number of gamers find combat based on pure hit point attrition boring. My evidence is that many gamers don't play D&D, and many gamers who do play D&D lace it with various more-or-less optional elements that displace hit point attrition, like critical hit systems and save-or-die/suck attacks.

You might be confusing "chance of failing" with "danger". That is, they aren't the same. If the PCs are escorting a diplomat, then the diplomat being killed would mean the PCs failed. If they're on a timed mission, then being stalled long enough that the time lapses would mean they failed. Sometimes failure means PC death, yes, but I associate that more with danger than chance of failure.

I agree all these things can count as failure. I think that D&D, at least since some time during the 2nd ed era, has generally been premised on the assumption that the PCs will succeed. The classic 2nd ed railroading modules (Planescape, Ravenloft etc) achieved this result despite the mechanics, by encouraging the GM to narrate huge swathes of story without regard to them. 4e involves D&D "catching up" with modern developments in game design, that show how expected success can be reconciled with mechanical power and intereseting choices in the hands of the players.

I'd much rather have a system that allows chance of failure be a constant than danger, though I like both in my games. I like each combat being dramatic and filled with tension, and I think most people would agree. That means I'd rather most (and only most) combats have as many of those three characteristics as possible, chance of failure and danger included.

You haven't really explained whether by "chance of failure" you mean "opportunity for failure" or "X% probability of failure". In combat in RQ or Traveller there is an X% probability of failure - hence the crapshoot element of combat in those systems. In 4e there is an opportunity for failure, but clever choices can drive the percentage chance very low (probably not arbitrarily low, given we're talking about fairly coarse randomness in action resolution, but very low).

I'll have to say my mileage has varied on this statement. While it's a fun mental exercise, it's not really going to generate drama with me, because I'm savvy enough to win if the encounter is designed in such a way that my mechanical cleverness will consistently allow me to win.

This suggests to me that your principal interest is in winning. My own view - frequently posted in these threads - is that 4e doesn't suit that sort of play very well. It's not about the win - it's about the decisions that have to be made, the potentially difficult choices taken, to secure that win. This is why I think that it suits narrativist play. I think it's also why it suits the sort of gamist play that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has posted about - where the aim of play isn't to win, but to win by demonstrating "cool moves" using an ever-more complex character. (I see this as a very light and collegial form of gamism. But Balesir can correct me if I'm misdescribing it.)

Once the focus of play shifts to the choices made - whether their thematic stakes, or their "coolness" stakes - then that is where the drama will reside. This is what 4e, in my view, supports. How popular is this sort of game? I don't know. Popular enough, I would say, given that 4e seems to be widely played. Given the success of Pathfinder, however, I would guess that it is not as popular as a somewhat more hardcore gamism supported by a more simulationist rules engine. (And, of course, this is a sort of play that I also think was widespread in classic D&D and even 2nd ed times. 3E/PF didn't invent it - it cashed in on its popularity.)

You're thoughts, above, about "mechanics create decision points, and make those decision points matter to the overall prospects of success" seem to align with my point. It leads back to "chance of failure", with some systems helping or hurting more than others.

Decision points aren't primarily about chances of failure - at least, not in a heroic system like 4e. They're about having to commit, about having to make sacrfices, or - if you're playing in Balesir's style - about trying to come up with the goods to show off to your fellow players.

If you think that the 4e system alone makes for a more dramatic and tension filled combat without those three characteristics, as compared to a "first lucky strike" system that involves all three characteristics, all I can say is I deeply, deeply disagree.

<snip>

That's not to say that system isn't important in contributing to the tension and drama -I've indicated that it is- but I do believe that it's secondary to story, chance of failure, and danger.

<snip>

I just don't find your assertion that "the force of a range of decision points is blunted" to be accurate, at least from where I'm standing. It makes more PCs have access to similar powers, yes, but players will still feel drama and tension when rolling damage, even though everyone gets that ability. I do not feel that watering down or eliminating roles in any way diminishes drama or tension.

<snip>

I steadfastly dismiss the assertion that giving power pools to choose from would lower drama or tension based on what's been presented thus far.

