Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5949476" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>As I stated in my post, it's posited as a significant element of my impression that "there won't be much support for 4e-style play."</p><p></p><p>As it happens, I like 4e a lot. So for me it is a bad thing. But that's not the main claim. Whether or not one likes them, Deathlock Wights (and other monsters built on similar principles), Come and Get It and Thunderwave (and other powers built on similar principles) are key parts of 4e as a system.</p><p></p><p>I personally don't want mechanics that fit the story. I want mechanics that <em>create</em> the story. For me, that is what is powerful about RPGs as a vehicle for storytelling.</p><p></p><p>This makes me want to ask, What range of systems do you have in mind?</p><p></p><p>Burning Wheel is probably the best-known example of a system that makes tactical combat resolution a vehicle for player-driven engagement with the fiction, but I'll illustrate the point by comparing two systems with which I have more experience: Runequest and Rolemaster. Both are known for the generally simulationist mechanical leanings. And as part of this, both have active defence in combat - parrying in RM, parrying or dodging in RQ. In RQ, parry and dodge are both seperate skills from attacking. But in RM, the parry and attack bonuses are both allocated from a single pool, with the allocation taking place on a round-by-round basis in a pre-initiative declaration phase.</p><p></p><p>RM therefore opens up a possibility in play that RQ does not, namely, of the player setting the stakes for the melee - choosing, for example, to take a chance on going first and putting all of the pool into attack, or parrying all out in order to stay alive while someone else comes along to save the day, or any other sort of intermediate strategy.</p><p></p><p>This makes Rolemaster a very different story-telling vehicle from RQ. The actual mechanics of the tactical resolution system become a vehicle for the player to express an orientation towards the circumstances within the fiction. It takes it closer to Burning Wheel. RQ lacks this.</p><p></p><p>4e, by linking a PC's identity (race, class, Paragon Path etc) with the broader mythic fiction of the gameworld (not in every case, but in many cases), and then by expressing that identity via a range of powers, which in turn are used against monsters and NPCs that have been built in the same sort of way, makes the tactical combat a vehicle for engaging with and expressing the core of the fiction.</p><p></p><p>The Deathlock Wight is a simple example: it doesn't just push the PCs away (like a Bull Rush) - it turns them into cowards!</p><p></p><p>A more complex example, that I used in my game recently, is the Chained Cambion (from MM3). It has the following flavour text:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">A chained cambion's reigning emotion is hate. It hates its life, its captors, and its enemies who roam free. A chained cambion screams its despair within the minds of nearby foes.</p><p></p><p>This "screaming of despair" manifests mechanically in a couple of ways. First, it has a close blast that delivers psychic damage, pushes and dazes. Second, it has the ability to lock adjacent PCs in "psychic chains" such that they take psychic damage at the start and end of any turn in which they are not adjacent.</p><p></p><p>Obviously, this produces a tactical challenge - the players have to work out how to coordinate two PCs who want to remain adjacent, while the monster is trying to blast them apart. In my own game the tactical challenge of this was increased because the two PCs were a fighter and an archer ranger, and they were on top of a small shrine and had to coordinate their hopping down without becoming seperated and therefore damaged by their psychic chains.</p><p></p><p>But these powers also reinforce and generate story elements. Because not only is the Cambion giving voice to its despair at being chained. But the <em>players</em> start giving voice to <em>their</em> despair at being chained. The mechanic makes the players of the two targetted PCs <em>live through</em> the Chained Cambions raison d'etre as a story element. As an episode within an encounter it only lasted for a few rounds in my game, but that was all the time that was needed for the players to generate resentment at being chained - resentment towardso one another (particularly as they didn't make their saves at the same time - so one of the PCs was free himself, but still couldn't move away because that would leave the other in the lurch), and a more general frustration at their situation.</p><p></p><p>I think this is a particularly striking example of 4e monster design - not all its monsters are so thematically compact, with it all being expressed in a couple of powers - but this general experience - of the mechanics of monster design, and the way they resolve at the table, giving voice to the story <em>without the need for illusionist patter from the GM, or self-deception by the players</em>, is in my experience of the essence of the game. And it depends not just on a grid and forced movement, but intricacies of monster design interacting with intricacies of PC design (eg the frustration of being chained together is far greater in a system with strongly differentiated PC roles).