Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4022243" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'll have another go, starting with the RM combat rules.Of course these can be interpreted in a Sim way. It can also be interpreted in a Gamist way, as RM combat can be highly competitive both between players (who try to mathematically optimise their performance) and in group play against the GM's monsters/NPCs - and correct parry/dodge choices becomes very important here. Under both interpretations, I would want to stress the difference from RQ, which has Attack and Parry as different skills, and therefore allows no gamism (or narrativism) because there is no meaningful choice to be made - just use your best numbers (more on this below).The RM mechanic's contribution to narrativism is this: a player is both empowered and obliged to split between attack and defence every round, and by so doing is able to impose a thematic significance on a combat (by dragging it out, by approaching it in a risky fashion, by relying on allies - ganging up can be very vicious in RM because of the way parrying multiple foes is handled). There is a marked contrast with RQ (my mainstay purist-for-system comparitor): RQ contains risky fights, safe fights, collaboration with allies, etc, but all this is determined by the GM's choice of adversary. RQ has no mechanic which allows the player to make choices that determine whether a combat is safe or risky, or one in which co-operation is necessary or redundant. D&D 3E has a few such mechanics (eg the Combat Expertise feat) but they have nothing like the same scope or ubiquity as OB vs parry in RM.Now, as I cheerfully concede the range of thematic payoff that can emerge from this sort of play is narrow: but honour, courage, loyalty and so on are there, and more themes can be present also if the combat is allowed to be interpreted at all metaphorically (eg the player of a Paladin making meanignful mechanical decisions in relation to a combat with a demon, which therefore determine the shape of the ensuing combat, is easily seen as addressing at least simple moral or religious themes).I will also cheefully concede that not all RM combat has the potential I describe above. It is mostly a feature of mid-to-high level play, in which PC skill numbers relative to typical adversary skill numbers are sufficiently high that the players have a range of meaningful choices to make of the sort I am trying to describe. Once you get to a situation where (for example) the only realistic option is to parry all out and hope for an open-ended high roll, narrativism by way of combat choice is gone.Again, only in certain circumstances or contexts, but I suspect ones that will come up fairly often. As I understand it, Second Wind will be a swift action (ie a free action, but one which precludes taking another such action in the same turn), able to be taken only when bloodied, which restores (half?) one's hit points taken.Thus, prior to using one's Second Wind one has a strong buffer against PC death. Once it's taken, PC death is definitely put on the table. But equally, choosing to forego using Second Wind when one could, in order to perform some other swift action is a way of putting death on the table. Of course this all feeds into gamist goodness, but (similarly to what I was trying to explain about RM's combat mechanics) I think it also has the potential to support a type of (again, thematically somewhat narrow) narrativism via meaningful choices which constitute a statement, by the player, about thematically important matters such as courage, loyalty, honour, sacrifice, selfishness (do I Second Wind, or use a swift action that would aid my ally?), etc. Core 3E really has no mechanics that support this sort of play.Well, most RPGs introduce a finite set of themes to be explored (eg The Dying Earth isn't really going to explore the same themes as HeroQuest, is it? It's far more whimsical).Perhaps we're not using "theme" in exactly the same way, but it seems to me that as long as the game leaves it up to the players how they resolve the themes, or leaves them free to make their own statements bout those themes in the course of play, we're talking about (again, perhaps "low concept") narrativist play.I agree with your first sentence, and have tried to explain how I think this is the case. As to the second sentence, I think in a game like D&D there isn't really a WHY to combat, anymore than there is a WHY to the X-Men getting into a punchup every issue. Combat is the default situation, if you like (I'm simplifying a little bit, because as my earlier post noted I think social challenges might be an important addition to 4e and its narrativist potential - in this case conflict is inevitable, but part of the WHY might be the choice of social challenge rather than combat challenge - but bear with me).The narrativist play therefore has to take place within a presupposition of combat (just as, in The Dying Earth, it takes place within a presupposition of wandering from wierd township to wierd township). The thematic content has to emerge within the context of the combat - ie what answer to the thematic questions is the player able to give by the way they resolve the combat? Hence the need for multiple approaches to combat resolution, by way of sophisticated mechanics.In terms of D&D, I see this as a really big step. Given that the sort of themes I think can be put into play in the game are themes like courage, loyalty, etc, alignment is completely fatal to narrativist play in respect of them, because it already answers all the interesting questions.I'm a bit of a kit skeptic, because in many cases they seemed to either give HERO/Paladin style personality limitations, and/or licence GM use of force against the character (or at least this was how I tended to experience them). I can see how they could be used to provide a built-in bang, though - do you know if many 2nd ed players/GMs used them in that way?Which they can be, if what those options do is give the player the tools to offer different sorts of thematic answers to questions posed in combat. Not having seen the 4e power suites yet, I can't judge - but if at character build you get to choose between a power that only works when flanking (eg some sort of sneak attack variant), and a power that only works when you are in melee with a foe but no ally is likewise (eg a pointblank cone that would scorch your allies were they there), then character creation is empowering the player to make choices which will then be relevant to addressing such thematic questions as whether self-reliance (and perhaps, ultimately, selfishness) and heroism are consistent or at odds.If none of the above helps, maybe it's just a bad theory. But I must confess, the more I try to explain it the more my belief in it is being reinforced, because it does gel with experiences I have had in my own gaming.There's also the question of whether 4e will really satisfy the sorts of design constraints my theory imposes (eg what will the final power suites look like?). Reading W&M made me midlly optimistic, as have some remarks from some of the designers, but I can't say anything stronger than that.</blockquote>

Verification