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

[Raven Crowking]

On the idea that the game is not ze same.

Sure, totally agree.

Cool.

What's your point RC? No one is claiming that 4e is the same as what came before.

Did you miss the WotC commercials?

What is being reacted to is the idea that the changes are so radical that it no longer counts as D&D.

Ah, of course.

But when one says, "4e doesn't feel like D&D, to me", they mean that "I can't get to Rome via this route". It might mean that their Rome is different than yours; it might mean that they are headed the same place by different means.

For me, a game that is "fictional reality first" and a game that is "mechanics first" are worlds apart, no matter how close they might otherwise seem to be. It only takes one difference, if that difference is big enough. That you fail to see it does not mean that it is not there.


RC

 

[pemerton]

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.

Hussar, I think Pawsplay's response to this captures the mood of a lot of those who don't enjoy 4e because of it's non-exploration aspects.

Here is a restatement of the point in your post (as I understand it):

*Many earlier games have metagame aspects to character creation (eg wizards can't use armour in order to balance them with fighters).

*Earlier editions had metagame encounter build guidelines and treasure-placement guidelines, although over the course of 3E and 4e these have become tighter and more integrated into the character creation rules.

*4e also adds metagame aspects to action resolution (especially out of combat), and integrates these tightly with the encounter-builiding guidelines.

As we go down this list, we hit stuff that is, apparently, more and more inimical to exploration-based play.

Whereas metagame at character build doesn't both exploration players so much - they're happy to roll 4d6 and assign, for example, because you as a player should get to choose your exploration vehicle. (We could add more descriptors here - the sort of exploration in question is something like gamist (in the Forge sense), that is, is challenge-focused exploration. Hence the desirability of getting to choose your vehicle. Whereas in a purely sim game like classic Runequest or Traveller, your character build isn't metagamed either.)

The role of metagame at the encounter-building stage is a subject matter of debate among proponents of the exploration game (this is part of what is going on in sandbox vs AP discussions). It's also interesting to notice how 2nd ed playstyles can more-or-less cohabit the same mechanics as this type of exploration-based play. Metagamed character generation, instead of building my exploration vehicle, instead becomes the building of my story vehicle. And encounter design, instead of becoming about the GM building a world of challenges to be explored, becomes the GM's contribution to the story building.

But metagame-heavy action resolution kills both playstyles dead. It is the deathknell to exploration, because suddenly the question of whether (for example) the river was hard or easy to cross depends not only on the nature of the river and the resources the PCs bring to bear, but also on whether or not the skill challenge still has one more complication to be injected, or whether it's already been resolved (in which case the GM narrates the river running low, or a bridge having been recently repaired, or whatever).

And metagame-heavy action resolution also tends to kill of functional 2nd-ed style play - if the metagame power is in the players' hands (eg high powered action/fate points), then they can break away from the GM's story, while if the metagame power is in the GM's hands, then we have the worst sort of fudging-driven railroad.

So 4e is a modest change only to those who are playing neither exploration challenge games nor 2nd-ed style "story" games.

Given that, in my impression, a good chunk of ENworld seems to think that these two approaches to play exhaust the space of RPGing (anything else is boardgaming, mini-skirmishing or WoW), it's no wonder that they see 4e as not only something they're not interested in, but as a radical departure from RPGing as such.

(And for the sake of clarity: I don't think either Raven Crowking or Pawsplay is unaware of other approaches to RPGing, even when they don't personally care for them. But sometimes on these boards it's like posting as if the only thing that happened in the past 15 years of RPG design is d20.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

pemerton,

Good post.

A major caveat:

No one is saying that these approaches to play exhaust the space of RPGing; they are saying that killing these approaches make a game not partake of what they feel is the D&D experience.

There is a big, big difference between these two statements.

One recognizes that, perhaps, all roads do not lead to Rome (or at least, to the same Rome). The other paints those who disagree with one as merely ignorant.

