The "real" reason the game has changed.

[Hussar]

OK - I see where you're coming from. I, however, would just call it an improvised tool unique to the character and treat it's use just like any other use of the Open Locks skill. It doesn't need to be classified as Ex, Su or Sp - especially if it's presence makes the game more fun for everyone.

Honestly, I think I'd do the same thing. But, that doesn't change the fact that you're doing an end run around the mechanics. By not classifying it, you are ignoring the mechanics. By allowing it in the first place you are, at the very least, stretching the definition of "improvised tool" a fair bit.

And that's totally, 100% groovy. I hope I would do the same thing, although, to be fair, I probably wouldn't since I'd look at the 3ed mechanics as a bit more fixed than that. We tried to play within RAW as much as possible.

It's never that you couldn't do it in 3e. It's that you couldn't do it in 3e without giving RAW a bit of a holiday. Now, not caring about that is perfectly fine and a good way to play for some groups. Other groups do care about the rules a bit more and that might actually take away from their games to allow this amount of flexibility in the rules. To each his own.

 

[Abraxas]

Honestly, I think I'd do the same thing. But, that doesn't change the fact that you're doing an end run around the mechanics. By not classifying it, you are ignoring the mechanics. By allowing it in the first place you are, at the very least, stretching the definition of "improvised tool" a fair bit.

I'll give you it's stretching the definition - but it doesn't ignore mechanics. What type of ability is using the Open Locks (or any other) Skill - Ex, Su or Sp?

If I absolutely had to classify it I'd make it Ex - Why? because it preserve the fun, and hey - using a spoon to open a lock is pretty extraordinary - but I wouldn't have to - as far as I'm concerned it meets the requirements for using the Open Locks skill.

Oh well...

 

[pemerton]

OK - I see where you're coming from. I, however, would just call it an improvised tool unique to the character and treat it's use just like any other use of the Open Locks skill. It doesn't need to be classified as Ex, Su or Sp - especially if it's presence makes the game more fun for everyone.

Fair enough.

Unlike Hussar, I haven't played enough 3E to have a strong sense of how I'd handle it. In Rolemaster or HARP, though, I wouldn't allow it - Open Locks in these games is training in a particular technical skill. If you want your PC to be able to open locks through "good luck" or "magic", you spend DPs on spells. (As it happens, Rolemaster also doesn't have a good system for innate or unlearned magic, but that's just a gap in the ruleset. HARP does, and I'd use that.)

Why do I respond this way? Some of it is probably a personality defect of excessive deference to rules, but it's also because part of the pleasure of a game like RM is seeing the world unfold through the rules, and once you start to allow a wedge between the two (Hussar's spoon-wedge!) you risk losing that pleasure.

 

[pemerton]

I think I put a lot of value in being able to picture the game world unfolding in my head.

I think that I do, but I suspect not as much as you. As long as I've got a general idea of what's going on, I'm happy - especially in combat - for rules talk to act as a bit of a placeholder (I suspect a bit like Mallus described upthread).

When I was GMing Rolemaster it was similar - which meant that we often had only a very general sense of where each individual was on the battlefield, because RM doesn't depend upon positioning in the way that 4e does, and so I often just sketched up a map on scrap paper and drew crosses or initials to mark the starting points of the various characters, and the occassional arrow to indicate significant movement.

So as far as this part of combat is concerned, 4e gives me a better sense of the gameworld than RM did. On the other hand, RM mechanics do give a lot more information about the details of injuries than 4e!

I think my tastes run to heavily-procedural games; "when X happens, do Y".

<snip>

That's what I've tried to do in my hack - writing specific sub-systems that are triggered by certain events occurring in the game world.

I think my appproach is a bit more freeform - at least outside of combat - but I think this is more just a habit from traditional play than a conscious preference. I'm trying to get a bit more procedural in the way I run skill challenges, in particular to try to get every PC present in the situation engaged with the challenge.