Are these claims based on reading of, or playing, a range of games with various mechanics and approaches? Or are they hypotheses?

My claims are based on a mixture of play experience and wide reading. When I read about a game, like Maelstrom Storytelling, being designed to turn play into story in a certain fashion - and then I look at its mechanics, and compare them to the mechanics of different or similar games that I have played - the difference seems fairly clear to me.

I regard it as close to obvious that some mechanical systems for action resolution are better at turning play into story than others. Traditional simulationist systems, in my experience, are not very good at this. I find it obvious - both in theory, from reading the rules, and then in experience that bears out the theory - that 4e will be better at this, because its mechanics force the players to make decisions in the course of action resolution that have fictional signficance even if their contribution to mechanical success is guaranteed. (This is the point of the reference upthread to skill challenges, which introduce significant drama even if success is guaranteed, because the players have to repeatedly engage the fiction in order to generate sufficient successful skill checks.)

Conversely, a system when for all players most of the time the only rational choice is to pour on the damage, is just not producing the same range of drama-generating decision points.

Again, I'm not saying that other systems don't produce drama. Just not as often or reliably.

And, of course, it remains an open question whether most gamers want drama in their games. The growth of PF relative to 4e suggests that they don't - or, at least, not in the play-into-story fashion that modern indie-influence RPGs use to produce that outcome. They seem to want (i) a higher degree of simulation, and (ii) a greater focus on playing-to-win.

4e obviously lacks (i). And if played with (ii) in mind it will degenerate into the proverbial dice rolling boardgame people complain about, because once you're just playing to win, and so don't care about the fiction that is shaped by the decision points, the fiction will drop out of the picture. Because 4e - at least until page 42 is brought into play, and those who are playing to win won't bring page 42 into play because they won't want to empower the GM in such a fashion - tends not to make fictional position central to the mechanics of action resolution in the way that classic D&D does (think White Plume Mountain or Tomb of Horrors as the poster children for fictional-positioning-heavy playing-to-win).

If you really see no difference between the way that classic D&D, and its offspring like 3E/PF, produce drama in the game, and the way that indie games and an indie-influenced game like 4e produce drama in the game - and the way those differences are rooted in the mechanics - then indeed we look at RPGs very differently.

 

[Hassassin]

Decision points aren't primarily about chances of failure - at least, not in a heroic system like 4e. They're about having to commit, about having to make sacrfices, or - if you're playing in Balesir's style - about trying to come up with the goods to show off to your fellow players.

Would you mind explaining why you think 4e mechanically supports the concept of making decisions and sacrifices better than 3e/PF? From my admittedly limited experience in 4e the opposite seems true - whatever you sacrifice you get (pretty much automatically) back in a few minutes or at most a night's sleep. A practical example or two might help me understand this better.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You haven't really explained whether by "chance of failure" you mean "opportunity for failure" or "X% probability of failure".

Well, you hadn't really asked yet. I think of it closer to "significant opportunity of failure". That'll vary depending on the situation, but I'm not thinking a baked-in "X% probability of failure". That's too mechanical for what I'm talking about. I'm talking about players have a significant chance of failing at their goal, and that ratcheting up the tension and drama in the scenario. So, more than "opportunity for failure", but only really to the point of adding the word of "significant", I think.

This suggests to me that your principal interest is in winning. My own view - frequently posted in these threads - is that 4e doesn't suit that sort of play very well. It's not about the win - it's about the decisions that have to be made, the potentially difficult choices taken, to secure that win. This is why I think that it suits narrativist play. I think it's also why it suits the sort of gamist play that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has posted about - where the aim of play isn't to win, but to win by demonstrating "cool moves" using an ever-more complex character. (I see this as a very light and collegial form of gamism. But Balesir can correct me if I'm misdescribing it.)

It's not so much about "winning D&D", it's about me engaging in the combat game. That is, if the engine is designed in such a way that I need to be clever in order to lower those odds, I'm going to be clever in order to lower those odds. As someone who can do the math on the fly very easily, and can handle many different variables simultaneously, and as someone excessively clever (as in, to a fault), I'll be able to engage the combat engine very well.

