So What is a Roleplaying Game? Forked Thread: Clark Peterson on 4E

[GlaziusF]

Nope. More options do not mean more complexity. One can have an infinite set of options to pick up from yet no operations to do at all.

"Pick" is an operation.

In fact, "pick" is FOUR operations: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. That's the baseline for mental consistency, the OODA loop as it's called.

Sure, I guess you might just pick at random, but if you can remember any dreams you had that didn't make any damn sense, that's what "pick at random" gets you.

 

[pemerton]

I like this one and I think it satisfies everything I know about RPGs.

I'll disagree with one part of it: "Participants determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization."

This is sometimes true. But equally true for many players is the opposite: participants characterise their PCs by choosing actions for them. That is, the aim is not to play in such a way that is true to one's character, but rather to create a character that is true to some other purpose for which one is playing.

But I agree that, under this alternative approach, 4e is definitely an RPG. In fact it supports this alternative approach quite well (by providing lots of opportunity to choose actions for one's PC that have implications for characterisation).

 

[xechnao]

"Pick" is an operation.

In fact, "pick" is FOUR operations: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. That's the baseline for mental consistency, the OODA loop as it's called.

Sure, I guess you might just pick at random, but if you can remember any dreams you had that didn't make any damn sense, that's what "pick at random" gets you.

I think you are on the wrong path or rather direction for our problematic here. Gameplay or even analysis of information does not take into consideration a healthy cognitive process. The cognitive process takes into consideration the game or information. You will always have to pick up an option in games no matter what. You can't, as a social being, "study" cognition in a social environment because you are dependent from social group cognition already (which includes yours). Roleplaying games presume to be social games and I guess that we do not want to consider dealing with any neurological problems here.

 

[GlaziusF]

Gameplay or even analysis of information does not take into consideration a healthy cognitive process. The cognitive process takes into consideration the game or information.

...but that means, to decide what information to present, you have to consider the cognitive process.

I mean, unless you're not expecting anybody to actually think about the information, or unless you're not worried about how easy or hard it is to understand, or unless you don't care that you might present so many options that the human brain simply cannot consider them all.

Seriously, there are limits, and they should be respected, otherwise you wind up with something like Rolemaster that makes you page fault in real life.

 

[xechnao]

...but that means, to decide what information to present, you have to consider the cognitive process.

I mean, unless you're not expecting anybody to actually think about the information, or unless you're not worried about how easy or hard it is to understand, or unless you don't care that you might present so many options that the human brain simply cannot consider them all.

Seriously, there are limits, and they should be respected, otherwise you wind up with something like Rolemaster that makes you page fault in real life.

You should not consider the cognitive process at all. What you should consider is to develop and agree on -before gameplay takes off- the standard that connects you with "living the adventure", a necessary aspect of the roleplaying experience. The standard stands for the things the roleplaying players expect to find and the things that they can change how they expect to. Obviously I am talking about the simulationist part here (expectations). IMO you certainly do not need something like rolemaster to provide the right expectations necessary for the connection with the genre. Lets agree the rolemaster system fails. It is not only that it has too many unnecessary tables: it is that it wants to overfocus on some part of some tree and loses the tree and the forest (even the single tree IMO) -it is even hard to say the part that it tries to over analyze, it gets it the right way.

 

[Razuur]

Well I think the bottom line is that 4e proved that the D&D community was incredibly diverse. Some people like tactical endeavors complete with battlemaps and micromanagement. Others played the game more loosely, using no miniatures and using rules only when needed. Some players liked having a little rule for everything (even if they never used it). Others hated having all of those rules (feeling they needed to use them).

To a lot of people, that diversity made the DnD community strong. I would always read posts in amazement of how different people played the game... what they focused on.... what they needed to have fun.

For many the new system splintered the community by really "taking sides" and supporting a vastly reduced number of styles of play (versus increasing the styles). Nobody is wrong in whether they like or dislike the system. For some, the system supports roleplaying by removing the rules, for others it damages their roleplaying because the rules aren't there. For others, they just liked to have them, even if they never needed them. Same could be said for miniature combat, diversity of powers/effects, etc.

But the very nature of that decision is what hurts/angers many - because DnD never did that to us before. Every edition tried to streamline, but they also gave us more options. This edition for many seems to say, here is the style of play that is the D&D experience. It is always dangerous when you do this because your game style may not be others gaming styles. I admit I find WOTCs approach a bit strange - in their endeavor to bring new players to D&D they seem to have divided their existing customers in half.

So while a lot of people seem to be picking on Darren, try to imagine that you were on the other side of the argument. For many people, playing DnD was a pastime for decades... and now it simply isn't. For Darren it is even more so, because it affects his livelihood. I mean the guys has worked on projects for Wizards - what a dream come true - what a dream crushed.

I am one of those unlucky people that DnD left behind. I am lucky enough to have another system (True20) to fall back on. I have made my peace with D&D and let it go, but miss the wonderful diverse group of friends on EN World. I have been here since early Eric Noah days, and it is sad to see such anger forcing people away (on all sides).

Is 4e condusive to roleplaying? That is the problem. For some, yes, and others no. It is entirely subjective. For those of you that it works for, I am so glad for you (no sarcasm) - it is nice to find ones bliss in that perfect game. But try to have some compassion for those that don't and realize how unhappy you would be if it came out and shattered your favorite gaming experience.

