The Tyranny of Fun phenomenon, concisely summarised:
Quote1) Equating 'fun' with 'positive reinforcement' to the neglect of other ways to have it - some of which involve adversity, effort, minor inconvenience or, yes, short/long-term failure.
2) Redesigning games to codify this understanding of customer satisfaction and cutting elements construed as 'unfun', which makes the game more focused - but also feature-poor and less satisfying for people who have their fun in a different way.
3) Often wrapped up in rhetorics of 'progress' as inevitable and basically beneficial, traditional gaming practices as an impediment before having fun and appeals to the authority of 'professional game designers'.
If you want it in one sentence:
QuoteFun is a loaded term, and it should not be assumed to mean the same thing to all people.
What I see as good gaming now is about fun that is
Quote- complex (encompassing diverse playstyles and agendas instead of reductionist thinking)
- customised (with a creative character of its own infused by the GM and the way the group interacts with this creative spark and moulds it)
- active (focused on contributing to others' fun and engaging with the game)
- social (manifested in friendship, hospitality and a commitment to shared creativity)
- mature (in the genuine sense; that of taking responsibility and being respectful of your peers)
- DIY (with significant input from you, the participant; on the macro-level, publications strongly based on amateur contributions)
That's it.
If I didn't know better, I'd guess you were working purely frm hearsay and hadn't actually read the 4E core books. I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again, but a lot of what you mention above is explicitely refuted by the 4E books.
I don't claim to be universally right. These are my subjective conclusions based on browsing through the core books and having read a good number of message board discussions, particularly ENWorld (I steer clear of Gleemax, the other big D&D net community). The process has been going on for a few years.
As just one example, you can find quite a lot of evidence in this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=233139).
[edit]Also: http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=219552&postcount=15
And here is me, clicking this thread thinking someone voiced an opinion based on actually playing the thing.
Saphim, I don't have to eat an omelette of rotten eggs to be able to comment on it. I can get sufficient information from the smell alone.
I guess I would play in a heavily house-ruled 4e campaign if the DM and the rest of the company was good, but sorry, I will not join a random campaign just to pass your test of posting legitimacy.
Nice try, though.
Awwww, you people here are such meanies. The poor middle argument always gets left out in the cold.
You know there is a difference between having played and joining some random campaign.
And there is a difference between an omelette made of rotten eggs and one which has just too much or not enough sugar FOR YOUR TASTE.
Nice try though.
I think you have an argument, but that your proposed end result is just a part of a larger spectrum of end results. The question will be how much of that spectrum will be taken up with the Tyranny of Fun endpoint.
For me, reading the threads where people twist and warp the rules to prove that 4e can do anything or isn't a tactical minis-skirmish game suggest that the same kind of brand-based, rules-first, WotC's-D&D-is-roleplaying mentality that I hated about 3.x is just as prevalent with 4e.
However, I think we need to give it a year. I suspect that a lot of people are unknowingly surprised by the fun of the tactical balance and are still taking the time to learn and play through that. I suspect that the bloom will come off the rose for many of those positive players right now, as they find there is not much else there, roleplaying-wise, and as rules bloat increases, probably at a faster rate than with 3.x.
That being said, we should sadly never underestimate the disturbing power of brand loyalty and slavish adherence to corporate dominance. There is always going to be a large chunk of the population who will do whatever they are told to do by the monopoly power in the market. I have learned that this is as true in gaming, sadly, as it is in everything else today.
"...the disturbing power of brand loyalty and slavish adherence to corporate dominance. There is always going to be a large chunk of the population who will do whatever they are told to do by the monopoly power in the market."
And the worst thing of all? Personal choice!
Saphim, you have a point - sort of. I would doubtless have a better informed opinion if I tried the game at the table. However, none of the people I play with like the changes in 4e (they are either 3e or earlier edition fans), so there's a poor chance of finding a convenient test group (and then playing to validate my dislike wouldn't be in good form). Therefore, I have to make my conclusions based on preview materials and secondary sources. That's more than enough to have an informed opinion.
walkerp, I am not entertaining doomsday scenarios (yet! ;)). I just find it likely that 4e will nudge the hobby in a direction I personally dislike. That will have marginal effects on my own gaming, but it will be annoying in online discussions. It already is, especially on ENWorld.
I think in some ways you are right - The Tyranny of Fun is an excellent descriptive term for the phenomenon.
I also think that there's something slightly pathetic about watching a hard core of 4E fans (especially on rpg.net) denying any criticism of the new edition and throwing themselves into all kinds of cognitive contortions in order to convince themselves that what they have is the best thing since sliced bread. The fact that these people were probably jumping through similar hoops on 3E's release makes it doubly pathetic. Where is their self respect?
That said, I've been hearing other comments and reading other things that lead me to believe that 4E isn't half as bad as it's being made out by some, and is actually a heck of a lot better than 3E (admittedly not hard). In particular, some very creative and interesting people whose opinions I respect love the new edition and seem to be doing creative and interesting things with it. They aren't the so-called "bad players" that you mention, in fact the opposite, and this makes me think that, hey, at the end of the day editions don't matter so much if the players are good. I still think that the "bad players" (whiny power gamers) are in the tiny minority, and that the good overwhelming majority will win out and turn 4E into a qualified success at least for them. Whether it is a long-term success for the hobby does, as walkerp says, remain to be seen.
Quote from: noisms;220065I still think that the "bad players" (whiny power gamers) are in the tiny minority, and that the good overwhelming majority will win out and turn 4E into a qualified success at least for them. Whether it is a long-term success for the hobby does, as walkerp says, remain to be seen.
3E was widely hated and reviled at RPGnet when it was released. It was a situation nearly identical to the one you see here today.
I don't think power gaming is that bad, (character optimization was nearly an artform within a year of 3e's release) but I think it's actually nearly impossible with 4e. There's no real way to stack a feat on top of a class choice on top of a race on top of a spiked chain and end up with with some insane combo anymore.
I guess time will tell if supplements change that, but the entire philosophy of feats is different than it used to be.
Quote from: Melan;220063walkerp, I am not entertaining doomsday scenarios (yet! ;)).
Now, remember, it should be acknowledged that walkerp is an expert on doomsday scenarios considering that he has advocated killing off the entire human race in order to be more environmentally friendly and has caused a meme (walkerism) to be created due too this. His opinion on matters of doomsday scenarios cannot be taken lightly...
Quote from: jeff37923;220084he has advocated killing off the entire human race
That's good idea:cool:... I think for campaning...
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;2200823E was widely hated and reviled at RPGnet when it was released. It was a situation nearly identical to the one you see here today.
I don't think power gaming is that bad, (character optimization was nearly an artform within a year of 3e's release) but I think it's actually nearly impossible with 4e. There's no real way to stack a feat on top of a class choice on top of a race on top of a spiked chain and end up with with some insane combo anymore.
I guess time will tell if supplements change that, but the entire philosophy of feats is different than it used to be.
Yeah, 3E was perfect for power gamers - so you do get the interesting dynamic that the ultra-power gamers hate 4E even more than the old schoolers do.
If 4E gets rid of that sort of thing then it can't be bad, although because the bloat hasn't started yet we can't be sure that it won't happen later down the line.
By "whiny power gamers" what I suppose I really meant was: people who hate not getting their way. But as I said, they're a tiny minority, and the vast majority of 4E players won't be like that; therefore their games won't be like that and overall we won't be able to say "4E is the edition for people who hate not getting their way."
If that's not too rambling.
Quote from: walkerp;220056For me, reading the threads where people twist and warp the rules to prove that 4e can do anything or isn't a tactical minis-skirmish game suggest that the same kind of brand-based, rules-first, WotC's-D&D-is-roleplaying mentality that I hated about 3.x is just as prevalent with 4e.
Personally I find reading the threads where people twist and ignore the rules to prove that 4E can't do certain things or is nothing but a tactical minis-skirmish game* indicative of a disturbing brand of anti-WotC, minis-are-evil, bring back OD&D mentality that I generally have little time for.
Well, not really, but the opportunity to point out how one sided walkerp is being was irresistable.
4E clearly isn't going to be for everyone, but not finding a game to your personal taste is no reason to make unfounded criticisms of it and decry those people who do enjoy it as mindless brand-junkies.
*note that I no longer consider Stuart in that category
Quote from: Fritzs;220091That's good idea:cool:... I think for campaning...
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=9890
Quote from: Trevelyan;220095Personally I find reading the threads where people twist and ignore the rules to prove that 4E can't do certain things or is nothing but a tactical minis-skirmish game* indicative of a disturbing brand of anti-WotC, minis-are-evil, bring back OD&D mentality that I generally have little time for.
I have a problem with people who refuse to recognize that there is no system that is good for all tastes or that can handle any genre. This phenomenon happens with all games, but with D&D, simply because of its established market base, this behaviour has a pernicious effect on the hobby. There are a lot of people in the D20 subforum who have never played anything but D&D. It disturbs me to see them struggling to find ways to make things work in D&D when that isn't even what is what meant to do. I like Savage Worlds, but I'll tell you right away that it is combat-oriented and tends to run better with a grid and minis. I like GURPS, but I'll tell you it's not for you if you don't like fiddly mechanics. I like SotC, but I recognize it uses a story-manipulating approach that isn't for everybody.
You'll hear that kind of talk from about maybe 1 in 20 posts over on the D20 sub-forums. I imagine it's much less on ENWorld and Gleemax must be like the rapture. So you get a dominance of the system, bolstered by the idea that there is "official" right and wrong. This tends to push games across the world to be more and more similar. I found this phenomenon with 3.x and I suspect it will be worse with the stronger, more balanced and coherent tactical combat system in 4e. I like diversity. I enjoyed 3.x for a while. I would probably enjoy a game or two of 4e. What I don't want is a hobby with a majority of groups that only play 4e for years and years and years. The kind of thinking currently demonstrated in the threads I have been following suggests that we are moving in that direction.
My problem with 4e is not with the game itself. It sounds kind of cool in many ways. It's the notion that it is roleplaying in its entirety that I have a serious problem with.
And for the record, I kind of like minis (I don't actually buy them, but I use other cheap figures to represent position in most combats in my games) and I'm not a huge OD&D proponent (though I enjoyed the one-shot of Keep on the Borderlands I ran for Gygax Day). I am, though, very suspicious of WotC, as I am of any corporation that dominates a marketplace.
walkerp: Inteligent animals seem not cool enought to me... maybe hyenas would be exception...
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;220082I don't think power gaming is that bad, (character optimization was nearly an artform within a year of 3e's release) but I think it's actually nearly impossible with 4e. There's no real way to stack a feat on top of a class choice on top of a race on top of a spiked chain and end up with with some insane combo anymore.
Thats interesting AM. In the little I was reading last night, there, IIRC, was an example of how if you chose certain feats it increased your fire damage but wouldn't affect your lightning damage. (I think that was the example in the book).
Now, on the surface, I reacted in two ways. First, it set off little alarm bells (given all of the spiked-chain wielding half-orc barbarians I ran into in LG) about power gaming. Second, the little voice in my head (that is usually telling me to kill everyone and bath in their blood) said "eh - it's a small bonus; hardly power-game material."
I'm wondering, with your experience so far, which reaction is "right" - or if, as you say, too early to tell.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;220082I guess time will tell if supplements change that, but the entire philosophy of feats is different than it used to be.
Yeah, this is the part that concerns me (but I understand might be simple FUD and nothing I can deal with now anyway) - I saw the "there will be these other powers coming out in future versions," and the first voice said - "see - just wait."
Either way, I continue to read on...
NOTE: cross-forum posting this at d20 Haven so I don't have to type it all again :)
Quote from: Saphim;220051And here is me, clicking this thread thinking someone voiced an opinion based on actually playing the thing.
Yeah, I don't know why, I guess because he call it a "report", but that was what I was expecting too.
As far as people bending over backwards to be really excited about 4e and not listen to criticism, I'm sure there's some people doing that, but at that point you're back to arguing about whether other people's opinions and tastes are justified. It is possible, no matter how unlikely it may seem, that sometimes people shrug off criticisms of a game because they're not relevant to their experience.
Quote from: walkerp;220104I have a problem with people who refuse to recognize that there is no system that is good for all tastes or that can handle any genre.
Oh, I agree with that. I've commented recently in several threads that 4E is good for a fantasy action kind of game but that there are any number of better systems if you want something grittier or something with a better social vs. combat balance.
But I think it's important to draw a distinction between "4E doesn't do some things as well as other games" and "4E doesn't do certain things at all". It's also important to note the difference between "D&D has never really done something well" and "4E doesn't do somethng well, so it's a crap edition (with the implication that previous editions somehowdid it better)".
I see a lot of statements that tend towards the second example in each case when frequently the first claim is more accurate. Saying that 4E doesn't support a social game or that 4E can't be played without minis is inaccurate. The case is really that 4E doesn't do social as well as many other games (this has always been true of D&D), and that 4E rewards the use of minis to the extent that struggling without them seems counter productive.
You
can do the things that people are saying you can do with 4E, the real question is why, if that's the sort of game they want to run, they would elect to run it using 4E.
QuoteMy problem with 4e is not with the game itself. It sounds kind of cool in many ways. It's the notion that it is roleplaying in its entirety that I have a serious problem with.
But obviously anyone who thinks D&D is the be-all, end-all of RPGs doesn't deserve to be corrected, he's already beyond saving! ;)
OMG
I looked at that enworld thread, and for the first time in 5 years I see a post by Ruin Explorer, he of the olden Nutkinland days. W00t!
Then I look at his sig: He thinks the 4E DMG is great. Blechhh.
Quote from: Trevelyan;220160But I think it's important to draw a distinction between "4E doesn't do some things as well as other games" and "4E doesn't do certain things at all". It's also important to note the difference between "D&D has never really done something well" and "4E doesn't do somethng well, so it's a crap edition (with the implication that previous editions somehowdid it better)".
I agree with that. I guess I'm in a bit of a minority among the minority of nay-sayers in that I also had a major problem with 3.x. 4e just seems to take the things I had problems with in 3e and make them worse.
Quote from: Trevelyan;220160I see a lot of statements that tend towards the second example in each case when frequently the first claim is more accurate. Saying that 4E doesn't support a social game or that 4E can't be played without minis is inaccurate. The case is really that 4E doesn't do social as well as many other games (this has always been true of D&D), and that 4E rewards the use of minis to the extent that struggling without them seems counter productive.
Would that everyone had your nuanced understanding! But this is the internet, where the poor excluded middle huddles by it's own in the corner.
Quote from: Trevelyan;220160You can do the things that people are saying you can do with 4E, the real question is why, if that's the sort of game they want to run, they would elect to run it using 4E.
This is what I've never understood and though I've seen it many, many times, every time I bring it up, everyone attacks.
Quote from: Trevelyan;220160But obviously anyone who thinks D&D is the be-all, end-all of RPGs doesn't deserve to be corrected, he's already beyond saving! ;)
Yes, but they can be silenced! :)
Quote from: MelanIt will of course not be impossible to run 4e in a less "gimme" style, but DMs who attempt it can be expected to face stronger opposition and disapproval; 4e's spirit is very much against playing a genuinely challenging campaign, since those are - of course - not fun in the canonical sense.
This is factually untrue. For example, I'm designing an adventure right now on the Design and Development Forum that breaks several of the encounter design rules, and I've been getting entirely positive feedback on it.
On D&D game day there were several TPK's. Every one of which had folks who said they had a great time, even as they lamented the death of their poor character.
Edit: I should say, at my FLGS.
Quote from: Melan;220040Finally, there is the matter of the fetishisation of "game design"; that is, how officially appointed game designers are touted - and gradually being accepted! - as the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun. I find this a very suspicious development in roleplaying. In a participatory hobby, where the roles of consumers and creators have been strongly blurred (and this blurriness was a core contributor to what made the games so addictive, so different from anything else - RPGs are a form of active mental/social entertainment which are otherwise very rare), we are seeing movement towards a stronger separation between the two. Officially designed and meticulously balanced fun is contrasted with the straw men of "bad DMing", supposedly so epidemic that very few people can "enjoy" games properly. It is suggested that only a qualified elite who "really" understand games can save us from the effects of horrible, horrible game design and our own supposed dysfunctions. Instead of fostering individual creativity, this philosophy casts suspicion and disapproval on it; "house rules", the elementary tools of customisation, are treated with derision and contempt. The message is clear: "you are incompetent, stupid and you need our help (that will be $39.9, please)". Gary Gygax tried this crap at his worst, and fortunately, people just pointed and laughed. Can the Wizards designers do what Gary could not? So far, it seems to me they are winning.
This phenomenon is nothing new, as you pointed out yourself. And it's been noticable between Gygax and 4th edition in many, many different games. It tends to be more noticable in popular games that we dislike, for reasons that have to do with human nature.
As for 4th edition not being challenging: I don't get it. I think it offers different challenges. You either like 'em or you don't.
It's pretty clear you've barely read the books, since much of what you say is untrue. For instance:
Quote from: Melan;220040"Fun" as "continuous positive reinforcement" and something that comes purely from combat encounters is emphasised over everything else. While positive reinforcement and combat are of course important sources of fun, 4e neglects to emphasise others.
The DMG says many things that disagree with that, like "no campaign is all combat" and "look, here's a bunch of rules and guidance for noncombat scenarios."
QuoteIt will of course not be impossible to run 4e in a less "gimme" style, but DMs who attempt it can be expected to face stronger opposition and disapproval; 4e's spirit is very much against playing a genuinely challenging campaign, since those are - of course - not fun in the canonical sense.
If 4e is opposed to challenge, why do so many play reports contain deaths and TPKs, including ones from Game Day events using modules created and endorsed by WotC. If WotC was against challenge, and 4e was meant to prevent it, surely they wouldn't have brought so many challenging scenarios to the demos?
QuoteFinally, there is the matter of the fetishisation of "game design"; that is, how officially appointed game designers are touted - and gradually being accepted! - as the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun. I find this a very suspicious development in roleplaying. In a participatory hobby, where the roles of consumers and creators have been strongly blurred (and this blurriness was a core contributor to what made the games so addictive, so different from anything else - RPGs are a form of active mental/social entertainment which are otherwise very rare), we are seeing movement towards a stronger separation between the two. Officially designed and meticulously balanced fun is contrasted with the straw men of "bad DMing", supposedly so epidemic that very few people can "enjoy" games properly. It is suggested that only a qualified elite who "really" understand games can save us from the effects of horrible, horrible game design and our own supposed dysfunctions. Instead of fostering individual creativity, this philosophy casts suspicion and disapproval on it; "house rules", the elementary tools of customisation, are treated with derision and contempt. The message is clear: "you are incompetent, stupid and you need our help (that will be $39.9, please)". Gary Gygax tried this crap at his worst, and fortunately, people just pointed and laughed. Can the Wizards designers do what Gary could not? So far, it seems to me they are winning.
Methinks you're taking proffered advice a bit too personally. There is nowhere in the books that says you must do X or you're engaging in badwrongfun. In fact, it says several times that if something isn't fun for you, change it.
I can only suggest that if you to be able to hold an informed opinion of the game, you might want to do more than browse the books and read threads from people that don't like the game. I'm not saying D&D (4e or any edition) is right for you. All I'm saying is that you've demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the game that's rooted in the circular reinforcement found by reading others with the same misgivings as yourself.
There are few opinions more illogical than spitting on something without any knowledge. I have gamed for 30 years with every D&D edition. 4e rocks. It achieves its design goals with tremendous success. It set out to be a 3D tactical fantasy game with simple rules and it does that job.
DMG pages 172 to 189 show the DM how to customize and houserule his game. It is great advice and a tremendous boon for new players. Instead of Gary's admonishments in the 1e DMG, the new DMG shows how to create with wild abandon, but still stay within the rules framework.
How could 4e be any less challenging than any OD&D campaign? The monsters are balanced for the super heroics of the players so combat is always a challenge. The skill challenges can be made as difficult as the GM likes so the skills of the heroes are tested...as well as their roleplaying. All the roleplaying that never had rules is still there to same extent that it ever was (aka, as much as the DM added) Want to count arrows and iron rations? Sure no problem, you can do that in 4e. Want to do a low-magic or even no-magic campaign, 4e can do that too.
And if 4e does promote the Tyranny of Fun, then I shall be its raging Tyrant of Blood and Iron!!!
Quote from: Trevelyan;220047If I didn't know better, I'd guess you were working purely frm hearsay and hadn't actually read the 4E core books.
Of course you would. That's your pat answer for all 4e criticisms.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220275Of course you would. That's your pat answer for all 4e criticisms.
But is he wrong?
Quote from: Jeffrey Straszheim;220329But is he wrong?
Is he wrong that Melan hasn't read the core rulebook or that that fact alone makes a suitable argument?
The former: I don't know. Ask Melan.
The latter: yes, he is. Melan's argument or it's constituent statements and assumptions may be wrong (or any of the other folks he's tried to tar with that), but the fact that may not have read the books does not make it so. One can learn things about the game's founding philosophies, methods, techniques, and so forth, without reading the core books.
If Melan makes a point based on misunderstanding, Trev should be able to point it out. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to authority.
Quote from: SpinachatIt set out to be a 3D tactical fantasy game with simple rules and it does that job.
No, it set out to be a successor RPG to the granddaddy of RPGs. It says so right in the name, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Roleplaying Game. Are you really that much of a fucking Shill that you think they set out to make D&D 4e a tactical strategy game?
No, what they made is a terrible RPG, who's only redeeming fact is that it has detailed and interesting combat mechanics. They stole their basic design for that from Strange Synergy. (http://www.sjgames.com/strangesynergy/)
Quote from: Spinachcat;220225There are few opinions more illogical than spitting on something without any knowledge.
Except for the opinions which proclaim awesomeness for something without critically thinking about it.
Quote from: KrakaJak;220341No, it set out to be a successor RPG to the granddaddy of RPGs. It says so right in the name, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Roleplaying Game. Are you really that much of a fucking Shill that you think they set out to make D&D 4e a tactical strategy game?
I think that was WotC's intention all along. It is clear that 4E considers miniatures and map tiles to be Core Material of the D&D brand game now (just look on the back of the Core books).
It is an effort to maximize profits by WotC, unfortunately for those who purchase a Role-Playing Game because it emphasizes role-playing, those customers are left wanting.
Quote from: jeff37923;220344Except for the opinions which proclaim awesomeness for something without critically thinking about it.
Well, come on, he's obviously having a lot of fun with the game, and I don't really see Mr. Spinachcat putting down other games by way of comparing them with 4e. If you go back to the earlier "guide" thread he posted (and others) he describes pretty much exactly what 4e is, and why he likes that. It's the people who assume that a given game is "everything for all tastes", or that their taste is the only one that matters, who are uncritical.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;220357Well, come on, he's obviously having a lot of fun with the game, and I don't really see Mr. Spinachcat putting down other games by way of comparing them with 4e. If you go back to the earlier "guide" thread he posted (and others) he describes pretty much exactly what 4e is, and why he likes that. It's the people who assume that a given game is "everything for all tastes", or that their taste is the only one that matters, who are uncritical.
Damnit man, this is the internet and here you go using logic and reason against me. It's most unfair, I say! :D
Then again, while its obvious that Spinichcat loves 4E, that doesn't mean that his positive view of 4E should be the only one in acceptance or that 4E detractors do not have equally valid points to make.
Burn that strawman jeff. he's got it coming.
Quote from: jeff37923;220361Then again, while its obvious that Spinichcat loves 4E, that doesn't mean that his positive view of 4E should be the only one in acceptance or that 4E detractors do not have equally valid points to make.
I'd say the pertinent point is how to identify whether the points are equally valid. If you tell me that 4e is is objectivly flawed, broken, or lacking in what it tries to deliver I will tell you you're full of shit. I, for example, have found absolutely no barriers to roleplaying in the way I have traditionally roleplayed in previous editions of DnD. This means that when someone posts that 4e isn't a roleplaying game, or that it's roleplaying element is flawed, or lacking, whatever, I will say that's bullshit, because I have played the game and found that for me it's completely untrue. If, however, someone wants to tell me that the saving throw mechanic is less than satisfactory because they seem to have pushed the simplicity angle a bit too far, I might could buy right into that. I can say with complete confidence that if ya wanna play a game that features twisted magic that destroys sanity and flirts with knowledge man was not meant to know, then DnD 4e is not for you. I did (and still do) like 3.x (and many other rpgs besides) for many reasons, but I also think that 4e really is a better fantasy superhero game.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220332Is he wrong that Melan hasn't read the core rulebook or that that fact alone makes a suitable argument?
The former: I don't know. Ask Melan.
The latter: yes, he is. Melan's argument or it's constituent statements and assumptions may be wrong (or any of the other folks he's tried to tar with that), but the fact that may not have read the books does not make it so. One can learn things about the game's founding philosophies, methods, techniques, and so forth, without reading the core books.
If Melan makes a point based on misunderstanding, Trev should be able to point it out. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to authority.
If I have to read a book before I can level any judgement on it, how the hell am I ever supposed to decide on whether or not to buy a game in the first place? Am I just supposed to buy every piece of crap that comes along?
And if sources of information like this board are somehow insufficient to make such judgements, doesn't that inherently imply that we are then assuming that those who've bought and played the game previously, and shared their experience, are lying to us? That when Spinachcat says the game is minis-focused to an extreme never before seen in D&D, I'm just suppsoed to ignore him because, well why exactly?
Probably the most damning evidence provided against 4e has been posts from it's fans and promoters honestly describing the nature of the game, not from it's detractors. Are you saying that basing my opinion of the game one what said fans say is somehow wrong? Should I just assume they're all liars? Really?
Quote from: Sigmund;220381I'd say the pertinent point is how to identify whether the points are equally valid. If you tell me that 4e is is objectivly flawed, broken, or lacking in what it tries to deliver I will tell you you're full of shit. I, for example, have found absolutely no barriers to roleplaying in the way I have traditionally roleplayed in previous editions of DnD. This means that when someone posts that 4e isn't a roleplaying game, or that it's roleplaying element is flawed, or lacking, whatever, I will say that's bullshit, because I have played the game and found that for me it's completely untrue.
Just because 4E works for you and your taste in gaming doesn't mean that it works for everyone else. It just means that it works for you. 4E doesn't work for me.
QuoteI also think that 4e really is a better fantasy superhero game.
And if that was what I was looking for in the successor to the D&D brand name, then I wouldn't be saying that 4E doesn't scratch my gaming itch.
Quote from: J Arcane;220385If I have to read a book before I can level any judgement on it, how the hell am I ever supposed to decide on whether or not to buy a game in the first place? Am I just supposed to buy every piece of crap that comes along?
I don't recall anyone saying you have to buy a book and read it before you can talk about it. I definitely haven't said that. However, if you make claims that can be easily countered with a page number, expect to get called on it. If you opt to continue to make those allegations, expect to get laughed at.
QuoteAnd if sources of information like this board are somehow insufficient to make such judgements, doesn't that inherently imply that we are then assuming that those who've bought and played the game previously, and shared their experience, are lying to us?
They may not be lying. They may be going by the claims of others who haven't read the book, or who are lying. They may be relaying their personal opinions and having those opinions taken as objective truth because the reader hasn't read or played the game and doesn't know better. Or perhaps they read opinions and passed them on as truth because they didn't know better.
QuoteProbably the most damning evidence provided against 4e has been posts from it's fans and promoters honestly describing the nature of the game, not from it's detractors. Are you saying that basing my opinion of the game one what said fans say is somehow wrong? Should I just assume they're all liars? Really?
Did anyone say that? I didn't reread the thread to check, but all I recall off hand is people pointing out that some of the OP's claims are verifiably untrue. At least to me, this thread has nothing to do with universal claims of who can talk about what and why, but of pointing out factual errors in a negative "report" about a game.
I'd do the same thing if someone posted that 2nd edition went to shit after Skills and Powers because for five build points you could make your character immune to weapon damage. I can't stand Skills and Powers, but I believe that if you're going to hate something you should at least base that hate in actual knowledge of the product.
Quote from: jeff37923;220393Just because 4E works for you and your taste in gaming doesn't mean that it works for everyone else. It just means that it works for you. 4E doesn't work for me.
And if that was what I was looking for in the successor to the D&D brand name, then I wouldn't be saying that 4E doesn't scratch my gaming itch.
Ok. None of that means 4e isn't a roleplaying game (and I'm not saying you specifically said that either Jeff). I'm sorry that 4e doesn't work for some of ya'all, but I'm glad I'm able to have fun with it. I've never claimed that just because 4e works for me that it works for everyone, that would be a silly thing to say about any game of any genre or platform anywhere ever, from baseball to risk to 4e to tiddlywinks to texas hold-em. What I find silly is for people to say that somehow 4e isn't an rpg. Just because it's not an rpg you (collective you) like, doesn't mean it's not an rpg. That, IMO, is not a valid point, let alone an equally valid point. If ya wanna talk about specific things about this particular rpg that you don't like then rock on. What James says about people who bitch about 4e with points that are inaccurate is a valid point. Detractors who, like you, say it just doesn't appeal to them, have valid points. CoC, WoD (new or old), and diceless games don't appeal to me, but you'll never find me saying they aren't rpgs, or that they "suck". That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: J Arcane;220385Probably the most damning evidence provided against 4e has been posts from it's fans and promoters honestly describing the nature of the game, not from it's detractors.
This has certainly been true for me. Reading those rpg.net threads made it clear 4E is not for me. Ten minutes browsing the actual book confirmed it.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;220439This has certainly been true for me. Reading those rpg.net threads made it clear 4E is not for me. Ten minutes browsing the actual book confirmed it.
That's pretty much exactly how it happened for me too. It was Wizards' and it's fans descriptions that ultimately turned me off the game, and looking at the actual book only cemented my conclusions.
Quote from: J Arcane;220385Probably the most damning evidence provided against 4e has been posts from it's fans and promoters honestly describing the nature of the game, not from it's detractors. Are you saying that basing my opinion of the game one what said fans say is somehow wrong? Should I just assume they're all liars? Really?
Heh. Tell me about it.
Over on TBP, there's a thread crowing victory about how the wizard has finally been put in it's place, and I comment on how poorly the 4e wizard would work in my campaign, and another fan stands up says how wrong I am to conclude such a thing based on what the rest of the fans have been saying. I'm like "you all settle this and get back to me when you decide if the wizard is nerfed or not."
(Not sure how this post fits in. Actually I started it last night and things may have moved on since then.)