If the system is designed in such a way that clever play within the combat mini-game will all but eliminate significant chance of failure or danger, then it stands that it will lower drama and tension significantly as well. It's not about me trying to "beat D&D" or any such related thought, it's about me engaging in the game as designed, which then leads to a less dramatic and tense combat.

Once the focus of play shifts to the choices made - whether their thematic stakes, or their "coolness" stakes - then that is where the drama will reside. This is what 4e, in my view, supports. How popular is this sort of game? I don't know. Popular enough, I would say, given that 4e seems to be widely played. Given the success of Pathfinder, however, I would guess that it is not as popular as a somewhat more hardcore gamism supported by a more simulationist rules engine. (And, of course, this is a sort of play that I also think was widespread in classic D&D and even 2nd ed times. 3E/PF didn't invent it - it cashed in on its popularity.)

Well, I'd say that 4e cashed in on D&D's popularity, and I'd say that while the people that play truly do like its style, if another game made such a significant leap in mechanical chance, I'm not sure how many fans would keep playing. There's already deep divides between OWoD and NWoD, for example, and the system looks similar to me (but my roommate dislikes NWoD for the system, metaplot, and setting changes, so it definitely transcends system).

Decision points aren't primarily about chances of failure - at least, not in a heroic system like 4e. They're about having to commit, about having to make sacrfices, or - if you're playing in Balesir's style - about trying to come up with the goods to show off to your fellow players.

I think chance of failure contributes to drama and tension, but even taking your statement into account, I don't see why not having baked-in combat roles would preclude what you're describing.

Are these claims based on reading of, or playing, a range of games with various mechanics and approaches? Or are they hypotheses?

Playing about 10 different systems, including more narrative or rules-lite games. The rest, though, is game theory and hypotheses.

(This is the point of the reference upthread to skill challenges, which introduce significant drama even if success is guaranteed, because the players have to repeatedly engage the fiction in order to generate sufficient successful skill checks.)

Engaging the fiction does not automatically lead to drama, at least from my experience. While being guaranteed success can still lead to drama, it greatly lessens the odds. In this scenario, the story implications must be important enough that it makes up for the lack of a chance of failure. And, to be honest, I think this holds true for any system, not just 4e, and not just with combat roles baked into classes.

And, of course, it remains an open question whether most gamers want drama in their games. The growth of PF relative to 4e suggests that they don't - or, at least, not in the play-into-story fashion that modern indie-influence RPGs use to produce that outcome. They seem to want (i) a higher degree of simulation, and (ii) a greater focus on playing-to-win.

I'm positive what you're saying is true for some players. I'm also positive that many players of 4e don't do so for any greater story or drama in their games.

That is, story is incredibly important in my games. Plot isn't, in it's usual meaning, but story is. What the PCs engage in, how their characters develop, PC interactions with NPCs and the setting at large, how things change, their successes and their failures... all these things are important. My players' PCs often establish families, even to the detriment of their characters' safety (or sanity). Why? Because they are invested in the character, in the setting, and in engaging the world.

Now, they aren't invested in following a set story. That's true. They are, however, interesting in creating a story. Or, they're interested in experiencing a story. They don't know what it is yet, of course, but they have goals, and depending on how things turn out while they pursue them (and how the world evolves while they do so), they get to see what the story is.

There's no "plot" to the game, sure. But, oh, there's story in spades. And with that story, and with a significant chance of failure, and with danger, there's also drama and tension in spades, too.

If you really see no difference between the way that classic D&D, and its offspring like 3E/PF, produce drama in the game, and the way that indie games and an indie-influenced game like 4e produce drama in the game - and the way those differences are rooted in the mechanics - then indeed we look at RPGs very differently.

I see a difference, yes. I don't see a compelling argument for combat roles being baked into classes. Sorry. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

Would you mind explaining why you think 4e mechanically supports the concept of making decisions and sacrifices better than 3e/PF?

Because 3E encourages players to spend their resources in advance in order to maximise their chances of success during the encounter. (Scry-buff-teleport is the culmination of this sort of pressure, but as I posted upthread is only a special case of the general trend.)

