Roles in Roleplaying Games

[LurkAway]

What are you talking about? I'm talking about actor stance:

Me too. "Different things" didn't apply to the definition of actor stance.

 

[pemerton]

"Different things" didn't apply to the definition of actor stance.

Could you be less cryptic?

The other interpretation I'm going for is something to do with whether or not it is possible for a player to know that (in virtue of some feature of the mechanics) an action will automatically succeed, but not have that knowledge influence the choice of actions for the PC (and thus vitiate an attempt to adopt actor stance).

If that is your view, it seems to have strong implications for any system without fumble rules for action resolution (which would include every version of D&D I'm familiar with).

 

[Hassassin]

And, of course, this took the full ten rounds to accomplish while the simple worker did not struggle.

Intimidate references diplomacy, which allows a full-round rushed action at -10. In any case, a minute isn't a long time before weapons are drawn.

So, now we're in house rules territory since intimidated targets stay that way while in your presence and for some minutes afterwards. Intimidated targets don't "promptly bolt".

That's not a house rule, it's the DM playing an NPC.

So, because of the rules, you failed at what you wanted to do, partially because your DM didn't follow the rules of the game. And this is meant as a reason why the 3e rules support taking prisoners so well?

Me, I like it better when the drama of the game isn't dictated to my by game designers. However, I've seen more than a few people here who are more than willing to let game designers tell them what should and should not be dramatic in their game.

Certainly not to my taste anymore.

The rules are just a tool to map the game world. What the example was really about IMO is the PCs interaction with the game world leading to drama. That's pretty much what most of my roleplaying is about. Whether it is an actual rule or the DM that causes the interaction varies (usually a bit of both).

 

[Hassassin]

In my game, the weight of the choice between killing and taking prisoner isn't about mechanical trade-offs. It's about thematic/evaluative trade-offs.

The problem I have with the 4e solution is that there is no trade-off. There is no cost to taking someone alive. You could just play it like the character still faced a trade-off, but IMO the mechanics are there exactly to map game world trade-offs into numbers. It's easier for me to play a character evaluating a trade-off if the game really works like there is a trade-off.

Edit: As an example of what I mean here's something that was in a book I read recently (I forget which): Two friends were attacked by two agents of an unknown enemy. Both went all out on different enemies so they could quickly get to helping their friend with the other. The killed them before realizing they were doing the same thing and were left with no-one to question. They clearly faced a trade-off of helping their friend on the other hand, and having to kill their enemy on the other. Neither being to coldly calculative character they made the same choice.

 

[pemerton]

The problem I have with the 4e solution is that there is no trade-off. There is no cost to taking someone alive.

In my game, the cost is generally that you irritate the other PCs who wanted the person dead.

 

[tomBitonti]

And, of course, this took the full ten rounds to accomplish while the simple worker did not struggle.

So, now we're in house rules territory since intimidated targets stay that way while in your presence and for some minutes afterwards. Intimidated targets don't "promptly bolt".

So, because of the rules, you failed at what you wanted to do, partially because your DM didn't follow the rules of the game. And this is meant as a reason why the 3e rules support taking prisoners so well?

Me, I like it better when the drama of the game isn't dictated to my by game designers. However, I've seen more than a few people here who are more than willing to let game designers tell them what should and should not be dramatic in their game.

Certainly not to my taste anymore.

This was not strictly a combat encounter. We dropped into combat for perhaps two actions, or maybe just one, for the pounce attack. There were initiative rolls, intimidate rolls, and spot checks done, but only the one actual attack.

We actually didn't entirely fail: The mission went on. But we had (or the Druid had) a mark against her alignment for the slaughter.

The main point is what happens when the Druid allows their animal companion to run down the escaping prisoner. What will the cat do (a lion) to bring down the prisoner? How is the cat to know not to kill the prisoner?

That is, what is the consequence of the allowance, in 4E, to decide after the fact, if damage is lethal or not, and in 3.5E requiring that to be decided before attempting the action, but with a consequence to the success chance?

I was showing that the trade off (less chance of success vs. possibility of accidental death) is a source of excitement.

To drop into terminology (not my preferred mode), in Sim space, the excitement comes from not knowing the outcome ahead of time. You set up the parameters, and an outcome, sometimes surprising, or at least unexpected or unintended, occurs. In Narrative space, the excitement seems more to occur from the interaction of player narrations, together with the GMs guidance through a story framework, heightened by unknown knowledge.

TomB

 

[JamesonCourage]

But the fact that every moment of a play or a movie is dramatic in the sense of "having the dramatic progression and emotional effect characteristic of a play" doesn't get in the way of it being good drama. And I believe the same is true of an RPG.