Quote from: jeff37923;220361Then again, while its obvious that Spinichcat loves 4E, that doesn't mean that his positive view of 4E should be the only one in acceptance or that 4E detractors do not have equally valid points to make.
I agree, absolutely. It's just that once you pass a certain degree of quality (and even that is pretty hard to pin down when it comes to RPGs, which get so much of their "oomph" from the people playing them as opposed to the rules), saying that you like or dislike a certain game says more about your tastes than it does about the game itself.
Sort of a digression on quality follows...
An example from board games (which are easier to pin down since the rules define play much more completely than do RPGs in general)...Everybody knows Battleship, right? I found a game at a yard sale called Impact Zone (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/5365) which seemed kinda cool based on the components, and the price was minimal. So I got it home and what do I see, a battleship clone with some electronic enhancements. But unlike Battleship, the bits that you're trying to hit occupy exactly one square each; there's zero strategy either in positioning the pieces or calling shots, and no suspense as a player tries to zero in on the orientation of a target. I feel comfortable saying that except for the very, very young, who will enjoy the illusion of interacting with the pretty components, the game is objectively worse than Battleship. It fails the quality test. But Battleship vs. Mouse Trap is IMO a different matter. Not that Mouse Trap has much strategy--though actually as far as I can tell it does
very slightly reward dexterity and basic calculation. However Mouse Trap doesn't really pretend to be much more than a race game with an awesome gadget attached and in that respect it succeeds. By contrast, Impact Zone contains elements that really only make sense as strategy-facilitating, that is, it requires the players to make decisions about setting up their boards and calling their shots--but none of those decisions matter at all.
So what I'm saying is, by a metric that would be almost universally accepted as appropriate to the game in question, Impact Zone is a bad game. OTOH, saying you like Mouse Trap more than Battleship, or that you prefer Stratego and hate Tiddlywinks--well, these say more about you than they do about the games themselves.
Oh, yeah, the point: nevertheless I think once you recognize this, you can go ahead and decry, bemoan, rue, regret, and lament the prevalence of one taste over another in the gaming population, especially if (as described here) the people who have that taste are themselves guilty of thinking it's the only thing that counts or that the game they like, because it satisfies their taste, automatically works just as well for any other taste that matters.
Quote from: jeff37923;220393Just because 4E works for you and your taste in gaming doesn't mean that it works for everyone else. It just means that it works for you. 4E doesn't work for me.
He wasn't talking about taste, he's talking about objectively verifiable facts. "4e is not a roleplaying game" is demonstrably untrue, as there are people out there using it to roleplay.
Edit: I wrote this last night and forgot to hit post (it was 5:30am, sue me :) ). Looks like it's already been explained better since then.
Quote from: James McMurray;220514He wasn't talking about taste, he's talking about objectively verifiable facts. "4e is not a roleplaying game" is demonstrably untrue, as there are people out there using it to roleplay.
I'm not suggesting 4e is not a roleplaying game.
But I
am interested in how you demonstrate whether something is or isn't a roleplaying game... and which of Buffy the Vampire Slayer the Boardgame, Arkham Horror, Tannhäuser, Warhammer 40K: Rogue Trader,, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, Polaris and the Shab-al-Hiri Roach are (or are not) RPGs.
A game designed for roleplaying is a roleplaying game. A game not designed for roleplaying is not a roleplaying game. That doesn't mean you can't adopt a funny voice and persona while playing banker in monopoly, but the game itself is not an RPG, you're just adapting it to that purpose.
I don't know a lot of games on that list, but if they're board games or wargames, they're probably not roleplaying games. From my limited understanding, Buffy is not. Dogs, My Life with Master, and the Roach are. The others I don't know.
Somebody please name one occasion where trying to define the term "role-playing game" ever helped a thread.
Quote from: jrients;220570Somebody please name one occasion where trying to define the term "role-playing game" ever helped a thread.
Waddya mean!?!? It ALWAYS seems to make them grow and grow and grow!
Quote from: jrients;220570Somebody please name one occasion where trying to define the term "role-playing game" ever helped a thread.
Until now I'd never realized there was any doubt. It always seemed like a self-descriptive term to me.
Quote from: James McMurray;220579Until now I'd never realized there was any doubt. It always seemed like a self-descriptive term to me.
Me too. What people seem to not want to come out and say, if I'm interpreting correctly, is that because 4e places such an emphasis on mini and mat use, it is not now a rpg. Apparently the folks saying this are trying to sell the idea that a roleplaying game can't require or even emphasize the use of anything remotely resembling a board and pieces and still remain a roleplaying game. In 4e's case it's wrong. I have played Arkham Horror, and I can say that when we played it, we did not use it to roleplay, and it is not considered a rpg by anyone I've ever heard of who's familiar with it. I'm sure a whole gaggle of folks will go on about how 4e is just like it (as well as other board games).
Quote from: Sigmund;220583Me too. What people seem to not want to come out and say, if I'm interpreting correctly, is that because 4e places such an emphasis on mini and mat use, it is not now a rpg.
Since I've been involved in the conversation about 4e and minis, I want to make clear that this is not my position. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Stuart;220553I'm not suggesting 4e is not a roleplaying game.
But I am interested in how you demonstrate whether something is or isn't a roleplaying game... and which of Buffy the Vampire Slayer the Boardgame, Arkham Horror, Tannhäuser, Warhammer 40K: Rogue Trader,, Dogs in the Vineyard, My Life with Master, Polaris and the Shab-al-Hiri Roach are (or are not) RPGs.
I would deffine roleplaying game as game where roleplaying is what makes the game fun and enjoyable and when you remove this aspect of said game, the game won't be playable anymore...
Quote from: Sigmund;220583What people seem to not want to come out and say, if I'm interpreting correctly, is that because 4e places such an emphasis on mini and mat use, it is not now a rpg.
So, why should people give their opinions if this is what you think you are interpreting, regardless of what they have posted? It would all just be obfuscation to you.
Quote from: SigmundApparently the folks saying this are trying to sell the idea that a roleplaying game can't require or even emphasize the use of anything remotely resembling a board and pieces and still remain a roleplaying game.
Said gamer remains RPG as long as roleplaing isn't optional choice that can be entirely ignored, whikle the game still rpovides fun... example of scu game, where roleplaying is entirely otional would be for example Fury of Dracula... you can roleplay in this game, but you don't have to and it might actually slow down the game and make it less fun...
Quote from: SigmundIn 4e's case it's wrong.
I've played it and I am not sure if ti falls into RPG cathegory or into category of boardagem with roleplaying posibilities... It's not bad game, but i am not sure if it's RPG...
Quote from: Fritzs;220606I've played it and I am not sure if ti falls into RPG cathegory or into category of boardagem with roleplaying posibilities... It's not bad game, but i am not sure if it's RPG...
It might not be an RPG under your definition, at least not for you. Your definition brings opinion into the mix, which means it's not going to be useful in a discussion about roleplaying games, because you won't even be able to agree on whether almost any game is actually an RPG. For instance, roleplaying isn't necessary for fun in BD&D. You could play it as a combat game as well, and it wouldn't be unplayable. There are very few games where RPing is mandatory or the game falls apart (Amber springs to mind).
It's like saying "I define food to be something that tastes good." Suddenly a huge chunk of edible and nutritious stuff that was prepared for the sole purpose of being eaten is no longer food.
Quote from: James McMurrayThere are very few games where RPing is mandatory or the game falls apart (Amber springs to mind).
I don't think they are few and far between... Try remove RP from White Wolf games... the system might stay intact, but it won't be fun to play and therefore fail at being game... even Shadowrun won't work this way.
Quote from: James McMurrayYour definition brings opinion into the mix, which means it's not going to be useful in a discussion about roleplaying games, because you won't even be able to agree on whether almost any game is actually an RPG.
Well, actually I don't think I am bringing oppinion here... Imagine playing Shadowrun without slightest roleplaying... said game would be just rolling dice and numericaly describing the efect (you roled 5 succeses, so anemy street samurai got 2 damages -or- you rolled 3 succeses and enemy IC rolled 4, so it's not shuted down)... this game woul not be fun, just not, but if said game has board and minis, it's different story, because it bring a lot more tactical posibilities and it's no longer abstract as boardless comabat in shadowrun is, so this might be fun, even if theres no roleplaying...
So a lot of RPGs are RPGs because they won't work without roleplaying aspect (they might work for some insignificant minority, strong emphasis on insignificance of said minority), while others are just boardgames where roleplaying is technicaly just optional...
You keep using the word "fun" as if it's objective, not subjective. It might not work for you, but that's not generic enough to be a usable definition.
Then again, 4e wouldn't be fun for me without the roleplaying. By your standard that makes it an RPG. So maybe I could get behind that def. ;)
Quote from: James J Skach;220586Since I've been involved in the conversation about 4e and minis, I want to make clear that this is not my position. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Has it really been anyone's point other than walkerp's? His "minis skirmish game" comment pretty much hijacked the thread.
I'm full on board with Melan's tyranny of fun rant. I think he's spot on about it, and I saw it coming ever since... well, ever since the stupid rust monster article that inspired the original.
But this whole minis sideline is "meh... whatever". I don't like relying on minis more than I feel is helpful, but if you dig it, have a blast. I'm not gonna call it "not roleplaying".
James McMurray: I know people who consider learning traffic order to be most fun, point is that they are very small minority...
And about 4e... well, some people I know consider playing Warhammer 40000 (not dark heresy, minis) without some sort of roleplaying to be boring... but it still doesn't make Warhammer 40000 RPG... or does it...?
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220673Has it really been anyone's point other than walkerp's? His "minis skirmish game" comment pretty much hijacked the thread.
Huh? I've never made that argument. It definitely is, at it's core, structured around tactical combat encounters using minis and a grid. But I never said it wasn't an RPG. And I never said that I had a problem with it being that. I'm also not alone in saying that (Spinachat, a big fan of 4e, comes to mind).
I take umbrance at the accusation of hijacking the thread. My post was more about consumer conformity than any criticism of the system itself. I have no idea how you guys got into the stupid argument about whether or not it's an rpg and I take no responsibility for the thread heading in that direction.
Quote from: jeff37923;220600So, why should people give their opinions if this is what you think you are interpreting, regardless of what they have posted? It would all just be obfuscation to you.
What the hell ya asking me for? You have to ask the people giving their opinions why they feel they should. I'm simply stating what I feel is behind what they are saying. I could be wrong, but I could also be correct as well. It's probably obvious which I think I am, at least until someone convinces me otherwise.
Quote from: Fritzs;220606Said gamer remains RPG as long as roleplaing isn't optional choice that can be entirely ignored, whikle the game still rpovides fun... example of scu game, where roleplaying is entirely otional would be for example Fury of Dracula... you can roleplay in this game, but you don't have to and it might actually slow down the game and make it less fun...
So would classic Traveller fall under this category as well? How about Savage Worlds? Just trying to get a picture of what ya mean here. What, in your opinion, is missing from 4e that was present in previous editions of DnD that makes 4e less of a rpg than those other editions?
And just to put it out there, if none of ya'all mean to say that 4e isn't a roleplaying game by calling it a tactical skirmish game instead of a rpg like it's previous editions have always been called, then just consider me mistaken in my interpretation of the use of that label. It's just what came to my mind would be the reason for using an alternate designation for the game, especially since it's mostly used by folks who have expressed dissatisfaction with the game.
Quote from: Fritzs;220643Well, actually I don't think I am bringing oppinion here... Imagine playing Shadowrun without slightest roleplaying... said game would be just rolling dice and numericaly describing the efect (you roled 5 succeses, so anemy street samurai got 2 damages -or- you rolled 3 succeses and enemy IC rolled 4, so it's not shuted down)... this game woul not be fun, just not, but if said game has board and minis, it's different story, because it bring a lot more tactical posibilities and it's no longer abstract as boardless comabat in shadowrun is, so this might be fun, even if theres no roleplaying...
So a lot of RPGs are RPGs because they won't work without roleplaying aspect (they might work for some insignificant minority, strong emphasis on insignificance of said minority), while others are just boardgames where roleplaying is technicaly just optional...
I have to disagree with you and side with James again here. Just because you might not enjoy it, others might have a blast doing nothing but running Shadowrun combats with no connection or intervening story in between, so it's your opinion that it's not fun to do so. Even you admit there might be an "insignificant minority" who might enjoy this. The problem here is that your opinion comes into play again because what is "insignificant" to you would most likely not be considered so by said "minority". So, how big does the "minority" need to get to become significant?
Quote from: Sigmund;220708And just to put it out there, if none of ya'all mean to say that 4e isn't a roleplaying game by calling it a tactical skirmish game instead of a rpg like it's previous editions have always been called, then just consider me mistaken in my interpretation of the use of that label.
The thing is, they aren't mutually exclusive. It's a question of tendency. Sure you can do a wide range of roleplaying with 4e and people certainly will, but the tendency of the game is going to go towards encounters structured around balanced combats. You can already see the bulk of the dialogue about 4e (other than arguing about its pros and cons) is about this kind of stuff. It's the same with GURPS, where you can do anything but most GURPS players enjoy complex and clever character builds and detailed, internally-consistent combat.
It sounds like 4e does the high-powered fantasy balanced combat encounter quite well. You can't really argue about how it does much else, because it doesn't really do much else. On either side of the argument. You can't argue that it sucks at roleplaying, but you also can't argue that it is good for roleplaying. The beauty of our hobby is that a lot of groups don't need system for that stuff.
However, to close off that argument, what is the system is still going to tend to dominate play and discourse and it will certainly be the case that most 4e games are going to be filled with balanced combat encounters, using pre-codified class-based abilities. If you find that uninteresting, then why would you be playing 4e?
To try to get back on topic, I have to say that while Melan's OP has a very few points I consider valid, as a whole I have to strongly disagree with the rant as a whole and say that I echo Trev in saying it seems that at the time the post was written it seems Melan has very little direct knowledge of the game at all. Melan makes the same mistake as many others in presenting opinion as objective truth, and what's worse seems to base these opinions on ideas not even espoused by the game he's ranting about. For example, Melan says,
Quote from: Melan"Fun" as "continuous positive reinforcement" and something that comes purely from combat encounters is emphasised over everything else.
But the DMG says the folks in the group are responsible for providing the fun of the game and further says very clearly that different folks have different ideas about what's fun for them. It also goes on to say that different players might find enjoyment from different aspects of the game and advises DMs to keep that in mind. If that's tyranny then bring on the oppression.
Melan makes some reference to the "bad players" and how his opinion is that the design philosophy is catering to them. When talking about this issue he makes reference to players that hated their characters getting killed, complained about game balance (and then again injects his opinion when saying he finds WotC solution as "Uniformisation and sameness"), etc. This is an over-generalization of the many folks having an issue with instant deaths (we've all heard the complaints about "save or die" mechanics), and too much down-time while specialists gain the spot-light. The second issue is hardly common to DnD, as it has been a complaint of all the editions of Shadowrun before the current one (and it's a complaint I agree with). While lots of folks, Melan included, might not like WotC's solution to these issues, at least they are hearing their customers and trying to do something about these issues. I, for one have no problem with 90% of their approach.
As a digression, I do really hate the new save mechanic. I understand that the individual character's strengths are meant to come into play in the initial attack vs. their "defenses", the 50-50 approach to removing ongoing effects no matter how strong or weak the victim might be in the area of resistance just gets under my skin. I can see houseruling this in some way in the future. No game is perfect though.
Back to the topic, I have no idea where Melan is getting this,
Quote from: Melanthere is the matter of the fetishisation of "game design"; that is, how officially appointed game designers are touted - and gradually being accepted! - as the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun.
from. If, by writing mechanics for a game make the designer "the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun.", then what game isn't some kind of "tyranny of fun"? Is it because some people seem to think 4e will be harder to houserule than other games? Will it? I honestly don't know, I've never been big on extensive houseruling, just throwing in one or two here and there if needed. I don't see how 4e would be any more or less difficult to houserule than many other games, yet I never read anyone leveling this complaint against them. Perhaps I am just misunderstanding this particular issue. Is it because there are so many sections of advice and guidance for the DM? Melan goes on about some qualified elite, I presume he means in DMing, saving us fromo bad game design, but I see nowhere in any of the books that talk about anything even remotely resembling what he describes. I see the DMG talking about different styles of DMing and their pros and cons, different styles of campaigns and game approachs. Where in this is creativity having suspicion and disapproval cast upon it? To be honest, much of this advice is the kind of advice and guidance I have seen a great many folks give to posters who have come on and asked for advice on starting/running a game. I can see how useful this info could be for newbies coming into the game.
I challenge Melan (or anyone else for that matter) to provide specific examples of how DnD 4e "denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play". Give me references to page and/or game mechanics that support that conclusion. Give me examples of how 4e attempts (any more than any other rpg) to protect gamers from their own mistakes. Explain to me in more detail, with support from the actual text, how 4e will "shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment".
Quote from: walkerp;220712The thing is, they aren't mutually exclusive. It's a question of tendency. Sure you can do a wide range of roleplaying with 4e and people certainly will, but the tendency of the game is going to go towards encounters structured around balanced combats. You can already see the bulk of the dialogue about 4e (other than arguing about its pros and cons) is about this kind of stuff. It's the same with GURPS, where you can do anything but most GURPS players enjoy complex and clever character builds and detailed, internally-consistent combat.
It sounds like 4e does the high-powered fantasy balanced combat encounter quite well. You can't really argue about how it does much else, because it doesn't really do much else. On either side of the argument. You can't argue that it sucks at roleplaying, but you also can't argue that it is good for roleplaying. The beauty of our hobby is that a lot of groups don't need system for that stuff.
However, to close off that argument, what is the system is still going to tend to dominate play and discourse and it will certainly be the case that most 4e games are going to be filled with balanced combat encounters, using pre-codified class-based abilities. If you find that uninteresting, then why would you be playing 4e?
Well, I have to agree with ya there then. I guess my view is that DnD has always been about combat-heavy high powered fantasy. Perhaps the issue is that the current language and approach are more honest about that than before. I can also see the emphasis on balanced encounters, but I also know that the DMG specifically mentions the option of throwing unbalanced encounters at parties and simply provides advice on how they might be handled without automatically ending in tpks. It seems like sound advice that might be handy for folks who, unlike most of us, don't have years of experience playing RPGs of all kinds.
The crux of the issue for me is when ya write,
QuoteThe beauty of our hobby is that a lot of groups don't need system for that stuff.
I see lots of people complaining about what seems to be a non-issue simply to have something to complain about. I keep asking and nobody seems to want to answer me, what kinds of mechanics are missing from 4e that were present in previous editions that would make the current editions roleplaying experience more or less enjoyable or difficult to achieve?
Quote from: Sigmund;220723I see lots of people complaining about what seems to be a non-issue simply to have something to complain about. I keep asking and nobody seems to want to answer me, what kinds of mechanics are missing from 4e that were present in previous editions that would make the current editions roleplaying experience more or less enjoyable or difficult to achieve?
Well I had the same problems with 3.x as I do with 4e and I never played 2nd edition, so I can't answer that question for you. From the 3.x fans here who are not totally psyched about 4e, I think it has to do with a lack of open-endedness in the system.
A lot of the neat-o, if unbalancing, class features have been take out. The paladin's mount, the animal companions, ranger's woodsman skills are all gone and these went a long way towards fuelling and directing roleplaying.
But that's not massive, from my perspective. My overall problem is with a system that encourages officialness and the kinds of players who are attracted to that kind of system. I came to this hobby to use my imagination and systems that tell me exactly what my character is going to have as he or she progresses are boring and limiting to me.
Quote from: Fritzs;220676well, some people I know consider playing Warhammer 40000 (not dark heresy, minis) without some sort of roleplaying to be boring... but it still doesn't make Warhammer 40000 RPG... or does it...?
I think Warhammer 40K
with roleplaying is absolutely an RPG. Especially if you were only controlling one character each.
Quote from: Sigmund;220708And just to put it out there, if none of ya'all mean to say that 4e isn't a roleplaying game by calling it a tactical skirmish game instead of a rpg like it's previous editions have always been called, then just consider me mistaken in my interpretation of the use of that label. It's just what came to my mind would be the reason for using an alternate designation for the game, especially since it's mostly used by folks who have expressed dissatisfaction with the game.
I think a positive thing to come out of the release of 4e is making the term "roleplaying game" a bit more inclusive of some games that were often seen as "other games". So you can have a Tactical Skirmish Game that's *also* a Roleplaying game. Like Battletech.
I think this will lead to a greater exchange of game mechanics between a wider variety of games -- and that's a really good thing. :)
Quote from: Stuart;220732I think this will lead to a greater exchange of game mechanics between a wider variety of games -- and that's a really good thing. :)
You got yer peanut butter on my chocolate, you story-gaming homo.
!i!
Quote from: walkerp;220695Huh? I've never made that argument. It definitely is, at it's core, structured around tactical combat encounters using minis and a grid. But I never said it wasn't an RPG.
For some folks, I guess, that's an arguing point. Anyways, that comment did seem to be where the train went off the track. Whether or not it was intentional.
Quote from: Sigmund;220708And just to put it out there, if none of ya'all mean to say that 4e isn't a roleplaying game by calling it a tactical skirmish game instead of a rpg like it's previous editions have always been called, then just consider me mistaken in my interpretation of the use of that label. It's just what came to my mind would be the reason for using an alternate designation for the game, especially since it's mostly used by folks who have expressed dissatisfaction with the game.
Guess I'll blame Sigmund then. :cool:
Quote from: Stuart;220732I think a positive thing to come out of the release of 4e is making the term "roleplaying game" a bit more inclusive of some games that were often seen as "other games". So you can have a Tactical Skirmish Game that's *also* a Roleplaying game. Like Battletech.
Er, wasn't Mechwarrior the RPG, Battletech the minis game?
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220739Er, wasn't Mechwarrior the RPG, Battletech the minis game?
Yes. I wish I still had them too damn it.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220739Er, wasn't Mechwarrior the RPG, Battletech the minis game?
Mechwarrior is an RPG set in the Battletech Universe. If you want to do Mech-to-Mech combat you used the Battletech rules though.
Quote from: Fritzs;220676And about 4e... well, some people I know consider playing Warhammer 40000 (not dark heresy, minis) without some sort of roleplaying to be boring... but it still doesn't make Warhammer 40000 RPG... or does it...?
No, of course it doesn't, which is exactly what I said when I gave the definition of an RPG. However, by your definition, if it somehow wasn't fun without roleplaying, it would be an RPG. Or at least, it would be an RPG for that guy, but not for you. Whereas D&D is an RPG for a whole ton of people, but not for you.
The best thing to do is use an objective definition devoid of personal opinion. That is, if you want a term that's usable in a discussion without polling each person about their tastes so you know whether they'll use your definition or not.
---
The first time D&D refers to itself in the PHB it calls itself a Roleplaying Game. It has rules for use with roleplaying. It also has advice for people new to roleplaying for when they come across a situtaion those rules don't cover. It takes a purposefully blind and biased view to say "D&D 4e isn't an RPG."
Actually, I think Fritzs's flexible definition is more useful and interesting. As an example, it does a good job of illustrating the high "RPGness" of older versions of D&D. Which is to say, rather contrary to what Sigmund wrote a few posts ago, the earlier (pre-3e) versions, were really pretty pointless without roleplaying. And the farther back you went, the more true this was.
Note by "roleplaying" I don't mean intense character-centric drama--but with those older games, if you tried to play them as skirmish wargames, they pretty much...sucked. If you played them as games of adventure, exploration, and characterization, you were more likely to have fun.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220739Er, wasn't Mechwarrior the RPG, Battletech the minis game?
Interestingly (maybe), while it's usually a sucessful RPG that gives rise to a compatible strategic minis game, in this case it was the strategic minis game that gave rise to a compatible RPG. I liked the general mechanics of the RPG, but never saw the need to roleplay between combat scenarios, so I never did get a campaign going.
!i!
Quote from: Sigmund;220705What the hell ya asking me for? You have to ask the people giving their opinions why they feel they should. I'm simply stating what I feel is behind what they are saying. I could be wrong, but I could also be correct as well. It's probably obvious which I think I am, at least until someone convinces me otherwise.
I'm asking you because you're the dufus who thinks that people who don't like 4E, don't like it because of minis and battlemats regardless of what they actually say.
Instead of just assuming you know why people don't like 4E, why don't you ask them and find out for sure? Who knows, it may be enlightening to you.
Quote from: Sigmund;220707What, in your opinion, is missing from 4e that was present in previous editions of DnD that makes 4e less of a rpg than those other editions?
The Bard character class, for one.
I'm not into high-powered fantasy combat for its own sake, I'm interested in that if it is the culmination of a plotline for the characters in an adventure. To me, D&D hasn't been all about the combat encounter, it has been about the encounter - and if that turns into a combat encounter then it is due to the actions of the players. I like how in 3.x you could still gain experience from an encounter with a monster without it becoming combat. 4E has those encounters now distinctly seperate, they are the Combat Encounter and the Skill Challenge. This is where Sigmund's style and mine are going to differ, because in the type of play I prefer which was a part of 3.x the encounter could be either combat or skill challenge depending on how the players decided to approach the encounter.
Quote from: jeff379234E has those encounters now distinctly seperate, they are the Combat Encounter and the Skill Challenge. This is where Sigmund's style and mine are going to differ, because in the type of play I prefer which was a part of 3.x the encounter could be either combat or skill challenge depending on how the players decided to approach the encounter.
That's not true, not at all. Skill challenges can lead into Combat encounters, and a combat encounter can be changed into a skill challenge (or just plain old roleplaying)depending on how the PC's approach a situation. That's pretty much just as it was before. D&D 4e is not strictly a railroad, it is still a RPG. It's just not a very good one.
In the original AD&D, I got more XP for treasure than I did from combat. You could run a dungeon as a difficult maze (I haven't seen a good maze dungeon outside of a videogame in a LONG time!) or with strictly traps and puzzles (back when there were no skill rolls, so the players had to figure it out for themselves). If the got to the end and found a ton of treasure, than they got a ton of XP too! No need for monsters or combat what so ever.
Quite a lot of good points raised on both sides, folks - thanks.
Quote from: Sigmund;220720To try to get back on topic, I have to say that while Melan's OP has a very few points I consider valid, as a whole I have to strongly disagree with the rant as a whole and say that I echo Trev in saying it seems that at the time the post was written it seems Melan has very little direct knowledge of the game at all. Melan makes the same mistake as many others in presenting opinion as objective truth, and what's worse seems to base these opinions on ideas not even espoused by the game he's ranting about. For example, Melan says,
First, the meta-discussion part. Not having much direct knowledge of the game books is accurate, but I did not pretend otherwise, so I don't see your point. I think adequate information has been released in the form of teasers, preview materials and reviews to form a moderately informed opinion if you have been following things. I have been following things, both pro and contra... and like others, even the positive opinions reinforced my negative preconceptions. I just don't like this game, period. I get why others find it enjoyable, I just don't share their preferences. About the only thing I liked is that DMing looks a bit easier because of more intuitive monster stats (and that's too little, esp. in face of everything else). Also, I don't mind that the game supports miniatures; I liked them in 3e, Attacks of Opportunity and all. The rest, not so much.
Second, I don't claim objectivity. This is my personal perspective based on my preferences. So are most positive opinions. I don't buy the "but it's not
objective" argument; almost nothing posted on the Internet is. Bringing in evidence is good, but not even that makes your argument objective, it just makes it supported by evidence, which is not the same thing.
Your examples from the DMG, for example, are good evidence - and I will counter that games often have a spirit not entirely in keeping with the text. To cite an example, "status quo" encounters in 3.x were mentioned as perfectly legitimate, but most hardcore 3e players greatly preferred custom-tailored ones, and used Challenge Ratings and the "rewards" tables as a normative encounter balancing mechanism. Something that started out as descriptive turned out to be prescriptive - so much so that modules outside the norm were strongly criticised (I recommend reading ENWorld reviews of Necromancer Games modules, especially Rappan Athuk, to see how status quo encounters came to be viewed by a significant and
hardcore segment of the community).
It appears to me that 4e has moved towards even stronger and more hard-wired game balance - changes to more "arbitrary" threats such as petrification, paralysis or any save-or-die effects; magic items in the PHB instead of the DMG, and I think there are suggested monster and treasure "packages" in the core books (confirm/deny?). These seem to support my argument WRT fair play, standardisation and removing "unfun" things. Meticulously balancing player characters against each other also belongs to the category in my opinion - that's why classes were made more similar by having the same sort of power structure, unlike earlier editions, where
playing different classes was almost like playing a different game.
QuoteMelan makes some reference to the "bad players" and how his opinion is that the design philosophy is catering to them. When talking about this issue he makes reference to players that hated their characters getting killed, complained about game balance (and then again injects his opinion when saying he finds WotC solution as "Uniformisation and sameness"), etc. This is an over-generalization of the many folks having an issue with instant deaths (we've all heard the complaints about "save or die" mechanics), and too much down-time while specialists gain the spot-light.
The argumentation used against save or die effects, rust monsters ("depriving the players of their due" / "deprotagonisation" in Forge terms), DM arbitration/powers, spotlight issues et al is
very much the core of the Tyranny of Fun problem. Not all players subscribe to this philosophy, but enough people (and among them many hardcores) do to make it matter, especially when Wizards designers listen. In my opinion, this becomes a problem because instead of promoting the various sorts of fun you can have at the table, WotC design tries to make people happy by removing or "fixing" game elements which invite controversy.
It is my position that this makes 4e a poorer - less varied and more regimented - game; there are still challenges, but they almost always lie in combat tactics. Most of the "look, 4e isn't nerfed" arguments refer to how groups got their asses handed to them by an interesting tactical encounter. Which is fine (I damn loved these when I was playing 3e, even when we were losing!), but I want the other sorts of fun as well - the more random kind which you can nevertheless try to avoid with a bit of out of the box thinking. Or die trying. :D So there are two issues here:
a) safety: making the game safer by taking out or blunting some of the things you can hurt yourself with;
b) sameness: more codified instead of open-ended play styles (is there advice in the 4e DMG relating to non-tactical challenges? And if yes, how much?).
None of this is exactly new to 4e - witness 3.5's changes to the Command spell (a few codified commands instead of open-endedness), Hold Person, Harm, Disintegrate, etc., or the changes to the rust monster and beholder. 4e is simply the outcome of the thought process, one I could see coming.