I feel sure that last was not what you meant, and you will clarify accordingly.

Thanks,

RC

 

[Hussar]

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

Reread your 3.5 PHB. You may not open a lock without a tool. -2 is for an improvised tool, not no tool at all. You must use a tool to use the open lock skill in 3.5.

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.

Ahh, so, I can play a diplomatic fighter, so long as I'm willing to wait four or five levels and burn resources into it. The fact that I can't out of the gate can be safely ignored.

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

Yup, and look at those published settings. Several hundred PAGES of text on how to change these assumptions.

4e, I can change from standard wealth to low magic in one sentence. In 3e, it requires me to rejigger nearly every aspect of the game. "Not all that complicated" is a bit of an understatement.

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

Non-sequitor. In all games, the mechanics place limits on the narrative.

Cool.



Did you miss the WotC commercials?

Ahh, so we're basing opinions entirely on ad copy from two or three years ago and not basing opinions on anything to actually do with the games. Ok.

Ah, of course.

But when one says, "4e doesn't feel like D&D, to me", they mean that "I can't get to Rome via this route". It might mean that their Rome is different than yours; it might mean that they are headed the same place by different means.

For me, a game that is "fictional reality first" and a game that is "mechanics first" are worlds apart, no matter how close they might otherwise seem to be. It only takes one difference, if that difference is big enough. That you fail to see it does not mean that it is not there.


RC

To me, you're making mountains out of molehills. To me, D&D has ALWAYS been mechanics first. The only real change is where the mechanics are used, rather than any substansive change. Instead of the mechanics being located almost entirely in the setting and campaign design phase, they've now been moved into actual play as well.

But, is that really a major change. Instead of making all the changes up front and then playing, is it a major shift to allow changes to be made mid-stream?

Hussar, I think Pawsplay's response to this captures the mood of a lot of those who don't enjoy 4e because of it's non-exploration aspects.

/snippage of great stuff.

Given that, in my impression, a good chunk of ENworld seems to think that these two approaches to play exhaust the space of RPGing (anything else is boardgaming, mini-skirmishing or WoW), it's no wonder that they see 4e as not only something they're not interested in, but as a radical departure from RPGing as such.

(And for the sake of clarity: I don't think either Raven Crowking or Pawsplay is unaware of other approaches to RPGing, even when they don't personally care for them. But sometimes on these boards it's like posting as if the only thing that happened in the past 15 years of RPG design is d20.)

Maybe that's the issue that I'm not seeing. To me, I've never seen D&D played this way - you create a game world and that game world is now fixed in stone until that campaign ends. D&D worlds have very often actually been reactive.

A 1st level module has 10 foot pit traps, a 10th level module has 50 foot pit traps with monsters at the bottom. Why? Because it's a 10th level adventure and not a 1st level one. The mechanics define the game world. For the same reason that 1st level characters fight goblins and 10th level characters fight giants. Why? Because the mechanics dictate that.

That's what's D&D has always been. Module series get harder the higher level you are. The Dungeon Level I random encounter table doesn't have dragons, but the Dungeon Level X (as in 10) random encounter table does.

Why? Because the mechanics of D&D shape the narrative of the campaign.

 

[pemerton]

No one is saying that these approaches to play exhaust the space of RPGing; they are saying that killing these approaches make a game not partake of what they feel is the D&D experience.

There is a big, big difference between these two statements.

One recognizes that, perhaps, all roads do not lead to Rome (or at least, to the same Rome). The other paints those who disagree with one as merely ignorant.

I feel sure that last was not what you meant, and you will clarify accordingly.

Like I said in my post, I'm not suggesting that you or Pawsplay is ignorant. But to be perfectly honest, I feel that this is not true of everyone on ENworld.

Without wanting to rudely name any names, I do think that there are some - even quite a few - posters on ENworld who do not have much familiarity with games that aren't either D&D in drag (choose a class or equivalent, choose a race or equivalent, and from all that derive some abilities that are then deployed in a more-or-less simulationist action resolution mechanic) or simulatonist-heavy points buy (HERO, GURPS etc).

