Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6565197" data-attributes="member: 42582">I can't speak for [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] (obviously).But speaking from my own experience, I think there is a huge difference between a 3E or Rolemaster-style system and 4e's system.In the former, there are spells with detailed effects, and skills with detailed DC charts. Detailed effects can be both mechanical (a fireball does X damage) and fictional (a wall of stone spell creates a stone wall of such-and-such dimensions). DC charts typically link fiction (eg well-built lock) to mechanics (eg DC 30 lock-picking check).Because the GM is generally in charge of framing the initial fiction of any particular challenge, the GM has a lot of control over determining what the DCs are that must be achieved (or the hit points of damage delivered, or whatever). Which means that the utility of detailed mechanical effects, and of skills defined in terms of DCs, is heavily determined by the GM.Spells which have effects defined in primarily fictional terms tend to be more open-ended. Hence the threads on "creative spell-casting", and the gaming culture that grows up around the adjudication of those spells (of which adversarial GMing of wish spells is perhaps the most obvious example).These systems almost never have non-magical abilities defined in primarily fictional rather than mechanical terms, for reasons that aren't fully clear to me but probably combine process-sim ideals (eg only magic can "just create" something without having to roll the dice that model the ingame process of manufacturing it) plus worries about how to ration non-magical abilities ("A fighter can swing his/her sword all day long").In 4e, the GM still typically has the authority to frame the initial fiction in any particular challenge (some less orthodox suggestions in DMG2 notwithstanding). But this fiction doesn't then correlate to detailed DCs (or other mechanical requirements). If the challenge is a combat, there are default expectations about what the DCs, hit points, etc are of the enemies. A GM can push those expectations, but the players will notice ("We've done 200 hp of damage and it's not bloodied yet!"), and hence be able to respond.The response might be at the meta-level (accusations of GM cheating) but if the social contract is healthy the response should be at the play-level: the players recognise that the challenge is a hard one, and bring their resources to bear - and then the system of powers, power rationing, action points etc gives them a lot of flexibility to do this (taking some of the best of classic D&D wizard play but making the novas more tactically interesting while extending the approach to all the players).That's transparency in combat, and associated player empowerment.If the situation is non-combat, there are also default expectations about DCs, which are somewhat decoupled from the details of the fiction. (Not completely, because of Easy/Moderate/Hard.) So the players are free to propose ideas and approaches, based on their conceptions of their skills plus their powers (which, per both the PHB, the DMG and the DMG2 are expected to be relevant to skill challenges), which first get negotiated at the stage of permissibility in the fiction, but then either get blocked with no resource cost to the player or change in the fictional position of the PC ("OK, the GM doesn't think I can jump to the moon even though I'm a demigod, so I guess Athletics isn't going to help at this stage") or else gets resolved against a DC which - if the maths of the game haven't broken down (and in my experience the maths mostly doesn't break down) - the player has the capacity to meet, between skill bonuses plus various buffs/augments that might be brought to bear.For me that's transparency in non-combat resolution, and associated player empowerment. If the GM is going to block, for instance, the GM has to make it clear that s/he is blocking at the level of permissibility in the fiction. The GM has to be upfront that s/he is exercising authorial authority; there is no hiding behind (for instance) an "objective" DC 50 that "makes sense". Being upfront is a form of transparency; the negotiations that it can lead to create the space for player empowerment.Also, because - once negotiations are resolved - the DC is taken from the appropriate chart, the player has a real chance (plus the ability to use buffs etc to help make it happen). There is nothing analogous to trying to pick the lock without knowing the DC, perhaps expending resources on an attempt that the GM knows is futile all along, etc. This is mechanical transparency reducing the scope for a type of player disempowerment that I associate with 90s-style RPGing.Recently I've been GMing a bit of Burning Wheel. In some of its elements it resembles 3E/RM eg fairly trad skill and spell lists, detailed DC charts with "objective" DCs, etc. But it uses a variety of other techniques to stop illusionism dead in its tracks: a fairly narrow range of DCs, combined with a range of devices whereby players can choose to increase their dice pools (but often have reasons not to want to do so to the maximum extent, because of how the advancement system works); as an upshot of the dice-pool building rules, which include a very permissive rule for "synergy"-style augments, a strong emphasis on negotiation around the fiction and what is possible within it, rather than just "common sense" as applied by the GM; no secret DCs; and strong constraints around narration of successes and narration of failures.Rolemaster could probably be played in more of a BW style (and HARP, a lite-ish version of RM, tends just a little bit more in that direction), but work would be needed (eg RM's existing rules for similar skills don't allow augmenting a check using one skill with another related skill) and frankly you're just better off playing BW because the work's already been done and it has a lot of the 'grit' of RM (complex and rich PC builds, long skill lists, non-hp-based injuries, etc) built in.I don't think 3E could be easily played BW style, at least not without a lot of work (maybe building on E6), and so I don't see that it can be used to produce an experience that rivals 4e for transparency and empowerment while sticking to the objective DCs, detailed spells, etc approach.</blockquote>

Verification