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

[Lanefan]

I think that's one of the reasons 4e really works for my group. What you're calling the 'narrative burden' is viewed by us as an opportunity to be creative. We provide the narrative that describes/explains/positions the mechanics within the in-game fiction. We prefer to do this, mainly because we prefer the shi stuff we make up ourselves over that of some game designer who doesn't share our influences, sense of humor, and naked, adulterated brilliance !

Absolutely. Designers build the framework. The finishing and decoration are all yours.

That said, if a given set of mechanics are forcing me to dream up more narrative and-or more detail than I or my group really want, I'm going to end up either ditching those mechanics or bailing on the narrative details.

Lan-"journeyman D+D mechanic"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

It may or may not be D&D, but solo adventures do have a DM. That task is distributed between the module writer and the player. Since the job of the DM is to adjudicate, and solo modules require adjudication, you are DMing yourself.

However, if you include real-time real-space physical interaction with at least one other human being as part of the definition of D+D (or any RPG for that matter), the above fails.

Lan-"virtual gaming of any kind is at best on the fence for me"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Are you really saying, then, that there cannot be a viable RPG that uses metagame mechanics to govern physical interaction?

When it comes to physical interactions, either with the game world or with individuals in it, without doubt there have to be some concessions made to game-mechanics. Hell, the combat rules for any edition are more than enough proof of that.

But where such game mechanics are demonstrably unnecessary and outright get in the way of (or contradict) our own physical reality* then I maintain the game mechanics must give way.

* - unless there is a valid in-game reason for it e.g. a normal person *can* jump 20' in the air because the game world's gravity is only 1/5 that of Earth.

And how much weight should I put on the word "model"? Obviously, a game which handles jump checks by issuing "jump" tokens has already decided not to have mechanics that model ingame physical systems, and instead to resolve jump checks by instead using a metagame mechanics to distribute the right to narrate whether or not any successful jump actually happens in the gameworld.

Having a mechanic to determine whether a jump is successful is fine. But an arbitrary mechanical limitation on how many times in a day a given character can jump using no more than her own physical abilities (Str., Dex. etc.) is unnecessary, and blatantly gets in the way of reflecting reality. So, out it goes; and I start looking more carefully at how the rest of the game works for such things...

Note that I'm not even getting into narration here, just mechanics.

Lan-"will they take a jump token on the subway?"-efan

 

[pawsplay]

However, if you include real-time real-space physical interaction with at least one other human being as part of the definition of D+D (or any RPG for that matter), the above fails.

Lan-"virtual gaming of any kind is at best on the fence for me"-efan

Sure, and if you include using miniatures to represent characters, other things fail to meet a different definition of D&D. The original D&D was "playable with paper and pencil and miniature figures." If you use a laptop, DDI, and no miniatures, you are definitely not playing that version of D&D, at least as it was presented.

 

[eyebeams]

On the other hand, a fiction-first approach can yield superior results to rules-first games in scnerios where the rules don't work very well. For instance, in almost any game system every published, a fiction-first approach will yield more easily adjudicated results than a rules-first approach when a normal human is at ground zero of a nuclear blast. It is likely to be uncontrovertible that someone at ground zero is dead. Attempting to use any mechanical system to determine that fact, however good the mechanics are, opens up the possibility of ambiguity, however small that possibility.

Meh. I've written rules for nuclear weapons with explicit damage. They work when you apply a context for the GM and group to carry over. They're in Ascension, the mast book for the old Mage.

Thing is, a lot of you are basically judging rules as if the role of RPG players is to sit around like an imbecile, interpreting what the rules output as simply as possible. This is not desirable behaviour in the players, and it isn't possible to design well for these theoretical imbeciles.

If there is a choice between an absurd and non-absurd interpretation of what a game system does, you should obviously choose the non-absurd unless you're in it for comedy. If you have three jump cards per day, then this obviously refers to the number of times you can successfully jump challenging distances in situations that matter to the story. If you roll 4 on 4d100 for a nuke, it means the nuke acted strangely.

If you cannot take this basic imaginative step, then you suck at playing RPGs, and you will never be happy with them.

That said, there is some responsibility on the part of the game to help you get there, by explaining how to interpret this sort of thing. This is where 4e has faltered. Many fighter exploits obviously represent not just a technique, but a combination of technique, focus and opportunity that only comes up every once and a while, where the players get to decide when that "stroke of luck" might occur, and die rolls determine if it actually does. This is elegant in play and fits cinematic conventions, but it's a bit convoluted to actually describe.

Then again, so are 1 minute rounds, and I use those in my current game.

 

[BryonD]

I think that's one of the reasons 4e really works for my group. What you're calling the 'narrative burden' is viewed by us as an opportunity to be creative.

I buy that 100%.