Now, of cousre there is room in the world for movies like Empire, but I personally have little interest in watching them. Likewise with my RPGing - I want it to be dramatic in the sense that you quoted and I requoted.

Of course, I also quoted drama as emotional or forceful in effect.

The difference between a play and an RPG, of course, is that most RPG sessions are longer than a play, and most are not one-shots. That is, my group plays for 10-hour sessions, once a week. We're sinking in 40 or more hours a month into our game, which is significantly more than a play.

A play can afford to be fairly dramatic all the way throughout without getting repetitive or old, because it's a couple hours long. One of my sessions, however, is several plays in length, and then, of course, there will be many sessions. I still hold that if every session was dramatic in the way I have quoted, it was lose its meaning over time.

You said this upthread:

This suggested to me you saw roleplaying as being at odds with combat, and that you saw simulation as being something that occurs outside combat. I didn't follow either of these ponts.

Well, you said this:

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

I was saying that I think this is baseless. As in, you have no basis for which to make this claim, at least not without qualifying it, which you did to some degree, when you mentioned a "play-into-story" style of player play style. Then you mentioned simulationist play and "playing-to-win".

In my reply to Balesir, I was saying that I think "playing-to-win" is decidedly not-unique to PF, and especially not compared to 4e. I would guess both games would have many players who engage in that style. So, now we're just saying some PF players prefer simulationist mechanics. So... okay?

I don't see RPing as being at odds with combat, but I did address the most likely scenario of "playing-to-win" as combat. I went on to state the proportion of combat to engaging the setting, which would be engaging the fiction, which usually leads to more dramatic events then combat. Not that combat doesn't lead there, but often times it leads to less dramatic areas (because my PCs tend to win or successfully retreat).

I think that, in D&D but also in some other fantasy RPGs as well, combat is one important place where roleplaying takes place. And I also think combat is one part of the game where the contrast between simulationist and non-simulationist priorities for play can emerge.

Yeah.

You may. I don't think you're right, though. There are at least two reasons that simulationist mechanics of a purist-for-system variety can get in the way of dramatic play.

It is in order to avoid these problems that games that want to produce a dramatic play experience, but use essentially purist-for-system mechanics - Storyteller, 2nd ed AD&D, etc - have "rules" telling the GM to suspend the action resolution mechanics in the interests of story.

I personally agree with Ron Edwards that this is among the most dysfunctional approach to RPGing possible. The whole purpose of "modern" game design is to design mechanical techniques of play that will produce drama (in the sense you quoted and I requoted) without anyone at the table - either player or, moreso, the GM by using rules-suspending force - having to deliberately try to author it.

Constant or forced drama is less dramatic, in my opinion. The show 24 stops being dramatic to me after the first few hours, especially when some complication happens at the end of each and every hour. To others, of course, they like the drama and each and every show, even if I find it so forced and overdone that I can't see it.

And that's the difference in our approach to drama, I think. The PCs in my game will pursue whatever issue they want, and the world will revolve and throw whatever's appropriate at them. To this end, they will not be able to engage in a single topic or theme consistently, but that's good for drama. When a topic they are emotionally invested in does crop up, it is dramatic. The players also have their PCs engaged and invested in a number of different topics.

I understand my view on this is different from yours, but I'd find constant and consistent dramatic engagement in a topic to kill the drama of that topic. Perhaps that's where we strongly differ.

4e has a range of mechanics that deal with the first issue I mentioned. The combat mechanics, including the pacing and decision-making that they force, is a significant component of the total suite of such mechanics.

4e relies upon the GM's approach to encounter building to deal with the second issue (it doesn't include player-side elements like Spiritual Attributes or Relationship-based augments, although some Paragon Path powers can push a little bit in this direction). But it gives the GM tools (both mechanical tools and story elements) that make this encounter building very easy compared to other mainstream fantasy RPGs.

Perhaps it's an immersion issue, but obviously forced story or pacing makes things less dramatic to me. I'll look from the outside, and I'll lose a lot of my investment. I'll think, "this was a cool setup. I like it." I won't experience it, though. I won't think, "wow... I have to do something" because of an emotional investment. The deliberate pacing and focus setting up the dramatic moment will lessen the drama.

Maybe it's because it's like fudging to me. Fudging does the same thing. I'll realize what's going on, and I'll be consistently pulled out of the fiction, wondering what's been fudged, if I was forced into this situation, or the like. If the story focus is being manipulated to the point where this happens, and I notice, it definitely dampens drama for me. It's not natural, and it's not as dramatic.