Of course this wouldn't be an issue - no one is obliged to be informed about comparative trivialities like trends in RPG design and play! - except that the ignorance in question is from time to time manifested in threads about the problems with, or limitations of, 4e.

Because I don't want to name names, and also because this sort of impression is impossible to verify in the context of an online messageboard, I'll give a mechanics-focused example instead.

When I see critiques of healing surges in 4e, the overwhelmingly common criticism is of the "regenerate overnight" aspect. But this is a completely trivial element of 4e, which could be houseruled away with basically no consequences except for the desired affect upon adventure pacing (ie recovery from hurt would take longer). Healing surges, considered in this sort of way, are no different from hit points in earlier editions - a resource that can be gradually worn away, and that - depending on the pace of recovery - has a greater-or-less effect upon the overall pace of the game. This role of "healing surges as hit points" is reflected in the healing surge consequences of some skill challenges - just like traps or environmental hazards in AD&D, healing surges are a resource that can be worn down by attrition.

If this was all there was to healing surges, then they would just be hit points by another name, and 4e - in this respect - would just be AD&D or 3E with rapid overnight healing built into the game. (There's also the fact that some magical healing draws on them - but that's a means to implementing the end of encounter pacing that is discussed in the next paragraph.)

What is actually different about healing surges - what makes them not just hit points by another name - is the role they play in affecting the pace and dynamics of combat encounters. And this is where simulationist versus non-simulationist preferences come into play - compare second wind to the Raven Crowking alternative (sorry, my mind is going blank, but I think it's called "shrugging it off"). The RC approach prioritises simulation, with a possible payoff in drama and pacing. The 4e approach prioritises drama and pacing, while leaving the narrative to be worked around the mechanics as makes sense from time to time (there is an interesting sidebar on second wind in Primal Power, which talks about how second wind, for a Warden, represents the character's infusion by primal spirits - in the RC game, I assume that this would have to be a spell or some similar non-mundane ability - it is quite different from shrugging it off).

This is just one example where - in my view - unfamiliarity with a range of RPGs, their design, and the way those designs promote or inhibit various sorts of approaches to play, gets in the way of useful discussion about playing the game. Because in my view, that sort of discussion can happen even among those who like to play in different ways. But it helps if the possibility of different ways is at least acknowledged!

(Again - none of this is aimed at Raven Crowking - who, precisely through his approach to in-combat recovery in his game, shows that he has seen where the real design action is in respect of healing surges.)

 

[pemerton]

Maybe that's the issue that I'm not seeing. To me, I've never seen D&D played this way - you create a game world and that game world is now fixed in stone until that campaign ends. D&D worlds have very often actually been reactive.

At this point I can only speak from my own experience.

I started playing D&D towards the end of 1982 - Moldvay/Cook, then moving on to AD&D in 1984. Those rulebooks suggested that the game was about populating a cool dungeon/gameworld for the PCs to explore and loot. I also read a lot of Dragon magazines from around that period, as well as the Best of White Dwarf collections. These taught me two things: first, more simulation was better (I needed mechanics to handle clerical conversion, to make a fighter's number of troops at high level reflect the amount of territory cleared, to make falling damage more realistic, etc etc); second, that a dungeon should be built so as to reward operational play - so that divination, 10' pole use, etc, should all make a difference. Gygax's text in the PHB and DMG seemed to me to push in the same direction as this.

I tried this. My players played. But the operational play always seemed a bit dull, and the real pleasure in play seemed to come first from gonzo moments in combat, and later - as the campaign's story got more convoluted - from story choices the PCs made, like turning the enemies captured hideout into their own fortress (something I hadn't anticipated as a GM) and building up their own little teams of PC leader with henchmen followers.

