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

[Lalato]

Now, this I disagree with. A lot of useful stuff has come out of this thread which has remained surprisingly congenial overall.

Discussing these things allows me to refine my own understanding and to question my assumptions, which is always a good thing. I might not admit even to myself that a viewpoint has changed within the thread, since I'm too busy typing to actually think, but, later on, down the road, I've certainly felt that my opinions have shifted on a number of issues.

On a side note, this is why I almost never drag in ancient history posts into a new thread. I don't assume that people carve their opinions in stone. Dragging in an off the cuff comment from four years ago isn't productive IMO.

Fair enough. I agree that it can be an interesting exercise to work through some of these issues. I'm not convinced how worthwhile it will ultimately be. However, I reserve the right to call shenanigans when someone is being purposely obtuse or comes into this with what appear to be ulterior motives. It's one thing to be a skeptic. It's another to have an agenda.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would exclude Hero a different way though. The basic function of the Hero system is that it is a generic system. That's the way it's presented. Granted, you can then go on to make that generic system emulate D&D, but, you can also emulate Traveller or Battletech too if you wanted. The Hero system, at its base, is not D&D because D&D is not a generic game.

While I'm in accord with Pawsplay about the feel of D&D emulation- after all, I brought it up- I think you may have something here.

Again, though, it is somewhat based in mechanics and not the metaphysical, so I don't know how that will be accepted.

 

[pawsplay]

But, that's precisely my point Pawsplay. You took a system and then adapted it to emulate another system. You did so successfully, so that the emulated system feels the same as the base system.

However, that doesn't mean that the base system presumes that you are going to do that. Just because I can drive my sports car cross country does not make it an off road vehicle. It just means that through my own perserverence, I can use one tool to do the same thing as another tool.

The "base system" doesn't do anything at all. Hero is not a sports car going off road, it's a a kit that can turn your vehicle into a sports car or an off road vehicle. Once you D&D-ize Hero, it's no longer Champions, or Star Hero, or whatever.

Perhaps a better analogy. I can play MAME ROMs on my PC but that does not mean my PC is an Atari console, despite the fact that I can have a one button joystick and play Space Invaders quite well on my PC. All that means is that I can emulate an Atari console on my PC and do so quite well.

That's probably not a good analogy, since we are talking about a game spanning four "consoles" with several chipsets in each generation of console, plus third party products that will play the original ROMs. Hero System is not an emulation; if you configure it to do D&D, it is a D&D game, based in Hero mechanics.

And, as a side note, can we please stop with the cheap shots? "Moreso than most games of 4e"? How many games of 4e have you played/observed? How much information are you actually basing this on? Or is it just enough to keep somehow scoring points in a game that no one else is interested in playing?

That's not a cheap shot. I specifically noted "IME" which should make it clear I am talking only about games of Hero and 4e of which I have direct knowledge or reliable second accounts.

Perhaps if you are perceiving me as trying to "score points" you should consider examining your own motivations. It may be that your own priorities are coloring how you perceive my posts.

 

[pemerton]

Iwas referring to the arbitrary limitation of have 3 Jump cards.

But why is it arbitrary? It's not arbitrary that a 1st level AD&D mage has only 1 sleep spell per day. That's a part of the game balance (and then we tell a story about the ingame capacity of the mage's brain).

Dishing out 3 jump cards is the same. It's just that instead of telling the ingame story at the start, as a story about the capacity of the PC's leg muscles, we instead tell the story each time the possibility to jump a chasm comes up during play.

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?

Well, you might get such a narration - for example, if the player thinks that (for whatever reason) it is better to fall down the chasm then stay on one side of it (maybe a Balor is coming!). Or maybe the player knows (or hopes) that another player's PC will do something like cast a feather fall spell.

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.

In game, he's not doomed to failure. It's just that we, the real world players, know what the outcome will be. It's as if the GM has an "unluck" card that s/he's obliged to play if the player's PC tries to jump (sort of the opposite of a "fate" card that - in some games at least - a player can play to make his/her PC's attempt an automatic success).

Any explanation is half-baked.