I understand where people are coming from when they say they were not finding the apparent randomness and "unfair" elements of earlier D&D appealing. I see why they would like 4e - along with the people who
finally got what they have wanted since 1976 - no more memorisation! But these things are what made the game fun and "D&D" to me. I didn't find them bugs to be fixed; they
were the game. I also find it a little unfair/unjust that the "griefers" are the ones being listened to, and not the people who accepted Dungeons & Dragons on its own merits, but such is life...
So yeah, 4e is not my D&D anymore, and like everyone else, I am letting people know. ;) I guess that's my response to this part:
QuoteThe second issue is hardly common to DnD, as it has been a complaint of all the editions of Shadowrun before the current one (and it's a complaint I agree with). While lots of folks, Melan included, might not like WotC's solution to these issues, at least they are hearing their customers and trying to do something about these issues. I, for one have no problem with 90% of their approach.
...
QuoteBack to the topic, I have no idea where Melan is getting this,
from. If, by writing mechanics for a game make the designer "the infallible arbiters of what is good and bad fun.", then what game isn't some kind of "tyranny of fun"? Is it because some people seem to think 4e will be harder to houserule than other games?
As I see it, 4e might be easier to houserule than 3e - the mechanics are perhaps less integrated (at least my information gives me this impression). It is the
image and
acceptance of houseruling that has changed. The same attitudes I cited about the game and the rules - which you yourself seem to acknowledge - are not conductive to making house rules or (in extreme cases) non-canonical DM rulings. The kind of people who jealously guard their characters from being killed or harmed by some semi-random effect are often the same types who resent DM authority, and find it hard to accept any change going against their "privileges". This is the "bad player" part - bad DMs are a different breed, of course. But should games be designed to accommodate bad play by integrating/promoting safety, or encourage good gaming at the cost that it might let in the sort of subjectivity that will make dysfunctional game groups have an unpleasant experience? Can/should people be protected from their own mistakes? I am in the "no safety net" and "just play with normal people" camp.
About the role of game design - as I see it, game designers are the external authority people can appeal to, and which "bad players" love to cite. This is not completely new - after all, Skip Williams had spent most of his carreer answering D&D related questions which were often about the basest rule-fuckery. But I see
appeals to game design cropping up a lot in recent arguments. Maybe it is also in part because of a growing awareness of game design's role, but I also think it is about the different status of "official" materials, and "official interpretations".
QuoteI challenge Melan (or anyone else for that matter) to provide specific examples of how DnD 4e "denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play". Give me references to page and/or game mechanics that support that conclusion. Give me examples of how 4e attempts (any more than any other rpg) to protect gamers from their own mistakes. Explain to me in more detail, with support from the actual text, how 4e will "shift roleplaying games towards more passive and consumption-oriented forms of entertainment".
Hope the above was enough; I can provide more if you wish, time and will permitting. Since I don't actually have the books, we will have to do without textual citations.
In the end, I am not claiming you can't have a good game with 4e, or you are stupid for liking it (well... if you like how they disposed of memorisation and the real rust monster, you
might be :D). I am claiming it's a move in a bad direction, and, furthermore, by shedding its own identity, it is losing that special "D&D sort of charm only D&D of all roleplaying games had.
Quote from: KrakaJak;220804That's not true, not at all. Skill challenges can lead into Combat encounters, and a combat encounter can be changed into a skill challenge (or just plain old roleplaying)depending on how the PC's approach a situation. That's pretty much just as it was before. D&D 4e is not strictly a railroad, it is still a RPG. It's just not a very good one.
Skill Challenges and Combat Encounters are different and formatted as such in 4E. While you can say that one may lead to another, you still have a structure to adhere to for either which wasn't there in 3.x - which moves away from the DM adjucating the flow of play to a more codefied response that feels like it must be decided upon beforehand (and not based upon the situation that is happening in real time).
I'll grant that 4E is not a railroad, but just by looking at the rules - it is strongly geared towards the Combat Encounter.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;220332If Melan makes a point based on misunderstanding, Trev should be able to point it out. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to authority.
True, but as you yourself noted this would hardly be the first time I've raised this point, and I've covered my objections to comments like those in the OP in much more detail elsewhere.
I can do a point by point if you prefer, but there's only so much old ground we can keep recovering before the whole exercise seems pointless and I'd rather save myself the trouble.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;220784Actually, I think Fritzs's flexible definition is more useful and interesting. As an example, it does a good job of illustrating the high "RPGness" of older versions of D&D. Which is to say, rather contrary to what Sigmund wrote a few posts ago, the earlier (pre-3e) versions, were really pretty pointless without roleplaying. And the farther back you went, the more true this was.
They also made more time for roleplaying. Combat was simple and did not usually consume much play time, 10-15 minutes for an average combat encounter versus 45-90 minutes for the same in 3e+ (in my experience). This left the group with a lot more time for non-combat stuff in pre-3e games. I've found that the less time spend in combat, the more time spent roleplaying.
QuoteNote by "roleplaying" I don't mean intense character-centric drama--but with those older games, if you tried to play them as skirmish wargames, they pretty much...sucked. If you played them as games of adventure, exploration, and characterization, you were more likely to have fun.
I think that may be the key point. 3e marked a major change in the focus of the game from adventure and exploration to tactical combat and character-building. The latter tends to leave less time for roleplaying. 4e seems to have downplayed the character build a bit, but increased the emphasis on tactical combat and character balance for tactical combat.
All editions of D&D are certainly roleplaying games, but the WOTC editions seem to me to focus more on fun from playing out detailed tactical combats while TSR editions focused more on fun from adventure and exploration. As I find detailed tactical combat boring and adventure and exploration fun and exciting, this would explain while I strongly prefer TSR editions.
Quote from: Melan;220809I understand where people are coming from when they say they were not finding the apparent randomness and "unfair" elements of earlier D&D appealing. I see why they would like 4e - along with the people who finally got what they have wanted since 1976 - no more memorisation! But these things are what made the game fun and "D&D" to me. I didn't find them bugs to be fixed; they were the game. I also find it a little unfair/unjust that the "griefers" are the ones being listened to, and not the people who accepted Dungeons & Dragons on its own merits, but such is life...
What bothers me most about what has been done is that most of these problems could have been solved by short optional rules that handle the specific cases. This way those who want the "safety" and lack of randomness could have what they want without nerfing the game for those who do not mind it.
Some examples:
Have an optional rule for energy drains, making them dangerous but non-permanent (and not requiring rewriting the character): If your players do not like energy drains, instead of having them permanently lose a level, give them a -1 on all D20 rolls per level drained from them. They heal one drained level even HD days where HD is the number of hit dice the monster who drained the level has.
If your characters find the chance of character death too high, allow them and option to "save their game" and restore it after something goes bad, just like in a computer game. Have a deity of adventurers in your campaign who will (for say, 25% of all treasure earned disappearing as the character gains it) raise the character as exactly she was the last time she prayed to the Adventurer God for 10 minutes straight per level 24 hours after they died at the nearest church or shrine to this deity. (This may not make much sense, but it will work without nerfing the game rules for everyone and with some fleshing out in the campaign setting could be made to feel less silly.)
Quote from: Jeff37923I'll grant that 4E is not a railroad, but just by looking at the rules - it is strongly geared towards the Combat Encounter.
That's the biggest problem, is the focus on the combat encounter. The worst part of that focus is combat is shitty. It's long, drawn out and frustrating. First level combats now take 30 minutes or more, there's little room for improvisation, most character abilities are very similar, and there is not much actual danger.
Quote from: KrakaJak;220904That's the biggest problem, is the focus on the combat encounter. The worst part of that focus is combat is shitty. It's long, drawn out and frustrating. First level combats now take 30 minutes or more, there's little room for improvisation, most character abilities are very similar, and there is not much actual danger.
Yep, with hit points having increased 100-200% from 3e, fights can take a long time even at first level. There are no decisive moves to make. Your only move is to try to optimize your damage per round (ala dps in wow).
Quote from: KrakaJak;220904That's the biggest problem, is the focus on the combat encounter. The worst part of that focus is combat is shitty. It's long, drawn out and frustrating. First level combats now take 30 minutes or more, there's little room for improvisation, most character abilities are very similar, and there is not much actual danger.
You are hitting around the problem I'm having with Powers in 4E. They give the illusion of choice in combat, but they are actually steering players towards a handfull of very similar pregenerated maneuvers. The ability for a player to improvise an attack based on the combat situation and have the DM adjucate the results has greatly diminished.
Every time someone makes a wow comparison I kept thinking of wow characters jumping and tumbling and moving around... then I see wow combat... and it is very much all of 'stand toe to toe and bash each other to bits'.
This isn't very much like a lot of the 4e combats I've had so far.
And as far as no real danger... all the adventures I've seen played so far from WotC have either had more tpks than not or I can see just where they are going to happen.
Combat being shitty... OK, sure, in your opinion... not my in my opinion.
The nature of WOW combat depends on if you're talking about PVE or PVP. Because WOW has no collision detection between mobile objects, all sorts of fuckwittery goes on because the rules of the system allow for it. In PVE, combat is mostly static due to constraints programmed into the system by the developers; what mobility exists is there usually as a gimmick to complicate a boss fight. In PVP combat is very mobile, and the use of snares (and other crowd control measures) is a huge part of the PVP game. WOW PVP has lots of leaping, pixel-bitching, min/maxing and such to the point where characters that have neither crowd control nor instant-cast abilities get utterly fucked in the ass. (e.g. Paladin healers in Arena combat, even in the 5v5 format)
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;220991The nature of WOW combat depends on if you're talking about PVE or PVP. Because WOW has no collision detection between mobile objects, all sorts of fuckwittery goes on because the rules of the system allow for it. In PVE, combat is mostly static due to constraints programmed into the system by the developers; what mobility exists is there usually as a gimmick to complicate a boss fight. In PVP combat is very mobile, and the use of snares (and other crowd control measures) is a huge part of the PVP game. WOW PVP has lots of leaping, pixel-bitching, min/maxing and such to the point where characters that have neither crowd control nor instant-cast abilities get utterly fucked in the ass. (e.g. Paladin healers in Arena combat, even in the 5v5 format)
There's an exception to every rule of course. Rogues are quite mobile in both modes of play, at least when played optimally. Of course, while you do move about plenty in combat, it's still the same bloody moves over and over again each time. Backstab, enemy turns to face, gouge to stun, run around behind him, backstab, gouge, backstab, gouge, until dead. At least for regular mobs. For bosses it again becomes entirely static, and it's pretty much just backstab, backstab, backstab.
Which is part of the whole point of the comparison. The powers as designed are no different from the ones in WoW, just buttons you push to do damage.
Quote from: J Arcane;220995There's an exception to every rule of course. Rogues are quite mobile in both modes of play, at least when played optimally. Of course, while you do move about plenty in combat, it's still the same bloody moves over and over again each time. Backstab, enemy turns to face, gouge to stun, run around behind him, backstab, gouge, backstab, gouge, until dead. At least for regular mobs. For bosses it again becomes entirely static, and it's pretty much just backstab, backstab, backstab.
This is pretty much the case, to the point where there are cookie-cutter Talent specs for each class depending on PVE/PVP and role therein, and there are sites such as Elitist Jerks and Maintankadin that focus on doing all of the character/group/raid optimization math-wankery that leads to revised standard practices as well as boss strategies and everything else that those not amongst the hardcore minority rely upon in getting content done in a timely fashion. (This is a good example of the 80/20 Rule as applied to MMO games.) You know your role, you know your ability rotation, gear up to fit that role, use macros to squeeze out faster performance, etc. but it all goes down to doing damage or stopping someone else from doing damage (Crowd Control).
QuoteWhich is part of the whole point of the comparison. The powers as designed are no different from the ones in WoW, just buttons you push to do damage.
To the point where you might as well post short notes at the FLGS that say "Dwarf Fighter 10 LFG. PST to (contact location)".
I watched some of the PVP stuff on youtube.
still it's ironic that WOW needs to be a social thing with/against people (pvp) to get 4e compared to it.
Since my arguments were criticised for not providing enough concrete examples, I spent the last evening comparing different editions for evidence of The Tyranny of Fun. Here are the results without further comment - you can draw your own conclusions. :pundit:
The Tyranny of Fun in data: three examples
(or how too much game design is bad for you and your game)
[/SIZE]
***
[/SIZE]
#1: The Command spell through the editionsOD&D and Basic: not included
1e (note Gygaxian verbiage :D)
This spell enables the cleric to issue a command of a single word. The command must be uttered in a language which the spell recipient is able to understand. The individual will obey to the best of his/her/its ability only so long as the command is absolutely clear and unequivocal, i.e. "Suicide!" could be a noun, so the creature would ignore the command. A command to "Die!" would cause the recipient to fall in a faint or cataleptic state for 1 round, but thereafter the creature would be alive and well. Typical command words are: back, halt, flee, run, stop, fall, fly, go, leave, surrender, sleep, rest, etc. Undead are not affected by a command. Creatures with an intelligence of 13 or more, and creatures with 6 or more hit dice (or experience levels) are entitled to a saving throw versus magic. (Creatures with 13 or higher intelligence and 6 hit dice/levels do not get 2 saving throws!)
3eThe character gives the subject a one-word command, which she obeys to the best of her ability. A very reasonable command causes the subject to suffer a penalty on the saving throw (from –1 to –4, at the DM's discretion). Typical commands are "Flee," "Die" (which causes the subject to feign death), "Halt," "Run," "Stop," "Fall," "Go," "Leave," "Surrender," and "Rest." (A command of "Suicide" fails because "suicide" is generally used as a noun, not as a command.)
3.5e (note the subtle change)
You give the subject a single command, which it obeys to the best of its ability at its earliest opportunity. You may select from the following options.
Approach: On its turn, the subject moves toward you as quickly and directly as possible for 1 round. The creature may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Drop: On its turn, the subject drops whatever it is holding. It can't pick up any dropped item until its next turn.
Fall: On its turn, the subject falls to the ground and remains prone for 1 round. It may act normally while prone but takes any appropriate penalties.
Flee: On its turn, the subject moves away from you as quickly as possible for 1 round. It may do nothing but move during its turn, and it provokes attacks of opportunity for this movement as normal.
Halt: The subject stands in place for 1 round. It may not take any actions but is not considered helpless.
If the subject can't carry out your command on its next turn, the spell automatically fails.
4e You utter a single word to your foe, a word that demands obedience. You can choose to drive the foe back, order it closer, or cause the foe to throw itself to the ground. Hit: The target is dazed until the end of your next turn. In addition, you can choose to knock the target prone or
slide the target a number of squares equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier
***
[/SIZE]
#2: List of non-encounter spells by edition, LVL 1-3 [/b](Does not include buffs, curative and combat spells, but may include some which have a good non-combat use)
1st level:
OD&D (Men & Magic and Greyhawk):
Cleric: Purify Food and Water, Detect Magic, Detect Evil, Light (4/6)
M-U: Detect Magic, Hold Portal, Read Magic, Read Languages, Light, Charm Person, Ventriloquism (7/11)
AD&D 1st editionCleric: Create Water, Detect Magic, Detect Evil, Light, Purify Food and Water, Resist Cold (7/12)
M-U: Affect Normal Fires, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Dancing Lights, Detect Magic, Erase, Feather Fall, Find Familiar, Friends, Hold Portal, Identify, Jump, Light, Mending, Message, Nystul's Magical Aura, Push, Read Magic, Spider Climb, Tenser's Floating Disk, Unseen Servant, Ventriloquism, Write (23/30)
D&D 3.5 (includes 0-level spells, but not Clerical domain spells)
Cleric: Create Water, Detect Magic, Detect Poison, Guidance, Light, Mending, Purify Food and Drink, Read Magic, Bless Water, Comprehend Languages, Curse Water, Detect Chaos/Evil/Good/Law, Detect Undead, Hide from Undead, Obscuring Mist, Summon Monster I. (16/37)
Wizard: Detect Poison, Detect Magic, Read Magic, Dancing Lights, Light, Ghost Sound, Mage Hand, Mending, Message, Open/Close, Arcane Mark, Prestidigitation, Alarm, Hold Portal, Grease, Mount, Obscuring Mist, Summon Monster I, Unseen Servant, Comprehend Languages, Detect Secret Doors, Detect Undead, Identify, Charm Person, Floating Disk, Disguise Self, Magic Aura, Silent Image, Ventriloquism, Animate Rope, Erase, Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Jump (34/58)
D&D 4e (includes class abilities and available rituals)
Cleric: Gentle Repose (1/13)
Wizard: Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Magic Mouth, Make Whole, Secret Page, Silence, Tenser's Floating Disk (9/23)2nd level:
OD&DCleric: Find Traps, Speak with Animals, Silence 15' r. (3/6)
M-U: Detect Invisible, Levitate, Phantasmal Forces, Locate Object, Invisibility, Wizard Lock, Detect Evil, ESP, Continual Light, Knock, Magic Mouth (11/16)
AD&D 1st editionCleric: Augury, Detect Charm, Find Traps, Know Alignment, Silence 15' r., Speak With Animals (6/12)
M-U: Audible Glamer, Continual Light, Darkness 15' r., Detect Evil, Detect Invisibility, ESP, Fool's Gold, Forget, Invisibility, Knock, Leomund's Trap, Levitate, Locate Object, Magic Mouth, Shatter, Wizard Lock (16/24)
D&D 3.5Cleric: Augury, Consecrate, Darkness, Desecrate, Enthrall, Find Traps, Gentle Repose, Make Whole, Shatter, Silence, Summon Monster II., Undetectable Alignment, Zone of Truth (13/32)
M-U: Arcane Lock, Obscure Object, Fog Cloud, Glitterdust, Summon Monster II, Detect Thoughts, Locate Object, See Invisibility, Continual Flame, Darkness, Gust of Wind, Shatter, Invisibility, Magic Mouth, Minor Image, Misdirection, Phantom Trap, Command Undead, Alter Self, Darkvision, Knock, Levitate, Spider Climb, Whispering Wind (24/50)
D&D 4eCleric: (0/5)
M-U: Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Jump, Eye of Alarm (4/6)3rd level:
OD&DCleric: Locate Object, Continual Light, Speak With dead (3/6)
M-U: Fly, Dispell Magic [sic], Clairvoyance, Clairaudience, Invisibility 10' r., Infravision, Water Breathing, Explosive Runes, Suggestion, Monster Summoning I. (9/18)
AD&D 1st editionCleric: Animate Dead, Continual Light, Create Food & Water, Dispel Magic, Feign Death, Glyph of Warding, Locate Object, Speak With Dead (8/12)
M-U: Clairaudience, Clairvoyance, Dispel Magic, Explosive Runes, Feign Death, Fly, Gust of Wind, Infravision, Invisibility 10' r., Leomund's Tiny Hut, Monster Summoning I., Phantasmal Force, Suggestion, Tongues, Water Breathing (15/24)
D&D 3.5Cleric: Animate Dead, Continual Flame, Create Food and Water, Daylight, Deeper Darkness, Dispel Magic, Glyph of Warding, Helping Hand, Invisibility Purge, Locate Object, Meld into Stone, Obscure Object, Speak with Dead, Stone Shape, Summon Monster III, Water Breathing, Water Walk, Wind Wall (18/31)
M-U: Dispel Magic, Explosive Runes, Nondetection, Phantom Steed, Sepia Snake Sigil, Summon Monster III, Arcane Sight, Clairaudience/Clairvoyance, Tongues, Suggestion, Daylight, Tiny Hut, Wind Wall, Illusory Script, Invisibility Sphere, Major Image, Gentle Repose, Fly, Gaseous Form, Secret Page, Shrink Item, Water Breathing (22/41)
D&D 4eCleric: (0/4)
M-U: Detect Secret Doors(1/5)Percentages by level (Cleric/M-U):
1st
OD&D: 67% / 64%
1e: 58% / 77%
3.5e: 43% / 59%
4e: 8% / 39%2nd
OD&D: 50% / 69%
1e: 50% / 67%
3.5e: 41% / 48%
4e: 0 % / 67%3rd
OD&D: 50% / 50%
1e: 67% / 63%
3.5e: 58% / 54%
4e: 0% / 20%All 1-3 LVL spells
OD&D: 37/63 (59%)
1e: 75/112 (67%)
3.5e: 127/249 (51%)
4e: 15/56 (27%)***
[/SIZE]
#3: Complete list of non-encounter/buff related magic items found in the 4e PHB[/b](List does not take into account applicable level limits which may restrict access)
Boots of Spider Climbing
Ioun Stone of True Sight
Ring of Flight
Ring of Invisibility
Ring of True Seeing
Bag of Holding
Dust of Appearance
Everlasting Provisions
Feather Boat
Flying Carpet
Handy Haversack
Portable Hole
Rope of Climbing
Sending Stones
(14 total - that's all, folks! :bunny: )
Quote from: dar;220999I watched some of the PVP stuff on youtube.
still it's ironic that WOW needs to be a social thing with/against people (pvp) to get 4e compared to it.
Why?
Quote from: KrakaJak;220341No, it set out to be a successor RPG to the granddaddy of RPGs. It says so right in the name, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition Roleplaying Game. Are you really that much of a fucking Shill that you think they set out to make D&D 4e a tactical strategy game?
Fucking Shill? Hmm. If I see you praising any game you enjoy, I'll remember to return the comment.
I have followed 4e's development via ENworld since it was first announced. I am a big fan of game design discussions and author's blogs and the designers repeatedly stated that "4e combat = exciting 3D strategy" was a core design goal. And its blindingly obvious. The difference between the 4e RPG rules and DDM rules are minimal and anyone who plays one game will easily jump to the other. Don't believe me? You can download the DDM rules for free.
It's okay if you don't like 4e or don't want to play it or don't want to read it, but it insanely moronic to rave how you hate something without playing the actual game with an open mind. BTW, welcome to the new dominant RPG design over the entire industry for the next 5 years...until 4.5 comes out.
I have to laugh at all these comments about 4e taking away player's creative choices in combat. Cut the shit people. I have been a DM for 30 years and I have run convention games for 25 years with probably a 1000 different players. After all this time, I still have to encourage the players to describe their actions with some flair instead of yet another "I attack" or "I cast X spell." I lead by example and I always have a few holdouts every con. This utterly uncreative approach to combat actions IS the standard way most people game. 4e is a freaking smorgasbord of new actions for them.
BTW, the main reason I enjoy 4e is because the 3D tactical skirmish boardgame aspect is terrific fun. I have a shelf full of RPGs that do an amazing job of non-minis RPG storytelling that we can play from the couch without any maps, boards or figs. That's what OD&D and Warhammer and Rifts and Cthulhu are for!
Quote from: Spinachcat;221019I have to laugh at all these comments about 4e taking away player's creative choices in combat. Cut the shit people.
4e is a freaking smorgasbord of new actions for them.
New actions that have been thought up by the game designers and not the players during the game.
Quote from: jeff37923;221027New actions that have been thought up by the game designers and not the players during the game.
There's actually an entire section in the DMG on quickly arbitrating tactical options the PCs take that aren't covered by the RAW, including a rough system to help you eyeball what the DCs should be (the same system used for determining the DCs of skill challenges, actually).
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221030There's actually an entire section in the DMG on quickly arbitrating tactical options the PCs take that aren't covered by the RAW, including a rough system to help you eyeball what the DCs should be (the same system used for determining the DCs of skill challenges, actually).
So why does 4E have Powers?
EDIT: A little clarification. The vast majority of Powers are pre-programmed combat maneuvers complete with fluff text "special effects" which are the tabletop game equivalent of hitting a game controller's button to launch a special move in a computer game.
So, if there is a section in the DMG on how to arbitrate a tactical option in combat, then why have the Powers which allow the player to accomplish the similar things without the burden of thinking it up for themselves?
Quote from: Spinachcat;221019I have followed 4e's development...[huge snip]
I could have riposted that post sentence by sentence but I have better things to do with by time.
I would just like to say that I am glad a self-confessed 4ed fan admits both to WotC money-grabbing nature and the fact they designed a 3d minis strategy game as their latest product.
Quote from: jeff37923;220984The ability for a player to improvise an attack based on the combat situation and have the DM adjucate the results has greatly diminished.
Insofar as the 4E DMG contains specific advice, enocuragement and examples for adjudicating character actions ooutside of their power list (the example giving being a character who swings from a chandalier to kick a monster into a burning brazier) and AFAIK the 3E DMG contains no such advice, I'm not seeing how 4E is worse at this than the previous edition.
Quote from: Edsan;221010Why?
Cause I think that the comparison is in part to say that 4e is some robotic non human endeavor, at least more so than other D&D's. The ironic part to me is that WOW must be PVP to even resemble 4e combat, WOW must become more social and human in order to approximate 4e combat. In my opinion even then it does a worse job.
Quote from: Trevelyan;221033Insofar as the 4E DMG contains specific advice, enocuragement and examples for adjudicating character actions ooutside of their power list (the example giving being a character who swings from a chandalier to kick a monster into a burning brazier) and AFAIK the 3E DMG contains no such advice, I'm not seeing how 4E is worse at this than the previous edition.
Its the attitude of the game designer IMHO. In 3.x, when a player did something not covered by the rules then it was assumed that the DM would use his natural imagination and ingenuity to handle the situation (hopefully with his God given Viking Hat perched at a jaunty angle on his head).
In 4E, there is a page of suggestions on how to handle things not covered by Powers in combat. And surprise, surprise, it shows the DM how to take the player's unexpected non-standard maneuver and turn it into something using a Power format. The feel I get from this, I know personal preference rearing its ugly head, is that not only did the game designers not expect players to choose to do something that wasn't a Power but want whatever they do to be shoehorned back into a Power.
So my take on it is this, where 4E has rules sections for when a player doesn't do something already thought up by the game designer, 3.x automatically assumes that the players will most likely do something not thought up by the game designer and doesn't try to limit the players.
Quote from: jeff37923;221046So my take on it is this, where 4E has rules sections for when a player doesn't do something already thought up by the game designer, 3.x automatically assumes that the players will most likely do something not thought up by the game designer and doesn't try to limit the players.
This seems like a lose/lose situation. If 4e didn't include suggestions for how to accommodate player ingenuity, you could say that is evidence that powers are meant to be used non-creatively; since it does, you can say it reduces GM ingenuity.
Personally, I don't see any difference in the amount of possible ingenuity in either version. Could you perhaps give some examples of Powers whose 3e counterparts allow more ingenious action?
This is a really interesting discussion.
I think it's worthwhile to hash this argument out at the text level, but for me the proof is going to come out in play and I suspect that 4e play will trend more and more towards the kind of pre-programmed, repetitive actions that Jeff37923 is not liking in the text.
But I found this in 3.x as well, so I'm not seeing a huge difference between the two editions as much as a refining of principles started in 3.x (though Melan's comparison evidence is pretty damning, and chilling if I were a big fan of 3.x for it's open-endedness).
It's good to have rules covering non-standard options and trying to fit them into a template is really the only way to go once you have Powers that use a template and do much the same thing.
I wonder if there is a risk though. If I as a creative and pretty pursuasive player can convince the DM to allow me to perform ad hoc powers type actions then isn;t there a risk that the player that has obtained this becuase of their class/level choices is being short changed.
Say a rouge has a power that enables them to push a MOB back their charisma bonus in squares (the now much maligned Zoolander look ability) supposing I as a Fighter ask the DM if I can use the dining table in the orc soldiers mess as a barrier and force the orcs back towards the firepit say 2 squares approx. Aren't I basically spoling the game balance by being able to do things that are replicated by other powers?
Personnaly I would have relegated all the move stuff round the grid type powers to a single mechanic like the one described that allowed anyone to try and backflip off a table or over a pig or push the orcs back or whatever. Ithink once you define some of these as powers that have to be bought or earned it creates an issue for their use by other people (you could also fudge stuff that is less specific which means the rules can be used in a non-mini supported game more easily as no one expects a try to push them back with teh table manuver to move them exactly Str bonus -1 per combatant squares)
Quote from: Engine;221048Could you perhaps give some examples of Powers whose 3e counterparts allow more ingenious action?
Sure, we'll compare the Wizard at first level between 3.x and 4E.
The 4E wizard has 2 At-Will Spells, 1 Encounter Spell, and 1 Daily Spell but have only two to choose from for each slot out of 5 At-Will, 5 Encounter, and 4 Daily (it should be noted that all of these are attack spells).
The 3.x Wizard has 3 0-level spell slots and 1 1st-level spell slots, unmodified by high intelligence, but can choose between 19 0-level spells and 3 out of 39 1st-level spells. Not to mention any scrolls that the Wizard has made to provide extra spells that can be used without taking up a slot.
While many of the 3.x spells can be used in combat, only about half of them are combat-specific. The variety of spell choices for the 3.x Wizard makes that class more versatile and thus better able to handle different situations than the 4E Wizard which is heavily weighted for combat.
That's an excellent example; the movement of so many non-combat spells into rituals leaves the spellcasters with fewer non-combat spells to make ingenious actions in combat, although they can certainly still use their combat spells ingeniously.
On the other hand, this is pretty specific to spellcasting, and is more an indictment of the movement of noncombat spells to rituals [and the elimination of several of them from the core books, if I recall] than an overall tendency to make combat non-creative. Is, for instance, Cleave somehow less able to be used creatively in 4e?
Quote from: jibbajibba;221065Say a rouge has a power that enables them to push a MOB back their charisma bonus in squares (the now much maligned Zoolander look ability) supposing I as a Fighter ask the DM if I can use the dining table in the orc soldiers mess as a barrier and force the orcs back towards the firepit say 2 squares approx. Aren't I basically spoling the game balance by being able to do things that are replicated by other powers?
The distinction seems to be that the powers inflict damage in addition to doing "x", where "x" is the ability that another character might want to replicate. I see no reason why it would be imbalanced to allow another character to attempt "x" without the chance of adding direct damage. And where "x" might result in damage anyway (say from the fire) then the character with the power still has the advantage if he can do power damage plus "x" damage rather than just "x" damage.
You can't worry about treading on the toes of a particular character or class by replicating their powers because the whole point is that we're looking to find a way of ensuring that certain obvious feats of skill aren't the exclusive domain of a given class in the first place.
Quote from: Engine;221075Is, for instance, Cleave somehow less able to be used creatively in 4e?
I'd say that the 4E Cleave is less flexible and useful than the 3.x Cleave. The 3.x Cleave can be used against a secondary target that is within reach and may do damage equal to the weapon used with modifiers while the 4E Cleave can only be used against a secondary target that is adjacent to the first and only does damage equal to the attacker's strength modifier.
