The "real" reason the game has changed.

[ProfessorCirno]

The biggest memory I have of 3e and narrative control was in finding that Spell Thematics is a feat, and that you aren't supposed to change how your spells look.

That's about the point in which I noted that my issues with the game were not merely mechanical.

 

[Hussar]

As I said earlier, my favourite part of 3e, and the reason I prefer it to any version of D&D that came before it, is because it has a mechanical answer for just about any question I could come up with. No more relying on DM fiat to solve situations was a MAJOR improvement in the game for me.

Since that time, I've become less enamoured to the idea that the game should dictate narrative.

 

[Abraxas]

What you can't do, however, is do it by RAW.

Yes, you can - the problem is deciding what the RAW actually mean - and what the RAW means is affected by play experience/environment.

Regardless - I'm curious about what caused the people I game with to go from trying wierd stuff/thinking outside the boxes on their character sheets to only trying what is on their character sheets.

Initially I thought it was the new system - but we've been playing more or less every other weekend since 4E came out, and people are pretty comfortable with the system. Then I thought it was that they didn't know about the mystical magical pg 42 - so I pointed it out to them and got . . . nothing.

Now I'm starting to believe that it is because there is a power to do everything (more or less - it's a perception thing). You want to stun someone - you select an encounter power that stuns. You want to slide someone - you select a power with a slide effect. You want to knock someone down - you have your nifty Kick'em in the Junk and Watch'em Fall attack power. So, for the people I play 4E with, they somehow got the impression that they need Daily/Encounter/Utility Power X to achieve Y.
Somehow they got this set of gaming blinders on - now i just want to figure out how that happened. Or they could just not really want to invest that much anymore and they'll tell me so when I ask them next session.

As for player's taking narrative control - in our good ol days, some of these same players exerted so much narrative control that they made the game balance on one leg while juggling chainsaws

 

[BryonD]

It would be nice if Robin D Law's writing was so fantastic that it could time travel, but, barring that, where in the 3.5 or 3.0 DMG does it expressely state to "say yes" to players?

I'd say that 3.5 didn't assume you needed it expressly stated to get the point. If you are saying the point isn't there, then that is how you see it and that's no issue to me.

Look, I already stated repeatedly that you can do the spoon trick in 3.5. Of course you can. What you can't do, however, is do it by RAW.

I think you are missing my point. As far as I am concerned reskinning the thieves tools into a different form that functions in the precise same manner as thieves tools is still 100% within RAW.

If you say you campaign has no elves, but it does have forest people, who happen to have exactly the same mechanics as elves, you have not left RAW.

I allowed arcane spellcasters to use "arcane blasters" of a sort that were simple, cheap magical rods. And arcane spellcaster could use a move action to "charge" it. They could then fire a single blast for 1d8 damage as a normal ranged attack. Mechanically it was exactly a light crossbow. *horrors* not RAW......

What I am not saying is that this is impossible to do in 3e D&D. Of course you can and I said as much. What I did say is that the rules are pretty much against you if you try.

Actually you said

Personally, I find that since mechanics have been divorced from flavour, it becomes much easier to bring my character forward than in 3e. In one example, my somewhat insane rogue believes that he is a disciple of Kord and that his wooden spoon was once used by His Mighty Thews to eat from the character's stewpot. To open locks, I simply tap them with the "holy" relic and they pop open. That sort of thing.

You were talking about mechanics being divorced from flavor and how that gave you options 3E didn't. The whole RAW argument came later as an attempt to change the subject.

And if your DM sticks with the rules, then the player is SOL. Sticking with the rules should not be a sign of a bad DM in my opinion.

Again, I 100% agree that if your DM sucks, the players are SOL. That doesn't really contribute to a comparison of systems. Sticking to the rules is fine, foolishly misinterpreting the intent and spirit of the rules is another, and far more fitting to the point of discussion.

Going back to the specific example of the Thieves' tools, it does not say that they are required in 4e. It says to use it properly, you need them and having them grants a bonus, but, it does not forbid you from using the skill if you do not have them. In 3e, you are expressly forbidden from using the skill without thieves tools. Right in the skill description, you "require at least a simple tool of the appropriate sort". 3e mechanics are proscriptive, not descriptive. They hard wire the narrative into the mechanics.

As to 4E, I think I'll take other people's word over yours. It is easy to see how 4E would "not require" it and yet give a bonus and work out exactly the same mathematically as "requiring" it and yet letting you try without at a penalty.

And you are either missing or avoiding the point that the example you gave DID require an implement. The fact that you reskinned the implement is completely irrelevant to the mechanics.

BryonD, you like the narrative that is produced by the 3e ruleset. I get that. That's groovy. But, the narrative is no more "open" in 3e than any other edition. You attempt an action, resolve the action through the mechancs and those mechanics define how you resolve that action.

I didn't claim it is more open. YOU said 4E was better, my point was equivalence. Thanks for agreeing.

In 4e, they actually don't. I could use Theivery to open a lock by singing to it.

Again, if you describe the flavor that way, you can do that in 3E. Now, you HAVE made an important change here because there is no implement at all. I'd probably want a feat or something for that. Or just have the player agree to always to the penalty. Which would also be fine. And it also may end up be mechanically equivalent to foregoing the implement bonus of the 4E side.