Well, I've just given some examples of how it might play out. I don't see why it's any more half-baked than the story AD&D tells about the size of a young wizard's brain.

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.

I don't think anyone disputes that 4e has more mechanics that require the narrative explanation to be introduced during the course of play, rather than being worked out before play. As a result, the correlation between mechanics and ingame causal logic is a lot more relaxed (as Hussar has pointed out upthread).

All I'm disagreeing with is the suggestion that a story to explain a mechanical limitation becomes more half-baked when it's told at the time of action resolution, rather than at the time of character building.

 

[Lanefan]

What about those few solo adventures issued by TSR?

If you're thinking of the various adventure modules written for play by a solo character, those still required a DM. If you're thinking of the choose-your-own-adventure paperbacks, to me those aren't D+D.

Lan-"you kill the Hobgoblins. Turn to page 10."-efan

 

[pemerton]

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 agree that the explanations are poor. But I put this down to the sorts of weaknesses in RPG rules-writing that Ron Edwards has been talking about for some time now.

Your point about lack of player inducements is more interesting. I see 4e character building as being permeated with flavour that is more than just colour, because it has implications for the play of the PC and the thematic consequences of the game. And for me, this is where the player incorporates narrative hooks. The DMG builds on this with it's discussion of player-designed quests. I agree it is all a bit understated. But I don't think it's unintended. Worlds and Monsters, for example, makes it clear that the design team was looking at all this flavour stuff with a very keen eye on the contribution that it makes to play. (The first time, I think, that D&D world design has been approached in this sort of way, as opposed to a "what would a cool fantasy world look like?" sort of way.)

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.

I certainly agree it can read this way, especially at first blush, and this is strongly reinforced by the published modules (but not by supplements like Underdark or The Plane Above).

I'm personally not very interested in this sort of play - it fits my description upthread of being degenerate dice rolling play where the PCs add a bit of characterisation and a bit of colour and not much else. I personally had enough of this in 2nd ed.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree there are some commonalities across all forms of D&D. Let me pose a question. I feel Pathfinder is "more D&D" than 4e is, to me. Is Pathfinder Rome?

It's a suburb, an independent municipality that owes its existence to Rome and shares a common border with it. It is often difficult to even notice said border when crossing it.

Amalgamation talks are ongoing.

Lan-"does that make 4e a new subdivision in downtown Rome"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Characters are defined by Class. The class determines abilities of the character. Progression of the character over time is also determined by the class. The classes represent a fantasy archetype.

Is this really true of 3E?

 

[pemerton]

I agree there are some commonalities across all forms of D&D. Let me pose a question. I feel Pathfinder is "more D&D" than 4e is, to me. Is Pathfinder Rome?

I would have thought so. Is there anyone who doesn't think of Pathfinder (and C&C, Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, OGL Conan etc) as D&D variants every bit as D&D-ish as (for example) later 3.5, and moreso than (perhaps) late 2nd ed (with points-buy classes and races)?

And if the answer to my rhetorical question is Yes, there are such people, then for them surely D&D is just a brandname, and the emotion/nostalgia/etc that they attach to that brand.

 

[Lalato]

OK, here's a data point for you:

There needs to be a Dungeon Master.

[MENTION=9171]Lalato[/MENTION]: I'm not at all certain that I accept your premise that no one who is skeptical of a universal "D&D Experience" is willing to share their experiences of D&D. Certainly, many of them have in many, many threads.

I'm not talking about other threads from the last 9 years I've been on ENWorld, I'm talking about this thread. Oh... and nothing wrong with being a skeptic. Heck, I'm skeptical of this whole process.

Thanks for the data point. I agree with it. And no, solo adventures don't make this data point invalid. In a solo adventure the DM is played by the solo player as guided by the module, or one might say the author of the module is the DM. (eagerly awaiting the but... but... but...). That said, a single data point doesn't say much. Surely you have more.

Here's a couple from me... In every edition of D&D that I've ever played, I rolled 3d6 or 4d6 (drop the lowest) for my character ability scores. Yes, even 4e.

In every version of D&D that I've ever played, there were living oozes that could kill you!