So 3.x Cleave allows you more target choices based upon your weapon and does more damage.
Quote from: jeff37923;221072The 4E wizard has 2 At-Will Spells, 1 Encounter Spell, and 1 Daily Spell but have only two to choose from for each slot out of 5 At-Will, 5 Encounter, and 4 Daily (it should be noted that all of these are attack spells).
The 3.x Wizard has 3 0-level spell slots and 1 1st-level spell slots, unmodified by high intelligence, but can choose between 19 0-level spells and 3 out of 39 1st-level spells. Not to mention any scrolls that the Wizard has made to provide extra spells that can be used without taking up a slot.
The 4E wizard also has 4 cantrips usable at will, none of which are combat powers but which might be used creatively in a combat situation or non-combat situation. Plus the 4E wizard has 3 rituals taken from what is currently a short list but will no doubt expand before too long ("The BIG WotC Book of Rituals" is an obvious suppliment).
So while a 3E wizard can perform 3 minor spells and one more interesting effect per day (realistically that'll be two per day due to intelligence), the 4E wizard can perform an unlimited number of minor effects per day, gratly enhancing the likihood that the character will break out flavourful uses of prestidigitation, and can perform non-combat rituals until his cash runs out while still being able to fight as well as a character from another class.
Quote from: Trevelyan;221081You can't worry about treading on the toes of a particular character or class by replicating their powers because the whole point is that we're looking to find a way of ensuring that certain obvious feats of skill aren't the exclusive domain of a given class in the first place.
This also changes the playstyle in a way I'm not happy with. Each individual class used to be more differentiated and thus to be an effective adventuring group you would need a mix of classes all working together as a team. The balancing of the classes in 4E has created so much overlap between them that you no longer have a team of individuals that are stronger working together, instead you have a homogoneous group of adventurers that are just minor variations on a theme (combat) and practically interchangeable.
Those who say there is no danger in 4e combat haven't played it, and probably haven't read many play reports. They see the higher hit point levels and second wind and think "wow, nobody can die." Every demo report and playtest report I've heard involves at least one character dying. Our groups first foray into the Shadowfell adventure ended with the entire party dead or captured.
The last session of our paragon level campaign would have been a TPK except the warlock can teleport through walls and the GM didn't want to have to run the combat again, so he let it slip that the main enemy was almost dead. Instead of trying hopelessly to escape, me and another player went back down and killed it. By all rights it should have been a TPK. As it is we still lost 3 out of 5.
Quote from: Melan;221009The Tyranny of Fun in data: three examples
[/SIZE]
Those are excellent examples. Ain't it great! 4e went back to a stronger roleplaying base for out of combat encounters. Glad you liked it as much as I did. :D
Quote from: Trevelyan;221087The 4E wizard also has 4 cantrips usable at will, none of which are combat powers but which might be used creatively in a combat situation or non-combat situation. Plus the 4E wizard has 3 rituals taken from what is currently a short list but will no doubt expand before too long ("The BIG WotC Book of Rituals" is an obvious suppliment).
This arguement is weak because if I included all the 1st-level spells that are not in the PHB 3.x, they would number in the hundreds easily. Also there are only 8 rituals which can be used by a 1st level 4E Wizard in the 4E PHB.
QuoteSo while a 3E wizard can perform 3 minor spells and one more interesting effect per day (realistically that'll be two per day due to intelligence), the 4E wizard can perform an unlimited number of minor effects per day, gratly enhancing the likihood that the character will break out flavourful uses of prestidigitation, and can perform non-combat rituals until his cash runs out while still being able to fight as well as a character from another class.
And yet the 3.x 1st level Wizard still has more choices of spells and thus more versatility than the 1st-level 4E Wizard. 3.x allows more options than 4E for players and DMs.
I won't even go into the better equipment choices 3.x has over 4E in the PHBs alone.
Quote from: jeff37923;221082I'd say that the 4E Cleave is less flexible and useful than the 3.x Cleave. The 3.x Cleave can be used against a secondary target that is within reach and may do damage equal to the weapon used with modifiers while the 4E Cleave can only be used against a secondary target that is adjacent to the first and only does damage equal to the attacker's strength modifier.
Hmm. Still doesn't seem like a real ingenuity-killer. I can still, you know, jump off shit and whatnot, yeah? That it restricts your number of targets means you have fewer options in terms of
who you hit, but not
how. And that it does less damage has nothing at all to do with player ingenuity.
As far as using magic in ingenious ways, a 1st level 4e wizard has some pretty powerful open ended cantrips that can really fuck shit up if the GM isn't paying attention. Those cantrips are almost like spontaneous magic in specific domains.
They cover quite a bit of ground and I was taken aback by them at first.
4e cleave does fixed damage to any enemy adjacent to you on every single hit (not just enemies adjacent to the target). 3.x cleave requires that you kill the original target and then succeed on a to hit roll. 4e Cleave also has no prerequisites other than being a fighter, so you can give it to any character, not just the burly power attackers. I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing they're fairly close in damage level, with 4e racing way ahead on ease of use and speed.
Quote from: dar;221101As far as using magic in ingenious ways, a 1st level 4e wizard has some pretty powerful open ended cantrips that can really fuck shit up if the GM isn't paying attention. Those cantrips are almost like spontaneous magic in specific domains.
They cover quite a bit of ground and I was taken aback by them at first.
Did you ever play AD&D with Unearthed Arcana? The cantrips from 3e and 4e are basically consolidations of te many 0th level spells presented in UA, with each edition making them slightly more homogenous. That's a good thing though, IMO. You just know Presidigitation instead of Color, Clean, Finger of Flame, and a few other ones you'd rarely care to memorize, and which were usually so weak as to be relegated to flavor text descriptions of how you look mysterious hanging out in the tavern.
Quote from: James McMurray;221093Ain't it great! 4e went back to a stronger roleplaying base for out of combat encounters.
Yeah, and I just saw a cow flying outside my room's window. Honest! :rolleyes:
Quote from: Melan;221009#1: The Command spell through the editions
That IS pretty damning. Settembrini was right on target.
I don't think 4e is quite as bad as its detractors say, nor is it as wonderful as its fans think.
On one hand, I'm very satisfied with the new system for improvised actions. On the other hand, it DOES continue the trend of codifying way beyond what's acceptable.
The command spell is indeed an excellent example of that. New and future generations of gamers are missing out.
So, while I think a lot of what Melan describes as "The Tyranny of fun" sounds like an overdramatic rant to me, I really don't think 4th edition is a step forward for D&D.
They're only missing out on the fun of older editions if we never introduce them. Every edition of D&D is still available, along with many clones.
Quote from: jibbajibba;221065Say a rouge has a power that enables them to push a MOB back their charisma bonus in squares (the now much maligned Zoolander look ability) supposing I as a Fighter ask the DM if I can use the dining table in the orc soldiers mess as a barrier and force the orcs back towards the firepit say 2 squares approx. Aren't I basically spoling the game balance by being able to do things that are replicated by other powers?
Personnaly I would have relegated all the move stuff round the grid type powers to a single mechanic like the one described that allowed anyone to try and backflip off a table or over a pig or push the orcs back or whatever. Ithink once you define some of these as powers that have to be bought or earned it creates an issue for their use by other people (you could also fudge stuff that is less specific which means the rules can be used in a non-mini supported game more easily as no one expects a try to push them back with teh table manuver to move them exactly Str bonus -1 per combatant squares)
If you're right, it might also be worth adding that the codification of "combat moves" in certain classes doesn't just reduce the likelihood that someone will be allowed to replicate them through situational improvisation (as you say). It also IMO decreases the likelihood that the codified "combat moves" will be tempered by reasonable judgment. I.e., if it says on your sheet that you can do X in mechanical terms, then the group is far more likely to let you do X, with either no effort to explain it in terms of what's happening in the fiction, or via token post-hoc justification. I.e., the trend seems to risk allowing the mechanics to tear loose from the imaginative fiction that anchors an RPG, moving the activity closer to an abstract "themed" board game.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221125If you're right, it might also be worth adding that the codification of "combat moves" in certain classes doesn't just reduce the likelihood that someone will be allowed to replicate them through situational improvisation (as you say). It also IMO decreases the likelihood that the codified "combat moves" will be tempered by reasonable judgment. I.e., if it says on your sheet that you can do X in mechanical terms, then the group is far more likely to let you do X, with either no effort to explain it in terms of what's happening in the fiction, or via token post-hoc justification. I.e., the trend seems to risk allowing the mechanics to tear loose from the imaginative fiction that anchors an RPG, moving the activity closer to an abstract "themed" board game.
Empirically wrong once again, at least for my group.
Hint: when something is wrong for your group but not everyone, the word you want is "subjective." :)
So, anecdotally wrong, which may be generally right ;)
Hint: When the RAW demonstrably change in a major way, the "subjective" cop-out won't fly.
Quote from: James McMurray;221128Hint: when something is wrong for your group but not everyone, the word you want is "subjective." :)
Have you stopped describing your character's attacks in a sensible way because they're now pre-established powers? That's what Elliott's speculating will happen. I haven't heard of that happening, never even thought of stopping myself, and haven't seen it stop in a PbP or other publically available game. So, why on earth should we think his speculation has any truth to it at all?
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221131Hint: When the RAW demonstrably change in a major way, the "subjective" cop-out won't fly.
The RAW don't say anything about the issue at hand, except perhaps to contradict Elliott by suggesting that one adjust the powers' fluff to whatever one pleases to better fit the character and story. Elliott is making wild claims with no basis.
Quote from: James McMurray;221103Did you ever play AD&D with Unearthed Arcana?
Thats cool. But never played using it.
Quote from: James McMurray;221124They're only missing out on the fun of older editions if we never introduce them. Every edition of D&D is still available, along with many clones.
A totally noble sentiment. And I subscribe to it.
But at the end of the day, WotC is in a much better position than I am to spread the word. Maybe it's just my background (we learned the game by ourselves, from the box) talking.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221135Elliott is making wild claims with no basis.
Actually, I'm couching them quite carefully in weasel words.
But I've seen this sort of thing before, in arguments about wargames vs. simpler "war themed" board games and Euros, and it most assuredly does apply in the general case.
You also aren't really responding effectively to PI's point--the RAW did change enormously between 1e and 4e (the 3e/4e transition is more widely debated), and I would find it very hard to swallow a claim that this didn't reflect a major shift in the type of gaming that the rules were intended to facilitate.
In trying to decide what I disliked about 4e with my current gaming group, I did the same comparison of the spell Command through the editions. Its cool that someone else out there thinks the same way I do.
I also went through all the 4e wizard powers and rituals looking for equivalent of illusion spells (such as 3.5's minor/major image, hallucinatory terrain, etc.). In looking through the powers, my eyes tended to glaze over from reading so many "2 [w] + STR" + "tactical effect" powers that maybe I missed something, but the only one I could find is the cantrip for Ghost Sound. The rest have been removed. There are a couple of illusion rituals, but they are for very specific things, with very specifically defined limitations. Open-ended enchantment-type spells have also either been closed (such as command) or removed (such as charm person).
I think this is a good example of the type of design philosopy that Melan talks about in his original "tyranny of fun" post: the older illusion spells are open-ended, which mean that a creative player can "abuse" the spells through creative thinking = "not fun" for the other players. And they also require judgment by the DM as to if/when a creature "interacts" with the illusion and when they get a saving throw = "not fun" for the wizard casting it. Standardizing everything and removing items that can't be easily standardized means that non-creative players aren't "penalized" because they can't think of cool illusions to create (or didn't choose to play wizards). And players playing wizards also don't get pissed off at DMs who rule in a way different than they wanted.
Another driving force, though, could actually be the computer side of it with the D&D Game Table. In the past, when making computer games out of D&D, lots of these spells had to be dropped because their effects can't be coded up. If they want to make the Game Table version of the game as close to the table-top version as possible, those now have to be removed from BOTH the computerized and table-top version. With this view, some other things sort of make sense, as well, like the skill challenges, which standardizes "problem-solving" to a set of easily coded up skill-checks.
Interesting.
-Paul
P.S. Just to be clear, I think 4e is a roleplaying game and I even imagine it would be fun to play. I just have the suspicion (having only played it at D&D Experience, I can't say definitively) that its not the game that I want to play every week.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221135The RAW don't say anything about the issue at hand, except perhaps to contradict Elliott by suggesting that one adjust the powers' fluff to whatever one pleases to better fit the character and story. Elliott is making wild claims with no basis.
AFAIAC the issue at hand is the Command spell. That's a nice, objective example for a massive narrowing down of options.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221143Actually, I'm couching them quite carefully in weasel words.
But I've seen this sort of thing before, in arguments about wargames vs. simpler "war themed" board games and Euros, and it most assuredly does apply in the general case.
You also aren't really responding effectively to PI's point--the RAW did change enormously between 1e and 4e (the 3e/4e transition is more widely debated), and I would find it very hard to swallow a claim that this didn't reflect a major shift in the type of gaming that the rules were intended to facilitate.
I find PI's point unobjectionable stated in the abstract like that. I disagree with the specific changes you think are occurring.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221133Have you stopped describing your character's attacks in a sensible way because they're now pre-established powers? That's what Elliott's speculating will happen. I haven't heard of that happening, never even thought of stopping myself, and haven't seen it stop in a PbP or other publically available game. So, why on earth should we think his speculation has any truth to it at all?
You're assuming I ever started describing my maneuvers. :) But no, I haven't changed my describing habits: I do it when I remember and am not wrapped up in the tactics. However, two anecdotes (or even 200,000) doesn't make an objective proof. There may be people out there that changed. I read a play report about a GM who forced everyone to read the flavor text at the top of their power every time they activated it. I could see those people rapidly deciding to stick to just the tactics and numbers.
Quote from: Consonant Dude;221142A totally noble sentiment. And I subscribe to it.
But at the end of the day, WotC is in a much better position than I am to spread the word. Maybe it's just my background (we learned the game by ourselves, from the box) talking.
True. But they can only sell what the market wants to buy. If the game is something that appeals to the new generation, it'll do well and they'll have fun. Does it really matter if they're having fun with red box or 4e?
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221147AFAIAC the issue at hand is the Command spell. That's a nice, objective example for a massive narrowing down of options.
Command definitely got trimmed down in its options. It went from a 1st level spell of unavoidable death to a 2nd (IIRC) spell with useful effects that still share the same flavor of "do as I say!" I personally like the change, because it means there's now more choice to a cleric's prayer selection than "what ratio of commands to heals should I use today?" (that's an exagerration, but not a large one for some players I've seen).
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221147AFAIAC the issue at hand is the Command spell. That's a nice, objective example for a massive narrowing down of options.
Certainly. I agree that the Command spell has been stripped of its versatility.
I'm taking issue with Elliott's speculation that in 4e, because of the mechanics and design philosophy of 4e, PCs will be unconcerned with integrating their powers into the shared description of the game world. That's a separate point.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221155Certainly. I agree that the Command spell has been stripped of its versatility.
I'm taking issue with Elliott's speculation that in 4e, because of the mechanics and design philosophy of 4e, PCs will be unconcerned with integrating their powers into the shared description of the game world. That's a separate point.
Actually, no.
The change in Command is not about more or less "versatility." The change in Command is about a move from an interaction with the gameworld, performed ad lib by the player entirely depending on the situation in hand, to shoving a mini from one square to another square.
The former is a matter of gameworld tactics, the latter is a matter of boardgame tactics.
Quote from: James McMurray;221153You're assuming I ever started describing my maneuvers. :) But no, I haven't changed my describing habits: I do it when I remember and am not wrapped up in the tactics. However, two anecdotes (or even 200,000) doesn't make an objective proof. There may be people out there that changed. I read a play report about a GM who forced everyone to read the flavor text at the top of their power every time they activated it. I could see those people rapidly deciding to stick to just the tactics and numbers.
What about this is specifically 4e-like though? I'm aware of people doing this (simply playing it as a game of tactical combat and exploration without immersive characterisation) in all editions of D&D, but it has never seemed edition-dependent. The claim that's being made is that 4e is, for some reason, particularly prone to this in a way that previous editions weren't (or that it represents a culmination of a process across the editions, perhaps?).
I'm failing to see why this is a 4e problem rather than a problem/style of a particular group. That's why I think the empirical example is relevant - if there are people who play 4e and are not doing things like only using powers, using powers without description, and whatever else, then it probably isn't the system so much as the players.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221157Actually, no.
The change in Command is not about more or less "versatility." The change in Command is about a move from an interaction with the gameworld, performed ad lib by the player entirely depending on the situation in hand, to shoving a mini from one square to another square.
The former is a matter of gameworld tactics, the latter is a matter of boardgame tactics.
Command in 4e is nearly identical to Command in 3.x, except that you can't make the target drop its weapon. You're complaining about the wrong edition. That's a design choice made in 3.x to prevent arguments (as part of a general move to reduce the amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in how certain spells worked).
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221157Actually, no.
The change in Command is not about more or less "versatility." The change in Command is about a move from an interaction with the gameworld, performed ad lib by the player entirely depending on the situation in hand, to shoving a mini from one square to another square.
The former is a matter of gameworld tactics, the latter is a matter of boardgame tactics.
There is still world interaction in 4e. Or at least, there is if you want there to be.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221158What about this is specifically 4e-like though? I'm aware of people doing this (simply playing it as a game of tactical combat and exploration without immersive characterisation) in all editions of D&D, but it has never seemed edition-dependent. The claim that's being made is that 4e is, for some reason, particularly prone to this in a way that previous editions weren't (or that it represents a culmination of a process across the editions, perhaps?).
I also disagree that 4e will force blandness and lack of description. My only problem with your post was that it spoke from an objective viewpoint using subjective backing.
QuoteI'm failing to see why this is a 4e problem rather than a problem/style of a particular group. That's why I think the empirical example is relevant - if there are people who play 4e and are not doing things like only using powers, using powers without description, and whatever else, then it probably isn't the system so much as the players.
An empirical example would be highly relevant. But all we've got is anecdotal. It's still relevant, it's just not proof. You've successfully proven that 4e does not force everyone to give up on description (not that there was ever any real doubt in any but the blindest and most biased detractors), but not that it won't cause some people to give up.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221160Command in 4e is nearly identical to Command in 3.x, except that you can't make the target drop its weapon. You're complaining about the wrong edition. That's a design choice made in 3.x to prevent arguments (as part of a general move to reduce the amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in how certain spells worked).
You're stretching it, kid.
Like anyone ever argued 4E had no precedents whatever in 3.x. Of course that's where some of the rot set in.
Re. disambiguation, don't waste my time by muddying the waters. As you know, that's precisely the issue here: disambiguation = boardgamification.
You might play it like a board game, but I follow the rules and advice, both of which tell me to roleplay. To each his own I suppose.
Quote from: jeff37923;220795I'm asking you because you're the dufus who thinks that people who don't like 4E, don't like it because of minis and battlemats regardless of what they actually say.
Instead of just assuming you know why people don't like 4E, why don't you ask them and find out for sure? Who knows, it may be enlightening to you.
I'm not a dufus simply because I can't answer your question. While we're at it, are trying to tell me you never draw inferences or conclusions about things that people say or write? On top of that, what I think about the minis/mat issue is based on the fact that they are saying that's one of the reasons they don't like 4e, my conclusion was about why they don't like minis/mats. Oh, and for the record, I did ask, several times. Why don't you stop being an abrasive bitch?
Quote from: jeff37923;220797The Bard character class, for one.
I'm not into high-powered fantasy combat for its own sake, I'm interested in that if it is the culmination of a plotline for the characters in an adventure. To me, D&D hasn't been all about the combat encounter, it has been about the encounter - and if that turns into a combat encounter then it is due to the actions of the players. I like how in 3.x you could still gain experience from an encounter with a monster without it becoming combat. 4E has those encounters now distinctly seperate, they are the Combat Encounter and the Skill Challenge. This is where Sigmund's style and mine are going to differ, because in the type of play I prefer which was a part of 3.x the encounter could be either combat or skill challenge depending on how the players decided to approach the encounter.
I hate to say this, but I like those things too. I'm able to enjoy multiple types of games and more roleplaying and less combat is certainly one of those types. All I'm saying is that I also like the style of game that 4e is (so far anyway). I can see myself still playing maybe 3.x, and definitely other d20 based games when I'm not playing 4e. I still love my True20, even for a different kind of fantasy then the new DnD can give me. I've been thinking all day of a campaign setting that is grittier and lower-powered that I've had stewing in the back of my noggin for True20, and 4e would not work for it. While I can see that 4e is still a roleplaying game, and can be used for deep and entertaining roleplaying experiences, I have no illusions about it being the go-to game for any kind of fantasy. I've always considered DnD, with it's escalating hps and power levels, to be a fantasy superhero game. I see 4e as a distillation of that into a more pure fantasy superhero game. I happen to like that, and disagree with all ya'all that say it's a bad game, or bad for the hobby.
Quote from: James McMurray;221153True. But they can only sell what the market wants to buy. If the game is something that appeals to the new generation, it'll do well and they'll have fun. Does it really matter if they're having fun with red box or 4e?
Doesn't matter, no.
And although I'm sure there's a market for 4th edition, I'm not sure going another road wouldn't have brought a similar or identical market.
But don't get me wrong, James. I loved 3rd edition, played the heck of it and couldn't wait for 4th edition to be announced. I was ecstatic when WotC finally went forward and honestly, although I am somewhat disappointed by the result, I'm still glad they updated.
Every edition has had its share of good and bad, IMO. This time, it's just that the bad outweighed the good for me, which was a first in D&D. I like some of the changes and think they will carry through in future editions. But there's stuff in there that is absolutely, positively, objectively stifling compared to older editions.
Here's hoping people have fun with 4th edition and I dearly hope my prediction of a few years ago (that 5th edition will be everything I want from D&D) becomes true.
As far as personal preference, I'd prefer young people to be introduced to a more open-ended version of the game. Because I think that's where the strength of D&D comes. I just don't feel I could run a campaign of this and get the creative input of players, young and old, veterans and newbies, in a way that would be satisfying.
Quote from: jeff37923;221027New actions that have been thought up by the game designers and not the players during the game.
YES!
For the vast majority of D&D players, every action of their pre-3e fighter was "I attack" and then 3e gave them "I use feat X over and over every round" and now 4e gives them 5-6 options that they will use each combat.
This is freaking exponential growth for the average player. But obviously, creative players have been doing everything granted by "feats" and "powers" since the 70s. Especially if those players were exposed to other RPGs.
Our hobby would have been WAY better off if Flying Buffalo has been run as a savvy business. Tunnels & Trolls was ahead of its time and would have encouraged a much more creative default style of play than what we got on average with AD&D.
Quote from: jeff37923;221031So, if there is a section in the DMG on how to arbitrate a tactical option in combat, then why have the Powers which allow the player to accomplish the similar things without the burden of thinking it up for themselves?
We do not live in an age where burdening the audience equates to higher sales figures. You sell many more pizzas by delivering a hot pie to their door than telling them to come down and pick up their bag of ingredients.
And I do agree with your button mash description of 4e powers. Personally, that adds to the allure of 4e for me because I was a Streetfighter / CapCom junkie and always wondered why so few RPGs gave us fighting manuevers.
Quote from: Edsan;221032I would just like to say that I am glad a self-confessed 4ed fan admits both to WotC money-grabbing nature and the fact they designed a 3d minis strategy game as their latest product.
You're welcome.
But is it really shocking that a division of a publicly held corporation in capitalist country would be primarily and overwhelmingly motivated by profit?
RPGs aren't financed by the National Endowment for the Arts. WotC ain't PBS. They (and all other RPG companies) are businesses and all businesses are devoted to selling stuff for the most money to the most people over and over again.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221160Command in 4e is nearly identical to Command in 3.x, except that you can't make the target drop its weapon. You're complaining about the wrong edition. That's a design choice made in 3.x to prevent arguments (as part of a general move to reduce the amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in how certain spells worked).
And that is exactly the entire bloody point of Melan's argument.
That it has it's roots before 4e doesn't make it any less present in 4e. You're just proving him right now.
Quote from: Melan;220809First, the meta-discussion part. Not having much direct knowledge of the game books is accurate, but I did not pretend otherwise, so I don't see your point. I think adequate information has been released in the form of teasers, preview materials and reviews to form a moderately informed opinion if you have been following things. I have been following things, both pro and contra... and like others, even the positive opinions reinforced my negative preconceptions.
My only point in pointing out that you seem not to have looked at the books directly is that if you aren't looking directly at the text itself, you are receiving it filtered through the opinions and bias of others, which seems to me would make it harder to form an accurate picture of what it really says, both literally and in tone. I deliberately avoided much of the 4e talk before I was able to look through the books first hand for this reason, because what little I did see had me very undecided about whether I would like the new game.
QuoteI just don't like this game, period. I get why others find it enjoyable, I just don't share their preferences.
Obviously, I can't argue with personal preference.
QuoteSecond, I don't claim objectivity. This is my personal perspective based on my preferences. So are most positive opinions. I don't buy the "but it's not objective" argument; almost nothing posted on the Internet is. Bringing in evidence is good, but not even that makes your argument objective, it just makes it supported by evidence, which is not the same thing.
Your OP seems to me to present your opinions as fact rather than taste by the language and tone that you used, from the subject line down to your conclusion that, "All in all, what we are seeing is the emergence of a philosophy that denies and stifles excellence while encouraging mediocrity and poor play." That might be what you are seeing, but it's not what I see when I look through the books.
QuoteYour examples from the DMG, for example, are good evidence - and I will counter that games often have a spirit not entirely in keeping with the text. To cite an example, "status quo" encounters in 3.x were mentioned as perfectly legitimate, but most hardcore 3e players greatly preferred custom-tailored ones, and used Challenge Ratings and the "rewards" tables as a normative encounter balancing mechanism. Something that started out as descriptive turned out to be prescriptive - so much so that modules outside the norm were strongly criticized (I recommend reading ENWorld reviews of Necromancer Games modules, especially Rappan Athuk, to see how status quo encounters came to be viewed by a significant and hardcore segment of the community).
It appears to me that 4e has moved towards even stronger and more hard-wired game balance - changes to more "arbitrary" threats such as petrification, paralysis or any save-or-die effects; magic items in the PHB instead of the DMG, and I think there are suggested monster and treasure "packages" in the core books (confirm/deny?). These seem to support my argument WRT fair play, standardization and removing "unfun" things. Meticulously balancing player characters against each other also belongs to the category in my opinion - that's why classes were made more similar by having the same sort of power structure, unlike earlier editions, where playing different classes was almost like playing a different game.
Yes, they have attempted to remove save or die mechanics, which is actually the continuation of a trend the started I believe in 3.0. I, for one, applaud that choice. I don't mind when a character gets killed, but I really hated when my druid was killed in the second encounter of Sunless Citadel by an insa-kill roll without ever having taken a hp of damage. Yes, they have included different types of "packages", but you know as well as I that these are just tools for folks not nearly as experienced in rpging as we are and can and will be ignored by more experienced players. How is that a bad thing again?
QuoteThe argumentation used against save or die effects, rust monsters ("depriving the players of their due" / "deprotagonisation" in Forge terms), DM arbitration/powers, spotlight issues et al is very much the core of the Tyranny of Fun problem. Not all players subscribe to this philosophy, but enough people (and among them many hardcores) do to make it matter, especially when Wizards designers listen. In my opinion, this becomes a problem because instead of promoting the various sorts of fun you can have at the table, WotC design tries to make people happy by removing or "fixing" game elements which invite controversy.
I don't believe in this so called "Tyranny of Fun" problem you refer to, and I don't see how "this becomes a problem because instead of promoting the various sorts of fun you can have at the table, WotC design tries to make people happy by removing or "fixing" game elements which invite controversy". The 4e books are filled with information and advice geared towards helping folks, experienced and inexperienced, play games with DnD that can be enjoyed. That you and others might not find the kind of games and advice they have included to your taste, I fail to see how that all of a sudden is detrimental to the hobby as a whole.
QuoteIt is my position that this makes 4e a poorer - less varied and more regimented - game;
A less varied and more regimented game (even though 4e is not nearly as regimented as you seem to believe), is only poorer than the alternative to you.
Quotethere are still challenges, but they almost always lie in combat tactics. Most of the "look, 4e isn't nerfed" arguments refer to how groups got their asses handed to them by an interesting tactical encounter. Which is fine (I damn loved these when I was playing 3e, even when we were losing!), but I want the other sorts of fun as well - the more random kind which you can nevertheless try to avoid with a bit of out of the box thinking. Or die trying. :D
So, why don't you tell me what sort of fun you can't have with 4e that you wish you could?
QuoteSo there are two issues here:
a) safety: making the game safer by taking out or blunting some of the things you can hurt yourself with;
They haven't done this. What they did do was remove an unpopular mechanic that removed a character from play solely on the whim of die roll or two with no chance of input from the player to allow avoidance of the effect. Once again, it might not be to your taste, but it hardly breaks the hobby.
Quoteb) sameness: more codified instead of open-ended play styles (is there advice in the 4e DMG relating to non-tactical challenges? And if yes, how much?).
By non-tactical do you mean non-combat (since other types of encounters can have tactical elements)?
QuoteNone of this is exactly new to 4e - witness 3.5's changes to the Command spell (a few codified commands instead of open-endedness), Hold Person, Harm, Disintegrate, etc., or the changes to the rust monster and beholder. 4e is simply the outcome of the thought process, one I could see coming.
I understand where people are coming from when they say they were not finding the apparent randomness and "unfair" elements of earlier D&D appealing. I see why they would like 4e - along with the people who finally got what they have wanted since 1976 - no more memorisation! But these things are what made the game fun and "D&D" to me. I didn't find them bugs to be fixed; they were the game. I also find it a little unfair/unjust that the "griefers" are the ones being listened to, and not the people who accepted Dungeons & Dragons on its own merits, but such is life...
So yeah, 4e is not my D&D anymore, and like everyone else, I am letting people know. ;) I guess that's my response to this part:
Well, I'm sorry ya don't like the game. I can certainly see that no game is for everyone. I still don't see how it's bad for the hobby.
