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

[NoWayJose]

Re-doing your example:
1) Fiction first: Let's design a new spell that is fun and cool for wizards! OK, what should it be? How about a lightning spell? OK, cool, should that be like Dark Jedi lightning, or a lightning blast? And what happens when it hits water or a wall? Are we trying to simulate real-life or just a basic suspension of disbelief? Hey, are there any other lightning spells already, because it would be inconsistent if magical lightning spread through water in one spell but not with another. Then, what spell level is this? Does it work with game balance?

2) Mechanics first: Let's design a new Controller class! Cool, so obviously, we need a damage + push spell. OK, um, how about Lightning Ram -- a blast of lightning pushes you 3 squares. So, um, do we have to worry about the lightning ram reflecting off walls and water? Do we have to worry about consistency with other lightning spells? Silly, of course not! We decided we need a Controller because the supplement needs more controllers. Controllers need a damage + push spell for this level slot. The fluff is irrelevant, let the DM and players figure it out. We'll tell them something like 'The game is yours, YOU decide if it's lightning ram or football ram or whatever, use your imagination!'

Fiction first --> what can we add to make the narrative more fun and fantastic, then see how it fits the rules and game balance.

Mechanics first --> what can we add to game mechanics and tactics, then let the people reverse-engineer the fluff and narrative.

Having re-read this, I do regret my polarizing tone, which I didn't intend that way.

I do criticize 4E for being so outwardly gamist IMO, but earlier editions of D&D are far from perfect.

It's just that on a scale of 100% fiction first (=fantasy novel) to 100% mechanics first (=abstract board game), I feel 4E is a matter of degrees higher towards nakedly obvious mechanics first.

 

[Nagol]

[aside]AFAICT, lightning can indeed bounce off of trees and buildings[/aside].

Fiction-first: the player has his PC use a resource to create a new effect in the game world. That effect will affect and be affected by the current situaiton of the world. The effect as written occurs in the typical environment, but it can be more effective in an ideal environment (like targets standing knee-deep inwater), less effective in a difficult environment (like target levitating), or an entirely different effect in a unusual environment (like being converted to a globe underwater).

Rules-first: the player has his PC use a resource to create a new effect in the game world. That effect will affect the current situation of the world as the rules describe. The new effect will only be affected by other items in the environment that are designed to affect it (like a Globe of Invulnerability).

Meta-game: the player uses a resource to create a new effect in the game and the players build an in-game rationale to explain that effect. The in-game rationale may involve the player's PC using a resource or not.

 

[NoWayJose]

NowayJose - my response to all that, and I largely agree, is that the end result is largely indistinguishable. In both cases, you wind up with some sort of ability that shoots lightning and has specific in-game results that are largely dictated by the mechanics.

While the route might be different, what you end up with is generally pretty close. Yes, a square fireball is wonky - but, in play it's largely indistinguishable from a round (or pixelated) fireball since it's extremely rare that round or square will actually matter one whit. You cast fireball, you blow up a group of baddies - and it will be a very blue moon event that being round or square actually matters.

I agree that there will be a lot of overlap, and we can produce many examples of game elements that end up to be similiar despite the differing intent.

Yet there are many contrary examples. In 4E, the sum total of all the nakedly incongruent narrative elements pops out at me like no other previous edition.

 

[Nagol]

I agree that there will be a lot of overlap, and we can produce many examples of game elements that end up to be similiar despite the differing intent.

Yet there are many contrary examples. In 4E, the sum total of all the nakedly incongruent narrative elements pops out at me like no other previous edition.

Yeah, in 1e, the focus of advice was mostly on fiction-first. Some elements were written in a rule-first fashion and meta-game was almost non-existent (the only thing I can think of that was meta-game was one of the artefact side-effects of limited omniscience where the player could ask one question of the DM each game week and get a truthful answer).

3e removed a bunch of fiction-first adjustments from the advice and rulings section and became more rules-first in style (not completely, just a stronger focus from what I could tell).

4e introduced a much tighter rules-first focus with the exception-based design for powers and started into a meta-game design for the Martial classes particularly.

 

[NoWayJose]

[aside]AFAICT, lightning can indeed bounce off of trees and buildings[/aside].

Not at 90 or 180 degree angles?

Fiction-first: the player has his PC use a resource to create a new effect in the game world. That effect will affect and be affected by the current situaiton of the world. The effect as written occurs in the typical environment, but it can be more effective in an ideal environment (like targets standing knee-deep inwater), less effective in a difficult environment (like target levitating), or an entirely different effect in a unusual environment (like being converted to a globe underwater).

Rules-first: the player has his PC use a resource to create a new effect in the game world. That effect will affect the current situation of the world as the rules describe. The new effect will only be affected by other items in the environment that are designed to affect it (like a Globe of Invulnerability).

Meta-game: the player uses a resource to create a new effect in the game and the players build an in-game rationale to explain that effect. The in-game rationale may involve the player's PC using a resource or not.

OK, so then...?

1) fiction first: I decide to jump and my PC eyes the gap. Does my PC think he can make it across? What's the rule for jumping?

2) rules first: I decide to jump because I know the jump rules and I know the gap distance = exactly 30 feet. In-game, my character also decides to jump, but my knowledge of the rules and the map is really the primary motivator.