So the decisions that get made happen outside the context of the encounter - namely, before it. These can be very important decisions, and very engaging decisions - I've played and GMed a lot of this style of D&D and Rolemaster - but (at least in my experience) they are not very dramatic decisions. If I had to explain why not, I would conjecture that this is because they are decisions that are not made in the course of resolving a conflict.

4e does not have mechanics that permit this type of pre-expenditure of resources. In order to bring resources to bear to change the outcome of a conflict, the players have to bring their PCs into the conflict. (I regard this is part of what it means to say that 4e treats the encounter as the meaningful unit of play.)

From my admittedly limited experience in 4e the opposite seems true - whatever you sacrifice you get (pretty much automatically) back in a few minutes or at most a night's sleep.

The sort of resource management that you are talking about is not the sort of sacrifice or decision-making that I had in mind. 4e combat does require resource management decisions - particularly but not exclusively in relation to the action budget - but they are not as such the focus of the drama (although there can be some tension, just as there can be tension in watching hit points whittle away).

The drama I have in mind is more along the lines of deciding which ally to help and which to leave to fend for him/herself, which can include deciding which of your allies threatened with death or unconsciousness to heal and which to revive, or deciding where and how to create a "front line"; and deciding which opponent to fight and which to leave alone for the moment, which relates to the first sort of decision - opponents left alone can make life difficult for your allies - but also takes on its own signficance - these ones are the ones who might run away, or with whom you are likely to end up negotiating when swords are lowered.

Of course any RPG with a robust combat system can produce these sorts of decisions - 4e is not unique in that respect. But 4e is designed to make these sorts of decisions a constant part of action resolution in combat. A variety of features contribute to this: the need for PCs to gain access to their healing surges during combat in order to survive the damage that NPCs and monsters inflict; the movement rules, which encourage and generate a highly mobile battlefield making achieving a stable "front line" a difficult and active thing rather than the default state of affairs; and (in my view, and why I think it is relevant to this thread) PCs with tightly focused roles to play, meaning that each PC needs a different sort of help from his/her allies, and is him-/herself able to provide a different sort of help.

The upshot of this, in my experience, is that 4e combat, just played out according to the mechanics as published (including a GM following the encounter-building guidelines), is likely to produce an encounter in which there are interpersonal dynamics among the players (mediated via their PCs), with rising action, mini-climaxes (eg a foe downed or an unconscious PC revived), more rising action, an overall-climax (the combat comes to an end), and then denouement - a short rest in which tactics are discussed, recriminations levied, negotiations with surviving enemies conducted, etc. The mechanics reliably produce this without anyone having to take responsibility for making it happen.

What is missing from the 4e rules, as published, is advice on how to build encounters with an eye to story elements as well as tactical elements. Once this is done (following the advice in other, better, GM's manuals), then the tactical decision making becomes overlayed with a whole new set of thematic dynamics which are not just interpersonal among the players, but put at stake the goals and values to which the players (via their PCs) are committed. I think 4e monster design facilitates this really well also, because of the tight integration in many monsters of thematic fictional elements and their mechanical expression in the monster's traits and powers.

A practical example from my game is here, in the PCs' encounter with Kas. I'm pretty confident that I couldn't have done that encounter in Rolemaster, or any other "first lucky strike" system (including "save-or-die" style 3E) - apart from anything else, the NPCs would have died, making the negotiation part of the encounter impossible. And I don't think it would have played very well in a pure attrition system, either, which doesn't introduce the same levels of uncertainty about consequences which make tactical decisions exciting. Running it in 4e required thinking hard about the NPCs and their responses to the PCs' actions. But it didn't require any toying with or fudging of the mechanics. On the contrary, this is the sort of thing that (in my experience at least) they support routinely and well.

 

[Balesir]

This suggests to me that your principal interest is in winning. My own view - frequently posted in these threads - is that 4e doesn't suit that sort of play very well. It's not about the win - it's about the decisions that have to be made, the potentially difficult choices taken, to secure that win. This is why I think that it suits narrativist play. I think it's also why it suits the sort of gamist play that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] has posted about - where the aim of play isn't to win, but to win by demonstrating "cool moves" using an ever-more complex character. (I see this as a very light and collegial form of gamism. But Balesir can correct me if I'm misdescribing it.)

