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

[pemerton]

Does the Wizard have the option to NOT play the token when firing the Lightning Bolt underwater and having a metagame event happen or is he effectively restricted to rules-first adjudication in that instance?

Now that is an interesting question, which I was wondering if anyone would ask!

I think the best answer is "yes, but . . ." - this would be a page 42 matter, with the player of the wizard having to make a skill check (presumably Arcana as the default, but it might depend on the details of the fictional situation) to vary the spell in this sort of way.

I'll concede that it's a curious form of "metagame token" that by default you're obliged to play.

From memory of 4e, it isn't the suggested play.

I fluctuate between confidence and confusion in my conceptoin of the suggested play for 4e. I don't think it's fully fiction first, but it has elements of fiction first (because I don't see how page 42, together with associated commentary such as creative use of cantrips, could work otherwise). But as the above discussion of the mandatory metagame token shows, it has a strong metagame dimension which can push in the direction of rules-based - I'm not sure I'm getting your terminology quite right, but I would say that to the extent that 4e is rules-based, it's rules-based with an expectation that an explicating narrative of the relevant fictional causes will be provided - I'm not sure if this makes sense in your schema, or if I've just describe metagame-based rather than rules-based.

As for the overall orientation of play - if it's not meant to be narrative first, then I'm not sure what it is for. In spite of some superficial appearances, I don't think that 4e suits challenge/"step on up" play all that well, although I know some other posters around here think differently. And it doesn't really seemed aimed at exploration - or rather, if you use it as an exploration vehicle (letting the GM and the setting - which would have to be considerably enriched compared to the core books - do all the narrative/thematic work) then the dice-rolling objection is going to rear its head again. Because the players won't have much that is meaningful to do other than roll their dice and add a little bit of colour and characterisation.

 

[NoWayJose]

OK. So why argue about the so called gamist aspect of 4e in this thread at all? This thread, from what I've gathered, is about what is universal to all versions of D&D. Not what is different about each version.

Fiction first: Because mechanical gamism eats away at the imaginative soul of D&D and roleplaying as we know it will be replaced by a fake simulacrum, like cheap paint covering a dead rigid mannequin

Truth first: Honestly, I don't know, I didn't read the whole thread. I responded to someone's post on page twenty-something.

Metagame first: I have used up my Well of Infinite Patience power for the week, all that I have left is a Sarcasm/Parody at-will power.

 

[Nagol]

Sure....they could come up with the same results if (and only if) the game designer is as or more flexible and clever when designing the game as every player is while playing the game.

I have never seem an example where this is the case. Consequently, I've never seen an example where the results were the same. Or even close to the same.

YMMV, though, depending upon how your experience varies.



RC

Champions can become very close to the same as the players gets a cost reduction for limitations like "Power requires air to work (-1/4)". This encourages the players to exercise creativity in initial design.

 

[NoWayJose]

As to the Jump card - maybe one time the player describes a gust of wind. Another time powerful muscles. Another time nature spirits help carry the PC over the gap (a la BMX Bandit and the summoned angels). There's stuff here for the GM to hang complications on - especially if the player is somewhat consistent in how s/he narrates what is going on. I don't see this as half-baked at all - to me it looks like playing an RPG!

I have no problem with that kind of narrative at all. But in this example, I was referring to the arbitrary limitation of have 3 Jump cards.

How often will a player ever attempt to narratively in-game jump a 4th time that day? Even though he is mechanically doomed to failure, because he had only 3 Jump cards and he used them all up? Why bother narrating a hopeless outcome? And, in-game, why is he doomed to failure anyway, since he's at full health and could feasibly jump a 4th time if he attempted to. Any explanation is half-baked.

In 3E, are there powers that are arbitrarily limited to 3 x day for no in-game fictional reason? Yes. Does 4E have *more* obvious and systemic examples of powers with such gamist limitations? I think yes.

 

[Nagol]

Now that is an interesting question, which I was wondering if anyone would ask!

I think the best answer is "yes, but . . ." - this would be a page 42 matter, with the player of the wizard having to make a skill check (presumably Arcana as the default, but it might depend on the details of the fictional situation) to vary the spell in this sort of way.

I'll concede that it's a curious form of "metagame token" that by default you're obliged to play.

Which makes it rules-based, but the DM is open to meta-game play.

I fluctuate between confidence and confusion in my conceptoin of the suggested play for 4e. I don't think it's fully fiction first, but it has elements of fiction first (because I don't see how page 42, together with associated commentary such as creative use of cantrips, could work otherwise). But as the above discussion of the mandatory metagame token shows, it has a strong metagame dimension which can push in the direction of rules-based - I'm not sure I'm getting your terminology quite right, but I would say that to the extent that 4e is rules-based, it's rules-based with an expectation that an explicating narrative of the relevant fictional causes will be provided - I'm not sure if this makes sense in your schema, or if I've just describe metagame-based rather than rules-based.

As for the overall orientation of play - if it's not meant to be narrative first, then I'm not sure what it is for. In spite of some superficial appearances, I don't think that 4e suits challenge/"step on up" play all that well, although I know some other posters around here think differently. And it doesn't really seemed aimed at exploration - or rather, if you use it as an exploration vehicle (letting the GM and the setting - which would have to be considerably enriched compared to the core books - do all the narrative/thematic work) then the dice-rolling objection is going to rear its head again. Because the players won't have much that is meaningful to do other than roll their dice and add a little bit of colour and characterisation.

