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

[BryonD]

The logic of skill challenges is that metagame pacing concerns are imposed on the ingame reality.

"Metagame" is a broad term. But yes I agree.

If you don't like this I think you'll find it hard to like skill challenges. I think you'll also find it hard to like 4e combat

Agreed.

Healing surges are the same, in my view.

High on my list of "don't likes".

4e is the first version of D&D, I think, where there has been deliberate effort made to tailor the mechanics so as to support particular metagame pacing goals.

Perhaps. But, my point remains. Yes, you will choose a retro fit narrative that makes sense to the larger narrative. I've never disputed that. But, the imposing of the "pacing goals" means that the narrative still remains a at the mercy of the mechanics. When the narrative and mechanics are in conflict the mechanics win. I think every other edition has proactively worked to avoid this, and frequently have offered strong advice to DMs to do exactly the opposite of use mechanics to impose "pacing".

Again, I'm not saying that makes it wrong. It is a valid position to say "Finally they got it right."

But all that comes down to WHY the mechanics control the narrative. They are good reasons for you and I respect that. But if you still say it isn't true, then you just are not understanding narrative dominant approach I am advocating. To hell with the mechanics. To hell with "pacing".

It is a difference in taste. It is a difference in the games.

It is one of many reasons why all roads do not lead to Rome.

 

[LostSoul]

I think that other editions of the game had different ideas about what was happening in the "metagame" - which is to say, the decisions the players are making, and in my opinion the only game that is going on - and they were set up to emphasize certain types of decisions (and the information upon which those decisions were based).

AD&D and B/X (which I am familiar with) emphasized specific sorts of player decisions. One big way was by making the fictional world very important; the point of which (as far as I can tell!) was to determine if the player could overcome the challenge dreamt up by the DM, instead of the character.

I think that those editions were successful because the designers understood the metagame - the decisions they wanted the players to make - and designed for that. In other words, very well-designed games.

As for 3.x, I think that the fact that it didn't (especially) emphasize specific sorts of player decisions, but instead created a lacuna where individual groups could assert their own "metagame" upon its structure, was a key point to its and the d20 system's success.

 

[Lanefan]

Since I am calling my 4E hack "Fiction First" and I use skill challenges, I wonder what you think of how I use them:

First of all, I only use skill challenges in a few places. So far those have been social conflicts and evasion/pursuit.

I'm not a fan of things like skill challenges to resolve social situations, as that's what talking is for.

However, one other situation where a skill challenge or similar mechanic can be useful is navigation; be it over open water, through a dense forest, in a sandstorm, or any other situation where you aren't sure which way to go. Success means you get somewhere useful. Failure means you're lost. Big-time failure means you're lost and in danger.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

Yes, you will choose a retro fit narrative that makes sense to the larger narrative. I've never disputed that. But, the imposing of the "pacing goals" means that the narrative still remains a at the mercy of the mechanics.

BryonD, I'm not sure how much weight you place on the phrase "retro fit". Do you count the genie examples from upthread as retro-fit?

The reason I ask is because, in practice, the fit is often not very retro - from the player's point of view, they ask their genie to do something and it doesn't because it's grumpy - they just experience the world narrated to them by the GM. So as someone who plays in this mode, it is more like being told to create a sub-component of the narrative that fits with what's gone before than having a serious of mechanical events resolve at the table, and then have to retrospectively explain what is going on in the narrative.

That's why I made the comparison to rolling on an encounter table for an undeveloped world in Traveller. In practical terms of what is going on at the table it really is a bit like that - the mechanics dictate that something has to be injected into the narrative that isn't known yet - except that unlike the encounter table, the skill challenge result isn't modelling the response of the environment to the passage of time and the presence of the PCs.

 

[ferratus]

I'm not a fan of things like skill challenges to resolve social situations, as that's what talking is for.

I'm not a fan of the Diplomacy skill because I think that is what talking is for.

 

[pemerton]

I think that other editions of the game had different ideas about what was happening in the "metagame" - which is to say, the decisions the players are making, and in my opinion the only game that is going on - and they were set up to emphasize certain types of decisions (and the information upon which those decisions were based).

AD&D and B/X (which I am familiar with) emphasized specific sorts of player decisions. One big way was by making the fictional world very important; the point of which (as far as I can tell!) was to determine if the player could overcome the challenge dreamt up by the DM, instead of the character.