By 1987, when Oriental Adventures came out, I had completely changed my style of play. World and culture simulation remained - if anything, increased - but with the function of providing a backdrop (i) to give the players resources to draw from in building their PCs, and (ii) to give the players something to push against or draw upon in engaging with situations. Operational play was dropped, but by 1990 I had moved on to Rolemaster, and so simulationist mechanics remained, performing the same two services as world and culture simulation.

Over the past 10 years - in part out of dissatisfaction with some aspects of RM, in part out of reading stuff online - I've learned techniques for achieving (i) and (ii) without relying upon simulationist mechanics, or a highly pre-built gameworld, for support. And I think 4e is great for this sort of play, for the reasons I was suggesting in Mercurius's "Not as popular as it could be" thread.

But it's a pretty long way from the sort of play that was the mainstream in the mid-1980s Dragon magazine.

That's what's D&D has always been. Module series get harder the higher level you are. The Dungeon Level I random encounter table doesn't have dragons, but the Dungeon Level X (as in 10) random encounter table does.

Why? Because the mechanics of D&D shape the narrative of the campaign.

I don't think it's about the gameworld being "fixed", or about tailoring challenges to levels. It's about "freeing up" the gameworld to be narrated as part of the process of action resolution. The examples you give don't touch on this - they are at the stage of encounter building (the GM's equivalent to the players' character building).

How many ENworld GM's think that a GM changing an NPC's motivation behind the screen, or changing the layout or detail of the terrain the party is in, is somewhat equivalent to fudging a die roll? My guess would be - many! Even those who are happy designing level-scaled encounters. In fact, I think you'll get a number who tell you that this is railroading, because vitiating players' choices. And then, when you try to explain that, in your view, there is a big difference between changing previously-revealed gameworld facts and changing backstory that has not yet been revealed in order to drive the game, you'll open up an even bigger can of worms! (For example - like Lewis Pulsipher said back in the early days of the game - by changing these unrevealed facts, you're making it at least somewhat irrelevant that the players chose not to use divination magic to discover them. Of course, this line of though presupposes that the main dimension of "meaningfulness" is "contributes to solving the puzzle and revealing the backstory so as to overcome the challenges" - but that's likely to be presupposed as a given by most of these GMs.)

But this sort of world-creation-on-the-fly is just the sort of thing that has to take place if skill challenges are to work as written (of course they can be tweaked, like LostSoul has tweaked them for social encounters, for example, making them something like a method for the PCs to hack through an NPC's "stubbornness" hit points).

Anyway, this post is long enough, and hopefully I've made my point. The short version - the radicalness of the change is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. For someone whose conception of the game is AD&D as presented in the mid-80s Dragon (and to which 3E in many respects seemed to hark back) or even 2nd-ed style story-telling, the change to metagame heavy action resolution really is pretty radical. And pointing out that D&D always had metagame heavy encounter building guidelines won't reduce the force of this perception, I don't think.

 

[Hussar]

I guess my problem Pemerton, is that I look at a number of these claims and I'm just not seeing the issue.

For example, earlier on, BryonD (see, I can spell it right. ) mentioned that his random encounter table in a giants lair would be chosen from elements that make sense in a giant's lair. Ok, fair enough and I think most people would do the same.

But, I wonder how many giant rats would appear on that random table? After all, giant rats make sense in a giant's lair, but would be an incredibly boring encounter for the level of characters we're talking about. Or a humanoid zombie. Again, a bit of restless undead wouldn't be out of line.

My guess is that everything on that random encounter table would fit within the giant's lair and also be within 3 or 4 EL's of the party's level, either up or down.

Again, the mechanics control the narrative.

 

[pemerton]

Hussar, I think random encounter tables are the place to try and make your case!

As well as your argument, I tried an argument in reverse direction upthread - namely, that some games (like Traveller or Rolemaster) have "specials" results on their encounter tables, which basically require the GM - assuming that s/he wasn't expecting it and has nothing ready-to-hand - to make something up when that result comes up. Of course a good GM will make something up that is consistent with the rest of the narrative, but this is essentially (as far as I can see) mechanices shaping narrative - the GM introduces a new and unexpected complication because prompted to by the dice.