That's not too bad an outline. There needs to be some danger of failure, as well - "opportunity for failure" is quite a good way of putting it. It should be such that incompetent play will result in disaster, but a modicum of competence will reduce the probability of that to minimal levels. Unless this last is the case, we hit one of the "impossible things before breakfast2 of the roleplaying hobby - the wish to experience extended campaigns playing longstanding characters who face terrifying prospects of annihilation at every turn. Yeah. Good luck with that...

Once past that, however, the fun derives not merely from success but from the optimality, the style of the success. To be able to seize the coups d'oeil, make the inspired moves, pull off the neat combinations of powers (often between two or more characters) is the essence; not simply the success, but the elegance and élan with which success is gained. This, at least, forms a sustainable model for gamist enjoyment, we find.

It's not so much about "winning D&D", it's about me engaging in the combat game. That is, if the engine is designed in such a way that I need to be clever in order to lower those odds, I'm going to be clever in order to lower those odds. As someone who can do the math on the fly very easily, and can handle many different variables simultaneously, and as someone excessively clever (as in, to a fault), I'll be able to engage the combat engine very well.

If the aim is simply to "win" - to survive, or whatever - then I agree "competing" with a combat system can be tedious.

Around 1981-2 several of the folk I gamed with (and in some cases still game with) drifted away from D&d because this was what we hit. We spent some time with a system designed by Cambridge mathematicians that required a reasonable level of numerical acuity to master. It involved rolls to cast spells that could be modified by adjusting the range, area of effect and saving roll modifier and carried the risk of character insanity upon failure. It involved combat attack systems that allowed aiming at weak spots in armour, dodging to use tough armour to advantage and involved careful "feeling out" of unfamiliar opponents to gauge their quality through an understanding of the maths of the combat moves. The systems were masterpieces of mathematical elegance that make the vaunted "system math" of 4E look crude and clunky by comparison.

In the end, though, this system failed to do what 4E has finally achieved. I have gradually come to realise that what was elegant and admirable about this suite of systems was the rules themselves. What 4E achieves is to give the players opportunities to put together the elegant, the 'cool', the praiseworthy moves and combinations that garner kudos from around the table. For me, the focus is finally where it should be: not on the rules, not on the DM's "story" or the extravagant dungeon description - but on what the players actually do while actually playing.

Well, I'd say that 4e cashed in on D&D's popularity, and I'd say that while the people that play truly do like its style, if another game made such a significant leap in mechanical chance, I'm not sure how many fans would keep playing.

I look at this rather differently. I think 4E finally hit the nail of what D&D always had the capacity to be good at, but never really achieved. Older editions of D&D now seem to me to try to mix up several design agendas - and as a result they don't really achieve any of them well. Houseruling to "drift" the rules to support what you want out of them becomes almost mandatory; being fed up with that is what drove me away initially. Not that I'm complaining too much: I got to experience a great many games as a result, several of which are very fine at what they do. Those who have never tried Pendragon, DragonQuest (the RPG, not the boardgame travesty), HârnMaster, Bushido, Daredevils, Traveller and several others are really missing out, I think.

After 15 years or so, however, I have returned to D&D because I have found an edition that finally does one thing well, IMO. I still play other games for other 'agendas', but 4E is, for me, finally a D&D that knows what it's trying to do, and is doing it.

There's already deep divides between OWoD and NWoD, for example, and the system looks similar to me (but my roommate dislikes NWoD for the system, metaplot, and setting changes, so it definitely transcends system).

Personal opinion: comparisons of oWoD and nWoD pretty much have to be on metaplot and setting, because the system sucks for both! Don't get me wrong: I think WoD has a really strong setting. Mage, especially, I love to death. But it's a classic case where I wish the publisher had offered only one element of the System - Setting - Scenario triumvirate, and made it the 'Setting' one.