</p><p></p><p>I'm not seeing any hint that D&Dnext has the resources to deliver this sort of play experience, given it starting points for both PCs and monsters/NPCs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5949476, member: 42582"] As I stated in my post, it's posited as a significant element of my impression that "there won't be much support for 4e-style play." As it happens, I like 4e a lot. So for me it is a bad thing. But that's not the main claim. Whether or not one likes them, Deathlock Wights (and other monsters built on similar principles), Come and Get It and Thunderwave (and other powers built on similar principles) are key parts of 4e as a system. I personally don't want mechanics that fit the story. I want mechanics that [I]create[/I] the story. For me, that is what is powerful about RPGs as a vehicle for storytelling. This makes me want to ask, What range of systems do you have in mind? Burning Wheel is probably the best-known example of a system that makes tactical combat resolution a vehicle for player-driven engagement with the fiction, but I'll illustrate the point by comparing two systems with which I have more experience: Runequest and Rolemaster. Both are known for the generally simulationist mechanical leanings. And as part of this, both have active defence in combat - parrying in RM, parrying or dodging in RQ. In RQ, parry and dodge are both seperate skills from attacking. But in RM, the parry and attack bonuses are both allocated from a single pool, with the allocation taking place on a round-by-round basis in a pre-initiative declaration phase. RM therefore opens up a possibility in play that RQ does not, namely, of the player setting the stakes for the melee - choosing, for example, to take a chance on going first and putting all of the pool into attack, or parrying all out in order to stay alive while someone else comes along to save the day, or any other sort of intermediate strategy. This makes Rolemaster a very different story-telling vehicle from RQ. The actual mechanics of the tactical resolution system become a vehicle for the player to express an orientation towards the circumstances within the fiction. It takes it closer to Burning Wheel. RQ lacks this. 4e, by linking a PC's identity (race, class, Paragon Path etc) with the broader mythic fiction of the gameworld (not in every case, but in many cases), and then by expressing that identity via a range of powers, which in turn are used against monsters and NPCs that have been built in the same sort of way, makes the tactical combat a vehicle for engaging with and expressing the core of the fiction. The Deathlock Wight is a simple example: it doesn't just push the PCs away (like a Bull Rush) - it turns them into cowards! A more complex example, that I used in my game recently, is the Chained Cambion (from MM3). It has the following flavour text: [indent]A chained cambion's reigning emotion is hate. It hates its life, its captors, and its enemies who roam free. A chained cambion screams its despair within the minds of nearby foes.[/indent] This "screaming of despair" manifests mechanically in a couple of ways. First, it has a close blast that delivers psychic damage, pushes and dazes. Second, it has the ability to lock adjacent PCs in "psychic chains" such that they take psychic damage at the start and end of any turn in which they are not adjacent. Obviously, this produces a tactical challenge - the players have to work out how to coordinate two PCs who want to remain adjacent, while the monster is trying to blast them apart. In my own game the tactical challenge of this was increased because the two PCs were a fighter and an archer ranger, and they were on top of a small shrine and had to coordinate their hopping down without becoming seperated and therefore damaged by their psychic chains. But these powers also reinforce and generate story elements. Because not only is the Cambion giving voice to its despair at being chained. But the [I]players[/I] start giving voice to [I]their[/I] despair at being chained. The mechanic makes the players of the two targetted PCs [I]live through[/I] the Chained Cambions raison d'etre as a story element. As an episode within an encounter it only lasted for a few rounds in my game, but that was all the time that was needed for the players to generate resentment at being chained - resentment towardso one another (particularly as they didn't make their saves at the same time - so one of the PCs was free himself, but still couldn't move away because that would leave the other in the lurch), and a more general frustration at their situation. I think this is a particularly striking example of 4e monster design - not all its monsters are so thematically compact, with it all being expressed in a couple of powers - but this general experience - of the mechanics of monster design, and the way they resolve at the table, giving voice to the story [I]without the need for illusionist patter from the GM, or self-deception by the players[/I], is in my experience of the essence of the game. And it depends not just on a grid and forced movement, but intricacies of monster design interacting with intricacies of PC design (eg the frustration of being chained together is far greater in a system with strongly differentiated PC roles). I'm not seeing any hint that D&Dnext has the resources to deliver this sort of play experience, given it starting points for both PCs and monsters/NPCs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012
Top