QuoteAs I see it, 4e might be easier to houserule than 3e - the mechanics are perhaps less integrated (at least my information gives me this impression). It is the image and acceptance of houseruling that has changed. The same attitudes I cited about the game and the rules - which you yourself seem to acknowledge - are not conductive to making house rules or (in extreme cases) non-canonical DM rulings. The kind of people who jealously guard their characters from being killed or harmed by some semi-random effect are often the same types who resent DM authority, and find it hard to accept any change going against their "privileges". This is the "bad player" part - bad DMs are a different breed, of course. But should games be designed to accommodate bad play by integrating/promoting safety, or encourage good gaming at the cost that it might let in the sort of subjectivity that will make dysfunctional game groups have an unpleasant experience? Can/should people be protected from their own mistakes? I am in the "no safety net" and "just play with normal people" camp.
This is where I see gross exageration on the part of yourself and others with regards to your description of the "bad players". I don't like save-or-die mechanics, but I'm hardly someone who would "jealously guard their characters from being killed or harmed by some semi-random effect". Nobody else I game with likes the save-or-die mechanics either, but they are not what you call "bad players" either. I think they have attempted to change these things in the game because they didn't like them either, but this hardly equates to "integrating/promoting safety". This also hardly promotes "bad play". You'll have to refresh my memory about which attitudes are not conducive to making houserules, especially since the DMG includes a section on houserules and some basic guidlines on how they might be approached, with the admission that often an individual group won't like everything about a game and that they can't cover all the bases.
QuoteAbout the role of game design - as I see it, game designers are the external authority people can appeal to, and which "bad players" love to cite. This is not completely new - after all, Skip Williams had spent most of his carreer answering D&D related questions which were often about the basest rule-fuckery. But I see appeals to game design cropping up a lot in recent arguments. Maybe it is also in part because of a growing awareness of game design's role, but I also think it is about the different status of "official" materials, and "official interpretations".
QuoteHope the above was enough; I can provide more if you wish, time and will permitting. Since I don't actually have the books, we will have to do without textual citations.
In the end, I am not claiming you can't have a good game with 4e, or you are stupid for liking it (well... if you like how they disposed of memorisation and the real rust monster, you might be :D). I am claiming it's a move in a bad direction, and, furthermore, by shedding its own identity, it is losing that special "D&D sort of charm only D&D of all roleplaying games had.
I'm glad that you cleared some things up, and hope you can continue to do so, and can only say that I don't share your opinion that 4e has gone in a bad direction, although I sympathize with your perception that the game has lost some DnDness.
Quote from: RandallS;220842I think that may be the key point. 3e marked a major change in the focus of the game from adventure and exploration to tactical combat and character-building. The latter tends to leave less time for roleplaying. 4e seems to have downplayed the character build a bit, but increased the emphasis on tactical combat and character balance for tactical combat.
All editions of D&D are certainly roleplaying games, but the WOTC editions seem to me to focus more on fun from playing out detailed tactical combats while TSR editions focused more on fun from adventure and exploration. As I find detailed tactical combat boring and adventure and exploration fun and exciting, this would explain while I strongly prefer TSR editions.
I think this is a great way to view the different versions. I like all of the above, so DnD still works for me, the adventure and exploration can just be spread out more by the longer combats in the newer versions.
Quote from: J Arcane;221184And that is exactly the entire bloody point of Melan's argument.
That it has it's roots before 4e doesn't make it any less present in 4e. You're just proving him right now.
I think Melan's is an exaggeration of this point. I have not seen the changes that the WotC folks made in an attempt to improve the accessibility and streamline the flow of the game have anywhere near the negative effect on either my game or the hobby as a whole as Melan seems to be saying they should have.
Quote from: Sigmund;221178While I can see that 4e is still a roleplaying game, and can be used for deep and entertaining roleplaying experiences, I have no illusions about it being the go-to game for any kind of fantasy. I've always considered DnD, with it's escalating hps and power levels, to be a fantasy superhero game. I see 4e as a distillation of that into a more pure fantasy superhero game. I happen to like that, and disagree with all ya'all that say it's a bad game, or bad for the hobby.
And if the majority of 4e players thought like you, it wouldn't be bad for the hobby.
QuoteIt's okay if you don't like 4e or don't want to play it or don't want to read it, but it insanely moronic to rave how you hate something without playing the actual game with an open mind. BTW, welcome to the new dominant RPG design over the entire industry for the next 5 years...until 4.5 comes out.
I've played the game with an open mind. I have better tactical board games/CCG's than D&D 4e. The thing is this:
Compared to other RPG's (including previous editions of D&D, WHFRP) D&D 4e is crap.
Compared to other skirmish wargames (Warhammer Skirmish, Strange Synergy, Car Wars) D&D 4e is crap.
Compared to other tactical skirmish wargame/rpg hybrid's...it's not total crap, but there's better (like Savage Worlds).
Quote from: walkerp;221202And if the majority of 4e players thought like you, it wouldn't be bad for the hobby.
Don't they? How do we know?
Quote from: KrakaJak;221204I've played the game with an open mind. I have better tactical board games/CCG's than D&D 4e. The thing is this:
Compared to other RPG's (including previous editions of D&D, WHFRP) D&D 4e is crap.
Compared to other skirmish wargames (Warhammer Skirmish, Strange Synergy, Car Wars) D&D 4e is crap.
Compared to other tactical skirmish wargame/rpg hybrid's...it's not total crap, but there's better (like Savage Worlds).
Sorry, I don't agree.
Quote from: KrakaJak;221204I've played the game with an open mind. I have better tactical board games/CCG's than D&D 4e. The thing is this:
Compared to other RPG's (including previous editions of D&D, WHFRP) D&D 4e is crap.
Compared to other skirmish wargames (Warhammer Skirmish, Strange Synergy, Car Wars) D&D 4e is crap.
Compared to other tactical skirmish wargame/rpg hybrid's...it's not total crap, but there's better (like Savage Worlds).
Hmmm. As you know, I'm not real fond of 4e. I'd still rather play it that Savage Worlds. Maybe. I'd have to grit my teeth through the circle-hate.
Quote from: Sigmund;221205Don't they? How do we know?
Either way it probably wouldn't make much difference.
Quote from: Sigmund;221176Why don't you stop being an abrasive bitch?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
But you do have a point, I've been getting a lot of 4E proselytizing lately on several boards and I've let my annoyance at the behavior come out on you. I apologize.
Quote from: Sigmund;221178I hate to say this, but I like those things too. I'm able to enjoy multiple types of games and more roleplaying and less combat is certainly one of those types. All I'm saying is that I also like the style of game that 4e is (so far anyway). I can see myself still playing maybe 3.x, and definitely other d20 based games when I'm not playing 4e. I still love my True20, even for a different kind of fantasy then the new DnD can give me. I've been thinking all day of a campaign setting that is grittier and lower-powered that I've had stewing in the back of my noggin for True20, and 4e would not work for it. While I can see that 4e is still a roleplaying game, and can be used for deep and entertaining roleplaying experiences, I have no illusions about it being the go-to game for any kind of fantasy. I've always considered DnD, with it's escalating hps and power levels, to be a fantasy superhero game. I see 4e as a distillation of that into a more pure fantasy superhero game. I happen to like that, and disagree with all ya'all that say it's a bad game, or bad for the hobby.
OK, I see where you are coming from, but do you also see that while I doubt that 4E "will destroy gaming as we know it" - 4E just isn't working for me as the successor to the D&D brand name.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221160That's a design choice made in 3.x to prevent arguments (as part of a general move to reduce the amount of ambiguity and uncertainty in how certain spells worked).
Exactly. Or rather, part of a general move to reduce the amount of discretion and judgement in how much of the game works. Melan calls this child-proofing of D&D 'the tyranny of fun.' No doubt a great many players over the years have been frustrated by the open-ended nature of spells like Command, and tightening and defining all the vague bits is clearly a popular approach to the game to gamers who hate uncertainty. It just isn't an approach that a lot of folks who do well with a loose system are going to find very attractive.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221162You're stretching it, kid.
Like anyone ever argued 4E had no precedents whatever in 3.x. Of course that's where some of the rot set in.
Re. disambiguation, don't waste my time by muddying the waters. As you know, that's precisely the issue here: disambiguation = boardgamification.
"Boardgamification"? Got sick of "Encount4rdization" already? What's next week's buzzword?
One spell that's been watered down every edition it's been in is hardly conclusive proof in a rule set when that rule set is the first in its series to include rules and guidelines for resolving actions not explicitly laid out in it. 4e encourages players to explore tactical options outside of their powers, and to interact with the environment in all sorts of ways other than just hitting it.
Once again, against Elliott's point: Until he can point to someone doing what he describes and show that it's typical, it's not. It's baseless speculation. Similarly, until Melan can show that the things he describe actually happen and are typical, he's just talking shit.
Quote from: Haffrung;221253Exactly. Or rather, part of a general move to reduce the amount of discretion and judgement in how much of the game works. Melan calls this child-proofing of D&D 'the tyranny of fun.' No doubt a great many players over the years have been frustrated by the open-ended nature of spells like Command, and tightening and defining all the vague bits is clearly a popular approach to the game to gamers who hate uncertainty. It just isn't an approach that a lot of folks who do well with a loose system are going to find very attractive.
Conversely, folks who enjoy well-built systems with well-defined terms, combining modular components in interesting ways, and adding their own mechanical content with ease are going to be very pleased by it. It's much easier to figure out how to swing across a room on a curtain, what a new monster should be like, and how to design new abilities than in any previous edition of D&D.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221296It's much easier to figure out how to swing across a room on a curtain, what a new monster should be like
Funny, I never needed guidelines to tell me what a new monster "should be" like in previous editions. "Should be"? That kind of language implies some sort of moral imperative, or perhaps a groping in the dark towards a Platonic ideal. Unaware of these great matters, I would just make it up. Seemed to work just fine.
Quote from: The_Shadow;221299Funny, I never needed guidelines to tell me what a new monster "should be" like in previous editions. "Should be"? That kind of language implies some sort of moral imperative, or perhaps a groping in the dark towards a Platonic ideal. Unaware of these great matters, I would just make it up. Seemed to work just fine.
"Make shit up and hope it works out" isn't a very good design strategy and, unless you're trying to mimic some genre that relies on crazy ideas succeeding all the time, it's a poor basis for PCs to make decisions. While originality has its place, we all draw on and creatively reinterpret the work of others, especially in areas outside of our expertise. And if a game can assist us in that process by providing a framework for the most difficult and least-understood part of a game - the mechanical design side - then that's a feature, not a bug.
Quote from: jeff37923;221251OK, I see where you are coming from, but do you also see that while I doubt that 4E "will destroy gaming as we know it" - 4E just isn't working for me as the successor to the D&D brand name.
Oh sure. It's like any other game, some folks will like it, some won't. Being that it's DnD just means an extra dimension of expectation and disappointment is added to that I suppose. All I'm saying is that it's still an rpg no matter how much some might say otherwise, and that Melan's "Tyranny of Fun" sounds more like Pundit on a Forge rant than any kind of reasoned analysis.
Quote from: The_Shadow;221299Funny, I never needed guidelines to tell me what a new monster "should be" like in previous editions. "Should be"? That kind of language implies some sort of moral imperative, or perhaps a groping in the dark towards a Platonic ideal. Unaware of these great matters, I would just make it up. Seemed to work just fine.
For you. It's getting kinda old saying it, but this game has loads of language and systems in place designed to help people new to the game, and new to rpging in general. Yes, us old timers just winged it, but just because we did doesn't mean folks new to the hobby today should have to. If the guidelines they include aren't to your taste, then fucking ignore them. Does someone have a fucking gun to your head? You posted on True20 forums alot, that game rocks, and it also includes guidlines in the bestiary for making monsters (oh horror!), yet I heard no complaints out of ya then. Honestly.... "groping in the dark towards a Platonic ideal"? The fucking drama.
Quote from: jeff37923;221091This also changes the playstyle in a way I'm not happy with. Each individual class used to be more differentiated and thus to be an effective adventuring group you would need a mix of classes all working together as a team. The balancing of the classes in 4E has created so much overlap between them that you no longer have a team of individuals that are stronger working together, instead you have a homogoneous group of adventurers that are just minor variations on a theme (combat) and practically interchangeable.
I think you are missing the point. I was addressing the concern that having class specific powers to trip, disarm or push an enemy would result in situations where only specific classes with specific power selections could perform otherwise generic actions. In that context I see nothing wrong with letting other classes attempt to trip or disarm an enemy, albeit less effectively that the class with the specific ability that enables this.
Beyond that, the classes are very well differentiated, the non magic using classes in particular, both in and outside of combat.
Quote from: jeff37923;221096This arguement is weak because if I included all the 1st-level spells that are not in the PHB 3.x, they would number in the hundreds easily. Also there are only 8 rituals which can be used by a 1st level 4E Wizard in the 4E PHB.
...
I won't even go into the better equipment choices 3.x has over 4E in the PHBs alone.
It's only weak if we assume that both editions intended to produce the same relative variety of options in the core. Unlike the previous edition, 4E has a very limited selection of basic options for all classes, yet the publishing schedule already has books for martial and arcane classes within the next few months, and much of the information for those books was ommited from the core due to lack of space or relatively late development.
This suggests that WotC views the 4E core books as the basic material for the game, enough to get started, but plans to sell the full range of options in suppliments. In contrast, the 3E core spell list constituted the bulk of the spell list for the game throughout the game's life (with the Spell Compendium coming along a lot later to consolidate the token handfull of extra spells produced in each suppliment). Ditto the magic item list in the 3E DMG vs the brief list in the 4E PHB and the impending Adventurer's Vault suppliment.
You may object to a publication schedule which withholds the full range of options from people with a limited budget, but I don't think that comparing the limited ritual and equipment options in the 4E core with the extensive lists in the 3E core is comparing like with like.
Quote from: Sigmund;221323You posted on True20 forums alot, that game rocks, and it also includes guidlines in the bestiary for making monsters (oh horror!), yet I heard no complaints out of ya then.
Actually, I've never posted on any True20 forums. You must be thinking of someone else.
But yeah, I stand before you today as a crusty old grognard who doesn't like the game designer to wield the whip, and couldn't care less if other people's groups benefit from more handholding. No big deal, go play 4e and I'll play my preferred styles and games.
Quote from: Trevelyan;221324It's only weak if we assume that both editions intended to produce the same relative variety of options in the core. Unlike the previous edition, 4E has a very limited selection of basic options for all classes, yet the publishing schedule already has books for martial and arcane classes within the next few months, and much of the information for those books was ommited from the core due to lack of space or relatively late development.
This suggests that WotC views the 4E core books as the basic material for the game, enough to get started, but plans to sell the full range of options in suppliments. In contrast, the 3E core spell list constituted the bulk of the spell list for the game throughout the game's life (with the Spell Compendium coming along a lot later to consolidate the token handfull of extra spells produced in each suppliment). Ditto the magic item list in the 3E DMG vs the brief list in the 4E PHB and the impending Adventurer's Vault suppliment.
You may object to a publication schedule which withholds the full range of options from people with a limited budget, but I don't think that comparing the limited ritual and equipment options in the 4E core with the extensive lists in the 3E core is comparing like with like.
This is called "Moving The Goalposts".
I was establishing the parameters of the comparison between the PHBs alone so that 4E and 3.x could be judged from the same baseline. However, since you want to include books not published yet I will gladly compare the 4E
potential publications to all of the 3.x/d20/OGL
actual publications in order to demonstrate which group provides the most options for gamers. In fact, it could be reasonably extrapolated that since the OGL provides more opportunities to publish different material that supports the same system than the restrictive GSL provides to 4E, we once again have 3.x as the winner.
Quote from: The_Shadow;221329Actually, I've never posted on any True20 forums. You must be thinking of someone else.
But yeah, I stand before you today as a crusty old grognard who doesn't like the game designer to wield the whip, and couldn't care less if other people's groups benefit from more handholding. No big deal, go play 4e and I'll play my preferred styles and games.
Well, I guess I did then, there's a feller on the True20 forums with the exact same handle, right down to the underscore thing between the words. Disregard any parts of my post referring to that then. Otherwise, I'll just shake my head and laugh at the arrogance of your equating advice with "handholding", as if you're something special because you didn't need it. There are plenty of actual legitimate reasons to not like 4e, but advice for new people is hardly one of them. Get over yourself.
Quote from: jeff37923;221335This is called "Moving The Goalposts".
I was establishing the parameters of the comparison between the PHBs alone so that 4E and 3.x could be judged from the same baseline. However, since you want to include books not published yet I will gladly compare the 4E potential publications to all of the 3.x/d20/OGL actual publications in order to demonstrate which group provides the most options for gamers. In fact, it could be reasonably extrapolated that since the OGL provides more opportunities to publish different material that supports the same system than the restrictive GSL provides to 4E, we once again have 3.x as the winner.
I hate to say it, but tastes aside, I can't argue with Jeff on this issue. 4e is a much narrower focussed game, and I find it hard to imagine the game ever being as widely applicable/adaptable as d20 and the OGL. I am confident that things like illusions and such could be created as alternate power sources along the lines of the already mentioned Nature, Ki, Psionic, etc... I don't think, though, that even including those, that 4e will be easily "depowered" or adapted to alternate genres that feature more "normal" folks. I couldn't imagine a 4e based Harn, Darkmatter, CoC, etc... Luckily, there's still d20 and other systems for those types of games, and I feel fortunate in being able to also enjoy 4e with the great group of folks I'm currently gaming with.
Quote from: Sigmund;221350I hate to say it, but tastes aside, I can't argue with Jeff on this issue. 4e is a much narrower focussed game, and I find it hard to imagine the game ever being as widely applicable/adaptable as d20 and the OGL. I am confident that things like illusions and such could be created as alternate power sources along the lines of the already mentioned Nature, Ki, Psionic, etc... I don't think, though, that even including those, that 4e will be easily "depowered" or adapted to alternate genres that feature more "normal" folks. I couldn't imagine a 4e based Harn, Darkmatter, CoC, etc... Luckily, there's still d20 and other systems for those types of games, and I feel fortunate in being able to also enjoy 4e with the great group of folks I'm currently gaming with.
IIRC, there is an article on Illusion spells in an online issue of Dragon.
And in the spirit of objectivism, the 4E D&D Miniatures Starter Game is a good contender to be the new Introductory D&D.
Quote from: jeff37923;221368And in the spirit of objectivism, the 4E D&D Miniatures Starter Game is a good contender to be the new Introductory D&D.
If so, I think this demonstrates the truth of the "4E is centered around tactical combat with minis" position some express.:hmm:
Quote from: jeff37923;221335This is called "Moving The Goalposts".
Strange, I could say the same.
Let's be clear. Are we saying that the current published rules for 4E (i.e. the 4E core books) contain fewer options than the 3E core books for some classes? If so I'd certainly agree, although the non magic using classes arguable have far more options than was the case in the 3E core.
But hither to, no one said that we were examining the quantity of information in the 4E core books, the suggestion per the OP was that 4E is more limited
by design, and that the design goals of 4E render the range of choices available in 3E impossible, because the 4E focus on combat/balance/encounters/killing puppies couldn't allow for many of the spells and similar options that 3E and earlier editions included. Wasn't that the point of the direct comparisons between Command in different editions?
So, if you want to argue about core book contents only then go ahead, you win. But you've moved the goal posts to do so. If, however, you still want to talk about the design limitations of the new edition then you have to accept that the game can incorporate many of the spells from earlier editions, we just haven't seem them all officially published yet.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221295Once again, against Elliott's point: Until he can point to someone doing what he describes and show that it's typical, it's not. It's baseless speculation. Similarly, until Melan can show that the things he describe actually happen and are typical, he's just talking shit.
I'm sure any evidence adduced will be received with equal respect (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=183254) to Mike Mearl's analysis of his own play experiences.
Quote from: Sigmund;221323For you. It's getting kinda old saying it, but this game has loads of language and systems in place designed to help people new to the game, and new to rpging in general. Yes, us old timers just winged it, but just because we did doesn't mean folks new to the hobby today should have to.
For many DMs, winging it is part of the fun. And my sense is the move to rationalize and codify everything in D&D is driven more by what a certain kind of player wants, than what DMs want. Those players - the ones who want to know exactly how the game world works, and to be able to buy books to enhance their expertise at mastering the system - are the core D&D customer today. The core customer used to be the DM comfortable using discretion and judgement.
I don't fault WotC for this shift. There's clearly more money to be made from some customers than others. However, the shift in core customer - from discretionary DM to system-mastering player - makes for a very different approach to the D&D system.
Quote from: Haffrung;221470For many DMs, winging it is part of the fun. And my sense is the move to rationalize and codify everything in D&D is driven more by what a certain kind of player wants, than what DMs want. Those players - the ones who want to know exactly how the game world works, and to be able to buy books to enhance their expertise at mastering the system - are the core D&D customer today. The core customer used to be the DM comfortable using discretion and judgement.
I don't fault WotC for this shift. There's clearly more money to be made from some customers than others. However, the shift in core customer - from discretionary DM to system-mastering player - makes for a very different approach to the D&D system.
You'll probably be horrified to note that 4e is more about winging it than 3E could ever have hoped to be. Everything from how monster creation has shifted from process and formula (under 3E) to benchmarking to combat modifiers is almost entirely under the discretion of the DM and a set of general guidelines.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221460I'm sure any evidence adduced will be received with equal respect (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=183254) to Mike Mearl's analysis of his own play experiences.
Damn straight, if you continue to provide such silly "evidence". You're making statements that simply cannot be shown to be true because they're phrased so vaguely and abstractly, yet claiming that they work as descriptions of concrete play. Stylistically, it's merely another form of Forge-ism; intellectually, it's vacuous.
Quote from: Sigmund;221350I hate to say it, but tastes aside, I can't argue with Jeff on this issue. 4e is a much narrower focussed game, and I find it hard to imagine the game ever being as widely applicable/adaptable as d20 and the OGL. I am confident that things like illusions and such could be created as alternate power sources along the lines of the already mentioned Nature, Ki, Psionic, etc... I don't think, though, that even including those, that 4e will be easily "depowered" or adapted to alternate genres that feature more "normal" folks. I couldn't imagine a 4e based Harn, Darkmatter, CoC, etc... Luckily, there's still d20 and other systems for those types of games, and I feel fortunate in being able to also enjoy 4e with the great group of folks I'm currently gaming with.
That I do agree with. D&D now focuses almost exclusively on modeling heroic fantasy.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221158I'm failing to see why this is a 4e problem rather than a problem/style of a particular group. That's why I think the empirical example is relevant - if there are people who play 4e and are not doing things like only using powers, using powers without description, and whatever else, then it probably isn't the system so much as the players.
I wonder...
If one were to replace '4e' in the above paragraph with '3e', would all of the
crippling issues of the previous edition suddenly have a different light to them?
Quote from: StormBringer;221514I wonder...
If one were to replace '4e' in the above paragraph with '3e', would all of the crippling issues of the previous edition suddenly have a different light to them?
What "crippling issues"?
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221295One spell that's been watered down every edition it's been in is hardly conclusive proof in a rule set when that rule set is the first in its series to include rules and guidelines for resolving actions not explicitly laid out in it. 4e encourages players to explore tactical options outside of their powers, and to interact with the environment in all sorts of ways other than just hitting it.
It's not about "watering down." To call it that is already powerz think.
But.. you really, actually, truthfully don't get that.
You're not being obtuse. You have no clue.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221521To call it that is already powerz think.
I'm unfamiliar with the rules of engagement; does inventing a catchphrase and then applying it to your opposition win you rhetoric points?
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221521You're not being obtuse. You have no clue.
Ooh! Or
maybe he
disagrees.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221521It's not about "watering down." To call it that is already powerz think.
But.. you really, actually, truthfully don't get that.
You're not being obtuse. You have no clue.
Sorry, but it's not that easy, PI.
I simply find the things you believe to be important to be unimportant. I don't use your jargon because of that, and I don't accept your premises as given and then work within them. You think that tools that don't necessitate or demand a particular use are key to imaginative interaction with a world, whereas I'm perfectly happy with modular components interacting according to their own internal logic, with the imaginative world modeling that rather than demanding the mechanics of the game follow its lead.
Both are actually derivable from Sett's model of way-back-when - they are questions of emphasis that have become more polarised as the One-True-Wayism has increased in volume over the past two years.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221524Sorry, but it's not that easy, PI.
I simply find the things you believe to be important to be unimportant. I don't use your jargon because of that, and I don't accept your premises as given and then work within them. You think that tools that don't necessitate or demand a particular use are key to imaginative interaction with a world, whereas I'm perfectly happy with modular components interacting according to their own internal logic, with the imaginative world modeling that rather than demanding the mechanics of the game follow its lead.
Having read this three times, I don't understand how "an imaginative world models modular components interacting according to their own internal logic."
A world models components. No idea whether that's bad English, faulty logic or both. It does sound boardgamey to me-he?
Other than that, do me a favor, Pseudo.
If you have a fundamental disagreement, state it up front rather than engage in a discussion as though there's this basic consensus and you're just arguing a detail. For that IS called muddying the waters, passive-aggressive, obtuse, take your pick.
Simple question of debate culture, kid.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221531Having read this three times, I don't understand how "an imaginative world models modular components interacting according to their own internal logic."
A world models components. No idea whether that's bad English, faulty logic or both. It does sound boardgamey to me-he?
Other than that, do me a favor, Pseudo.
If you have a fundamental disagreement, state it up front rather than engage in a discussion as though there's this basic consensus and you're just arguing a detail. For that IS called muddying the waters, passive-aggressive, obtuse, take your pick.
Simple question of debate culture, kid.
Every time we have a debate about RPGs, you pretend that the personal opinions of you, Sett, Elliott and Melan are somehow part of a consensus that's important and well-respected enough that everyone else is debating within its limits. Each time, it gets pointed out to you (by myself and others) that no one but you four agrees to most of the things you think.
Christ, and you complain about the memories of the _rest_ of the forum!
By modular components I mean specific sub-systems intended to do something related to playing the game. So, there's a character creation system, a combat system, a power system, a skill system and an experience system in D&D 4e (this isn't an exhaustive list, either for 4e or for RPGs in general). They each have distinct features that mark them out from the other systems. One can intelligibly say "I'm going to change the skill system" or "I'm going to change what happens when you level up" for example.
Each one of these components has its own logic. Powers do not work in the same way as skills do, neither of which work like experience. The system may have been designed to mimic or model some part of reality as closely as possible, but more often than not, they do not (not just in D&D 4e, but in most games - abstracting damage is a well-known example of this).
However, even if these systems are intended to mimic reality-as-we-know-it, when they interact with the other components they do so according to principles that are not themselves "realistic". The experience system clearly illustrates this, I think, in the context of D&D. As more experience is accumulated, HP goes up (HP is a nexus by which many systems in D&D interact, one reason IMHO that it is impossible to get an idea of what HP "really are" in-game). Explaining why experience should increase HP is nearly impossible if we rely on the idea that this simulates some process that occurs in real life.
One possible option then, is to suppress these expressions of the game-interace. Limiting the growth of HPs and using hit locations are two examples of this related to the above discussion of HP. The idea here is that one ought to constrain or alter the game component to fit the imagined world, which pre-exists it and is of primary importance. That's legitimate, but it's one of two reasonable options, not the only one.
One can also have the imagined world follow the logic of the mechanics. Eberron, for all its other faults, did a reasonably good job of this. "Kitchen sink" settings in general tend to be directed towards this goal, since they want to include every aspect of the game. This may or may not be similar to your own "gonzo" style of play, though you've never explained that adequately.
Anyhow, various groups balance these two options as they see fit, with some tending more towards one extreme or another. Various systems may have features that encourage one style of play over another, but ultimately, the culture of play (individuals, groups, conventions, public discussions between those entities, etc.) surrounding a game is far more important than specific features of the system.
You see, PI, the rules are the physics of the world, which is why a game of Othello played on January 10, 1982, between Stephen H. Moss and Andrew Gundersen, in the den of Gundersen's parents' house in Kankakee, IL, is the bestest most epic imagined fantasy world ever.
More seriously, once we get past the "who's marginalizing whom" whining, the point as I see it is that the specific features of the system are strong evidence of the culture of play under whose influence the game was designed, and whom it's designed to cater to.
Yet Pseudoephedrine can't accept commentary on how the game has changed over the years unless it's from a uniformly appreciative perspective. If the change isn't liked, well then, it turns out it wasn't a change after all.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221547Every time we have a debate about RPGs, you pretend that the personal opinions of you, Sett, Elliott and Melan are somehow part of a consensus that's important and well-respected enough that everyone else is debating within its limits. Each time, it gets pointed out to you (by myself and others) that no one but you four agrees to most of the things you think.
Christ, and you complain about the memories of the _rest_ of the forum!
Actually, a dozen people here are on the same page, as I explained to you previously. Whereas you'd like to play people's tribune, when with regard to my actual question, those reams of text you produced boil down to one statement:
There are Continual Light street lamps in Eberron.
We do know why that is. How the entirety of Eberron the game world is extrapolated from 3.x is what we'd like to know.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221557Actually, a dozen people here are on the same page, as I explained to you previously.
An
entire dozen!
Edit: Once again, you and a dozen friends (Who are they? Give us names) do not a "consensus" make. Especially when the competing discourse (Forgeism) has hundreds of people working with it.
QuoteWhereas you'd like to play people's tribune, when with regard to my actual question, those reams of text you produced boil down to one statement:
There are Continual Light street lamps in Eberron.
We do know why that is. How the entirety of Eberron the game world is extrapolated from 3.x is what we'd like to know.
It's not, because multiple tendencies are present in a game, even if one predominates. Are you done pretending to be Ron Edwards now? Must we really refight the entire "incoherence" argument?
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221555You see, PI, the rules are the physics of the world, which is why a game of Othello played on January 10, 1982, between Stephen H. Moss and Andrew Gundersen, in the den of Gundersen's parents' house in Kankakee, IL, is the bestest most epic imagined fantasy world ever.
Haven't got anything but sarcasm now? Good.
QuoteMore seriously, once we get past the "who's marginalizing whom" whining, the point as I see it is that the specific features of the system are strong evidence of the culture of play under whose influence the game was designed, and whom it's designed to cater to.
There is no "culture of play" prior to the existence of the game. That's a basic point that you're missing. There are players of _other_ games that may switch to the new game because it has some features that interest them, but they aren't a unified, coherent group with a single goal or set of desires either. As they switch over and interact with the system, they create a culture of play over time (and that culture, in turn, changes).
QuoteYet Pseudoephedrine can't accept commentary on how the game has changed over the years unless it's from a uniformly appreciative perspective. If the change isn't liked, well then, it turns out it wasn't a change after all.