Early roleplaying games kept the players out of the metagame as much as possible since actions taken there don't represent actions the PC can engage in. It was the purview of the DM.

Later games explicitly place some elements of the metagame into player hands for pre-play / advancement options for the characters. Champions, GURPS and other toolbox games let the players dabble in the metagame attached to their characters.

A lot of non-RPG games allow both parties to dabble in the metagame since they are usually more explicitly games. Several add-ons to games like Whimsy Cards, allow the player to affect the metagame.

Some of the more narrative focused games allow the players into the metagame space during play.

I think 4e works as a narrative-first design game though if it were designed as such, it is poorly explained and only partially complete since it doesn't offer player inducement to include narrative hooks into the character typical of other narrative-first games (back story, personailty traits, flaws, etc.). I got the feeling the expected design was more fiction-first in that the players would be dropped in a large adventure path and expected to act through it.

I think the expected play is more around creating the story of particular heroes from the intial scene to their final scene since they strip out most of the rewards available for challenge-play and they didn't include much to hook other play styles. The primary hook for player interest seems based upon the tactical play and the options surrounding it.

 

[Lalato]

Exept when it's not, of course. Again, a whole lot of FRPGS and some non-F versions give an indistinguishable underlying experience.

And again, I say... SO WHAT!

Who gives a flying fart if other FRPGs and other RPGs share characteristics of D&D. Those other games are ALL derivative works in some sense. I challenge you to find something that is so unique to ANY edition of D&D that you can't find some version of that thing in either another edition of D&D or another RPG.

What I am saying is... there is far more common between ALL versions of D&D than there are differences. I little bit upthread I pointed out some things that I found were the same with all versions of D&D that I had played. Again, I challenge to find more of those things instead of continually moving the goalposts so that no one can come to any conclusion.

 

[Lalato]

Yes, in the truest sense of the word, you are correct. That doesn't invalidate the quest. Call it what you will, the "Rome," "D&D Experience" or this latest metaphor, "soul," what people are looking for is some kind of meaphysical, unique identifying essence. And we commonly say that such an attribute exists even in nonliving things...

The question is whether D&D has such a thing apart from it's mechanics & fluff.



To...amplify...this point, I use another metaphor. Blues is a well established genre of music which has grown to cover a lot of ground, and is one of the genres that helped create rock & roll.

But if I were to ask you to search for the "soul" or "essence" of blues, would you look most carefully at bands like Led Zeppelin, or Stevie Ray Vaughn, or B.B. King, or Leadbelly, or Robert Johnson?

My guess is that, despite the unquestioned blues aspects of all the others, you'd look at Johnson or Leadbelly more than the others. You'd focus on the base, not the artists whose accretions expanded the genre.

That's all fine and good. Personally, I would include all examples of something, even derivative works, to help me define a thing. And I would gather all the qualitative data points instead of trying to quantify it some futile effort to define its "essence."

That said, as I have stated above, I don't think there is a SOUL... or an ESSENTIAL anything to D&D. Why? Because whatever was unique about D&D in 1974 has been co-opted by every other derivative work.

You want to know the only unique thing about D&D? It was the first successful game of its type (RPGs). Wait, I thought of another one. It is the most successful TTRPG ever. Woohoo! Yay... there's your essence of D&D. Now you can get to the really hard work of saying stuff like... "This is how I experience D&D..."

Because honestly, that's what really matters. Tell me how you experience D&D. Don't ask me to help you define it. You'll help me define by telling me about your experience. But I guess instead you... and others... want to play this futile cat and mouse game of someone defining something... and then pouncing on them for it not accurately describing your personal experience.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That said, as I have stated above, I don't think there is a SOUL... or an ESSENTIAL anything to D&D.

It is strange to me how snarky you are toward someone you are agreeing with. Maybe I just don't get it.

Do you just dislike his method of reaching the same conclusion?

 

[Nagol]

And again, I say... SO WHAT!

Who gives a flying fart if other FRPGs and other RPGs share characteristics of D&D. Those other games are ALL derivative works in some sense. I challenge you to find something that is so unique to ANY edition of D&D that you can't find some version of that thing in either another edition of D&D or another RPG.

What I am saying is... there is far more common between ALL versions of D&D than there are differences. I little bit upthread I pointed out some things that I found were the same with all versions of D&D that I had played. Again, I challenge to find more of those things instead of continually moving the goalposts so that no one can come to any conclusion.

My goal posts have never shifted. Any essence specific to D&D as postulated in the OP needs to be differentiated from things that are not D&D. If you don't like the original premise, so be it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My goal posts have never shifted. Any essence specific to D&D as postulated in the OP needs to be differentiated from things that are not D&D. If you don't like the original premise, so be it.

Yep. That's the only goalpost that I've seen anyone posting about.

(Of course, it is possible that I missed something.......? I'd be happy to say I'm wrong if someone shows me the post!)

R - Still stealing Lanefan's sig - C