The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[pemerton]

The Shaman, I fully agree that it's different. Like I said in response to RC, and also on the "4e not as popular as it could be" thread, I think this difference may be part of why 4e is (apparently) not as popular as one might expect the RPG with that brand name, being published by what is still the leading RPG publisher, to be.

On that other thread I also suggested that WotC hadn't done themselves any favours by giving so little guidance (in comparison to rulebooks for systems like HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Maelstrom Storytelling, etc) on how a game like this can be run well. I think the lack of that guidance helps produce games that reinforce the "just a minis game" and "just a dice-rolling exercise" impression that some have.

And I haven't played Encounters, but I gather that's also a format that doesn't fully leverage the system. And the published modules don't (or, at least, don't contain advice on how a GM might do so).

What's worse than losing your audience because they're more simulationist-inclined than you'd hoped? Not even giving them the guidelines to help them use the non-simulationist mechanics you're trying to sell them to run a fun non-simulationist game.

 

[BryonD]

BryonD, what I would object to in your post are "shoe-horned" and "pop quiz". I can see where you're coming from, obviously, but these carry a pejorative tone that I don't want to accept.

Well, "pop quiz" is certainly my own term, but I think it is fair.
"Shoe-horned" is a commonly used term and its meaning exactly fits what you describe.

But I don't think that prioritising the mechanics equals shoe-horning. Imposing a structure isn't, thereby, fitting something in that wouldn't fit in by itself.
...

The fact that the decision is driven (in part) by the mechanics doesn't mean I have to shoe-horn in the outcomes.

You said it was predetermined that it was going to be six successes before three failures. This was set before play began is in every way a cookie cutter mechanical construct.

No matter what the players described, the narrative was going to be a slave to 6/3. You have the option of declaring actions inapplicable. But beyond that it is the sixth action that is going to seal the deal. Certainly you could let all players describe their planned activity and back-build a story to fit the collective solution, but that gets in to its own temporal wonkiness.

No player can describe one action so clever or cool that it solves the problem. And no five actions can solve the problem. But any six actions, as long as you rule them relevant and they come in ahead of three failures, will solve the problem. The path to victory was defined by you and the mechanics before you ever sat down to the table. You said so yourself. And this path was completely unrelated to anything to do with the actions described by the players. After all, the path was defined before the players ever even knew they would encounter a water weird.

"Show-horning" the story on to this mandated mechanical process is an accurate use of language.

But I think it's certainly not "fiction last". Why did the fighter jump into the water? Because otherwise how can he manipulate the stones at the bottom of the pool?

...

Again, this is not fiction divorced from the mechanics. But I don't think it's fair to call it "pop-quiz" roleplaying. The engagment with the fiction is permeating the whole thing, and shaping the way that mechanical resources and deployed and that deployment adjudicated.

I stand by my terms. But here you are pushing "fiction last" and "divorced" on me. Clearly decidedly pejorative terms which I have not used and do bring different meaning than what I said.

Yes, the narrative was going to involve interacting with water. You have the option to disallow options which don't apply. If the dwarf had declared that he is going to flap his arms and go have a conversation with a passing Delta Airlines pilot about chess strategy, he could role a skill check and declare it one of your victories. And if "fiction last" or "divorced" applied, then you would be stuck with that. Clearly I've made nothing remotely in the realm of that kind of claim.

There are a lot of pieces. Without thinking it required comment, I presume narrative and setting are near the top of the pack in importance in your games. But, "near the top of the pack" is not the same as FIRST. I've made no comment about second, third, eighth, or discarded. So "last" is not meaningful to the point.

Story is far from last in your games. But it is behind the mechanics. 6/3 rules, now make a story for 6/3.

 

[pemerton]

You said it was predetermined that it was going to be six successes before three failures. This was set before play began is in every way a cookie cutter mechanical construct.

No matter what the players described, the narrative was going to be a slave to 6/3. You have the option of declaring actions inapplicable. But beyond that it is the sixth action that is going to seal the deal. Certainly you could let all players describe their planned activity and back-build a story to fit the collective solution, but that gets in to its own temporal wonkiness.

No player can describe one action so clever or cool that it solves the problem.

As I discussed in some detail, this is like hit points in combat. In D&D, there is nothing that a player can decrie that is so cool that it kills a foe in one blow.