Maybe it differs from TV shows or movies in that I'm playing the game. I don't know. In a film, I have no control over the movie, so I tend to still feel the drama. In an RPG, however, that isn't the case. My focus as a player will be drawn to the forced focus in-game, or the forced engagement of purposefully chosen dramatic elements within the game. That hurts my emotional connection to the game, and, as I've said, dampens the drama.

I think the disconnect is between what we find dramatic, and why we find it dramatic. I don't find 24 or a soap opera dramatic, even though that's definitely where the focus is. At least 24 touches on a few different points of drama each episode, making it more tolerable. However, I just can't find those shows to be dramatic in a "emotionally forceful" sense.

Maybe our mileage has just wildly varied. I find drama to be "drama-less" if it does not carry force or emotional impact. I find consistent engaging of drama to blunt to force of drama, and potentially the emotional impact of it. You might disagree, or maybe you just reject my inclusion of that part of the dictionary (sorry?). But, I spoke to multiple definitions, not just one. As always, play what you like

 

[Imaro]

Sorry about the long response time...

On the "DM dictating" thing I didn't particularly mean that as an "attribute" of any particular edition; I think you attribute far more "advocacy" to me post than was actually intended. I write to explain why I like what I like, not to demand that you like the same things. What I was listing was a selection of things that, from time to time, have been said to be "where it's at". Among these have been "the DM's story", "the DM's description of the world", "the character build" and "the elegant rules". I think that none of these is as appropriate a focus as what the players (including the GM) do, minute to minute, at the gaming table.

I didn't think you were demanding that I like certain things. As far as advocacy goes... perhaps I am attributing more of it towards your posts than I should, I think the fact that oftimes pemerton uses your posts as support for his particular ideas may contribute to that.

As to focus, I don't think any of the things you've listed are necessarily more or less appropriate as a focus. In all honesty I would think a balance between these things (as opposed to focusing on one) would provide the most enjoyment, at least for my particular group of players... but then, I also feel that this lies in the realm of subjectivity as opposed to objectivity.

Sure, they take place, but they are not the focus of admiration. I'm not claiming this is universal - just relating my experience. I do think that 4E supports this focus particularly well; not as well as it ideally could, but better than any other game system I have tried. I'll say a bit about why, below.

This is a strange statement to make, especially in a general sense. On the WotC CharOps boards I see lots of admiration around builds... but this seems, IMO, to be a cultural or playstyle thing... just as it was in 3.5. I'm not saying the focus of 4e can't be what you're claiming... I'm saying I don't see how it supports that over say the build admiration or even the admiration of a well built encounter, or any other thing a particualr group focuses on with the game.

Right; the "inherent to 4E" thing. First a statement I'm not going to try to "prove" - I hope it's fairly self-evident to an experienced RPer, but if not we'll just have to agree to disagree:

Again, strange... you believe it's fairly self-evident to an experienced RPer... and yet I would say Enworld is made up of many experienced RPer's, some, at least, that don't agree with your statement. Perhaps your logic is flawed then but like you said we can agree to disagree.

Rules cannot control play style or table culture. They just can't. What they can do, however, is support particular playstyles by not "getting in their way". You can normally tell when a system is not supporting the preferred play style at a table, because you will see house rules - possibly in profusion.

A game having houserules doesn't necessarily mean it fails to support a preffered playstyle... it can mean it doesn't support it in the fashion that the particular houseruler would prefer.

As an example, there's no doubt that 4e technically supports backgrounds for characters... however many people do not like the way that it goes about doing this thus they make the choice to houserule backgrounds. This, however, doesn't prove that 4e doesn't support a playstyle that enjoys character backgrounds.

So, no, this style of play - these observations - are not "inherent" to 4E. But I do find that 4E is exceptionally good at supporting them. That is to say, when we play with the agenda for fun/kudos/admiration that I describe, I find I hardly need to houserule the system at all.

Okay perhaps you could give some concrete examples of how 4e supports this better than any other edition where the table has decided that there is where the focus will lie?

Yep; 4E also seems to support this agenda fairly well. Some actually prefer it to 3.X because whareas, with 3.X, facility with character design can get you a character grossly more powerful than the "run of the mill", in 4E getting major (real) advantage is more of a challenge.

Allright so this seems to point towards a style choice just like I think your kudos/fun/accolades example does as well. I certainly can't think any previous editions (with the caveat that I have never played anything earlier than BECMI) of the game that has a problem facilitating this if that's the style of play the people at the table want.

That doesn't mean it doesn't also support the agenda I'm talking about, too.

