This mentality needs to die

[I'm A Banana]

I think the same is true for game rules as well... The rules are the address. Get them right, and the players can muck around with whatever description works best for them (be it yours, or their own) without messing up game play.

Well, true, and this is better if the idea is to be correct.

But if the idea is to create a mental picture, saying it's the "big" house is a lot more useful than an address.

Creativity doesn't really exist without some ambiguity. It may create some confusion, but that is the price you pay for a high degree of creativity. It's why 2 + 2 = 4 isn't on display at the Louvre, and why the Mona Lisa is crap for finding out the shortest distance between two points.

Which kind of gets at the heart of a lot of recent edition dissonance (between 3e and 2e, too, though to a lesser degree). Some people want to approach D&D more like a creative process than like a mathematical one (though the math gets sprinkled on top), but others have a lot of fun with the mathematical process, and like the little bit of creativity sprinkled on top.

I don't think there'd be much argument if I said that 4e comes down on the "math" side of things pretty hard. For some groups, that's a godsend, because it reduces potential confusion. For other groups, that's a dealbreaker, because it also reduces potential creativity (which can't exist without potential confusion).

 

[pemerton]

I'm dreaming of a game where flavor text IS given as much priority as rules text. I think that would be a game I'd really enjoy.

The game is called HeroQuest 2e. All character abilities are free-form generated flavour text (ie there are no class lists, race lists, spell lists, ability lists, skill lists, equipment lists, etc, and hence no rules text associated with such game elements). Conflicts are resolved by the players pitting the flavour text on their PCs (which is numerically rated) against the GM's flavour text (which is also numerically rated).

If you're interested, there are a few reviews on RPG.net.

I don't think there'd be much argument if I said that 4e comes down on the "math" side of things pretty hard.

I'll disagree as far as skill use is concerned, especially in skill challenges and other non-combat-encounter contexts, but even in combat once DMG p 42 comes into play.

In these cases, it's all about the flavour text (my guy can do Athletic things, my guy is a great Acrobat, my guy is doing this very Stealthy thing, etc) and the GM and players jointly working with and interpreting this.

 

[Ourph]

Through episode 7, we have only seen the PCs attack objects: the four statues comprising the trap. Perhaps Chris is simply being consistent with his ruling that powers that target creatures can only target creatures. We'll know more once we see them attack an actual monster.

The target entry for a Melee Basic Attack is "one creature" as well.

In this particular case, with many of the players having had zero experience beforehand, easing them into the mechanics with basic attacks may have worked out very well.

A 1st level at-will power isn't really that complicated, especially for melee-focused classes. This may well be his reasoning, but if so, I think it's a bad choice.

 

[Hussar]

Ourph - having played recently a session with players who are not adept at adopting rules, and being forced to spend three hours fighting a single ogre and a pair of goblins, I can honestly say that SPEED is the most important thing.

 

[tomBitonti]

Which kind of gets at the heart of a lot of recent edition dissonance (between 3e and 2e, too, though to a lesser degree). Some people want to approach D&D more like a creative process than like a mathematical one (though the math gets sprinkled on top), but others have a lot of fun with the mathematical process, and like the little bit of creativity sprinkled on top.

I'd say that I agree with that.

From what I am seeing in the video, the players seem to be limiting their actions to their available powers. There is some in character playing, but there seems to be a lot of shuffling between power cards.

I'd say that the rigidity is deliberately built into the system, as a way to provide more predictable difficulties for encounters, to create a more uniform game play, and make the game more usable for a pick-up type environment. Those are clear benefits, while at the same time being a trade-off, in that both improvisation and flavor based readings of rules are limited.

Thx!

Patience, and Peace,

Tom Bitonti

 

[Mournblade94]

I wrote a post that got deleted/ I have stuff to say but I am so totally ripped right now on two bottles of wine, and 3 fantasitic imperial pints of Belhaven Scottish Ale that I am making no sense even to myself. I commend myself for creating this edit in english. The last one wwas not.

 

[Hussar]

I'd say that I agree with that.

From what I am seeing in the video, the players seem to be limiting their actions to their available powers. There is some in character playing, but there seems to be a lot of shuffling between power cards.

I'd say that the rigidity is deliberately built into the system, as a way to provide more predictable difficulties for encounters, to create a more uniform game play, and make the game more usable for a pick-up type environment. Those are clear benefits, while at the same time being a trade-off, in that both improvisation and flavor based readings of rules are limited.

Thx!

Patience, and Peace,

Tom Bitonti

Really? Honestly? When you first started playing RPG's. I mean, at your VERY FIRST SESSION, how much "thinking outside the box" did you do? How much did you go beyond the mechanics? Judging the game based on the fact that these are completely new players is a bit unfair don't you think?

All I know, is that in my first session of 4e, I pitched my own skill challenge at the DM, who rolled with it and we worked together to use the mechanics to detail out a rather complicated con game that my character wanted to run.

Now, I'm not a new gamer. Just new to 4e. So, I have no problem being pretty creative with the mechanics that are there.

But a completely new player? Fixating on the mechanics is par for the course in my experience. My Basic Magic User certainly wasn't doing anything out of the ordinary in my first session way back when. Other than being eaten by stirges as I recall.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I wrote a post that got deleted/ I have stuff to say but I am so totally ripped right now on two bottles of wine, and 3 fantasitic imperial pints of Belhaven Scottish Ale that I am making no sense even to myself. I commend myself for creating this edit in english. The last one wwas not.

GOOD ON YA!

Brothers and sisters...a round of applause for quality editing under the influence!

 

[SteveC]

You know, after watching the whole video, I think this is a major tempest in a teapot issue. It looks to be a fairly fun game for everyone involved, and Chris is mostly rolling with the punches. This thread makes a lot more out of the Darkfire issue than the people in the game did.

I noticed a number of rules issues with the game, but the thing was Chris made his decisions and kept things moving...which is a good GM trait. All in all, for not being experienced with 4E (for the most part) the players did fine--and seemed to be having fun. A game session is much more than a single ruling, and this game looks like it would have been _fun_ to be involved with. No, it wasn't perfect, but then again, what game is?

 

[Beginning of the End]

But a completely new player? Fixating on the mechanics is par for the course in my experience.

Assuming that there's an experienced GM, I have found exactly the opposite to be true: New players tend to learn the core mechanics of a game and then really latch onto the concept of "pretend to be your character". The experienced GM can take "I want to do X", translate it into game mechanics, and then tell them how to resolve it.

New players naturally tend towards immersive roleplaying.

(Nor should this be all that surprising: How often have we heard that RPGs are like cops 'n robbers? People roleplay all the time without any mechanical support.)

The exception to this was 4th Edition, where the dissociated mechanics kept forcing the players to focus on the mechanics instead of the game world. (This is because there are too many meaningful decisions to be made regarding mechanics that have no analog to the character's experience. These decisions can't be made while roleplaying immersively, they have to be made at the meta-game level.)

Inexperienced GMs, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. I find that the less experience a GM has, the more they will appreciate systems which provide encyclopedic answers to the question "how do I resolve this?" in a rote, step-by-step fashion. And they will fall back onto the basic, barebones mechanics of the system frequently. It's a safety-net and a comfort zone.

I obviously haven't played at a table with both inexperienced players and an inexperienced GM in years, but I would imagine that such games would tend to push the inexperienced players into the same mechanical mindset as the inexperienced GM: Since that's the only game to be played, that's what they'll end up playing.