Happy gaming all.

Patrick (Razuur)

 

[GlaziusF]

What you should consider is to develop and agree on -before gameplay takes off- the standard that connects you with "living the adventure", a necessary aspect of the roleplaying experience. The standard stands for the things the roleplaying players expect to find and the things that they can change how they expect to.

...what?

What does that even mean?

I have never started off a campaign by saying, "let's go around the table and have everyone share what it means to them to 'live the adventure'! And then we'll write a design document!"

Is that what you're suggesting? That before people play a game they all have to sit down and somehow create the setting and rules and everything from scratch?

 

[Celebrim]

Well I think the bottom line is that 4e proved that the D&D community was incredibly diverse. Some people like tactical endeavors complete with battlemaps and micromanagement. Others played the game more loosely, using no miniatures and using rules only when needed. Some players liked having a little rule for everything (even if they never used it). Others hated having all of those rules (feeling they needed to use them).

To a lot of people, that diversity made the DnD community strong. I would always read posts in amazement of how different people played the game... what they focused on.... what they needed to have fun.

For many the new system splintered the community by really "taking sides" and supporting a vastly reduced number of styles of play (versus increasing the styles). Nobody is wrong in whether they like or dislike the system. For some, the system supports roleplaying by removing the rules, for others it damages their roleplaying because the rules aren't there. For others, they just liked to have them, even if they never needed them. Same could be said for miniature combat, diversity of powers/effects, etc.

But the very nature of that decision is what hurts/angers many - because DnD never did that to us before. Every edition tried to streamline, but they also gave us more options. This edition for many seems to say, here is the style of play that is the D&D experience. It is always dangerous when you do this because your game style may not be others gaming styles. I admit I find WOTCs approach a bit strange - in their endeavor to bring new players to D&D they seem to have divided their existing customers in half.

So while a lot of people seem to be picking on Darren, try to imagine that you were on the other side of the argument. For many people, playing DnD was a pastime for decades... and now it simply isn't. For Darren it is even more so, because it affects his livelihood. I mean the guys has worked on projects for Wizards - what a dream come true - what a dream crushed.

I am one of those unlucky people that DnD left behind. I am lucky enough to have another system (True20) to fall back on. I have made my peace with D&D and let it go, but miss the wonderful diverse group of friends on EN World. I have been here since early Eric Noah days, and it is sad to see such anger forcing people away (on all sides).

Is 4e condusive to roleplaying? That is the problem. For some, yes, and others no. It is entirely subjective. For those of you that it works for, I am so glad for you (no sarcasm) - it is nice to find ones bliss in that perfect game. But try to have some compassion for those that don't and realize how unhappy you would be if it came out and shattered your favorite gaming experience.

Happy gaming all.

Patrick (Razuur)

This.

A typical example would be people that can't imagine why some players are unhappy to see the craft skill removed from the game because it never came up in their game.

Try to imagine that some group out there was playing Stone Age D&D and there was no money (much less shops) and worked tools of any sort (even a bag to carry your stuff in) and weapons were extremely rare and valuable. Suddenly, craft skills are some of the most valuable you can have and come up all the time. Is that style of play a tiny minority? Sure. Might there be better systems out there to support that style of play? Possibly. But for that group, 4e was a great big announcement that WotC didn't want them playing their game anymore.

Much of D&D's success has in my opinion been attributable to not having a tightly focused design. A tightly focused design might make D&D a better game, but if it makes it less of the game you want to play then it isn't better for you.

 

[Remathilis]

Try to imagine that some group out there was playing Stone Age D&D and there was no money (much less shops) and worked tools of any sort (even a bag to carry your stuff in) and weapons were extremely rare and valuable. Suddenly, craft skills are some of the most valuable you can have and come up all the time. Is that style of play a tiny minority? Sure. Might there be better systems out there to support that style of play? Possibly. But for that group, 4e was a great big announcement that WotC didn't want them playing their game anymore.

Not to nitpick your example, but if there was only a barter-economy D&D system, more than craft/profession would have to change. You'd have to change the who "..and take their stuff" part of the equation. Not to mention changing combat to compensate for lack of worked weapons/armor... pretty soon, creating a "craft" rule seems the least of your worries. ;-)

But the question is, how much "niche accommodation" does D&D need? Should the core rules accommodate Renaissance-level tech, bronze-age tech, no-magic games, no [specific type of magic] campaigns, Wuxia-inspired campaigns, campaigns set in the Orient/non-European cultures, and 18th century Gothic Horror? How flexible does the "core rules" need to be before your weighing down the main rules with niche material?

I think it completely feasible for WotC to say "Our core game doesn't involve a lot of PC craftsmen and laborers, if you want rules to cover such things, look elsewhere or make something up."

 

[pemerton]

Seriously, there are limits, and they should be respected, otherwise you wind up with something like Rolemaster that makes you page fault in real life.

GlaziusF, on the whole I like your posts, but this bagging of Rolemaster has to stop!
Sure the system has its problems, but it is playable. (And actually has certain features that distinguish it from other ultra-simulatonist mechanics like RQ and Classic Traveller and make it a viable vehicle for vanilla narrativist play.)