In the case of combat, what we can infer is that in fact the non-fatal blow didn't fall under the "cool" description. In the case of a skill challenge, what we can infer is that the cool action isn't all done at once, or is commenced but not completed in one die roll, or . . .

But any six actions, as long as you rule them relevant and they come in ahead of three failures, will solve the problem.

The actions must be such that they can solve the problem. Mere relevance is not enough. Hence the decision by the player of the dwarf to have that PC jump into the water in order to be able to manipulate the stones.

The path to victory was defined by you and the mechanics before you ever sat down to the table. You said so yourself. And this path was completely unrelated to anything to do with the actions described by the players.

See, I strongly reject this suggestion. The path to victory was determined by the players - they were the ones who decided to plug the spring. And the pather was precisely related to the actions they described. The only effect of the 6/3 structure is to determine the pace at which those actions proceed- analogously to hit points.

Another way to think of it - it's a mechanicsm for adjudicating degree of success (again, the functional equivalent of damage rolls in combat).

 

[BryonD]

As I discussed in some detail, this is like hit points in combat. In D&D, there is nothing that a player can decrie that is so cool that it kills a foe in one blow.

There are work arounds for that, but in general I agree this is a problem. Taking a problem from combat and propagating into the rest of the game is a bad thing.

Plus, if combat were boiled down not to hit points but "any combination of characters score 6 hits before they score 3 misses", I would not be playing that game.

If you want to comapre this to HP in combat then all they have done is take a combat problem and made it a whole lot worse in non combat situations.

The actions must be such that they can solve the problem. Mere relevance is not enough. Hence the decision by the player of the dwarf to have that PC jump into the water in order to be able to manipulate the stones.

I already talked about this. Story was part of it. Just not first. I want it to be first.

See, I strongly reject this suggestion. The path to victory was determined by the players - they were the ones who decided to plug the spring. And the pather was precisely related to the actions they described. The only effect of the 6/3 structure is to determine the pace at which those actions proceed- analogously to hit points.

Another way to think of it - it's a mechanicsm for adjudicating degree of success (again, the functional equivalent of damage rolls in combat).

You say you strongly reject it, but then you immediately proceed to defend the postion you claim to be rejecting.

The "pace" is defined not by what the actions are but by the mechanics. And the results of the actions are presdestined to be subordinate to the pace allowed by the mechanics. And that cuts in both the not faster than and not slower than direction. Adding the word "pace" into the conversation does nothing to change the issue i've described.

I don't want an arbitrary preordained mechanics to determine the pace of events.

 

[BryonD]

Spycraft has subsystems for making non combat situations resolve in a manner directly analogous to combat.

I think it is a really cool system.

 

[ExploderWizard]

As I discussed in some detail, this is like hit points in combat. In D&D, there is nothing that a player can decrie that is so cool that it kills a foe in one blow.

By pure decree no. By taking notice of surroundings and using them to full advantage the answer switches to possibly.

The actions must be such that they can solve the problem. Mere relevance is not enough. Hence the decision by the player of the dwarf to have that PC jump into the water in order to be able to manipulate the stones.

The actions should be such that they could solve the problem. The issue I have with the structure is that the actual content of player input is limited by the mechanical structure. No matter how brilliant an idea, or how well it is executed, the value is identical- 1 success. In combat a character at least has options and opportunities that go beyond "a hit".

See, I strongly reject this suggestion. The path to victory was determined by the players - they were the ones who decided to plug the spring. And the pather was precisely related to the actions they described. The only effect of the 6/3 structure is to determine the pace at which those actions proceed- analogously to hit points.

The artificial pacing is what makes things incredibly boring. In a combat, the hit points are a set threshold yet the pace of progress can vary dramatically. Critical hits, using "big gun" abilities and so forth can make the pace of any given combat unpredictable. That is what makes excitement.

Perhaps if there were a way for the quality of player input to have more than a premeasured degree of effectiveness, the whole thing wouldn't seem so artificial. What if a really awesome idea could suddenly be worth two or three successes by itself if pulled off? This would mean that the cleverness of the actual player would have a direct mechanical effect upon the resolution of the situation. That is what 4E is sorely missing IMHO.

Premeasured formulas produce balance, predictable results and boredom. What if damage was as structured as the skill challenge system? Each hit will do X damage. Each character can get hit X number of times. The players must score more hits on the monsters than they take or the combat is lost. Would combat be more or less exciting this way?

