Why I'm done with 4e

[Ourph]

For my group, we didn't even try running our first 4E game until 6 months after publication, so we've only been playing for a year.

Yeah, but some people got a head-start on hating it. In some circles, the lead time was almost a year pre-launch.

 

[JohnSnow]

Interesting thread, although I confess to not having read the entire thing. However, I'm prompted to make a comment on the "narrativism" of 4e that I know probably won't satisfy some folks, but I feel it needs to be said anyway. Forgive me if it's completely redundant...

Fourth Edition separates, rather drastically, player choice from character choice, especially when the martial power source is involved. What do I mean by that? Let me give some examples.

Martial Daily & Encounter powers: Almost by definition, there is nothing stopping martial powers from being used repeatedly. Hence, most characters would do nothing but use their "best moves" constantly. However, this doesn't fit with what we see in fiction or even reality when it comes to swordsmen and martial artists.

Most trained fighters have a few relatively straight-forward moves that they can pull off all the time. In addition, each usually has some signature "special moves" that are highly situation dependent. This is objectively true. Once you acknowledge this, the question becomes: how do you model such a thing in a GAME?

Option 1) Leave it entirely up to the discretion of the referee what is "allowed" at any given time.

Option 2) Go strictly simulationist, and allow the player to use the power whenever the situation is correct. That means the DM describes the situation ahead of time, works out the physics, and fusses over the exact mental state of the player's opponent from round to round.

Option 3) Give the player a power that he can build up to by having his character take certain actions to set it up. This puts the enabling move into the player's hands, but feels like the character is doing something.

Option 4) Give the player a power that he can choose to use at any time, but only infrequently. In the game world, the character is only aware that he's gotten lucky or fortunate. In other words, things have "worked out" for him.

Mostly, this is a matter of Agency (or "Narrative Control"). Who should get to decide when the character's cool powers come into play? The DM? Or the Player? Without going into a long, exhaustive discussion, let's just say that old school D&D (OD&D thru 2e) opts for Option 1, 3e leans to Option 2 (or 3 kinda), and Fourth Edition fully embraces Option 4.

In addition, Fourth Edition offers guidelines to DMs (the aforementioned p.42 of the DMG) for how to handle situations the rules don't cover with the DM's permission. Older editions of D&D could have benefited from guidelines like this, but they weren't there - because Gygax and co. pretty much thought that any experienced player would want to play a magic-user - so cool stunt mechanics were unnecessary.

D&D (up until 3e) has always been more "narrativist" than "simulationist." Especially on some things - if you want to be bludgeoned over the head, read Gary's 1e discussion of "what hit points represent." Now, to be fair, it's also quite "gamist." Unlike many "narrativist" games, players don't have a lot of control over the game world (although this can vary from group to group). And 4e still remains simulationist enough that the setting of an encounter is still largely determined by the DM. In a truly narrativist game, there'd be no issue with a martial controller, because the player could just decide that there happened to be difficult terrain in a particular section of the battlefield. It just wasn't hindering anyone until the player brought it up.

However, that's just a little too much "flexible reality" for most D&D groups.

There's not really a "better" or "worse" here. There are just different styles. Personally, as a player I like having more control over what I can do, and as a DM, I like giving my players some predefined options they can use.

When they come into play, "Stunts" like those presented on p.42 should be viable options for a PC to use - meaning they should be comparable to using his powers - the "Rule of Cool" certainly applies here.

However, I freely admit that I'm glad that, absent player stunts, Fourth Edition doesn't default to "Ok, I whack him" or "Okay, I shoot him." Which IS what, IMO, what tends to happen in early editions.

And if I have to jump through some corner case hoops or come up with a few "narrativist" explanations to make that happen, I'll live.

Obviously, opinions differ, YMMV, and all that...

 

[Garthanos]

(I'm actually ignorant here, White Wolf Games are generally more narrative focused right? If not, insert better example here.)

Investigate the Game called Fate or Spirit of the Century... lots of free material on line. It has a more narrative cast to it.. much more. WoD is probably not what you are thinking.

 

[Scribble]

Personally I don't think Narrativism should be on the list. I think that the simulationist, and gamist ways are the only actual design methods, with degree of Narrativism being more of an "in play" thing.

 

[pawsplay]

D&D (up until 3e) has always been more "narrativist" than "simulationist." Especially on some things - if you want to be bludgeoned over the head, read Gary's 1e discussion of "what hit points represent."