And I"m coming to feel more and more that, despite it's emphasis on challenges for the PCs, 4e is not about challenges for the players in the step-on-up sense. The XP rules, the scaling, the mechanics that regulate pacing and the introduction of complications - I think it's about playing out "the story of D&D".

I remember some time ago (weeks, months?) you suggested that 4e is high-concept simulationist. I'm now getting a much better sense of why you suggested that. I feel that this might be another respect in which 4e falls victim to the "exercise in dice-rolling" criticism - roll the dice to find out what the story of your hero is!

As you know, I think there is a functional narrativist game in there, that is a bit more gonzo than Gloranthan HeroWars/Quest but that uses the backdrop of "the story of D&D" in something like the same way. But I wonder how many players have managed to extract it - or are even that interested in it?

 

[ExploderWizard]

And I"m coming to feel more and more that, despite it's emphasis on challenges for the PCs, 4e is not about challenges for the players in the step-on-up sense. The XP rules, the scaling, the mechanics that regulate pacing and the introduction of complications - I think it's about playing out "the story of D&D".

Yes. I enjoy playing from a more "player first" perspective. I feel that 4E (and 3E) are more "character first" approaches to play. After all, a character is a fictional construct that serves as our proxy to interact with the game world. A fictional construct cannot actually be challenged. Players are challenged by situations that they face in the game. The satisfaction in overcoming these challenges is proportionate IMHO to the meaningful content of their own input.

If the qualities of the playing piece matter more than the qualities of the player when deciding outcomes then the majoity of the magic that makes live tabletop play so special and compelling is diminished.

 

[pemerton]

EW, I think that 4e is fairly easily playable from the "player perspective" - it's just that what the player is doing is not beating challenges, but resolving thematic conflicts.

 

[Hussar]

On the idea that the game is not ze same.

Sure, totally agree. But, that's true of every edition. 3e is not the same as what came before. 2e is different. And so on.

What's your point RC? No one is claiming that 4e is the same as what came before. What is being reacted to is the idea that the changes are so radical that it no longer counts as D&D.

There's criticism about the mechanical focus on the narrative structure in 4e. And that's fair. 6/3 does impose a pretty stringent framework on the narrative - albeit one that can be varied from and one that is not quite as mechanically homogenous as previously though.

But, OTOH, 3e imposed major mechanical restraints as well. You cannot open a lock using the Open Locks skill, without lockpicks, as a recent example. You cannot play a diplomatic fighter without doing some serious backsprings around the mechanics (and possibly pulling a hammie ).

Look at the long list of Agony Aunt style posts on En World of DM's trying to fit a low magic setting into the 3e mechanics. Character wealth is tied into every single design presumption in the game.

Want to break the CR system? Take a 35 point buy value character, there, now CR doesn't work anywhere near as well as it can.

In 1e, try playing a wizard in armor. Oh, wait, you can't. B/E try playing a halfling cleric. Oops, sorry.

Every edition imposes mechanical restrictions on the narrative. Where they impose those mechanical restrictions might change, but, those restrictions are always there.

I'm failing to see how this is so radically different. Instead of the narrative being limited at chargen, it's being limited in play.

 

[pawsplay]

But, OTOH, 3e imposed major mechanical restraints as well. You cannot open a lock using the Open Locks skill, without lockpicks, as a recent example.

Yes, you can. You take a -2 penalty.

You cannot play a diplomatic fighter without doing some serious backsprings around the mechanics (and possibly pulling a hammie ).

Yes, you can. In fact, the iconic fighter, Regdar, is a diplomatic fighter. A few ranks of a cross-class skill and a feat or two, and anyone can beat standard Diplomacy DCs.

Look at the long list of Agony Aunt style posts on En World of DM's trying to fit a low magic setting into the 3e mechanics. Character wealth is tied into every single design presumption in the game.

I'm not all that familiar with those posts. There are numerous options for changing the wealth system, many of which are not all that complicated. Several published settings and mini-settings assume it, in fact.

I'm failing to see how this is so radically different. Instead of the narrative being limited at chargen, it's being limited in play.

"Instead of taking a shower after you clean the barn, why don't you take it before? I don't see any radical difference."