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

[Hussar]

Lalato - this is nicely putting the point I've been trying to make.

Just a minor nitpick - you cannot actually fail a jump check in 3e. Your distance jumped is entirely determined by your die roll+mods, even if you roll a 1, you still jump 1 foot + mods.

 

[BryonD]

Really? So, that -6 I take to jump checks for having a base 20 movement is narratively determined?

Yes, you are slower so you can not jump as far. Would more degrees of detail be even better, sure. But the penalty is defined as a representation of the description of a slower character.

That -8 I take for wearing plate mail is narratively determined? The fact that I can only spend X ranks in jump dependent on my level is narratively determined? The bonus I get to my jump check based on my Str is narratively determined?

Are these honest questions?

Really? Plus, when I actually try to jump, how far I jump is based on any narrative I the player make? Or, is it entirely determined by the mechanics of the game?

Sure, I can determine if I'm good at jumping or not. That's part of the character building mechanics. But, whether or not I am good at jumping, how far I can jump is entirely mechanically determined.

In the same way, all good trippers must have a base Int of 13 (Combat Expertise feat requires an Int of 13). How is that narratively determined? Anyone who is good at tripping must be of above average intelligence.

The vast majority of D&D is not narratively determined. If you want narratively determined mechanics, there are excellent games out there that do this. Spirit of the Century immedietely jumps to mind here, where the fact that you are good at something flows from the character narratives. 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars also allows for all sorts of narrative control in the game.

D&D? Not so much.

Yep, you don't get it. I can't make you understand. I fail.

Good gaming to you.

 

[BryonD]

Lalato - this is nicely putting the point I've been trying to make.

Your point is completely understood. That is what is so boggling to me. Your point is trivially easy to understand. And if you understood *my* point, you would see how yours is completely resolved.

But, I've explained it a few times now and you show no comprehension. I don't what else to say.

But, I assure you, you made your point perfectly well and I fully understand it.

 

[Hussar]

See, BryonD, understanding what you say and agreeing with what you say aren't the same thing. I understand what you're saying. You're claiming that the mechanics flow from the narrative choices that the player has made during character generation.

My point is that the mechanics determine how effective those choices are. It's almost a chicken or the egg situation. You want to make a good jumper, so you use the mechanics to build a good jumper. The mechanics determine how good of a jumper you actually are.

Again, I think we're simply looking at the same picture and seeing either the old woman or the young woman.

 

[Lanefan]

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) ...

I am such a one.

As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't D+D it might as well not exist. I'm too lazy to learn other systems; that and I think I spend enough time and effort trying to stay at least vaguely familiar with the 4 D+D's.

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.

When I talk about 4e - or any other e - my frame of reference is the other editions of D+D plus my own houserules and ideas. That's it. And to talk about D+D that *should* really be all I need.

I don't care about trends in RPG design, I care about the game I play and about what's being presented to the masses as D+D; and about the ever-widening gulf between the two.

Lan-"now to catch up with the rest of this thread"-efan

 

[NoWayJose]

I don't understand what is so controversial about that. Mechanics do, in fact, affect the narrative. How much they affect the narrative is up to your group. The DM decides when a roll is appropriate. I don't see how this is different through any of the editions of D&D. It's still D&D... each edition I've played has warts as far as I'm concerned (I've been playing since 1981), but I consider them all D&D. I also don't understand what is so controversial about that.

Lalato - this is nicely putting the point I've been trying to make.

Well, I couldn't disagree more. I think it's the *intent* behind the mechanics that has changed most drastically between editions.

Between all those checks and balances of finding the right sweet spot between mechanics and narrative, I just feel that 4E is the most gamist for prioritizing metagame rules over roleplaying narrative.

If that is perceived to change the feel of the D&D game, then that would be controversial.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by such a controversy, as there must be hundreds of threads about this over the last several years.

 

[Hussar]

Lanefan - while I don't actually play a lot of other RPG's (barring a brief stint in the last year where I tried a few) I've found that reading other RPG's really gives a window into design decisions. I picked up the Haiti Aid package back a couple of years ago from RPG drivethru and it has really opened my eyes to a bunch of options that D&D really doesn't cover.

 

[Lanefan]

If every single mechanically determined event in D&D is mechanics first, then how is adding in a SC so radically different? At no point in D&D can you narrate before you know the results of a mechanically determined event. So, adding in a framework where you have a mechanically determined method for resolving complicated events, a framework, by the way, that is not simply limited to 6/3, but to any number of successes/failures, where you can end the SC early BY THE RULES and where the chances of success are determined by the in game fiction.

Where's the problem?

Step back a tick and take a broader look, then ask:

1. Is the game-mechanic you're using the right tool for the job?
1a. Is there another tool (including no tool at all) that could do it better?
2. Do all these events need to be mechanically determined at all?
2a. In other words, is the tool being used as a crutch?

If the answers you get are 'yes'-'no-'yes'-'no' in order then proceed.

But it never hurts to stand back and ask these questions now and then.

Lanefan

 

[billd91]

Really? So, that -6 I take to jump checks for having a base 20 movement is narratively determined? That -8 I take for wearing plate mail is narratively determined? The fact that I can only spend X ranks in jump dependent on my level is narratively determined? The bonus I get to my jump check based on my Str is narratively determined?

Yes, they are. You have to look at why the mechanics are as they are. If the mechanics generated the narrative, the character would pick or pay for the mechanic they wanted and then come up with a justification for it in the narrative. But that's not what we have here. Characters who wanted to be in the best protective armors have hampered jump checks - makes sense for that to be the case doesn't it? That a character in heavy, somewhat restrictive armor would be worse at jumping than a guy just wearing normal clothing? The mechanics follow choices the player/character has made. Admittedly, the min-maxing player may have made his choices because of the mechanics, but they may have all come from the narrative-oriented choices made by the player.

Really? Plus, when I actually try to jump, how far I jump is based on any narrative I the player make? Or, is it entirely determined by the mechanics of the game?

Sure, I can determine if I'm good at jumping or not. That's part of the character building mechanics. But, whether or not I am good at jumping, how far I can jump is entirely mechanically determined.

If I have chosen, through the story, to be lugging around a lot of loot - it will affect my jumping ability (being encumbered may slow me or impact my jump check). If I choose to make a running jump, it will improve my check. My narrative choices can affect my jump. The end result is determined by the mechanics used to model my jumping ability (which may also have been established by choices made to fuel the narrative) - as modified by choices I'm making at the time I jump.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I couldn't disagree more. I think it's the *intent* behind the mechanics that has changed most drastically between editions.

Between all those checks and balances of finding the right sweet spot between mechanics and narrative, I just feel that 4E is the most gamist for prioritizing metagame rules over roleplaying narrative.

If that is perceived to change the feel of the D&D game, then that would be controversial.

I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by such a controversy, as there must be hundreds of threads about this over the last several years.

Me, I think there's far more difference between groups than between editions.