BryonD's response distinguishes between "pop quizzes" that are forced by the narrative and those that are forced by the mechanics. The "on the fly" special is meant to be an example of the former. (Whereas having to encounter for the presence of a low level monster on a deep dungeon level, due to the vagaries of the 1st ed DMG Appendix C tables, is an unhappy instance of the latter.) I don't fully follow the distinction, and so don't know whether and how it might be applied to deal with your example.

I don't know if you remember the "players roll all the dice option" (from 3E's Unearthed Arcana?). Maybe skill challenges should have been presented as "the players roll the random encounter dice - fail your skill check and the GM thinks up something bad that happens to you". I don't know - would that would have made the pitch any easier?

 

[BryonD]

My guess is that everything on that random encounter table would fit within the giant's lair and also be within 3 or 4 EL's of the party's level, either up or down.

Again, the mechanics control the narrative.

No, the mechanics do not control the narrative.

Now, the thing is, mechanics are dumb. They don't know if they are trying to control the narrative or not. So it is the responsibility of the DM to keep the mechanics in line.

To me, part of that is limited and considered use of random encounter tables. There are certainyl times when they apply and they certaintly add value in giving the narrative an organic feel.

But if they are designed with "what should be in the ogre's" lair in mind, not "what EL fitting encounters should be in an ogre's lair". If I were forcing "good fights" as defined by the game system, then you would have a point. I don't do that.


If it turns out that the party going after the CR10 Ogre Lord happens upon an EL16 group of visiting stone giants, then they will need to escape the situation, be it through diplomacy, magic, rapidly placing one foot in front of the other, whatever. If they encounter a group of giant rats, then it may simply be a purely narrative, mood-setting encounter.

Now, to be clear, I do not use random encounter tables on a highly recurring basis, and these types of encounters (in particular the very high danger encounters) are not high probability on them. So this conversation has turned very hypothetical. But the point is, the mechanics will not control the narrative.

Now clearly, just rolling on a table is a mechanic and if I roll rats the narrative which follows will be decidedly different than if I roll stone giants. So one could argue that is mechanics controlling narrative. But I think anyone who understands the point will see how that is not a meaningful conclusion. Every item on the list has been validated against the narrative first. The narrative is the foundation.

 

[BryonD]

Non-sequitor. In all games, the mechanics place limits on the narrative.

True, but the DM puts limits on the mechanics. And if the mechanics are first limited in such a way that there are prohibited from being the master of the narrative, then all is well.

To me, D&D has ALWAYS been mechanics first.

That is a shame.

If we were comparing 1E to 3E, I'd, by and large, be making the same complaints. Certainly the details would be radically different. But, relatively speaking, I think that in 1E the mechanics control the narrative too much for my preference. So there is some basis for your claim bases on looking historically at the RAW systems.

And yet, if you time traveled back to when I was running 1E, I would not have agreed to that. The game was no different, but my mindset was to tell stories and I did the best I could with the tools that were available. And 1E is quite famous for being house ruled into unique games by more groups than not. I'm sure my house rules would have been in the narrative first bent.

But, then I found better games and moved on.

But the point is, even when I was using "mechanics first" systems, I was always striving for narrative first gaming. And as game systems came along that catered more directly to narrative first play, my experiences improved.

Now, you say it has always been mechanics first to you. That tells me that you were not oushing against those boundaries. Which is fine, I'm not saying you should have been, or that you didn't have an awesome time or anything remotely critical.

But, and this is not the first, third, or fifth time this conclusion has been reched between you and I, it is clear that you and I may both sit at tables and play tabletop roleplaying games, possibly even called "Dungeons and Dragons", but we were not seeking or experiencing the same activity any more than a chess fan and a monopoly fan. We were both doing what we wanted and having fun. But comparing the two becomes quite difficult.