However, one reason 4E fails for my group (and many others) is that this "opportunity" is not a new addition to the game, so tying it to the "narrative burden" parts of the game is not accurate. (For us)

There is nothing that can be created or described in 4E that can not be created or described in 3E.

And to be clear, I have heard people slam 4E as being a mini combat game and "not a role playing game". I disagree with that by largely the same reasoning. There is nothing you can role play in 3E that you can't role play in 4E.

But, if you see "opportunity" in 4E, then that says to me that you were just missing out in whatever game you are comparing it to.

3E will readily allow the players at the table to get into a "swing/hit/damage/swing/miss/swing/miss/swing/hit/damage" rut. No doubt about it. 4E comes with the "burden" which serves as a muse, if not an outright driver to be descriptive along the way. So if you were not doing this in 3E, you ARE now in 4E. And your game experience will be better on that front.

To put a bit of a different spin on eyebeams statement, if you can't take this narrative step on your own, you are going to limited in your experience in RPGs. 4E takes that step for you.

So a bad game of 4E will be much better than a bad game of 3E.

But, if you already have this in 3E, then the muse just becomes a "burden" and a requirement on the narrative which must be complied with.

A good game of 3E is much better than a good game of 4E.

 

[BryonD]

If you roll 4 on 4d100 for a nuke, it means the nuke acted strangely.

What if you roll 2d100 + 25*[1/2 level of the guy who pushed the button]?

 

[Raven Crowking]

If there is a choice between an absurd and non-absurd interpretation of what a game system does, you should obviously choose the non-absurd unless you're in it for comedy.

Oh, I agree. And I would take this a step farther: If there is a choice between a mechanic that causes absurd results, and one that does not do so, you should obviously choose the least absurd unless you're in it for comedy.

Because an absurd mechanic, sooner or later, leads to absurd interpretation simply because, if the mechanic is absurd, all of the non-absurd interpretations rely on things such as unlikely coincidence, which become absurd as they pile up.

Every reader knows when the author is piling on the BS just to make his story work. "It doesn't feel natural," we say, or "I don't believe he would do that". We mock films that pile on this sort of schmalk unless they're doing it for comedy, and rightly so. "How is it possible that she doesn't know he's the murderer?" "Maybe she's used up all of her Deduction Cards!"

If you have three jump cards per day, then this obviously refers to the number of times you can successfully jump challenging distances in situations that matter to the story.

Which is absurd.

The point of role-assumption is not to make choices on the basis of an over-arching narrative, but to make choices based upon the role assumed.

Whenever a player is asked to come up with reasons why he should not have his character do whatever the character would naturally do within any given situation, it removes the player from the role of that character and into the role of the author. An author who is, at this point, adversarial to the goals of the character.

The end result might not be like a bad novel, but I believe it is far more likely to be like a bad novel/film than otherwise.

So, again, if there is a choice between a mechanic that causes absurd results, and one that does not do so, you should obviously choose the least absurd unless you're in it for comedy.



RC

 

[Lalato]

[MENTION=957]BryonD[/MENTION]... As long as you put... In my experiences as a qualifier there, sure.

However, in my experience, I've played plenty of good games in 3.x and I've played plenty of good games in 4e. They all felt like really good games, and some in both felt like GREAT games. And I didn't see a difference in the way I felt about the good games in 4e vs 3.x. So your assertion that a good game in 3.x is somehow better than a good game in 4e doesn't jibe with my experience.

If, however, you're speaking for everyone... I call shenanigans.

 

[NoWayJose]

Welcome to the Dr Phyl Show! Today, we have a very special guest. He is a "living spell". Ladies and gents, please put your hands together for 'Beguiling Strands'.

Dr Phyl: So Beguiling Strands, you describe yourself as "strands of subtle magic that weave through your foes like a spider’s web".

BS: Yes, Dr Phyl, that's absolutely right. With all my scintillating colors and gleaming lights, I can really confuse people, you know? I can hurt them mentally, and they move away from me.

Dr Phyl: I see. Yet your first name is 'Beguiling', right? The definition of beguile is to deceive or charm. Yet you hurt and push people away from you. Don't you think your parents misnamed you?

BS: Now look here, I won't stand here idly while you criticize my parents. So maybe they misnamed me, so what?

Dr Phyl: Well, is that fair to you? When you introduce yourself, you're already giving the wrong impression. One might call them 'careless' in the way they named you.

BS: Careful, Phyl. I might just push you away.

Dr Phyl: Yes, let's discuss that-- your nature to always push people away from you. Now I've had flashlights shined in my face before. I've seen incoming car headlights. I might step back. I may cover my eyes and be dazzled for a moment. I might cower. I might run off the left or the right. Why is that you only and always feel the need to move people away from you? Why don't they react in other ways to your confusing lights?

BS: Are you calling me a one-trick pony!?