As an aside - if you have or can find the old, diceless "Theatrix" system I find that can be used for WoD with minimal modification and with WoD character generation.

That is, story is incredibly important in my games. Plot isn't, in it's usual meaning, but story is. What the PCs engage in, how their characters develop, PC interactions with NPCs and the setting at large, how things change, their successes and their failures... all these things are important. My players' PCs often establish families, even to the detriment of their characters' safety (or sanity). Why? Because they are invested in the character, in the setting, and in engaging the world.

Now, they aren't invested in following a set story. That's true. They are, however, interesting in creating a story. Or, they're interested in experiencing a story. They don't know what it is yet, of course, but they have goals, and depending on how things turn out while they pursue them (and how the world evolves while they do so), they get to see what the story is.

There's no "plot" to the game, sure. But, oh, there's story in spades. And with that story, and with a significant chance of failure, and with danger, there's also drama and tension in spades, too.

This sounds to me much like "exploring the situation" type of "story" - essentially simulationist play. But I could be wrong.

As always, play what you like

Good advice: I always do

 

[Imaro]

Because 3E encourages players to spend their resources in advance in order to maximise their chances of success during the encounter. (Scry-buff-teleport is the culmination of this sort of pressure, but as I posted upthread is only a special case of the general trend.)

I can agree with this somewhat but... I also feel like in 4e when comparing the relative PC power level vs.the relative power level of an average monster for their level... the designer's and developers have basically just buffed the PC for you and already maximised your chances of success.

So the decisions that get made happen outside the context of the encounter - namely, before it. These can be very important decisions, and very engaging decisions - I've played and GMed a lot of this style of D&D and Rolemaster - but (at least in my experience) they are not very dramatic decisions. If I had to explain why not, I would conjecture that this is because they are decisions that are not made in the course of resolving a conflict.

This seems like a gross oversimplification of combat in 3e. Again, 4e buffs the PC for you, 3e forces you to buff the PC before combat... but in the actual combat I see the same types of decisions being made around postioning on the grid, movement, what feats or class abilities to use and how to use them in conjunction with other PC's to assure victory, when to use a magic item, and so on..

4e does not have mechanics that permit this type of pre-expenditure of resources. In order to bring resources to bear to change the outcome of a conflict, the players have to bring their PCs into the conflict. (I regard this is part of what it means to say that 4e treats the encounter as the meaningful unit of play.)

This is wrong, plain and simple. 4e does in fact provide these mechanics in the form of utility powers, rituals, alchemical items and consumables.

The problem, IMO, is that 4e has combined the natural power level of characters, plus the buffing of characters through feats, items, backgrounds, etc... coupled with the low power level of the average encounter faced, so that for most players just rushing in and beating things down without devising pre-strategy or preparation (which I believe is also why these mechanics get little use in the average 4e game) is the easiest and usually best option. However this in no way makes it true that the designers didn't put these mechanics in the game or intend for them to be used... IMO, they just did a very poor job with it.

 

[Imaro]

In the end, though, this system failed to do what 4E has finally achieved. I have gradually come to realise that what was elegant and admirable about this suite of systems was the rules themselves. What 4E achieves is to give the players opportunities to put together the elegant, the 'cool', the praiseworthy moves and combinations that garner kudos from around the table. For me, the focus is finally where it should be: not on the rules, not on the DM's "story" or the extravagant dungeon description - but on what the players actually do while actually playing.

Emphasis mine... you seem to only be talking about combat in reference to the other system you mention... and I could be mistaken, but I don't think I would equate combat being equal to "what the players do while actually playing".

IME the playing of the game encompases much more than combat and It would, IMO, seem more apt to file ""what the players do while actually playing" under somethig like "adventuring" or even "exploring"... as opposed to combat. YMMV of course.

On a side note, with all the condition tracking, key words, and specifically spelled out rule chunks in the forms of individual powers... I don't see how one can claim that 4e doesn't have a focus on the rules? Or perhaps you meant something I'm not grasping when stating this? I'd also make the argument that the focus has shifted from the extravagant dungeon description to the extravagant dungeon terrain building.