Granted, I can do the same thing in 3e, but only if the DM is willing to tie up the mechanics and dump them in a trunk somewhere.

Or is a good enough DM to work with it intelligently.

 

[BryonD]

The biggest memory I have of 3e and narrative control was in finding that Spell Thematics is a feat, and that you aren't supposed to change how your spells look.

That's about the point in which I noted that my issues with the game were not merely mechanical.

I hate that feat. It is completely stupid.

It certainly serves your argument. I readily admit that.

But, I'll also readily admit that WotC put out a TON of crap in the general mix of 3E material.

By that same reasoning I have specifically pointed out that, for example, I don't think the absurdity of Come And Get It is a reasonable criticism of 4E.

There is always a threat of designing a new system that actually takes away the ability that the characters already had in the name of "offering" it to them. That is a horrid mistake. (NWPs did this when they came along)

Before that feat came along defining spell looks was an assumed. When that feat came along I cussed WotC for a few minutes and then went about pretending they had never made that blunder.

 

[BryonD]

Since that time, I've become less enamoured to the idea that the game should dictate narrative.

I gotta say I'm boggled by this claim.

In my games for 10 years now the narrative has absolutely dictated the game. Yes, there are mechanics for [sarcastic]everything[/sarcastic]. But those mechanics just lie dormant waiting for the narrative to call upon them.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

By that same reasoning I have specifically pointed out that, for example, I don't think the absurdity of Come And Get It is a reasonable criticism of 4E.

This is funny, because not only do I love Come And Get It, it's a perfect example of something that puts the narrative power entirely in the player's hands. It's a power that includes the players in the process rather then exclude them. It gets their brains moving. It makes them think outside the box. How does Come And Get It work? Ask the player who's using it!

Come And Get It is hilariously the answer to the problem of Spell Thematics, and here you are snubbing it.

As was said, 4e works best with creative players.

 

[BryonD]

This is funny, because not only do I love Come And Get It, it's a perfect example of something that puts the narrative power entirely in the player's hands. It's a power that includes the players in the process rather then exclude them. It gets their brains moving. It makes them think outside the box. How does Come And Get It work? Ask the player who's using it!

Come And Get It is hilariously the answer to the problem of Spell Thematics, and here you are snubbing it.

Ok, WOW

I've been in numerous debates in which 4E fans consider it a low blow to even bring up Come and Get It. So, if you think it is great then obviously you are not very representative of either group. Good to know.

As was said, 4e works best with creative players.

Asinine conclusion there. If CAGI IS the point here, then creativity isn't the question, the ability to turn off all rational consideration and let the mechanics force any level of absurdity is.

I am quite certain that every person in my game can think of multiple ways to justify CAGI under any circumstance. It isn't that we can't. It is that the radical divorce from story integrity that comes with it is opposite of what we enjoy.

 

[shadzar]

Somehow they got this set of gaming blinders on - now i just want to figure out how that happened. Or they could just not really want to invest that much anymore and they'll tell me so when I ask them next session.

As for player's taking narrative control - in our good ol days, some of these same players exerted so much narrative control that they made the game balance on one leg while juggling chainsaws

It could be the presentation, or the fact if they played earlier editions, they are getting quite tired of changing the way they play and are now not really play so much as going through the motions. Likewise as you say they could be viewing the system and looking at things they want to do and finding "there's an app for that" within the powers, so really don't feel like trying to do anything else since it seems everything has already been figured out so you just pick what looks close rather than having to be creative and come up with your own stuff.

Just dont let it cloud you before you ask with all the ideas that "could be", so you can calmly find out why it is.

 

[Hussar]

I didn't claim it is more open. YOU said 4E was better, my point was equivalence. Thanks for agreeing.

Whoa, hang on there. I made no such claim. I said that it was different. I said that it fit my playstyle better (now). I did not make any categorical claim that it was better. Different yes, but not better.

As to 4E, I think I'll take other people's word over yours. It is easy to see how 4E would "not require" it and yet give a bonus and work out exactly the same mathematically as "requiring" it and yet letting you try without at a penalty.

Well, since the entirety of the rules has been quoted in this thread, it's not really a question of taking anyone's word. But, hey, thanks for the shot.

Again, I 100% agree that if your DM sucks, the players are SOL. That doesn't really contribute to a comparison of systems. Sticking to the rules is fine, foolishly misinterpreting the intent and spirit of the rules is another, and far more fitting to the point of discussion.

"Foolishly misinterpreting"? Really? Saying that a wooden spoon does not constitute an improvised tool required for the use of a skill is foolishly misinterpreting the skill?

I'd say that 3.5 didn't assume you needed it expressly stated to get the point. If you are saying the point isn't there, then that is how you see it and that's no issue to me.

Well, considering that it took about twenty years of gaming for this idea to percolate its way into the gamer gestalt, I'd say that making the point expressly was pretty necessary. Also considering that it runs counter to most of the gaming advice contained in the previous two editions means that it's hardly something that was commonly practiced.

So, where in 3e is it advised that the DM should say yes to player ideas? I'm honestly curious where you get this idea. In my mind, the books were pretty careful to say, "stick to these rules whenever possible".