That's not the case at all. I'm simply pointing out that your commentary is impoverished because it speaks about the culture of play of 4e as if it already existed and was determined solely by the text as written. In reality, it's only emerging now that the game has been published, and as individual groups and players gain familiarity with the system.
Start talking sense, and I'll stop saying you're full of shit.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221559An entire dozen!
Edit: Once again, you and a dozen friends (Who are they? Give us names)
This is the last call, kid. After that you pay tuition for talking to me:
Do not pretend you were born yesterday.
QuoteIt's not, because multiple tendencies are present in a game, even if one predominates. Are you done pretending to be Ron Edwards now? Must we really refight the entire "incoherence" argument?
I was trying to understand how according to you "the world models components."
Turns out that, beyond the street lamps, it doesn't.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Please, O rejector of follicles.
The rules of the game have changed up to and through 4e. That is an objective fact.
Two questions remain.
• Why did they change?
The clue is that the culture had already changed prior to the writing of 4e. For a game produced by a major public corporation, it would be hard to believe that the design wasn't after all intended to cater to contemporary tastes.
I suppose you can argue that tastes (or more accurately the distribution of tastes) haven't changed over the years, that 4e is merely a more perfect version of what people always wanted back in 1973. Be my guest.
• Will the new rules have a further effect on the culture?
Who knows? I suspect they will--a fair number of existing gamers are going to refuse to make the jump, or will even switch to an earlier version of D&D or possibly another game altogether. The dynamics will be pretty complex.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221567This is the last call, kid. After that you pay tuition for talking to me:
Do not pretend you were born yesterday.
I'm not. I'm calling you out. I've said it before, I'll say it again: You are pretentious. You pretend your ideas are better respected and more widely accepted than they really are. You pretend there is a consensus on this forum when no such consensus exists, and you have made no effort to create one. You have devoted no time to explaining them to others, to phrasing them in clear and comprehensible ways, to convincing others that they are worthwhile. You are more interested in finding the pithiest expression possible than in actually exchanging ideas with anyone outside of a small in-group. You are just another variety of swine.
QuoteI was trying to understand how according to you "the world models components."
Turns out that, beyond the street lamps, it doesn't.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Pithy, but vacuous. Just like everything else.
Eberron models the magic item economy implicit in D&D 3.5, it includes the entire bestiary of the Monster Manual and attempts to provide ecologies for these creatures, it uses the Manual of the Planes planar design system to create a cosmology, it provides multiple possible explanations for classes and their powers (not just the core but new ones as they come out), and so on.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221570Please, O rejector of follicles.
The rules of the game have changed up to and through 4e. That is an objective fact.
Two questions remain.
• Why did they change?
The clue is that the culture had already changed prior to the writing of 4e. For a game produced by a major public corporation, it would be hard to believe that the design wasn't after all intended to cater to contemporary tastes.
Of course it's intended to cater to contemporary tastes. It is intended to make money, after all.
However, outside of that near-vacuous generality, the situation becomes considerably more complicated than you have presented. WotC isn't just trying to cater to one set of tastes, but many.
Their potential market for D&D 4e is:
1) Players of previous editions
2) New players, especially from MMORPGs and CRPGs
3) Players of other RPGs
4) Players of other games, especially games they produce - like Magic, D&D minis, Star Wars SAGA, and so on
5) Former gamers
Each of these groups varies a great deal from the others in terms of what they want out of the game. The game is intended to provide elements to appeal to all of these groups (and no doubt others - my list is hardly exhaustive). This still doesn't determine the culture of play, though. OD&D grew out of war games, and yet its culture of play was totally distinct from its precursors. Similarly, the culture of play surrounding 4e is not determined by its antecedents.
This is because each game is more than just a set of influences. Players are initially confronted with the game as a complete package, even if it was only one element or another of it that drew them to it. Their interaction with those additional elements sophisticates their taste (that is, it transforms it without completely changing it) and changes the way they play it, what interests them about the game, and so on. I've never met anyone who says "I got into D&D because I wanted to master character optimisation" but I've met many people who have _discovered_ that they do in fact enjoy character optimisation, and consider it a very important part of the fun they derive from playing D&D.
And if that's the case, then all the precursors in the world don't predict what the culture of play will be like.
QuoteI suppose you can argue that tastes (or more accurately the distribution of tastes) haven't changed over the years, that 4e is merely a more perfect version of what people always wanted back in 1973. Be my guest.
It's statements like this that pretty clearly indicate that you don't actually understand my point and are simply throwing out talking points.
Quote• Will the new rules have a further effect on the culture?
Who knows? I suspect they will--a fair number of existing gamers are going to refuse to make the jump, or will even switch to an earlier version of D&D or possibly another game altogether. The dynamics will be pretty complex.
The rules will have some influence. But they won't have the dominant influence. They never do. Once again, I point to discussions about old editions of D&D: Whenever someone brings up the silly, fiddly rules from those editions the response is "But no one used them". We are already discovering common house rules that are coming into being around 4e ("No teleporting into the air" was one discussed recently on RPG.net).
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221571I'm calling you out.
And I'm putting you down.
I gave you a whole list of names a month ago.
I don't claim there's a consensus across this entire forum. I am not interested in producing one, either. I do claim there is one within it.
Do not make up straw men. Do not pretend you were born yesterday.
As for arguing with you, it's like pulling teeth. I ask how "the world models components" in Eberron. First, I'm told in reply I'm Edwards because I find the examples rather lacking. Then I'm told that, actually, there's modelling going on all over the place after all.
You have authority issues, young man, and I'm not the one to resolve them. Good luck.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221576And I'm putting you down.
I gave you a whole list of names a month ago.
It was a "half-dozen" then, but a "dozen" now. And several of the people listed there pretty clearly don't agree with you any more, if they ever did. Abyssal Maw, Caesar Slaad? Hell, claiming that Pundit agrees with you shows how much a stretch you're willing to make to find names.
QuoteI don't claim there's a consensus across this entire forum. I am not interested in producing one, either. I do claim there is one within it.
And that claim is false. You, Melan, Settembrini and Elliott (the only four people who seem to agree), do not make a consensus within this forum.
QuoteAs for arguing with you, it's like pulling teeth. I ask how "the world models components" in Eberron. First, I'm told in reply I'm Edwards because I find the examples rather lacking. Then I'm told that, actually, there's modelling going on all over the place after all.
You seem to have trouble with the idea of games and imaginary worlds expressing more than one thing at once, or being the result of more than one process going on. I don't think I can be faulted for that, since I stated clearly that more than one trend could be found in most RPGs.
Your measured, intelligent, ever-so-informed response to that wasn't to disagree with it, but to reduce it to a pithy statement.
I don't know about sides here, but don't estimate the number of people who agree with Melan, or at least think the point of the Tyranny of Fun to be something to consider.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221573However, outside of that near-vacuous generality
As "near-vacuous" as you think it to be, the fact that the rules changed is an objective fact upon which the discussion/debate can be built. Since you seem to be in search of a common agreed framework, perhaps agreeing that the rules have changed is a good starting point.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221573WotC isn't just trying to cater to one set of tastes, but many.
Their potential market for D&D 4e is:
1) Players of previous editions
2) New players, especially from MMORPGs and CRPGs
3) Players of other RPGs
4) Players of other games, especially games they produce - like Magic, D&D minis, Star Wars SAGA, and so on
5) Former gamers
Well, there's an assumption buried in there. Are you sure WotC wants players of previous editions? Which ones? I'd probably agree they were after 3.x players, but 1e? OD&D? I did not get the sense they were after them. I also didn't get the sense they were much after a certain segment of 3.x players.
And this is one of the points - if you take that list, really break it down, IMHO you could very easily segregate that market along different lines and see a much different picture.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221573The rules will have some influence. But they won't have the dominant influence. They never do. Once again, I point to discussions about old editions of D&D: Whenever someone brings up the silly, fiddly rules from those editions the response is "But no one used them".
Isn't that a culture influenced by a rule set?
Missin´ me much?
Pseudo, there´s no argument in your last statements. Only attacks.
There´s a debate. It is about the CULTURE of development & design, and it´s about the intended resulting CULTURE. Let´s call it target-culture.
You are saying that the enlightened Gang of Four has it all wrong, because of ...what? Lacking consensus on a forum? -> Try again.
You are yourself:
1) denying the existance of definable cultures / denying the findings of the old school community and professional pop cultural magazines and journalists regarding the history of D&D
2) proclaiming you know better what CULTURE is behind 4e. You do this here:
QuoteHowever, outside of that near-vacuous generality, the situation becomes considerably more complicated than you have presented. WotC isn't just trying to cater to one set of tastes, but many.
Their potential market for D&D 4e is:
1) Players of previous editions
2) New players, especially from MMORPGs and CRPGs
3) Players of other RPGs
4) Players of other games, especially games they produce - like Magic, D&D minis, Star Wars SAGA, and so on
5) Former gamers
SOURCE: out of your ass.
So.
1) you attack the basis of debate itself
2) use the same basis for your interpretation of the same thing
Pretty please, discuss which evidence you evaluate differently, instead of denying the technique while using it yourself (only without evidence/source/clues/hints)
For example, my personal hypothesis regarding Mike Mearls is, that he does not even grasp what strategic roleplaying is.
evidence/hints:
- does not get Traveller
- has said in 2005 discussions, that he did away with "charged" magic items
- his monster design series
- other blog entries
- no wargaming background that is known of
So. Why do you think Mike Mearls understands strategic gaming? Which other evidence can you field?
Which ones do you interpret differently?
THAT`S the way to discuss. But I fear, it´s not about things, but all about you and your place in the world. If it´s not so: prove it.
Quote from: James J Skach;221579I don't know about sides here, but don't estimate the number of people who agree with Melan, or at least think the point of the Tyranny of Fun to be something to consider.
It's important if one person (Pierce) is going to pretend that anyone who disagrees with him is wilfully ignorant or obtuse.
QuoteAs "near-vacuous" as you think it to be, the fact that the rules changed is an objective fact upon which the discussion/debate can be built. Since you seem to be in search of a common agreed framework, perhaps agreeing that the rules have changed is a good starting point.
Indeed. I do think it is. I've agreed with this point many times. The question isn't "Have the rules changed" but "How have they changed?" There's a half dozen different sides to that debate right now. Some people think the change was a good one, some think it was a bad change. Some think it made the game more like a CRPG, some think it is more open and friendly to modification than previous editions. Some think it focuses too much on a certain kind of fantasy, others think that kind of fantasy is empowering. And so on, and so forth.
Other than "the rules have changed" everything about the new edition is still under debate.
QuoteWell, there's an assumption buried in there. Are you sure WotC wants players of previous editions? Which ones? I'd probably agree they were after 3.x players, but 1e? OD&D? I did not get the sense they were after them. I also didn't get the sense they were much after a certain segment of 3.x players.
I agree that they weren't willing to make a game that would please every previous player of D&D. I don't think this is a bad thing, either. I do think that they did intend to bring along _some_ of their previous players, though. And yes, especially players from 3.x. But what is the terrible consequence of this? 2e didn't convert everyone over from 1e and earlier editions, 3.x didn't convert everyone from previous editions either. I really don't see how this point is relevant, except perhaps that people's feelings are hurt or something?
QuoteAnd this is one of the points - if you take that list, really break it down, IMHO you could very easily segregate that market along different lines and see a much different picture.
I don't deny this is possible. But most of the previous breakdowns I've seen have focused exclusively on one or two options in order to emphasise the influence of those market sections, rather than acknowledging the diversity of markets they're going for.
QuoteIsn't that a culture influenced by a rule set?
It's influenced by it, but not determined by it. It's an important distinction. The statements about 4e made by people like Pierce, Melan, Settembrini and Elliott are "The rules say this, so play will be like this". They speak as if the rules determined how one plays, rather than merely forming a basis which one interprets. That kind of statement is not true about any other RPG, and I think there are good reasons to believe that it is untrue about 4e. It's also why I'm emphasising the ease of extending and altering the rules, and of fiddling with different components in the system. Because if a game's mechanics are easy to modify, then the influence of the rules is even less, because one easily reconfigures them to do what one wants.
Pseudo, you are a liar.
You MUST remember I ALWAYS said the bad thing about 4e is the CULTURE of Encount4rdization, not nearly as much as the actual game. The culture has left it´s mark on the rules (nay, structure) and that´s where the cookie crumbles.
You are actively distorting the truth here. Go, use the search engine, and be embarassed.
The debate always was about the CULTURE of design, and the CULTURE of play.
EDIT: The tyranny of fun itself is overwhelmingly a CULTURAL construct.
filler
filler
filler
Quote from: me, talking about 4eit may turn out that people will naturally gravitate toward roleplaying, partly by changing the rules and partly just transcending them
Someone must've shone out the Sett-Light.
Quote from: Settembrini;221581There´s a debate. It is about the CULTURE of development & design, and it´s about the intended resulting CULTURE. Let´s call it target-culture.
Sure. The debate isn't about this. One of the points under debate is to what extent the intentions of the designers determine the character of the target culture. I think they play a smaller role than the "Gang of Four" does, and I point to things like houseruling as reasons why.
QuoteYou are saying that the enlightened Gang of Four has it all wrong, because of ...what? Lacking consensus on a forum? -> Try again.
No, I think you've got it wrong because you are one-true-wayists in disguise. The lack of consensus merely shows it as being one-true-wayism pretending to be objective analysis (as does the pejorative language, the end-of-days tone, and the histrionics over anyone daring to question it). The way you enjoy playing is immersion, with the subjection of mechanics to verisimilitude. While I don't deny that's a legitimate way to play, my interest right now is in defending all the other styles of playing out there against it.
QuoteYou are yourself:
1) denying the existance of definable cultures / denying the findings of the old school community and professional pop cultural magazines and journalists regarding the history of D&D
2) proclaiming you know better what CULTURE is behind 4e. You do this here:
SOURCE: out of your ass.
I'm in good company then.
I proposed that as partial and possible list, not as a definitive and exhaustive list. That's the difference between myself and say, Pierce or you - I don't confuse a few hypotheses and abstractions with the messiness of the real world. You want to reduce, simplify, and abstract so that conclusions can be drawn more easily. In reducing and simplifying you ignore the complicated interactions of the elements of the system and thus provide false descriptions that pretend to be truthful. I totally admit that list is just a hypothetical one. It serves its purpose even if it is hypothetical.
QuoteFor example, my personal hypothesis regarding Mike Mearls is, that he does not even grasp what strategic roleplaying is.
evidence/hints:
- does not get Traveller
- has said in 2005 discussions, that he did away with "charged" magic items
- his monster design series
- other blog entries
- no wargaming background that is known of
So. Why do you think Mike Mearls understands strategic gaming? Which other evidence can you field?
Which ones do you interpret differently?
If memory serves, you have some peculiar, jargonised meaning for the term "strategic gaming". I'm uninterested in engaging with it. Rephrase that question so it matters to someone who doesn't agree with you already.
I do think Mike Mearls is less interested in simulating an imaginary world than in creating a game system that has the trappings of a world on it. But I don't agree that's inferior to simulating an imaginary world.
QuoteTHAT`S the way to discuss. But I fear, it´s not about things, but all about you and your place in the world. If it´s not so: prove it.
What exactly am I meant to prove here? That people can actually enjoy D&D 4e without being retarded? That "immersionism" or whatever isn't a superior way of playing RPGs to all others? The goals of your complaints against 4e are growing increasing more and more remote as this discussion becomes an end in itself.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;221476You'll probably be horrified to note that 4e is more about winging it than 3E could ever have hoped to be. Everything from how monster creation has shifted from process and formula (under 3E) to benchmarking to combat modifiers is almost entirely under the discretion of the DM and a set of general guidelines.
Post:
For most people, shooting puppies and eating babies was most of the fun of running previous versions.
Abyssal Maw standard response:
You will be happy to note that 4e has
more puppies to shoot, and the babies are lightly roasted for you.
Seriously, why the need to maintain the continuity? What is the desperate need to link 4e to the entire history of D&D? It's pathetic.
Jump on the bandwagon all you want, just stop pretending it's the same bandwagon you jumped on last time, and the rest of us will be overjoyed to follow you along.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221519What "crippling issues"?
The ones everyone dredges up to show how horrible it was in the previous versions.
And then, they made my fighter not take any actions except swinging a sword! Please, tell me you have arrested them and they are not free to restrict the actions of any other player again!!
Play innocent with someone else. It just pisses me off when you try it with me.
Quote from: Settembrini;221584Pseudo, you are a liar.
You MUST remember I ALWAYS said the bad thing about 4e is the CULTURE of Encount4rdization, not nearly as much as the actual game. The culture has left it´s mark on the rules (nay, structure) and that´s where the cookie crumbles.
You are actively distorting the truth here. Go, use the search engine, and be embarassed.
The debate always was about the CULTURE of design, and the CULTURE of play.
EDIT: The tyranny of fun itself is overwhelmingly a CULTURAL construct.
Stop being such a melodramatic queen, Sett.
The "culture of design" though, is a culture of designing _rules_. Not china patterns, not templates for web pages, not spanners and socket-wrenches, but rules for playing RPGs. The design culture exerts any influence it has on the culture of play _through_ creating rules. To pretend that it has some other mysterious influence outside of that is stupid.
RPG designers influence RPG players by designing rules for them to play with. So if you want to talk about the influence of RPG designer culture on RPG player culture, you need to explain how the rules do it. The logical consequence of your position is just what I said it was. If you don't like that, rephrase it, refashion it, or give it up.
Quote from: Settembrini;221581But I fear, it´s not about things, but all about you and your place in the world.
You got it. It's all about asserting oneself. They go through that stage over here.
Talking to him is a waste of time. Especially because he LURVS to talk.
Quote from: Haffrung;221470For many DMs, winging it is part of the fun. And my sense is the move to rationalize and codify everything in D&D is driven more by what a certain kind of player wants, than what DMs want. Those players - the ones who want to know exactly how the game world works, and to be able to buy books to enhance their expertise at mastering the system - are the core D&D customer today. The core customer used to be the DM comfortable using discretion and judgement.
I don't fault WotC for this shift. There's clearly more money to be made from some customers than others. However, the shift in core customer - from discretionary DM to system-mastering player - makes for a very different approach to the D&D system.
See, where you see some kind of conspiracy, I see a group of folks who made the choice to include options and guidelines designed to support and encourage people new to rpging in a way they might appreciate and be more familiar with. I do agree, however, that while I doubt it's the only motivator, money certainly played a big factor in their choices.
Mmm...
I conclude from your implications that you are fighting "the Man" by fighting the Gang of Four.
This = problem.
Especially as your argument is, that our conclusions are:
- invalidly derived
- unpopular
- factually wrong
If that was so, you´d have NO NEED whatsoever to denounce them. Instead you speak with great fear and out of an inferiour position. As if proving that any of the Gang of FOur could have erred would be a grandiose discovery. I call this the "Hier irrt Goethe!"-type of person. Roughly translated, you behave like someone who points out mistakes in Shakespeare´s plays.
I´m not saying the Gang of Four is even close to being important in any way except being knowledgable and right about RPG-history.
I´m just saying you treat us as authorities, and that´s why you lose.
Because by grandiosely denouncing everything melan and his mother said, it becomes blatantly clear, that even Melan´s mother has something influential to say!
It´s useless to debate with someone who´´s "Fighting the Man", especially if supposedly three European Gaming Geeks and a Rabbit are "the Man". So, I´ll urge you to revisit your own thoughts, for your own good. Sense of proportion and all that.
Quote from: StormBringer;221591The ones everyone dredges up to show how horrible it was in the previous versions.
And then, they made my fighter not take any actions except swinging a sword! Please, tell me you have arrested them and they are not free to restrict the actions of any other player again!!
Play innocent with someone else. It just pisses me off when you try it with me.
Actually, I'm a great fan of 3.x, and remain so. I've haven't said a bad thing about it since 4e was released. You are confusing me with someone else. I am switching over because I do like many of the changes they made, it's true, but I'd still happily run a 3.x game if requested by someone.
This is easily one of the silliest accusations that's ever been made at me.
Quote from: Settembrini;221597It´s useless to debate with someone who´´s "Fighting the Man", especially if supposedly three European Gaming Geeks and a Rabbit are "the Man". So, I´ll urge you to revisit your own thoughts, for your own good. Sense of proportion and all that.
Can I be part of "The Man"?
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221592The "culture of design" though, is a culture of designing _rules_. Not china patterns, not templates for web pages, not spanners and socket-wrenches, but rules for playing RPGs. The design culture exerts any influence it has on the culture of play _through_ creating rules. To pretend that it has some other mysterious influence outside of that is stupid.
Wow. You are not only seeking your place in the world, you are also inconsequential and stupid.
Go back and read what you said yourself:
Houserules etc.
So. They will be created in a culture. That is purveyed by diferrent channels. Any social/humanities/XXX academic will KNOW BY HART. Now you are narrowing it all down to rules?
That´s what you were accusing US of doing.
That´s. Well. Sorta retarded.
I wish you luck on your personal journey. Get yourselves more important people to fight with. And get yourselves better arguments. Steal some, that´s a time proven thing. Naive people like to use soem form of Marxism. It´s the easy way, and it´s always effective.
Go, rebel.
Quote from: Settembrini;221597Sett rambles a bit
Sett, coming from a hypocritical hysteric like you, that's certainly something. Weren't you just accusing me of using personal attacks rather than dealing with people's arguments?
At least _try_ and remain consistent here for a couple of posts.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221598Actually, I'm a great fan of 3.x, and remain so. I've haven't said a bad thing about it since 4e was released. You are confusing me with someone else. I am switching over because I do like many of the changes they made, it's true, but I'd still happily run a 3.x game if requested by someone.
This is easily one of the silliest accusations that's ever been made at me.
Bullshit.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221296Conversely, folks who enjoy well-built systems with well-defined terms, combining modular components in interesting ways, and adding their own mechanical content with ease are going to be very pleased by it. It's much easier to figure out how to swing across a room on a curtain, what a new monster should be like, and how to design new abilities than in any previous edition of D&D.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221295One spell that's been watered down every edition it's been in is hardly conclusive proof in a rule set when that rule set is the first in its series to include rules and guidelines for resolving actions not explicitly laid out in it. 4e encourages players to explore tactical options outside of their powers, and to interact with the environment in all sorts of ways other than just hitting it.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221160Command in 4e is nearly identical to Command in 3.x, except that you can't make the target drop its weapon. You're complaining about the wrong edition. That's a design choice made in 3.x to prevent arguments
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221158I'm failing to see why this is a 4e problem rather than a problem/style of a particular group. That's why I think the empirical example is relevant - if there are people who play 4e and are not doing things like only using powers, using powers without description, and whatever else, then it probably isn't the system so much as the players.
So, wrapping up with the final post, you are pointing to issues that are more likely inherent to the group than the rules, which I have been pointing out as the mostly likely explanation for all the people who seem to think 3.x was a horrible ruleset, while simultaneously trying to show that it is 'the same as it ever was'.
Douchebag.
Quote from: Settembrini;221601Wow. You are not only seeking your place in the world, you are also inconsequential and stupid.
Go back and read what you said yourself:
Houserules etc.
So. They will be created in a culture. That is purveyed by diferrent channels. Any social/humanities/XXX academic will KNOW BY HART. Now you are narrowing it all down to rules?
Nope. Once again, I listed that as an example, not an exhaustive account. Thus the "etc." in that post, and my discussions earlier in this very thread about other ways. Creating new objects like monsters, items and powers is another. So would be emphasising roleplaying or genre emulation over mini-based combat. Fiddling with the skill challenge rules to increase verisimilitude is another. I'm sure others can (and will) come up with other ways of playing all sorts of different styles of D&D - just as they always have.
Houserules are an important part of creating a culture of play but they're not the only part. You're confusing my
As for the rest of your post, it's unintelligible.
QuoteThat´s what you were accusing US of doing.
No, I'm accusing you of privileging the designers over the players in determining how the game is played. I've been very consistent about this for some time now, and have repeatedly stated that. It's not a hard point to grasp, I don't think. I don't know why you haven't yet.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221603Sett, coming from a hypocritical hysteric like you, that's certainly something. Weren't you just accusing me of using personal attacks rather than dealing with people's arguments?
At least _try_ and remain consistent here for a couple of posts.
Sad part: I´m MORE consistent than you´ll ever be. Just look at theRPGSite and yourself:
EVERYONE can and could make assertions about what I did say and what I meant.
And many people agreed. And the ones who didn´t, still understood what they didn´t agree with.
If there´s a huge legacy on this site, it´s mine. (Pundit is still acitve, so it´s no legacy). You yourserlf and this very thread are part of it. You folks seemingly can´t stop talking about me. If you manage that, and manage for your points to still be worthwhile for discussion after you left, you know you´ve been consistent.
My take on 4e is so crystal clear, it´s so coherent, that you found the need to fight it. Proof enough, on top of all other proof. So.
Well. So.
*GLOAT* leaves
Quote from: StormBringer;221604So, wrapping up with the final post, you are pointing to issues that are more likely inherent to the group than the rules, which I have been pointing out as the mostly likely explanation for all the people who seem to think 3.x was a horrible ruleset, while simultaneously trying to show that it is 'the same as it ever was'.
That's a pretty silly misreading of what I'm saying. Are you still angry because I pointed out that you hadn't read the PHB when you were talking about 4e?
I'll explain it real simple, since you don't see to grasp it.
4e is a different rule set than 3.x.
4e made it easier to do some things than in 3.x.
Some of those changes were already prefigured in 3.x
Some of them weren't.
3.x is still great fun, but it lacks clear ways of resolving certain situations.
A later edition of the game is able to provide more guidance on doing so.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Quote from: Settembrini;221597three European Gaming Geeks and a Rabbit are "the Man".
Hey, don't be so hard on ourselves!
In other news, unlike many, Settembrini gets really spirited and fun when inebriated.
Then again, he IS The Man.
Quote from: Settembrini;221607*GLOAT* leaves
That's pathetic. I'm glad we could all provide a much needed boost to Sett's self-esteem today. Now maybe we can get back to debunking this silly conspiracy theory.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221610Then again, he IS The Man.
Well, he's one of them anyway.
Quote from: Settembrini;221606Sad part: I´m MORE consistent than you´ll ever be. Just look at theRPGSite and yourself:
EVERYONE can and could make assertions about what I did say and what I meant.
And many people agreed. And the ones who didn´t, still understood what they didn´t agree with.
If there´s a huge legacy on this site, it´s mine. (Pundit is still acitve, so it´s no legacy). You yourserlf and this very thread are part of it. You folks seemingly can´t stop talking about me. If you manage that, and manage for your points to still be worthwhile for discussion after you left, you know you´ve been consistent.
My take on 4e is so crystal clear, it´s so coherent, that you found the need to fight it. Proof enough, on top of all other proof. So.
Well. So.
Sett, you keeping whirling around and around so fast that it's hard to keep track of what you're claiming or doing in any given post. You were once kind of reasonable, but you're now just a rambling, incoherent hypocrite who throws out buzzwords.
For example: I don't deny that you had an initially plausible account of a possible outcome of 4e - encount4rdisation dominating play. However, you have failed to respond to any arguments against it, and so, the account is growing increasingly less and less plausible, more and more faulty. Anything worthwhile you might've once said is becoming more and more rubbished.
Quote from: Sigmund;221611That's pathetic. I'm glad we could all provide a much needed boost to Sett's self-esteem today. Now maybe we can get back to debunking this silly conspiracy theory.
It's debunked already, isn't it? The people advocating it don't play 4e, and have no interest in doing so. They use spurious reasoning and personal attacks to push a particular style of gaming as being "correct". The Tyranny of Fun is just the complaint of one bunch of Onetruewayists against everyone else.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221614It's debunked already, isn't it? The people advocating it don't play 4e, and have no interest in doing so. They use spurious reasoning and personal attacks to push a particular style of gaming as being "correct". The Tyranny of Fun is just the complaint of one bunch of Onetruewayists against everyone else.
That's the way it looks to me too.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221608That's a pretty silly misreading of what I'm saying. Are you still angry because I pointed out that you hadn't read the PHB when you were talking about 4e?
And yet, I understand the rules and underlying concepts better. Also, I haven't put my hand in a fire yet, shall I refrain from advising against it? Your 'empirical evidence' argument is a transparent appeal to authourity. On the off chance I decide to pick up the books, I can hardly think I will do better than the dozens of others who have demonstrated the flaws that I (and others) pointed out from previews well before the books were published. Of course, in some cases, the details were off; I didn't do the math to show skill challenges were garbage, for example.
QuoteI'll explain it real simple, since you don't see to grasp it.
Oh, no, I grasp it just fine. What you are doing is called 'backpedaling'.
Quote4e is a different rule set than 3.x.
4e made it easier to do some things than in 3.x.
Some of those changes were already prefigured in 3.x
Some of them weren't.
3.x is still great fun, but it lacks clear ways of resolving certain situations.
A later edition of the game is able to provide more guidance on doing so.
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Maybe it
was easy to do them in 3.x, but you are taking examples from shitty DMs/groups. Kind of like when you said:
QuoteI'm failing to see why this is a 4e problem rather than a problem/style of a particular group. That's why I think the empirical example is relevant - if there are people who play 4e and are not doing things like only using powers, using powers without description, and whatever else, then it probably isn't the system so much as the players.
In other words: "
It's much easier to figure out how to swing across a room on a curtain, what a new monster should be like, and how to design new abilities than in any previous edition of D&D." is more likely due to the DM/players than any real insufficiency in the rules themselves.
Of course, that is just extending your own argument. It's obvious to everyone else that the flaws in 3.x were utterly intractable. Obvious, because everyone else had the exact same problem, and no one was able to come up with a reasonable solution.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221614It's debunked already, isn't it? The people advocating it don't play 4e, and have no interest in doing so. They use spurious reasoning and personal attacks to push a particular style of gaming as being "correct". The Tyranny of Fun is just the complaint of one bunch of Onetruewayists against everyone else.
Quote from: Sigmund;221616That's the way it looks to me too.
Fight The Power, gentlemen! Your shining beacon of truth will someday bring light back to the darkest corners of the gaming universe!
LOL! This thread is hilarious. I laughed out loud when I saw the "gang" being equated to the four guys who, singly and collectively, revolutionized software design. There's not that much brainpower in this entire thread, let alone those four.
Quote from: James McMurray;221634LOL! This thread is hilarious. I laughed out loud when I saw the "gang" being equated to the four guys who, singly and collectively, revolutionized software design. There's not that much brainpower in this entire thread, let alone those four.