I like how the 4e rulebooks present exploration in a type of procedure. Even though it didn't tell me anything new, and I haven't literally followed the procedure in play, I think it helped me reflect on the role of exploration in the sessions I'd been running, and hence to consciously prepare an exploration-heavy scenario.

I read and enjoyed that account of play; I tried to think of some questions to ask but everything seemed straight-forward and obvious! I think that points to the fact that 4E can easily be used to run exploration-based games.

Thanks, and agreed.

 

[Bluenose]

I'd agree with you that 4E works well with, as I called it, "pop quiz" roleplaying. There IS a push to think of flavorful things. BUT, that push is built around the players responding to the mechanics. X happens because the mechanics say so. Now you explain it. There is certainly an element of mental challenge to that. No doubt. And I can see how that could be fun.

But, for role playing games, I like fully open ended responsive mechanics. Games that are just about "what do you do?" with no push at all from the mechanics. And then the mechanics are there to model the results.

X happens because the mechanics say so is a perfectly viable approach to a role-playing Game. Having X happen despite what the mechanics say is possibly less so. My observation from 4e games is that generally people do say what they're trying to do and then roll to see whether it happens, so that the mechanics model the results. In fact that's something I see in most RPGs.

I'm personally of the opinion that the mechanics should come first, the explanation after. You give a wonderful, in-character, dramatic speech to try to persuade a group of farmers to help you fight the bandits who oppress them, and then roll a 1 on your check. Better, I think, to roll the dice and then make a speech appropriate to the result - in this case, persistently calling the village by the wrong name, or something similar.

Edit: Actually, I should amplify slightly. When I'm GMing, I like people to tell me what they're trying. If it's not obvious how to handle it by RAW, I come up with a way. They roll the dice. Then the narrative comes in, as they describe what actually happened.

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.

I disagree. I want the game to dictate the narrative. Note that this doesn't mean I want a lot of rules, but I want a mechanism to resolve the action, and then I want to describe what that resolution means in narrative terms.

I also disagree that 3e had a mechanical answer for just about anything, but that's irrelevant.

 

[clearstream]

I find the OP to be somewhat (not overly, but to a degree) disingenuous; as others have noted. If time really is your issue then you shouldn't be arguing editions you should be arguing rulesets. For example, play Savage Worlds. That's quick to prepare and quick to play.

 

[Hussar]

Gonna jump the fence here for a second.

There is a problem with disassociating mechanics from narrative in that if the players are not fully engaged, or lazy, or just plain tired after a long day, the game can very quickly turn into nothing more than complicated Bingo calling.

Also, there can be a real disconnect when the narrative that the player has decided upon becomes excessively unbelievable. For example, in our current campaign, one of the players took a Bard and then narrated his players in a sort of "killing joke" fashion. He'd make people's head explode from embarrassment. Very Celtic bard tradition sort of thing.

The problem was, the adventure meant facing giant slugs and bullywugs. I mean, how much offense can a giant slug really take when you insult it's mother? It became something of a distraction at the table and resulted in a lot of jokes about the mechanics. In other words, it really drew us out of the game.

In 3e, that same bard simply would not be able to affect the giant slug. His abilities would be language dependent. It's not much different than the rogue trying to sneak attack undead. It just doesn't work. And, to a large degree, I think most people can see why it works that way. It certainly makes a fair bit of sense.

But, 4e divorces mechanics from narrative, so, insulting the slug causes the slug pain.

There's certainly strengths and weaknesses in both the 3e and the 4e approach. I think, and this is my personal opinion only, that 4e allows a lot more flexiblity for the players to narrate what's going on in the game. On the downside, 4e allows a lot more flexibility for the players to narrate what's going on in the game.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm personally of the opinion that the mechanics should come first, the explanation after. You give a wonderful, in-character, dramatic speech to try to persuade a group of farmers to help you fight the bandits who oppress them, and then roll a 1 on your check. Better, I think, to roll the dice and then make a speech appropriate to the result - in this case, persistently calling the village by the wrong name, or something similar.