Actually, I would consider that quite simulationist. Level of abstraction has almost nothing to do with the goal of the mechanic. Hit points simulate powerful heroes being hard to kill by repeated attacks. It would be narrativist if player hit points waxed and waned according to dramatic events within the scene. In any case, GNS is mostly considered yesterday's paradigm. From an immersive standpoint, it doesn't matter what hit points represent, provided the course of the battle and the outcome aren't jarring.

As to, "Why this thread?", I think threads about leaving editions are at least as potentially interesting as threads as to why people adopt them. There would be far less negativity if people were less inclined to jump and defend their game from someone who doesn't like it, rather than joining the discussion as an interested and engaged party.

 

[Scribble]

As to, "Why this thread?", I think threads about leaving editions are at least as potentially interesting as threads as to why people adopt them.There would be far less negativity if people were less inclined to jump and defend their game from someone who doesn't like it, rather than joining the discussion as an interested and engaged party.

I kind of agree with what you're saying but would rather say:

There would be far less negativity if people were less inclined to jump and defend their subjective point as objective, rather than joining the discussion as an interested and engaged party speaking subjectively.

I don't think it's one sided at all. People always seem to default to my experience with a game is the "true" experience.

 

[JohnSnow]

Actually, I would consider that quite simulationist. Level of abstraction has almost nothing to do with the goal of the mechanic. Hit points simulate powerful heroes being hard to kill by repeated attacks. It would be narrativist if player hit points waxed and waned according to dramatic events within the scene. In any case, GNS is mostly considered yesterday's paradigm. From an immersive standpoint, it doesn't matter what hit points represent, provided the course of the battle and the outcome aren't jarring.

Well, perhaps. But the whole result of mechanics like healing surges and, more to the point, Second Wind, is to give the players narrative control over the scene. While they don't strictly get to recover just "because it's dramatically appropriate," they get to have a "dramatically appropriate recovery." The abstract nature of hit points - and until 3e, they were always abstract - makes that feasible.

Similarly, the abstract nature of said hit points is similarly what enables "martial healing." The exact nature of the combat's events isn't known until it's completely over. By the way, Second Wind lets a player dictate a dramatic comeback for his character. But more important is the death save - which allows for a surge to be spent if a natural 20 is rolled. This preserves the possibility of a dramatic recovery that surprises even the players - as opposed to just their characters.

Fourth Edition has recognized that D&D's primary strength is an action-adventure role playing game and thus it aims for a cinematic feel to combat - something that wouldn't be entirely inappropriate in a Conan, Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean, or Three Musketeers movie. Clearly, that's what the designers are going for. It may not be to everyone's taste.

However, it still tries to remain a tactical game - something some people seem to have a problem with. Which is a might odd considering D&D started as a supplement to tabletop wargaming.

 

[Garthanos]

The abstract nature of hit points - and until 3e, they were always abstract - makes that feasible.

Huh, I didnt play 3e though I did buy WOT from the d20 era. I am pretty sure hit points were considered abstractions of skill and luck and energy (with just a few nicks and scratches) the same as it always was?

 

[Harlekin]

Actually, I would consider that quite simulationist. Level of abstraction has almost nothing to do with the goal of the mechanic. Hit points simulate powerful heroes being hard to kill by repeated attacks. It would be narrativist if player hit points waxed and waned according to dramatic events within the scene. In any case, GNS is mostly considered yesterday's paradigm. From an immersive standpoint, it doesn't matter what hit points represent, provided the course of the battle and the outcome aren't jarring.

Large numbers of HP don't simulate anything. Notice that every RPG out there that tried to be simulationist went away from exploding hitpoints. Whenever AD&D/D&D was criticized for not being realistic, Gobs of HP was usually the first thing on the list (Armor making you harder to hit was usually the second). HP and AC of course survived and thrived because they work, they make games exciting. They are pretty much the ultimate gamist rule and one of the reasons every edition of (A)D&D was firmly in the G corner of the GNS triangle.

The only reason, hit points are not jarring to most D&D players, is that we have played with then for 25+ years and are used to this gamist construct. Abstractions become less jarring with use. I'm sure in 10 years, most D&D players will wonder what the issue with martial encounter power was (and gripe about the new abstraction introduced in D&D 6.37).

 

[resistor]

Personally I don't think Narrativism should be on the list. I think that the simulationist, and gamist ways are the only actual design methods, with degree of Narrativism being more of an "in play" thing.

I suggest you try playing a FATE3-based game like Spirit of the Century or Diaspora, or Amber Diceless, or any number of other indie games where narrativism is an explicit element of the game design.