Awesome cultural illiteracy FTW!
EDIT: Not surprisingly, history starts in 1994 for James.
Quote from: James McMurray;221634LOL! This thread is hilarious. I laughed out loud when I saw the "gang" being equated to the four guys who, singly and collectively, revolutionized software design. There's not that much brainpower in this entire thread, let alone those four.
I took it as referring to the infamous Chinese communists. The parallels are appropriate.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221639I took it as referring to the infamous Chinese communists. The parallels are appropriate.
They will topple under the Glorious 4e People's Revolution!
Quote from: StormBringer;221640They will topple under the Glorious 4e People's Revolution!
Clearly, you have read neither the 4e Player's Handbook, nor anything about the Chinese revolution. Anything else you'd like to seem foolish about?
Quote from: RandallS;221446If so, I think this demonstrates the truth of the "4E is centered around tactical combat with minis" position some express.:hmm:
Maybe so, but give the D&D Miniatures Starter Game a look-see. Its not too shabby.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221641Clearly, you have read neither the 4e Player's Handbook, nor anything about the Chinese revolution. Anything else you'd like to seem foolish about?
Fight the power!
Douchebag.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;221638Awesome cultural illiteracy FTW!
EDIT: Not surprisingly, history starts in 1994 for James.
Sorry. Silly ol' me, not knowing about shit that happened on the other side of the world when I was three years old. If they'd make those textbooks entertaining maybe I'd have paid attention. :) Besides, it's not like any of that (or this) changed anything. China is still a shit hole, and 4e is still the biggest thing out there. :D
Given the egos involved, I expect this "gang" will burn out and fade away as well. Well, if anything can fade farther out of the lunatic RPG fringe than therpgsite. :D
Anyway, I now return you to your regularly scheduled idiocy. Me wants more laughings!
Quote from: Trevelyan;221449Strange, I could say the same.
Let's be clear. Are we saying that the current published rules for 4E (i.e. the 4E core books) contain fewer options than the 3E core books for some classes? If so I'd certainly agree, although the non magic using classes arguable have far more options than was the case in the 3E core.
But hither to, no one said that we were examining the quantity of information in the 4E core books, the suggestion per the OP was that 4E is more limited by design, and that the design goals of 4E render the range of choices available in 3E impossible, because the 4E focus on combat/balance/encounters/killing puppies couldn't allow for many of the spells and similar options that 3E and earlier editions included. Wasn't that the point of the direct comparisons between Command in different editions?
So, if you want to argue about core book contents only then go ahead, you win. But you've moved the goal posts to do so. If, however, you still want to talk about the design limitations of the new edition then you have to accept that the game can incorporate many of the spells from earlier editions, we just haven't seem them all officially published yet.
Trevelyn, if your arguement has to rely upon imaginary books that do not currently exist for support, then you have already lost the arguement.
After finally reading through this thread (and stopped laughing) I have a couple of requests:
A) What is this "conspiracy" which pseudo and Sigmund are talking about? Can anyone state the "conspiracy" in plain language so that it may be given an examination by the rest of the forum?
B) It was mentioned that Mike Mearls doesn't get Traveller. Can someone point me to a link where he said that so that I can see the context of the statement?
Quote from: jeff37923;221655After finally reading through this thread (and stopped laughing) I have a couple of requests:
A) What is this "conspiracy" which pseudo and Sigmund are talking about? Can anyone state the "conspiracy" in plain language so that it may be given an examination by the rest of the forum?
I think the conspiracy is that the Gang of Four from the Communist Revolution is going to take over gaming and destroy all copies of 4e. Their Avatars are Settembrini, Eliot Warren, Gene Ray, and Col Sanders. After their cunning plan is put into motion, only Pseudo and Sigmund can recognize the Patterns and put a stop to it. But they must move quickly, before RPGPundit catches on, and blogs about it!
QuoteB) It was mentioned that Mike Mearls doesn't get Traveller. Can someone point me to a link where he said that so that I can see the context of the statement?
I was skimming through some of the stuff on Mongoose for their latest version, and I couldn't find anywhere in the character generation excerpt where your character would die as a result of mustering out.
It's not Traveller anymore.
I'm actually Mao's widow.
Elliot is Chiang Kai-Shek, unless I get both the historical facts and the transliteration totally messed up.
Which after four Margeritas (sp?) would not surprise me all that much.
I also want to say that except for KrakaJak the young people on this board strike me as totally unfunny. One more generation of dullards like that and the world will be Walkerist.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221573WotC isn't just trying to cater to one set of tastes, but many.
Their potential market for D&D 4e is:
1) Players of previous editions
2) New players, especially from MMORPGs and CRPGs
3) Players of other RPGs
4) Players of other games, especially games they produce - like Magic, D&D minis, Star Wars SAGA, and so on
5) Former gamers
I'd say that's a fair assumption. However, I'd say in the case of 1) they're really targeting 3.x players. Unlike the release of 3E, WotC are not really expecting lapsed D&D players who never picked up on the previous edition to rejoin the flock.
So it's fair comment by old-school D&D players that they're put off by 4E. They're pretty far down the list of the target audience - far below Magic and D&D minis players. Or to put it another way, if you asked the designers at WotC six months ago ago whether they would prefer to bring in 30 per cent of the old-school D&D players with 4E, or 30 per cent of D&D minis players, they wouldn't hesitate to say the later.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221573This still doesn't determine the culture of play, though. OD&D grew out of war games, and yet its culture of play was totally distinct from its precursors. Similarly, the culture of play surrounding 4e is not determined by its antecedents.
Perhaps the design doesn't determine the culture of play. But it influences it. And in the case of a very tight, game mechanics first design, it influences the culture very strongly. With 4E, I'd be shocked if shunting aside detailed tactical combat on a grid in favour of exploration and expedition planning became a popular playstyle.
Quote from: jeff37923;221655After finally reading through this thread (and stopped laughing) I have a couple of requests:
A) What is this "conspiracy" which pseudo and Sigmund are talking about? Can anyone state the "conspiracy" in plain language so that it may be given an examination by the rest of the forum?
B) It was mentioned that Mike Mearls doesn't get Traveller. Can someone point me to a link where he said that so that I can see the context of the statement?
The conspiracy theory is that the designers of 4e are going to force everyone to kowtow to their evil ideas about how games should be played and this will destroy the hobby.
More seriously, the idea is that the designers of 4e, and Mike Mearls in specific because he has the most writing to look over, intend that everyone who plays 4e should do so in a particular way that is inimical to the conspiracy theorists' preferred way. They (the 4e designers) are doing this for a variety of reasons - to sell miniatures and other associated paraphernalia, to make the game easier for kids to play (which is equated with dumbing it down by the conspiracy theorists), and to bring in gamers from MMORPGs. This in turn will lead to the destruction of the hobby and the triumph of bad gaming.
No one's contesting that 4e has changes intended to bring in new gamers, to make it easier to learn, or to help WotC make money. The people who are arguing against them take issue with the hysteric and pejorative language; the implicit idea that any way of gaming that isn't the conspiracy theorists' preferred way is stupid and wrong and will destroy the hobby; and the idea that a game designer can make people play a game in a certain way.
The people who hold this conspiracy theory in some form are Sett, Melan, Elliott, and Pierce. This is the group that generates buzzwords like "encount4rdisation", "boardgamification" and "Tyranny of Fun". They are prone to grand announcements which contradict other people's actual experiences playing the game. Of them, Melan is the most worthwhile from a gamer's perspective, if only because he contributes other material than whining (his analysis of pathways in 1e modules was very good, for example).
James Skach and Haffrung have unique complaints that overlap slightly with this group, but avoid the apocalyptic proclamations about the hobby as a whole. Stormbringer's just bitter from public embarrassment. Most everyone else who doesn't like 4e on this forum has been pretty reasonable so far (IIRC, I may have missed someone or other).
Quote from: Haffrung;221660I'd say that's a fair assumption. However, I'd say in the case of 1) they're really targeting 3.x players. Unlike the release of 3E, WotC are not really expecting lapsed D&D players who never picked up on the previous edition to rejoin the flock.
So it's fair comment by old-school D&D players that they're put off by 4E. They're pretty far down the list of the target audience - far below Magic and D&D minis players. Or to put it another way, if you asked the designers at WotC six months ago ago whether they would prefer to bring in 30 per cent of the old-school D&D players with 4E, or 30 per cent of D&D minis players, they wouldn't hesitate to say the later.
I don't doubt bringing in players who never switched over to 3.x was a low priority. But once again, it's a matter of relevancy. What actual consequences are to be drawn from this? Does this make 4e a bad game somehow?
QuotePerhaps the design doesn't determine the culture of play. But it influences it. And in the case of a very tight, game mechanics first design, it influences the culture very strongly. With 4E, I'd be shocked if shunting aside detailed tactical combat on a grid in favour of exploration and expedition planning became a popular playstyle.
I don't. It already happened once, with the change from wargames to roleplaying games in the first place.
It's been mentioned that we'll be seeing more with skill challenges in future releases. SCs and quests actually provide me with quite a bit of hope, since they provide the route to do just that. If a DM wanted to, he could give out quite a lot of experience through skill challenges and quests - moreso than really provided for in previous editions (especially 3.x, where the idea of a non-combat CR challenge existed, but was almost never used).
To give another example, the Ashlands of Dlak adventure I'm working on in our own Design and Development forum has multiple minor quests designed to reward clever players for avoiding combat, for solving puzzles, and for doing things like keeping a young boy alive. These minor quests provide an excellent source of XP for clever adventurers, and provide them with a reason to opt out of simply charging into combat whenever possible.
And heck, I'm some amateur on a forum. If I can figure this stuff out while designing my first adventure for 4e, I don't see why anyone else can't.
Pseudo...
Have you ever had a Margerita?
I mean the drink.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221663Pseudo...
Have you ever had a Margerita?
Actually, I haven't. Why do you ask?
Just curious.
Carry on.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221666Just curious.
Carry on.
I drink beer, wine or unmixed spirits. There's too much sugar in most mixed drinks, and a family history of diabetes.
Quote from: Haffrung;221660I'd say that's a fair assumption. However, I'd say in the case of 1) they're really targeting 3.x players. Unlike the release of 3E, WotC are not really expecting lapsed D&D players who never picked up on the previous edition to rejoin the flock.
So it's fair comment by old-school D&D players that they're put off by 4E. They're pretty far down the list of the target audience - far below Magic and D&D minis players. Or to put it another way, if you asked the designers at WotC six months ago ago whether they would prefer to bring in 30 per cent of the old-school D&D players with 4E, or 30 per cent of D&D minis players, they wouldn't hesitate to say the later.
So... the D&D4e designers managed to open up new markets for D&D and RPGs! Great!
You're all overthinking this, and making value judgements about this rpg, while forgetting that the game mechanics of 4e were designed for two things:
(1.) To enhance sales of the D&D minis. 4e combat focuses on the battlegrid, and on postioning. Miniatures make it much easier to use the 4e combat rules.
(2.) To enhance sales of the Digital Initiative. WoTC saw the money generated from WoW, so they decided to cash in. They needed to design a rules set that is easily translated into an online game, so they created the Digital Initiative. They wanted the revenue that only an online monthly subscription could bring them.
These are the primary reasons the 4e rules set is the way it is. If it was too open-ended, then it would be more difficult to properly translate it into an online game. If they didn't have it so 4e combat focuses on the battlegrid and positioning, then they might not sell as many miniatures.
Here's the thing. Hasbro/WoTC are not "tyrants of fun". For some reason, Melan seems to think 4e encourages mediocrity, but I just don't see it. Who judges what "mediocrity" is? Him? You? Me? All of us?
If five guys are sitting around a table playing 4e, while laughing and enjoying the game, is that "mediocrity"? Is that "poor play"? Melan, if I were you, I'd read the books entirely before giving so thorough a critique of the game. I understand what you're saying, but reading about it online is not enough to get a full perspective on 4e.
I say this as an AD&D fan, and skeptic of 4e. If you don't believe me, reread my thread on my running of KoTS.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=10663
I think that Melan is ultimately making a statement about what he does and doesn't like in gaming, while unintentionally presenting it as objective truth. But to render some final proclamation from atop the mountain on the quality of a game you haven't fully read is a bad idea. I, myself, have read online reviews of 4e, read through KoTS, and skimmed through the books online. That still hasn't given me a complete picture yet, simply because of the hundreds of pages of material in the game. When the fuckers at Amazon finally deign to deliver my books, then I'll be able to make a full statement on 4e.
But, Melan, if I were you, I wouldn't bother issuing the rpg equivalent of the 10 Commandments until you at least read the three core books. It's not necessary to play it, but you should definitely read it if you're gonna say anything much more substantive than "4e looks shitty".
I hope you don't feel like I'm busting your balls or anything, Melan, because I respect and understand what you're saying. On an emotional level, I even agree with you, but I'm forced to realize that what seems like "poor play" to me, is "great play" to someone else, and that what seems like "great play" to me, is "poor play" to someone else. In other words, it's subjective.
QuoteI bought MegaTraveller back in 1991. After reading the boxed set, I had some ideas of how the mechanics worked, and I knew the definitions of various and sundry *stuff* in the Imperium. But after reading three 128 page books, I still had no idea *why* I should play Traveller and *what* I was supposed to do when playing/running it. Your bullet point list did more to explain Traveller than the entire MegaTraveller boxed set.
SOURCE:
http://maliszew.livejournal.com/375208.html
While I have neither willingness nor time to engage an enthusiastic and productive tetrapiloctomist, some of Pseudoephedrine's commentary requires reaction.
QuoteThey speak as if the rules determined how one plays, rather than merely forming a basis which one interprets.
Wrong, I made no such claim; in fact, the crux of my argument hangs on the interrelation of rules and their interpretation through the lens of game culture. This is either a case of being mistaken or deliberate misinterpretation.
QuoteThe lack of consensus merely shows it as being one-true-wayism pretending to be objective analysis.
Wrong again; I did not pretend to objectivity. Read my posts. Any perception of such is on the interpreter's side.
And coincidentally as well as on a lighter tone,
QuoteI took it as referring to the infamous Chinese communists. The parallels are appropriate.
Wrong again and again. I am a Times-reading, pocket watch and fountain pen-carrying reactionary. If people were still wearing top hats, I'd own one, if only for the moustache-twirling villainy of it.
(On SL's advice to read the books, I will if I get the opportunity.)
Quote from: Settembrini;221681SOURCE:
http://maliszew.livejournal.com/375208.html
Holy fuck...
The impression I got out of that was that this guy couldn't play a RPG unless someone took him by the hand and told him what he needed to do. That is one of the beauty's of Traveller, or any worthwhile RPG, is that its a toolkit for
you to decide what to do with and have fun with.
Its like he was watching people having fun at a party and then asked, "What are you supposed to do? Why should I be here?"
Thank you, Sett.
Quote from: jeff37923;221644Maybe so, but give the D&D Miniatures Starter Game a look-see. Its not too shabby.
If someone wants to give me a copy (or loan me one), I'll be happy to give it a look. However, as I don't like tactical skirmish games enough to ever play them, I am not willing to spend my limited funds on them. I got tired of board wargames and minis games in the mid-1970s and with a few exceptions (that are strategic or grand strategic level) do not play them any more.
Quote from: jeff37923;221651Trevelyn, if your arguement has to rely upon imaginary books that do not currently exist for support, then you have already lost the arguement.
Eh? What about books which, while not currently released, are officially scheduled for release and available for preorder on Amazon? ;)
Unless you seriously mean to suggest that I can't refer to the release schedule for 4E in a discussion about the range of classes and class options potentially available in 4E. :confused:
Quote from: jeff37923Maybe so, but give the D&D Miniatures Starter Game a look-see. Its not too shabby.
Every time I think of spending the $ to get the 4e PHB to check out, I then think that from everything I've seen it would make more sense to get the minis starter set. You get minis, map, and game
and it's cheaper ($17)
and it will play faster (I've already downloaded and reviewed the rules).
But that gets me thinking: would I rather get the D&D minis game, or some other boardgame / minis game? I don't like the randomized / collectible aspect of D&D minis...
at all... so it's much less appealing than things like War Machine, Classic Battletech, or Tannhäuser.
D&D was the king of the hill for RPGs, but not for minis and boardgames (I have the Dragonlance boardgame :D)
@Melan: The Gang of Four comment was alluding to the fact that he treats us as if we were the Gang of Four etc....
...and he jumped right unto it. So, him giving us way more credit than "we" deserve -> qed
Just look at his new avatar-title.
Quote from: RandallS;221718If someone wants to give me a copy (or loan me one), I'll be happy to give it a look. However, as I don't like tactical skirmish games enough to ever play them, I am not willing to spend my limited funds on them. I got tired of board wargames and minis games in the mid-1970s and with a few exceptions (that are strategic or grand strategic level) do not play them any more.
they're freely available online from here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DDM_MinBatlRules.zip (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DDM_MinBatlRules.zip)
Quote from: kregmosier;221748they're freely available online from here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DDM_MinBatlRules.zip (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DDM_MinBatlRules.zip)
Downloading now.
Quote from: Haffrung;221660I'd say that's a fair assumption. However, I'd say in the case of 1) they're really targeting 3.x players. Unlike the release of 3E, WotC are not really expecting lapsed D&D players who never picked up on the previous edition to rejoin the flock.
This is definitely true. They've said as much. Their plan is to target new gamers with the introductory set scheduled for release this year. Given their lackluster success with previous intro sets, I'm not overly excited about it. edit: but who knows? They seem to have a much better editing staff this time around, and a stronger focus on readability over technical pseudo-legalese.
QuoteSo it's fair comment by old-school D&D players that they're put off by 4E. They're pretty far down the list of the target audience - far below Magic and D&D minis players. Or to put it another way, if you asked the designers at WotC six months ago ago whether they would prefer to bring in 30 per cent of the old-school D&D players with 4E, or 30 per cent of D&D minis players, they wouldn't hesitate to say the later.
Why shouldn't they? D&D minis players are already valued customers, and have almost certainly already demonstrated a desire to give WotC regular money injections. People playing the out of print editions are an unknown quantity in marketing terms, because their gaming money is harder to track, and many of them use and reuse books they've owned for years. Mini players are a known quantity and a proven revenue stream. A company would be foolish to walk away from that.
QuotePerhaps the design doesn't determine the culture of play. But it influences it. And in the case of a very tight, game mechanics first design, it influences the culture very strongly. With 4E, I'd be shocked if shunting aside detailed tactical combat on a grid in favour of exploration and expedition planning became a popular playstyle.
I agree completely. 4e can be played without minis, but so can almost every other game out there. 4e has a heavy focus on minis, so if that bothers someone, they should play something else.
There are plenty of generic fantasy games out there with little to no basis in miniatures play. 4e cannot force anyone to play a game they don't want to play.
I don't want to start yet another 4e thread for this... but I saw this posted on another site: Dragonborn get +2 to their Charisma? Is that right?
Quote from: Stuart;221755I don't want to start yet another 4e thread for this... but I saw this posted on another site: Dragonborn get +2 to their Charisma? Is that right?
Dragonborn get +2 Strength, +2 Charisma. Yup.
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;221658I'm actually Mao's widow.
Elliot is Chiang Kai-Shek, unless I get both the historical facts and the transliteration totally messed up.
Which after four Margeritas (sp?) would not surprise me all that much.
I also want to say that except for KrakaJak the young people on this board strike me as totally unfunny. One more generation of dullards like that and the world will be Walkerist.
I dunno, it's kind of an orthogonal Godwin, you know? I guess calling people Nazis is passé, so the youngsters want to use something a little more topical. In a few years, fighting the power will include calling people NVAists or something.
I find it easier just to tell someone when they are being a douchebag. Like, comparing a quartet of random internet posters to a movement that included 20million deaths.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;221757Dragonborn get +2 Strength, +2 Charisma. Yup.
Do they give any reason for that? It seems very gamey (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Glossary#toc68).
Quote from: Trevelyan;221725Eh? What about books which, while not currently released, are officially scheduled for release and available for preorder on Amazon? ;)
Unless you seriously mean to suggest that I can't refer to the release schedule for 4E in a discussion about the range of classes and class options potentially available in 4E. :confused:
It means that you have lost the arguement so thoroughly that you must stretch the boundaries of the discussion to accomodate support you wish to have for your position. I had suggested the parameters for comparison be the PHB's of 3.x and 4E to provide an equivalent baseline for discussion. This wasn't good enough to allow you to win the arguement, so now you are complaining about including material that does not exist yet to the general public which we cannot access and thus cannot refer to in discussion.
Quote from: Stuart;221759Do they give any reason for that? It seems very gamey (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Glossary#toc68).
Yeah. They give a reason for it.
They're related to fucking dragons.
Anyway, I kinda know James Malizewski, (mentioned upthread a bit) and I just wanted to say he's a good guy.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;221762Yeah. They give a reason for it. They're related to fucking dragons.
If I met a guy related to a dragon I can't imagine I'd find him
more charismatic by virtue of being a freaking monster. :confused:
Is the reasoning that they're scary looking and intimidating? "I'll do as you say because I don't want you to burn my house down" kind of thing? Would a Minotaur get +2 Charisma as well?
In game terms I can see why they might have done this -- they need a high Charisma score to be the preferred class they want them to be (or something). It seems pretty gamey though. Even more so than a lot of stuff I've seen so far.
Quote from: Stuart;221755I don't want to start yet another 4e thread for this... but I saw this posted on another site: Dragonborn get +2 to their Charisma? Is that right?
I think Charisma is more 'force of personality' than it was previously.
Quote from: Stuart;221763If I met a guy related to a dragon I can't imagine I'd find him more charismatic by virtue of being a freaking monster. :confused:
Is the reasoning that they're scary looking and intimidating? "I'll do as you say because I don't want you to burn my house down" kind of thing?
Seems a reasonable rationalisation to me. It's always been the case that you can be highly charismatic without being nice - Hitler was cited as having 18 Charisma in the 1E DMG.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;221762Yeah. They give a reason for it. They're related to fucking dragons.
Anyway, I kinda know James Malizewski, (mentioned upthread a bit) and I just wanted to say he's a good guy.
Yeah, I've always liked James and my encounters with him online have all been good too.
Quote from: RandallS;221718If someone wants to give me a copy (or loan me one), I'll be happy to give it a look. However, as I don't like tactical skirmish games enough to ever play them, I am not willing to spend my limited funds on them. I got tired of board wargames and minis games in the mid-1970s and with a few exceptions (that are strategic or grand strategic level) do not play them any more.
Quote from: StuartEvery time I think of spending the $ to get the 4e PHB to check out, I then think that from everything I've seen it would make more sense to get the minis starter set. You get minis, map, and game and it's cheaper ($17) and it will play faster (I've already downloaded and reviewed the rules).
But that gets me thinking: would I rather get the D&D minis game, or some other boardgame / minis game? I don't like the randomized / collectible aspect of D&D minis... at all... so it's much less appealing than things like War Machine, Classic Battletech, or Tannhäuser.
D&D was the king of the hill for RPGs, but not for minis and boardgames (I have the Dragonlance boardgame )
I can grok that. I mean, this discussion is about personal taste after all.
Quote from: StormBringer;221764I think Charisma is more 'force of personality' than it was previously.
I guess it helps explain why they didn't include a Bard class.
Quote from: Stuart;221763If I met a guy related to a dragon I can't imagine I'd find him more charismatic by virtue of being a freaking monster. :confused:
PC ghouls in 3.5e - wait, no, 3.0e, actually; Savage Species - get +2 charisma on the basis that they eat people. We found ways to rationalize it - force of personality, less likely to be intimidated/more likely to intimidate, better knowledge of prey - but ultimately, it never made much sense to me.
What about a Half-Orc? They've always had a Charisma penalty... would they get a bonus now?
Quote from: Stuart;221774What about a Half-Orc? They've always had a Charisma penalty... would they get a bonus now?
Oh come on. Dragon born are related to Dragons in a world of Dungeons and Dragons. Dragons are awesome and fearsome and powerfull AND CHARISMATIC. Yes some of them are disgusting and evil, but that is only SOME of them.
And even the evil ones are charismatic. After a fashion.
Quote from: Settembrini;221681SOURCE:
http://maliszew.livejournal.com/375208.html
That was a critique of the mega traveller box set for being insular and not actually talking about the fundamental things you do in traveller. The context was that traveller rules were not made for any others cept those that already knew what to do with it. I get your point about mearls and traveller, ultimately I think your wrong, but your also really stretching here.
Quote from: Stuart;221774What about a Half-Orc? They've always had a Charisma penalty... would they get a bonus now?
I think at this point, I can actually smell the desperation on you.
I read all this stuff about D&D being a boardgame now and it just baffles me. It's pretty easy to spot those people who have not actually played the game yet and are just spouting off and in some cases parroting the same old tired garbage from other places on the internet. Here's a clue: it makes you a lot cooler if you think for yourself than if you just keep repeating someone else's stuff, especially when that stuff is flat-out wrong.
Read this carefully; I have played and run 4th edition. I have looked at it in comparison to some of the older editions of D&D. D&D 4th edition is most definitley a roleplaying game. The books include advice on how to roleplay, how to create backgrounds for characters, how to run and present the game in a roleplaying manner. Yes, the game has tactical elements. Big deal. So does Savage Worlds, another game that I enjoy. And so did 3rd edition...and second edition and even first edition. I like 4th edition, I find it a lot easier to run and am enjoying both of the campaigns I am currently running with it. I have played D&D since 1979. I know what D&D is, and 4th edition is as much D&D as any other version.
Someone who actually knows what he is talking about,
Allen Shock
Quote from: Stuart;221774What about a Half-Orc? They've always had a Charisma penalty... would they get a bonus now?
Yeah, you are running into the classic 'charisma is good looks trap'. It's not that half-orcs are unattractive, it's that they don't have the
presence of a dragonoid.
But essentially, I think it is like you said. "We have the +2 Str/Dex guy, we have the +2 Int/Wis guy, we have the +2 Int/Dex guy... Who is left for the +2 Str/Cha guy? Dragonborn? Great, let's wrap it and get some lunch." It's not like the choice is some awful, obviously contrived fit that stretches the boundries of disbelief. The choice ends up being reasonable, and my scenario is pure speculation. They very well could have had it planned since the beginning, really.
Quote from: StormBringer;221790Yeah, you are running into the classic 'charisma is good looks trap'. It's not that half-orcs are unattractive, it's that they don't have the presence of a dragonoid.
I guess I see Dragonborn and think Draconian or Lizard Man. I just don't see the
presence thing... but I never read Dragon Riders of Pern or was that "into" dragons at any point. :idunno:
I was just curious about the rational was it scary/intimidating = charismatic, or was there some sort of backstory about how the Dragonborn were very diplomatic or something. Dragons = Awesome = Charisma seems pretty weak to me.
Edit:
Let me put it this way -- if you were making a new PC race for 4th Edition, how would you decide whether that race received a Charisma bonus or not? Would Minotaurs get a bonus or a penalty?
It's working now...
Goblins get +2 Charisma in 4e. Charisma has little to do with looks, and has for quite some time.
Quote from: James McMurray;221796Goblins get +2 Charisma in 4e. Charisma has little to do with looks, and has for quite some time.
I can get behind that. But what does it have to do with then?
Edit: See above for my question about Minotaurs.
Quote from: Stuart;221794I guess I see Dragonborn and think Draconian or Lizard Man. I just don't see the presence thing... but I never read Dragon Riders of Pern or was that "into" dragons at any point. :idunno:
I was just curious about the rational was it scary/intimidating = charismatic, or was there some sort of backstory about how the Dragonborn were very diplomatic or something. Dragons = Awesome = Charisma seems pretty weak to me.
I'm not sure if you realize it, but this comment alone proves you haven't played a current version of D&D in the last decade. I am saying this without snark. The reason dragons have charisma is the same reasons that sorcerers (who share a draconic bloodline) use charisma as their primary stat.
Also, it is probably important to note that Dragonborn existed in 3e.
Quote from: Stuart;221794I guess I see Dragonborn and think Draconian or Lizard Man. I just don't see the presence thing... but I never read Dragon Riders of Pern or was that "into" dragons at any point. :idunno:
I was just curious about the rational was it scary/intimidating = charismatic, or was there some sort of backstory about how the Dragonborn were very diplomatic or something. Dragons = Awesome = Charisma seems pretty weak to me.
Well, I didn't say it was a
great rationalization, just that is was reasonable. :)
In myth and legend, dragons are all about the presence. Being a enormous, 100ton lizard that can burninate villages and eat people whole doesn't hurt, certainly. However, it was always their cunning and intelligence that moved the story forward, or provided the plot point. In Earthsea, the mightiest wizards know better than to tangle with a dragon without some serious backup, like their true name or something similar. Earthsea wizards are no lightweights.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;221798I'm not sure if you realize it, but this comment alone proves you haven't played a current version of D&D in the last decade. I am saying this without snark.
We've been over this.
Quote from: Stuart;221800We've been over this.
Dude, if you
never played 3e, and
you don't plan on playing 4e, why in the world are you still arguing?
Quote from: Stuart;221797I can get behind that. But what does it have to do with then?
Edit: See above for my question about Minotaurs.
Given your vast knowledge of 4e, how can you not know the answer to that simple question?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;221803Dude, if you never played 3e, and you don't plan on playing 4e, why in the world are you still arguing?
Because we're still arguing with him. That's the troll MO, ya know? If you want him to stop arguing with you, let him have the last word and walk away. You aren't going to convince him that he's wrong any more than he'll convince you.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;221798Also, it is probably important to note that Dragonborn existed in 3e.
Which makes them cooler in WHICH way? I mean seriously.
Dragonborn.
Come on.
They are stoopid. Admit that.
Quote from: Settembrini;221809Which makes them cooler in WHICH way? I mean seriously.
Dragonborn.
Come on.
They are stoopid. Admit that.
Dragonborn are cool; I like em. However, I liked Spellscales too, which I will definitely admit are stupid.
Quote from: StormBringer;221758I find it easier just to tell someone when they are being a douchebag. Like, comparing a quartet of random internet posters to a movement that included 20million deaths.
Actually, Sett used the term to describe himself. Still failing there, Stormbringer.
Quote from: Melan;221690Wrong, I made no such claim; in fact, the crux of my argument hangs on the interrelation of rules and their interpretation through the lens of game culture. This is either a case of being mistaken or deliberate misinterpretation.]