 

[BryonD]

On that other thread I also suggested that WotC hadn't done themselves any favours by giving so little guidance (in comparison to rulebooks for systems like HeroWars/Quest, The Dying Earth, Maelstrom Storytelling, etc) on how a game like this can be run well. I think the lack of that guidance helps produce games that reinforce the "just a minis game" and "just a dice-rolling exercise" impression that some have.

It is interesting to compare this position with the highly common position that 4E is in fact much more popular amongst casual gamers. It certainly stands to reason that if lack of guidance was the problem then casual gamers would be the least attracted.

And, IME, people who don't care for 4E are not taking that position as a result of lack of guidance. I know I could run a good game in 4E. I don't choose not to because I am not getting the guidance I need. I choose not to because I perceive other games as offering a better experience.


Part of the sales pitch for 4E was that it made prep a lot easier. And a lot of the way it does this is by putting modular "dice rolling exercises" in to cover areas where more prep may have been expected from other systems. You can't really have it both ways on that.

But, there is also a matter of perspective. It isn't JUST a dice rolling exercise. But it is closer to it than some other systems, so it gets expressed in the most simple of terms. I'm reminded of a George Carlin bit. He said there are two kinds of drivers on the road. Morons who drive slower than you and Maniacs who drive faster than you. That is human nature.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As I discussed in some detail, this is like hit points in combat. In D&D, there is nothing that a player can decrie that is so cool that it kills a foe in one blow.

Sorry, but I disagree.

In a fiction-first game, hit points are representational of what the creature should be within that fictional space. They are not representational of what "challenge" the creature should be.....Which is why you get creatures that are glass cannons (for example).

I.e.; when devising a fiction-first monster, one says "How tough is an X, as compared to creatures Y, Z, A, etc., which I have stats for?" The level of challenge then becomes a function of the fictional "reality".

When devising a mechanics-first monster, one says "What level of challenge should this creature be?" The fiction (how the monster operates in the shared fictional space) then becomes a function of the mechanical "reality".

Skill Challenges in 4e are, IMHO and AFAICT, the mechanics-first equivilent of what ByronD and others would use in their games.....resolution based first on the fiction, and then by determining how (or if) the currently available mechanics model that fiction well, inventing substitute mechanics on the fly if it is deemed that they do not.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Other than this declaration, I don't think we are disagreeing.

And I'm kinda torn on that.

I have no doubt that you can play table top RPGs with no investment.
I have no doubt that you can play MMOs with great levels of investment.

I think we both agree that the odds of finding great investment are much higher if you pick a random table top group.
But both platform certainly allow for both styles.

But maybe your word "presume" is good. Maybe tabletops presume investment, but you can get by without it, while MMOs don't presume it and simply leave room for it if you want to bring it along.

That certainly fits back to my premise about why MMO players did not end up flocking to 4E.

Heh, well, a blind squirrel finds the nuts once in a while. But, it is nice to be on the same page nonetheless.

My issue with this quote though is the presumption that 4e is somehow directed at drawing MMO players in. I don't understand this point of view. 4e isn't any more MMOish than 3e really. There was no large marketing done towards wooing MMO players that I recall, nor are the mechanics particularly familiar to MMO players.

Other than calling out combat roles, which, to be fair, had been called out years before 4e came out, what about 4e is meant to be a major draw to MMO players? Online tools? Really? 3e had online tools for years. Heck 2e had electronic tools that are, for the time they came out anyway, very much analogous to DDI.

WOTC went to an online subscription model because virtually every single niche print venue has done exactly the same thing. Look at SF magazines like Analog or F&SF - both online now. How many niche genre products are purely offline anymore?

Sure, I'm sure WOTC would have loved to tap into 10% of WoW players. But, their marketting does not really reflect any strong push towards gaining MMO players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Perhaps if there were a way for the quality of player input to have more than a premeasured degree of effectiveness, the whole thing wouldn't seem so artificial. What if a really awesome idea could suddenly be worth two or three successes by itself if pulled off? This would mean that the cleverness of the actual player would have a direct mechanical effect upon the resolution of the situation. That is what 4E is sorely missing IMHO.

Can someone XP EW for me?

Thanks.



RC