Dr Phyl: I don't know, ARE you a one-trick pony? I'm trying to visualize this, and I just don't understand it. Realistically, people have different reactions to the same stimuli. Yet you're the exception... have you met other magic lights before? Are they also so single-minded in their effects?

BS: I don't know. I never met any other lights, mundane or magical.

Dr Phyl: I see. So you're parents named you 'Beguiling' even though you're really not. They only taught you to do one single thing, over and over. And they never really compared you to other lights to see if you were reaching your natural potential. Is that a fair assessment?

BS: Hmm...

Dr Phyl: Is it possible to meet your parents and ask them why did this to you, why they put in this straightjacket, so to speak?

BS: No, you can't meet my parents. They are unreachable, and they are protected by a loyal legion of fans. I've never heard them acknowledge that kind of criticism.

Dr Phyl: That is unfortunate. I would like to free you from this self-constrained limitation. You have so much more in you to give to the world! You could move people up and down and left and right, if you just let yourself!

BS: NO! no! NO! All I can do is hurt and push. Hurt and push! That's all I want to do. That's all I will ever doooooooo....!!!!! [runs away, crying blue droplets of light]

Dr Phyl: That's it for today. Next time, I will interview another living spell, 'Hypnotism'. Hypnotism can seize momentary control of peoples' mind. You'd think that Hypnotism would revel in his almost unlimited potential. And yet, when Hypnotism invades someone's mind, he likes to do only one of exactly two things: attack somebody, or move. Why isn't Hypnotism more creative than that? Didn't his parents teach him to explore his full potential as an hypnotic power, or did they raise him to do only two arbitrary tasks? Is he misnamed? Is he a robot? I will try to find out!

As for Beguiling Strands. "A strand of scintillating colors and gleaming lights clouds your enemies minds and forces them to move away." That's the description in the compendium. The crunchy part of is that the enemies are pushed 3 squares and take some minor psychic damage.

I've always seen it as the enemies are so entranced by the strands that they follow it for a short distance. But the effect isn't powerful enough to lead them very far away. When they snap out of the trance, there is a psychic backlash that causes them to take a minor amount of damage.

I don't see what the problem is here... or why you bring it up as an example (of what?).

On a special webisode of the Dr Phyl Show, I meet with 'Ota Lal', a professional Dungeon Master who often hires living spells like Beguiling Strands.

Dr Phyl: When you met Beguiling Strands for the first time, how did he describe himself?

OL: He implied that people are hurt and reel away from him, their minds clouded, and they move back. He was very specific that his lights never dazzle, blind, stun, or do anything other than move people back. 'Hurt and push' he kept saying over and over.

Dr Phyl: And how do you employ him?

OL: I instructed him to entrance people into moving away, with a psychic backlash as a side-effect.

Dr Phyl: So you employ him in way that might reinterpret his original job description.

OL: I guess so.

Dr Phyl: But he's only able to entrance people away, never entrances them to stop in their tracks or move otherwise.

OL: Correct.

Dr Phyl: Is your interpretation better? Does his original job description make sense to you?

OL: That's just his suggested default behavior. The way *I* employ Begui--

Dr Phyl: Yes, I understand. But what do you think was the intention behind the way Beguiling Strands was originally conceived? Was it willy-nilly? Poorly explained? Badly-conceived in the first place?

OL: [silence]

Dr Phyl: Other Dungeon Masters have been known to criticize people who lack imagination to employ living spells narratively. Yet you felt the need to change or clarify Beguiling Strands' original method. So, do you criticize the original creators for a lack of imagination? Or is there a double standard here?

OL: [silence]

Dr Phyl: How about that other living spell, Hypnotism?

OL: [silence]

Dr Phyl: OK, do you think that the creators of Beguiling Strands and Hypnotism and others could and should have conceived these living spells differently? Do you feel that they have unfairly burdened employers like you to fix up any deficiencies or incongruities?

OL: Hey, I enjoy the "burden" as you call it. I like to do extra work!

Dr Phyl: How about other Dungeon Masters who don't have the time and inclination to take on the burden of rebooting multiple spells. Don't they have the right to criticize the original conception of Beguiling Strands and other living spells?

OL: I don't care about other Dungeon Masters! I only talk about MY game. My game! I don't see what the problem is here... or why you bring it up as an example (of what?). [puts hands over ears] La, la, la, la, la...

Dr Phyl: Well, folks, it seems that I'm no closer to understanding the reasoning behind the original conception of Beguiling Strands, Hypnotism, and other straight-jacketed spells. Tune in next time, when I waste more time on loyal legions of fans that don't understand the problem.

* * *

1. From WoTC article "Wizard Preview: Ampersand Special: The Essential Classes" Originally crafted by eladrin wizards of the Feywild, this spell creates strands of subtle magic that weave through your foes like a spider’s web. Reeling from your attack, your enemies move away from you... A strand of scintillating colors and gleaming lights clouds your enemies’ minds and forces them to move away."