3) meta-game first: I decide to jump because I have a jump card which I can use 3 x day and I still have one left. After I use that last jump card, I'm not going to be able to jump like that again, regardless of endurance or circumstance. In-game, I have no idea if my character thinks about jumping or not. I can attempt to justify that incongruity with some half-baked narrative, which may or may not succeed at suspending disbelief, but ultimately, it doesn't really matter because I don't have any jump cards left.

I think 3E and 4E might be at least equally "guilty" of #2 (rules first), but 4E is usually more "guilty" of #3 (metagame first).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would largely agree with that.

Then we seem to be getting somewhere.

The question I would ask though, is that if an event does not require any mechanics to resolve, (unless you're outright free forming), then the outcome of that event is predetermined.

You forgot to ask the question!

My point is that its circular. When you invoke mechanics to resolve an event, that event cannot be narrated without the mechanics, thus the narrative is largely shaped by the mechanics.

Okay. Keep in mind, as I said upthread or elsethread or both, that all games have fiction-first and rules-first elements. They have to.

"I charge!" is a fiction-first narrative that then engages the mechanics, and causes the mechanics to come into play. Indeed, that piece of fiction selects which mechanics come into play.

"I rolled six points of damage!" is a rules-first construct that the narrative must then conform to (i.e., whatever that damage means in that context delimits what happens in the narrative).

And there is circularity. One does play into the other. "I swing my sword at him!" is fiction-first that engages the mechanics. "I hit, and do six points of damage" is rules-first and re-engages the narrative ("The ogre still lives, and he swings his massive club at you!").

So, in this case, you are right. But let's take a step back, shall we?

In Game 1, those rules are an attempt at verisimilitude. The mechanics for the ogre (AC, hit points, chance to hit, etc.) are an attempt to model what an ogre should be like (in the view of the game designer and/or the GM).

In Game 2, those rules are a meta-game construct. The mechanics for the ogre are instead an attempt to model what should be a good challenge for the PCs (again, in the view of the game designer and/or the GM).

In Game 1, the ogre is the same whether the party is 1st level or 20th level. In Game 2, the ogre presents the same challenge whether the party is 1st level or 20th level.

Can you see how approach affects outcome in this hypothetical example? Because, if you can see the difference in this more extreme example, we can begin to break the difference down into more granular examples. I accept that your threshold of granularity is different than mine (or others'); I am certain that there is a threshold where you cannot see a difference that I do. I am just not certain that you are absolutely unable to do so.

As far as your bullette example goes, that seems to be fiction-first. But then, no one to my knowledge has said 4e is "completely different" from earlier editions. I, for one, have explicitly and repeatedly said that all games have elements of both "rules-first" and "fiction-first" mechanics.

There is a lot of granularity involved, and different folks are going to have different thresholds as to where that granularity matters. This discussion isn't a zero-sum game.



RC

 

[Nagol]

For fiction-first you could also go with

I need to jump this chasm that looks like it might be 25-30'. I can't make in armour so I'll strip down, get a running start and the Magic-User will cast Gust of Wind at the right moment to help push me across. The spell doesn't say that'll help with jump distance, but it only stands to reason that if it can move a ship...

 

[NoWayJose]

For fiction-first you could also go with

I need to jump this chasm that looks like it might be 25-30'. I can't make in armour so I'll strip down, get a running start and the Magic-User will cast Gust of Wind at the right moment to help push me across. The spell doesn't say that'll help with jump distance, but it only stands to reason that if it can move a ship...

Sure, although this leaves all the adjucation to the DM, and the game may suffer from a lack of consistency.

Player: "Why did the Gust of Wind carry me across the gap last year, but today, it won't work?"
DM: oh ya, I forgot about last year "Um, because the moon is full and affects the magic tides..."

So I assume 3E codified the rules beyond the subjectivity of DM and players for the sake of consistency. And 4E took it one step further. Somewhere there, D&D may have lost its "soul" depending on your point of view.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It might be clearer to examine another rpg, such as a supers rpg.

Fiction-First: The Human Torch's powers are fire-based, and so might be hampered by lack of oxygen or being doused with water, even if that is not explicit in the rules. The logic and experience of the players in the real world applies, with a few possible explicitly codified exceptions, to the fictional world.

Rules-First: The Human Torch's powers are not explicitly affected by lack of oxygen or being doused with water, so they are not in the game. The logic and experience of the players in the real world does not necessarily apply to the fictional world, except where the fictional world is explicitly not codified.

 

[Nagol]

Sure, although this leaves all the adjucation to the DM, and the game may suffer from a lack of consistency.

Player: "Why did the Gust of Wind carry me across the gap last year, but today, it won't work?"
DM: oh ya, I forgot about last year "Um, because the moon is full and affects the magic tides..."

So I assume 3E codified the rules beyond the subjectivity of DM and players for the sake of consistency. And 4E took it one step further. Somewhere there, D&D may have lost its "soul" depending on your point of view.

And that's the big difference I see in fiction-first and rules-first. The play group has more adjudication to perform in fiction first because no game model is extensive enough to cover all the corner cases and special circumstances that arise to achieve versimilitude.

Rules-first removes a lot of the adjudication to instill consistency in play even if that consitency comes at a cost in versimilitude.