NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9096303" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this might be directed to some of the examples I've provided, and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s commentary that points in similar directions. If I'm wrong, apologies - maybe what I say in this post will be interesting nevertheless.As best I recall, Manbearcat and I first interacted in this thread: <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-i-like-skill-challenges-as-a-noncombat-resolution-mechanic.326200/page-5" target="_blank">https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-i-like-skill-challenges-as-a-noncombat-resolution-mechanic.326200/page-5</a> That was where we discovered that we had each, independently, arrived at much the same view as to the "inner logic" of 4e D&D as a RPG. Some of the things that we had picked up on, as per that and many subsequent discussions, plus a shared play experience (<a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-chamberlain-the-king-and-the-dragon-drobe.347648/" target="_blank">https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-chamberlain-the-king-and-the-dragon-drobe.347648/</a>):*The way that PC build elements embed the PCs within situations of thematic tension and potency, that have no particular resolution built into them; *The way that the default setting, as presented in the PHB, MM and DMG (and as explained in the Worlds & Monster "preview", which is one of the best GMing books produced for D&D), creates the "stage" and the material for those thematic conflicts to be established, pursued and resolved; *The role of play-authored quests, which fairly obviously connect to the preceding two points; *The obvious similarities between skill challenges and other forms of "closed scene" resolution (such as HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, the Burning Wheel Duel of Wits, etc), which rely on a certain "looseness" of framing and which cannot work if the default method of resolution is for the GM to work out what happens based on reference to notes/map key/etc (you can see this being discussed in the 2012 thread that I linked to just above); *The transparency of the combat resolution mechanics, which (i) by default, provide a dramatic narrative of heroes-under-pressure-who-then-dig-deep-and-rally-to-overcome-their-opponents, (ii) give players a tremendous amount of latitude in deciding what sorts of actions to declare and thus how any given combat will actually unfold from moment to moment, and (iii) lead to the thematic concerns/orientation of players and their PCs being manifested in play, rather than having to be imposed via rules-negation/ignoring or rules-independent narration - the first time D&D has actually achieved this out of the tin.There's probably more that could be said, but that's the gist. The influence of (then) contemporary RPG design, and especially Forge-informed design, seems obvious - and was borne out by remarks by Rob Heinsoo at the time of launch about indie RPG influence on the game. (He also noted how the presentation of the game departs from the focus of indie RPGs.)The DMG2 elaborates on some of this, although it also heads in a "shared narration/worldbuilding" direction that is probably optional relative to the points I've made.My view is that a good chunk of the above - and hence a good prediction of the ensuing controversy - was foreshadowed by Ron Edwards in <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">these</a> <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">passages</a>:if Simulationist-facilitating design is not involved, then the whole picture changes. Step On Up is actually quite similar, in social and interactive terms, to Story Now. Gamist and Narrativist play often share the following things: *Common use of player Author Stance (Pawn or non-Pawn) to set up the arena for conflict. This isn't an issue of whether Author (or any) Stance is employed at all, but rather when and for what. *Fortune-in-the-middle during resolution, to whatever degree - the point is that Exploration as such can be deferred, rather than established at every point during play in a linear fashion. *More generally, Exploration overall is negotiated in a casual fashion through ongoing dialogue, using system for input (which may be constraining), rather than explicitly delivered by system per se. *Reward systems that reflect player choices (strategy, aesthetics, whatever) rather than on in-game character logic or on conformity to a pre-stated plan of play. Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates Narrativist play in a number of ways. *It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too. *It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience of the action. *It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens in tandem with the real-people statements. All of the above can be seen in 4e. Just giving some examples in order of those seven dot points:*Picking up on a GM framing into a player-authored quest, or helping to establish one, will often involve author stance (ie the player declares the action in order to help sharpen thematic relevance and conflict, and then retrofits the requisite character motivation); *Come and Get It - why the NPC/creature moves towards the PC can be resolved, ad hoc and casually, in the course of resolution, without being built into the system element (the attack power) per se; *Skill challenges, as per the examples and discussion in the 2012 thread I linked to, or the Yan-C-Bin example in this thread; *Magic item wishlists; *Damage on a miss; *The use of all sort of player-side "widgets" (powers, action points, healing surges etc) that permit the thematic meaning of the basic resolution elements to vary from conflict to conflict as the player makes choices that reflect what they take to be at stake for their PC; *The role of checks in skill challenges, again as per the examples and discussions I've pointed to.These are some of the obvious ways in which 4e is resolutely non-simulationist in its approach to action resolution, and hence facilitative of "story now" RPGing. And they were and remain hugely controversial.</blockquote>

Verification