Here's how I handle that:

After the player makes the speech for his PC, I consider the reaction of the NPCs. If the words are obviously enough to convince the NPC, there's no need for a roll. The opposite is also true - if the words are obviously not going to work, there's no need for a roll. If I think the NPC's reaction is in doubt, then I ask for a roll.

A simple example:

A simple farmer's toiling in his field. The PCs are tired, wounded, and looking for rest at the nearest inn. They hail the farmer: "Hail!" I make a reaction roll to set his initial disposition and get something low. I decide that the reaction roll means that the farmer doesn't like wandering mercenaries, is busy, and needs to get his harvest in before the frost; he doesn't want to waste any time talking. The farmer looks up, grunts, and ignores them.

One of the PCs grabs the farmer by the hair and puts a knife to his neck. "Where's the closest inn?"

I use my DM's judgement, considering what I know about the NPC, and decide that he'd tell them.

Or: One of the PCs calls out to the farmer. "I know you're busy, but if you direct us to the nearest inn, there'll be a shiny silver piece in it for you."

I use my DM's judgement, considering what I know about the NPC, and decide that he'd tell them.

Or: One of the PCs calls out to the farmer. "Where's the nearest inn?"

I already know that the farmer isn't going to talk to them, so he continues to ignore them.

More complicated:

The PCs are trying to rally the peasants to take up arms against some bandits. The PCs might make a great argument, but asking people to risk life and limb is difficult, so I'm not sure as DM how they would react. I call for a check.

They key for me is: did the actions of the PCs trigger any kind of internal conflict in the NPC? In the first three examples I don't think they did; the farmer wants to tell the PCs, or not, based on their actions and the farmer's disposition. No need for a roll. In the latter example, I think there is a conflict there - the farmers would rather not fight, but they are being oppressed and the PC's words are convincing, so we roll the dice to see which way that plays out.

*

I'm not sure if there's a big difference between the two approaches. In my experience, if you roll first and narrate after, there's a danger of omitting the narration, or having it feel tacked on. (I have been through too many Duels of Wits where it went something like: "What are you doing? Point? Me too. I'm rolling Persuasion, how about you? Same thing, eh. Cool. I got 4 successes - you? Okay, I'll reduce my Disposition by 3. Great. Next round - what are you doing?")

However, one danger in the way I do it is that the actual words can get lost after we add up modifiers to the roll. There have been times in my hack where I have to ask the player, "Okay - what did you say again?"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Also, there can be a real disconnect when the narrative that the player has decided upon becomes excessively unbelievable. For example, in our current campaign, one of the players took a Bard and then narrated his players in a sort of "killing joke" fashion. He'd make people's head explode from embarrassment. Very Celtic bard tradition sort of thing.

The problem was, the adventure meant facing giant slugs and bullywugs. I mean, how much offense can a giant slug really take when you insult it's mother? It became something of a distraction at the table and resulted in a lot of jokes about the mechanics. In other words, it really drew us out of the game.

In 3e, that same bard simply would not be able to affect the giant slug. His abilities would be language dependent. It's not much different than the rogue trying to sneak attack undead. It just doesn't work. And, to a large degree, I think most people can see why it works that way. It certainly makes a fair bit of sense.

But, 4e divorces mechanics from narrative, so, insulting the slug causes the slug pain.

Unless the spell specifies otherwise, a 3.5Ed bard's magical effects don't depend upon understanding*. The use of magical words & gestures of power make the spell's effects essentially universal. (I've run 3.5Ed bards that played flute wordlessly, told limericks, spoke haikus or quickly painted symbols on surfaces...)

Certainly, you can choose to have a spell's effects limited by the understanding of the target, but that is self-imposed, not a limitation by the rules themselves.




* those that do are generally telling the target to do something; altering behavior.

 

[Aeolius]

... so, insulting the slug causes the slug pain.

Throwing a little verbal a-salt on the slug, then?