That's exactly my point though, I see people speak to what 4e's laser focus is on (narrativism, light-gamist play.etc.) but IMO, it seems like 4e just works better for certain GM's and Players for facilitating the things other GM's easily got form earlier editions if they wanted that particular style or focus of play. Now mechanically I think 4e does grid based, tactical combat with a laser focus (which is not to say that's all it does) but I don't see how it's better at manyy of the things claimed by it's proponents.

OK, I'll try to give a taster. It applies mainly to combat; that is where in 4E it's most notable. Non-combat is an area where I think 4E could use a great deal of improvement - but I would really like to see it along the lines of supporting what I'm talking about here, and the current crop of designers seem to be drifting away from that, alas.

4E combat has powers and abilities that are particularly well adjusted to pulling off "cool moves" mainly due to two things:

1) they create situations by (forced) moving enemy, but applying conditions to opponents and by creating zones and areas of specific effects.

2) they create specific, defined effects that translate directly to the game world. What I mean by this is they are not subject to adjudication, interpretation or negotiation. Charm or Domination powers, for example, make an enemy move or perhaps attack another - they do not make an enemy "do whatever the DM thinks won't trigger a self-preservation instinct" or other effects that are subject to negotiation. They do not create "illusions that make the monsters think there is someone down the corridor".

Again, with the possible exception of forced movement (and I believe though not common forced movement of enemies was in the realm of PC possibilities)... why isn't this possible in 3.5?

This last, in particular, helps with unequivocally "neat" tactics. If the success of a move results from me winning a social status-game with the GM, I don't feel the same sense of "victory" as I do after a really cool move in 4E or in a board game. All I have done is best a friend of mine in a social manipulation or facedown; what I wanted to do was show off to them a cool, clever idea that they did not then have to rended a judgement over.

Ok, you had these things in 3.5... I'm trying to get at the heart of why they are "better" in 4e. Again, I keep getting the impression this boils down not to anything objective but to a measure of one's preference for how mechanics handle a certain thing.

Or when you attack. It's a set up for starting a conflict - once you are engaged (i.e. you attack someone) it ceases.

Again - it lasts until the first hit.


THPs last until they are used or you take a (short or extended) rest. Like the previous two, they set up an initial "jump", but go as the conflict is engaged in.

As can Magic Items, levelling up and taking new powers...

And this, I think, was pemerton's point.

It was my understanding that a buff (at least as far as I got from pemerton... sorry about the misspelling of your name), was something you could stick on your PC beforehand (after scouting out an encounter or at the beginning of the day) and walk around with it until you needed it for a combat... that's what all of those things do. Now we can get into specifics but from a general standpoint all the things I listed can be used to buff your PC beforehand which is something pemerton claimed could not be done in 4e.

I'm not really interested in speculating what the rules designers' intentions or motives were - maybe you're right >shrug<

Fair enough...

I would distinguish between "preparing for an encounter" - setting up a surprise, recconnoitering the opposition, getting into position and so forth - and applying buffs that will last all day, or through several encounters, from temporary/renewable character resources.

Well when you talk about Scry/Buff/Teleport then aren't you talking about all of those things? IMO, while 4e doesn't support them as fully as 3.5 did a clever PC can still Scry on his enemy. Buff himself up before the encounter, and Teleport there with the right resources... and that was the context I believed pemerton was speaking about this in.

 

[pemerton]

Okay perhaps you could give some concrete examples of how 4e supports this better than any other edition where the table has decided that there is where the focus will lie?

<snip>

I certainly can't think any previous editions (with the caveat that I have never played anything earlier than BECMI) of the game that has a problem facilitating this if that's the style of play the people at the table want.

My first thought is that, in AD&D, a fighter's "kudos" moments are mostly limited to rolls of natural 20. (Thieves also have the once-per-encounter backstab moment.)

 

[pemerton]

while 4e doesn't support them as fully as 3.5 did a clever PC can still Scry on his enemy. Buff himself up before the encounter, and Teleport there with the right resources... and that was the context I believed pemerton was speaking about this in.

To teleport to a destination other than a permanent circle requires a 28th level ritual. And, as [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] pointed out, the buffs generally don't last through the whole combat - they are contingent on the first attack/hit, and other features of 4e (eg no save-or-die/suck) mean that one round wins aren't going to happen. (Assuming the GM is following the encounter building guidelines.)

I see people speak to what 4e's laser focus is on (narrativism, light-gamist play.etc.) but IMO, it seems like 4e just works better for certain GM's and Players for facilitating the things other GM's easily got form earlier editions if they wanted that particular style or focus of play.

As I've said before, on this and other threads - show me all the discussion and examples of narrativst 3E or AD&D, and of Balesir-style gamist 3E, and I'll happily discuss them.

But I haven't come across them, on these or other boards.