Nope. It's a case of you confusing design culture with what Sett called in this thread "target culture" and I call a "culture of play". Read the rest of the thread to see how design culture must interact with the culture of play through rules. Your complaint focuses on designers catering to players who play in a style you don't like.
QuoteWrong again; I did not pretend to objectivity. Read my posts. Any perception of such is on the interpreter's side.
You claim to be describing something that is actually going on, not merely a fancy, whim or desire on your part. It isn't - you're wrong. But you do write as if the Tyranny of Fun was something that was actually going on.
QuoteWrong again and again. I am a Times-reading, pocket watch and fountain pen-carrying reactionary. If people were still wearing top hats, I'd own one, if only for the moustache-twirling villainy of it.
You misunderstand which parallels are being drawn here. Much like them, you are a bunch of fellows who started off wanting to revolutionise things and then just fell into right deviation (the unfounded worship of grognardism).
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221820You misunderstand which parallels are being drawn here. Much like them, you are a bunch of fellows who started off wanting to revolutionise things and then just fell into right deviation (the unfounded worship of grognardism).
OMFG are you real?
Quote from: Settembrini;221826OMFG are you real?
You're the one who's written hundreds of thousands of words on a flamewar. Either you're partially brain-damaged or you hoped to do something by all those arguments. Last I heard, before you became an unreliable maniac, it was to defeat the Forge and put another roleplaying theory in place of the Big Model. Are you now pretending that you didn't want to do that?
I'm merely pointing out that your alternate theory to Forgeism is nothing more than worshipping being a grognard.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;221798The reason dragons have charisma is the same reasons that sorcerers (who share a draconic bloodline) use charisma as their primary stat.
It might be more helpful if you'd include what that reason is.
Quote from: SettDragonborn. Come on. They are stoopid. Admit that.
Is there no room for individual personal preference? Or did you mean that Dragonborn themselves are unintelligent?
I think it's time that some cheap-shots were put to bed.
Difference of opinion or asking for clarification does not equal trolling.
Quote from: Engine;221829It might be more helpful if you'd include what that reason is.
The idea is that dragons possess a kind of magical aura of fearsomeness, which is innate to them, and which exists in some degenerate or lesser form in many of their descendants, including Dragonborn and Sorcerors. This is why they have a charisma boost.
Charisma is force of personality or presence in D&D, not necessarily lovableness. An intimidating monster should have a high charisma to represent that.
QuoteIs there no room for individual personal preference? Or did you mean that Dragonborn themselves are unintelligent?
Sett really doesn't have any room for personal preference. He's a maniac.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221828Either you're partially brain-damaged or you hoped to do something by all those arguments.
I'm merely pointing out that your alternate theory to Forgeism is nothing more than worshipping being a grognard.
And I succeeded, it seems. You have written hundreds of posts only to show "we" are wrong.
If there ever was anything validating about our views, it´s that. You yourself imply a large impact.
Because EVEN if you were grokking things the right way:
So what?
What IF we actually said what you imply?
What follows from that for anyone?
Think about it poor soul. Fare well on your strange and pathetic journey!
As a passing gift, I present you with this meritous medal:
"He who wears this medal, has attacked Pierce, Melan, Elliot and Settembrini ON THE INTERNET. Let everyone know he fought [by means of sheer force of will] their vile ideas , which have spread through all the land and have infected many young children."
Honestly, I´m flabbergasted. Weirdos.
Sorry mate, but you of all people don't get to pretend that internet debate is unimportant after all the time you spent on it. You're growing increasingly more and more dishonest and desperate here.
Pierce and you were hammering people over the head with the idea that there was some mysterious, unexplained consensus on thinking about RPGs. My interest was in showing that there wasn't. You can't make wild claims about your own influence, then argue that people are wrong or silly to respond to those claims.
Edit:
In short, you have been shown to be swine, and prissy, brittle, hysteric swine at that.
The old "people disagree, so we must be right" maneuver. LOL
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221833The idea is that dragons possess a kind of magical aura of fearsomeness, which is innate to them, and which exists in some degenerate or lesser form in many of their descendants, including Dragonborn and Sorcerors. This is why they have a charisma boost.
Charisma is force of personality or presence in D&D, not necessarily lovableness. An intimidating monster should have a high charisma to represent that.
Thanks -- this is what I was asking about. :)
Quote from: Settembrini;221581Missin´ me much?
Definitely. You presence here was all that kept me going some days. Once, I even put on a powdered wig and blue coat is missed you so much. Come back. Come back to us, Settimbreni!
Seanchai
Quote from: Settembrini;221809Which makes them cooler in WHICH way? I mean seriously.
Dragonborn.
Come on.
They are stoopid. Admit that.
More so than other fantasy races? Not sure I see why particularly.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221578And that claim is false. You, Melan, Settembrini and Elliott (the only four people who seem to agree), do not make a consensus within this forum.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221639I took it as referring to the infamous Chinese communists. The parallels are appropriate.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;221817Actually, Sett used the term to describe himself. Still failing there, Stormbringer.
You first singled out four members. Sett mentioned 'Gang of Four' in reference to your choice of exactly four people, when there are clearly more than that who decry your nonsense. Myself, for example. In your later quote, it is rather clear you had a reason for picking only four people to begin with. Sett could have likely picked up on that, along with your pathetic 'Fight the Power' bullshit and beat you to the punch.
At any rate, I will now provide a short list of 'Gang of Four' related items:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_Patterns
http://www.google.com/musica?aid=rkzibq8YYHO&sa=X&oi=music&ct=result
http://www.daysofwonder.com/gangoffour/en/
Naturally, they are all derived from the Communist group.
Nonetheless, you are comparing four internet posters with a movement that killed 20million people. I am guessing you hoped that would slip under the notice of most people, and you could enjoy a smug chuckle in the darkness of your parent's basement. It's still a Godwin, and you are still a douchebag for making the comparison.
Quote from: James McMurray;221838The old "people disagree, so we must be right" maneuver. LOL
Ahem.
That´s not what anyone said.
The point is the following: The gang of four is irrelevant. But not to Pseudo! He is totally posting thousands of words fighing us.
And that´s the pathetic part. James McDumney, it´s even more pathetic if EVERYONE thinks we are wrong and irrelevant.
Yepp, that´s way more pathetic.
Oh noes! I have been called a name! I should have known never to go up against our little German Napoleon!
Woe unto me! And woe unto others who face his insult misspelling wrath!
Quote from: Settembrini;221859The gang of four is irrelevant.
Truer words were never spoken.
Almost forgot. Before we all start taking ourselves as seriously as Sett:
(http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/funny-pictures-is-this-what-you-do-on-the-weekend.jpg)
Quote from: James McMurray;221754D&D minis players are already valued customers, and have almost certainly already demonstrated a desire to give WotC regular money injections. People playing the out of print editions are an unknown quantity in marketing terms, because their gaming money is harder to track, and many of them use and reuse books they've owned for years. Mini players are a known quantity and a proven revenue stream. A company would be foolish to walk away from that.
We're in agreement. All I've ever said about 4E is that it's a genuinely different game from previous editions (as 3E was), and that gamers who prefer old-style D&D have legitimate reasons for eschewing 4E.
Quote from: Haffrung;221874We're in agreement. All I've ever said about 4E is that it's a genuinely different game from previous editions (as 3E was), and that gamers who prefer old-style D&D have legitimate reasons for eschewing 4E.
Definitely. I think we disagree on exactly how different it is, but there's no doubt that there's been a major shift in both rules and philosophy since the days of TSR.
Quote from: Haffrung;221874We're in agreement. All I've ever said about 4E is that it's a genuinely different game from previous editions (as 3E was), and that gamers who prefer old-style D&D have legitimate reasons for eschewing 4E.
I like both (BD&D and 4E). Will the universe explode?
Quote from: Skarr;221896I like both (BD&D and 4E). Will the universe explode?
Probably. But at least we have lolcats to comfort us before it does. :)
Quote from: Skarr;221896I like both (BD&D and 4E). Will the universe explode?
I think we'll be ok. The doom-and-gloomers predicted an apocalypse with 3e, then again with 3.5. I managed to use both OD&D and 3.5 in the same campaign and we're all still here. :)
Or maybe the end of the world has arrived and we are all living in the
kingdom of heaven.... NAWWWW!
Quote from: jeff37923;221644Maybe so, but give the D&D Miniatures Starter Game a look-see. Its not too shabby.
As some kind soul pointed me to the rules download, I've now read these rules. They seem nice rules for a tactical skirmish minis game, although apparently tied to buying random figures with their abilities card. As a introduction to a RPG, they fail for me -- unless 4E is really 80-90% tactical skirmish minis game as some of its detractors claim. However, I can see where the 4E Monster Manual might be a nice addon to the minis game. You could get the needed special abilities and numbers and not have to buy random sets of minis until you luck on the ones you want/need.
Quote from: James McMurray;221939I think we'll be ok. The doom-and-gloomers predicted an apocalypse with 3e, then again with 3.5. I managed to use both OD&D and 3.5 in the same campaign and we're all still here. :)
There seems to be something absent here... something one would normally find in the center... The middle, perhaps... almost like it was being ostracized, or... what is the word I am looking for...?
Excluded! That's the word. It's almost like there is an
excluded middle in there somewhere...
Just because I don't mention all viewpoints doesn't mean I'm ignoring them. My post was specifically directed at certain types of people, and hence only mentioned the viewpoints expressed by them. I'm well aware that there are tons of people who dislike(d) 3e, 3.5, 4e, and all other editions without actually thinking The End Is Nigh. I have no problems at all with those people, provided they don't try to convince me their opinion is the one true way..
Quote from: dar;221958Or maybe the end of the world has arrived and we are all living in the
kingdom of heaven.... NAWWWW!
...or maybe we are damned souls rotting in hell...
Quote from: jeff37923;221761It means that you have lost the arguement so thoroughly that you must stretch the boundaries of the discussion to accomodate support you wish to have for your position. I had suggested the parameters for comparison be the PHB's of 3.x and 4E to provide an equivalent baseline for discussion. This wasn't good enough to allow you to win the arguement, so now you are complaining about including material that does not exist yet to the general public which we cannot access and thus cannot refer to in discussion.
Eh? The following all paraphrased:
General scope of thread from OP to our discussion: Design focus in 4E limits available playstyles and, due to focus on balanced miniatures combat, makes certain character types possible in previous editions impossible to create in 4E. Note that the OP doesn't say that the current core books limit playstyles but that future books will open them up, the OP clearly suggests that the design goals for 4E are incompatible with certain play styles and character types.
Your comments: Examples include limited non combat spells when compared to previous editions, and limited selection of non-combat magic items.
My comment: Inclusion of rituals opens up wider range of non-combat spells than you suggest, making characters and games which focus on those sorts of spells viable.
Your comment: But the rituals in the 4E core don't cover all the options available as spells in the 3E core.
My comment: The breakdown of classes and powers between editions is different. 4E shows clear signs of providing sufficient options in the core to run a game, while expanding those options in future suppliments - specific examples include the martial and arcane books on the release schedule, and the adventurers vault book containing additional equipment and magic items.
Your comment: You can't bring unpublished material ito this, I'm comparing 3E and 4E core books only.
My comment: The point of the thread isn'f focusing only on the books in print, but on the possibilities, or lack thereof, imposed on the game by certain design goals. To that extent, the provision of additional equipment, magic items and rituals in future sourcebooks is directly pertinent to the discussion. If future books can, and presumably will, expand the options available, then your complain about the lack of options doesn't speak to the limitations of the system imposed by the new design goals, it only addresses the shortage of options available in a specific set of books.
In summary, yes 3E core contains more options than 4E core, but that is not because the 4E game is incapable of incorporating those options, it's simply because the combination of expanded power choices for most classes and what I presume to be the marketing decision to makes future source material more attractive to players led to a lot of information being witheld from the core.
I'm not stretching the boundaries of the conversation to incorporate new material, you are attempting to narrow the boundaries of the conversation because your point about lack of options only speaks to the current situation, and you cannot otherwise move from
does not include option x to
cannot include option x.
If we were talking about what 4E core currently allows then you'd be right, but this thread opened, and I have continued, with what 4E can ever allow.
Quote from: James McMurray;221838The old "people disagree, so we must be right" maneuver. LOL
Be a pal and pass the popcorn, old boy.
Ok, but don't try any of that "reaching in at the same time to hold my hand" crap.
Unless you promise to respect me in the morning.
Trevelyn, you're just being a douchebag at this point.
Quote from: James McMurray;222108Ok, but don't try any of that "reaching in at the same time to hold my hand" crap.
Unless you promise to respect me in the morning.
Uh... I'm gonna get my own popcorn fellers.
Quote from: Settembrini;221809Which makes them cooler in WHICH way? I mean seriously.
Dragonborn.
Come on.
They are stoopid. Admit that.
Less stupid than halflings, dwarves, or gnomes imo- but everyone has to go their own way on this sort of thing.
PC Races for my setting: Dragonborn, Tiefling, Humans, Warforged, Minotaur, Shadar Kai and Hobgoblin.
Quote from: Aos;222404Less stupid than halflings, dwarves, or gnomes imo- but everyone has to go their own way on this sort of thing.
PC Races for my setting: Dragonborn, Tiefling, Humans, Warforged, Minotaur, Shadar Kai and Hobgoblin.
TFT had lizardmen PCs as an option, Gurps fantasy did too perhaps unsurprisingly.
Oblivion has a lizard man type race as a PC race.
I just disagree with Set on this one, besides what's easier than leaving out a race you don't like if you don't like one of them? I don't fancy Tieflings much, or Warforged, so if I ran a 4e game I wouldn't include them. There may be issues with the new edition, but this is so not one of them.
Quote from: jeff37923;222150Trevelyn, you're just being a douchebag at this point.
Because you don't want to respond to my post re our discussion, or because you find the suggestion that the last few pages of this thread have no real value other than as some form of disturbing internet entertainment offensive?
31 pages before an lolcat! 4e is destroying these boards.
The problem a lot of you arguing against Pseudo have is that you are all big supporters of 3.x, which sins in exactly the same way as 4e, just not as well. So you get caught in trying to show the problems with 4e when compared to 3.x, but those problems were already nascent in 3.0, became worse with 3.5. This trend continued with later supplements. It is now solidified with 4e.
You are now playing a game where official rules (and "tyranny of the designer" is a misnomer, it's a tyranny of the corporation) are what drive the game. If you are experienced or open-minded or rebellious enough to break outside of those rules and make your own or houserule the existing ones, then 4e probably won't seem much different than any other RPG. But if WotC has its way, you will be in a minority.
With reference to the original post by Melan, I have to say that so far I quite like 4e. This surprises me, since I normally agree with what he says, and think that I have similar gaming tastes to him (I've certainly enjoyed every adventure of his that I've read).
I've only read partway through the 4e books so far, but I'm keen to try the game once I get some decent time and a few willing players. Perhaps in play I will not care for it, but it seems like a promising FRPG to me so far.
Quote from: walkerp;222510But if WotC has its way, you will be in a minority.
I don't think this is true. 4e has places all over that either encourage or require house rules. Specific designers might get upset if "their baby" isn't deemed perfect, but I don't get the impression that "our way is the only way" is the WotC company line. I don't think WotC/Hasbro cares whether you're house ruling before you play or not, so long as you buy their stuff.
Quote from: walkerp;222510You are now playing a game where official rules (and "tyranny of the designer" is a misnomer, it's a tyranny of the corporation) are what drive the game. If you are experienced or open-minded or rebellious enough to break outside of those rules and make your own or houserule the existing ones, then 4e probably won't seem much different than any other RPG. But if WotC has its way, you will be in a minority.
Naw. Take a look at RPG.net and the design and development forum here, and even WotC's own boards, and you'll see that 4e's actually pretty hospitable to house rules. Power sources, for example, are an incredibly fertile resource to draw on in order to differentiate one's cosmology from others mechanically and stylistically.
It's a new game. Give the kids some time before they start tinkering with it.
Quote from: walkerp;222510You are now playing a game where official rules are what drive the game.
What do you mean by "drive the game," and how does 4e do this more than any other RPG?
Quote from: walkerp;222510If you are experienced or open-minded or rebellious enough to break outside of those rules and make your own or houserule the existing ones, then 4e probably won't seem much different than any other RPG.
It requires very little of any of those things to modify 4e, or any other game, to suit its players. Children do it often with their games, with board games, with sports; roleplayers do it so much it has its own term. Modification of the game is simple, and encouraged by the game designers.
Quote from: walkerp;222510But if WotC has its way, you will be in a minority.
If "WotC" can be said to have an intent, it is not against modification of the rules, which are specifically said to be modifiable. Encouragement to leave the rules alone comes from D&D's need to serve as a system for those who
cannot have altered rules, such as tournament players and live-action groups. This is inevitable, and not a flaw of the system.
The problem lies not with the bright children.
It lies with the encount4rded fatbeards that are the driving force behind 4e sales.
As I said, there will be people who will modify the rules, but more and more they are going to be in a minority. It's a function of the ruleset itself, the marketing strategy of WotC and the behaviour of the majority of players. It's not a conspiracy by WotC, though their marketers are definitely pushing the pro-minis, pro-DDI rules codifications (as Sacrificial Lamb very rightly pointed out).
On the ruleset, we've seen the nerfing of the more open-ended class-based traits for at-will, granular powers designed entirely around encounter-based balance. The pressure to maintain balance is now greater than ever, which limits houseruling significantly (the kind of people who are good at modifying these rules are the min-maxers, not the imagination open-world type thinkers). There is a ton of evidence here and I'm not going to go into it right now.
On the marketing strategy, the new core books every year model is clearly intended to constantly provide new sets of balanced character classes, to constantly provide rules and content sustenance to a captive audience before they have a chance to create their own. (and please none of the "oh, you're saying they don't have a right to try and sell their product?!" arguments. That's not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out the way the model reinforces rules consumption instead of rules creation.)
On the consumer behaviour, we've already seen this start with 3.x. Legions of fanboys who only will game with "official" rules. I'm not going to repeat the arguments about how a newcomer to D&D will interpret how he or she should proceed once the PHB and DMG are absorbed (though I've heard good stuff about the DMG advice section; that does give me some hope). You can already see the majority of posts on the rpg.net subforum are about the rules and how to use them (which is natural for a new game, but the quantity and proportion is really high compared to discussion about settings, campaigns, etc.)
Again, there will be a lot of people who are going to do their own thing with 4e (though after a certain point, I really have to ask myself why, when you could just find another system; oh yeah, it's popular:duh:).
I think in the meidium run (say about a year), because of these things, 4e's popularity is actually going to dissipate. It's too focused for a lot of groups. They are having fun with it now, but what makes roleplaying work in the long-run is malleability. And 4e appears at this point to be too inflexible. Although I should probably check myself here for underestimating the power of brand loyalty and the slavish behaviour of human consumers.
Quote from: Settembrini;222572It lies with the encount4rded fatbeards that are the driving force behind 4e sales.
See? This ain't about you being right or wrong, it's about you being a bitter fuck. I have some bad news for you: Even if 5e were a complete reversal of what was done with 4e, you'd still be a bitter fuck and would just find some other windmill to tilt at...
Seanchai
Quote from: walkerp;222580On the marketing strategy, the new core books every year model is clearly intended to constantly provide new sets of balanced character classes, to constantly provide rules and content sustenance to a captive audience before they have a chance to create their own.
You don't think a year is long enough for peopleto create their own content? It's barely been a month and there's already stuff out there.
QuoteI think in the meidium run (say about a year), because of these things, 4e's popularity is actually going to dissipate. It's too focused for a lot of groups. They are having fun with it now, but what makes roleplaying work in the long-run is malleability. And 4e appears at this point to be too inflexible. Although I should probably check myself here for underestimating the power of brand loyalty and the slavish behaviour of human consumers.
Yeah, because obviously if people find the game more versatile than you, it must be because they're slaves to a brand. Wow, for a second there I thought you were Sett with a good German to English grammar text.
Quote from: James McMurray;222591You don't think a year is long enough for peopleto create their own content? It's barely been a month and there's already stuff out there.
As I said, there definitely will be tons of houseruling and modification. Done by a minority.
Quote from: James McMurray;222591Yeah, because obviously if people find the game more versatile than you, it must be because they're slaves to a brand.
That's right. For many of them, they will stick with the game simply because it is D&D just as so many have with 3.x. Depressing but true. Most people want to be told what to do, what to buy.
Proof?
Quote from: Walkerp(the kind of people who are good at modifying these rules are the min-maxers, not the imagination open-world type thinkers)
How many times have I pointed out that this is a false dichotomy? :p
I'm not a genius or an exceptional master of roleplaying games, but I've already got both going - good, balanced modifications of the rules and a wicked setting, less than a month after it's released. There are entire forums filling up with this kind of material, comrade.
Quote from: James McMurray;222601Proof?
(http://www.lolcats.com/images/u/07/44/lolcatsdotcomyf6t047qtxgrk38q.jpg)
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;222603How many times have I pointed out that this is a false dichotomy? :p
I'm not a genius or an exceptional master of roleplaying games, but I've already got both going - good, balanced modifications of the rules and a wicked setting, less than a month after it's released. There are entire forums filling up with this kind of material, comrade.
Again, I argue that this is a very vocal and active minority, one that will always be a strong core in the 4e world, but will not represent the majority of players (and therefore, sadly, the majority of gamers in the hobby). You are a perfect example, a post-system player who is open-minded and experienced. You have already stated that you may try something different if 4e doesn't work out for everybody in your group. I suspect this kind of flexibility will be rare. I hope I am wrong.
Quote from: walkerp;222607Again, I argue that this is a very vocal and active minority, one that will always be a strong core in the 4e world, but will not represent the majority of players (and therefore, sadly, the majority of gamers in the hobby). You are a perfect example, a post-system player who is open-minded and experienced. You have already stated that you may try something different if 4e doesn't work out for everybody in your group. I suspect this kind of flexibility will be rare. I hope I am wrong.
You probably will be mate. Remember, 4e culture doesn't exist yet. It has a whole bunch of precursor cultures which feed into it, but which don't define or determine it. The important thing is to _get_ all that stuff out there ASAP, to encourage new players to try out cool new stuff, to fiddle with the system and the fluff, etc.
The internet is actually pretty hopeful here, as is the system itself. The books have more and better advice on coming up with house rules, adjudicating decisions, and using your common sense than previous editions. As well, the reports of people playing it with their kids are much more common than I ever saw with 3.5, and every one of them I've read so far involves fiddling with the rules, making shit up as they go along, etc. That works both ways. It makes the kids more hospitable to that kind of play, and it also makes the adults see how that kind of play can work.
Sett's crew failed because they didn't understand paedogogy and the need to communicate your ideas to others. The emerging 4e culture (as protean and nascent as it is) is going to be determined by people who understand those things and use it to proselytise.
Quote from: Trevelyan;222418Because you don't want to respond to my post re our discussion, or because you find the suggestion that the last few pages of this thread have no real value other than as some form of disturbing internet entertainment offensive?
No, because the point you are argueing can neither be proven or disproven because it is based upon publications that do not exist. You cannot review, research, or use books that have yet to be published - because they don't exist anywhere that they can be accessed by us to use in the debate. If you want to debate this when those books become real, I'll think about it - until then your arguement is pointless.
Quote from: walkerp;222580I think in the medium run (say about a year), because of these things, 4e's popularity is actually going to dissipate. It's too focused for a lot of groups. They are having fun with it now, but what makes roleplaying work in the long-run is malleability. And 4e appears at this point to be too inflexible. Although I should probably check myself here for underestimating the power of brand loyalty and the slavish behaviour of human consumers.
I don't see what's wrong with having one sort of game for one mood and another for another.
D&D has always been an inflexible sort of game--like every game out there. The idea that one game can provide every sort of fun is stupid (it's like saying that one form of education suits everybody). Even the so-called universal systems don't do that; they channel play through a particular funnel. GURPS is always GURPS.
Sorcerer is always
Sorcerer.
Quote from: droog;222730I don't see what's wrong with having one sort of game for one mood and another for another.
Me neither, but this is an unknown concept to the majority of D&D players out there.
Quote from: droog;222730D&D has always been an inflexible sort of game--like every game out there. The idea that one game can provide every sort of fun is stupid (it's like saying that one form of education suits everybody).
And yet the majority of gamers only play 3.x and will now move to only playing 4e.
If everybody had your understanding, I wouldn't have a problem.
Quote from: walkerp;222740Me neither, but this is an unknown concept to the majority of D&D players out there.
To be fair: to the majority of roleplayers out there. A lot of people grab on to one game and think it's the be-all and end-all. In some cases it actually is. Some people are only after one sort of thing, and there's nothing really wrong with that. It's a good thing to know what you like.
I find this notion of the 'tyranny of fun' to be highly amusing. What? They're
games, aren't they? They're supposed to be
fun, aren't they? They're not a philosophy of life...are they?
Quote from: jeff37923;222687No, because the point you are argueing can neither be proven or disproven because it is based upon publications that do not exist. You cannot review, research, or use books that have yet to be published - because they don't exist anywhere that they can be accessed by us to use in the debate. If you want to debate this when those books become real, I'll think about it - until then your arguement is pointless.
My basic point doesn't really hinge on the availability of additional books, merely on the ability of the system to incorporate additional options. For example with rituals, do we really need to see the official WotC big book of rituals with full ritual conversion of every 3E non-combat spell to accept that 4E, as a system, could incorporate those spells? Likewise, classes can conceptually have different, optional class features without us specifically needing to see examples of such (although we are told to expect them in the power source splat books).
But I'm happy to wait until there are more books out if you want something more tangible to consider.
In other news... I don't think the 4E community or the designers will be any less supportinve of house ruling. The DMG contains a section on house ruling advising you to go for it, for a start.
Quote from: walkerp;222607Again, I argue that this is a very vocal and active minority, one that will always be a strong core in the 4e world, but will not represent the majority of players (and therefore, sadly, the majority of gamers in the hobby). You are a perfect example, a post-system player who is open-minded and experienced. You have already stated that you may try something different if 4e doesn't work out for everybody in your group. I suspect this kind of flexibility will be rare. I hope I am wrong.
Really, though, unless it affects you personally, why is this important?
Quote from: Aos;222859Really, though, unless it affects you personally, why is this important?
There's a war on. Pick a side! Yur either with us or agin us.
Soon we'll all be huddled together at the refugee camps, crouched over the burnt out remains of ancient lava lamps crunching on stale funyans, reminiscing about the time before scientists learned how to split the D20. Nobody will make their save.
Don't say the C word. It's bad enough already without dragging Kyle's faction into it. :)
Quote from: James McMurray;222928Don't say the C word. It's bad enough already without dragging Kyle's faction into it. :)
You may have saved us all.
Quote from: walkerp;222580Legions of fanboys who only will game with "official" rules.
In all fairness, this has been a problem since RPGs were first conceived. It comes from the "G" part - most games (card, board, sports, etc.) have set rules and some people like to use official rules while others like to tinker. It's always been this way and probably always will, whether D&D, GURPS, DitV, Sorcerer, or
is the most popular on the market.
Quote from: jgants;222951It's always been this way and probably always will, whether D&D, GURPS, DitV, Sorcerer, or is the most popular on the market.
I'd been playing Shadowrun for 8 or so years before I started talking to people outside my circle who played it, and I was astonished to find many of them actually played the game using the rules written in the book. Most of them had made some changes here or there, but some did so very hesitantly, as if it would offend the gods to alter their written word. But those were the sort of people they were, and as you say, it didn't matter whether their game was Shadowrun or D&D or WoD, they acted the same way.
That said, some games lend themselves more to a freewheeling style than others. Shadowrun is easy to houserule because most of its rules act directly on the character - as opposed to on the character's level or class - that it's simple to alter how that effect occurs. AD&D is one of the most house-ruled games out there, if only because it was played by such a huge number of people. Other games, mostly those which need to be played without modification by a wide variety of people [such as tournament players], discourage, actively or passively, modification of the rules.
4e seeks to serve both the modifiers and the tournament players. It's easy to change, because it's all built in modular fashion, with additions or deletions made simple, and suggestions for how to work within the intent of the system while changing it. On the other hand, it also seeks to be a rules-complete system which covers every eventuality, to the point that it could be played without a GM at all. This is a peculiarity of its design, and I don't think anyone knows enough about the coming years in gaming at this point to predict what the end result of this characteristic of 4e will be on the game, on the industry, on the hobby. But speculation will be rampant, nonetheless, of course.
Quote from: Aos;222859Really, though, unless it affects you personally, why is this important?
Well it does affect me personally. I have fewer gamers available to play with and I have had to suffer through some serious 3.x dogma with other groups that I played with.
On a more serious note, it also affects our local gaming scene. We have a con here that does quite well, but it's always a major battle to get the D&D players to participate in a normal way or try anything different. It's even worse with the Living Greyhawk people, who demand a separate room, don't want to see or encounter gamers doing other stuff, etc.
I'm actually hoping the situation will improve somewhat with 4e as we'll have a lot of people psyched to run it and thus introduce it to new people instead as well as 3.x "grognards" who want to stick with their old ways and will thus be forced to run an open table.
Quote from: walkerp;223015Well it does affect me personally. I have fewer gamers available to play with and I have had to suffer through some serious 3.x dogma with other groups that I played with.
.
Does the unwillingness of people to try something different really limit the gamers you have access to, or does it just serve as a convenient marker, indicating people you probably wouldn't enjoy gaming with anyway?
In the spirit of the thread, I'm going to totally ignore your other points. You're welcome.
Quote from: Aos;223055Does the unwillingness of people to try something different really limit the gamers you have access to, or does it just serve as a convenient marker, indicating people you probably wouldn't enjoy gaming with anyway?
Yeah, probably. It has worked out that way in the long run, but the drought period and the behaviour of the people I did play with left some bitterness.
Quote from: walkerp;223015We have a con here that does quite well, but it's always a major battle to get the D&D players to participate in a normal way or try anything different. It's even worse with the Living Greyhawk people, who demand a separate room, don't want to see or encounter gamers doing other stuff, etc.
I am very involved in the California convention scene. No other RPG has adherrants like D&D who only play that one game. I have so rarely heard "I only play GURPS or WoD or whatever" versus the many times I have had very tentative players show up to my table and admit that they only play D&D.
This is exacerbated by RPGA which provides a convention track of only D&D games and the Living component enhances the loyalty to the RPGA only events. This will not change with Living Forgotten Realms. However, RPGA is GREAT for every convention and they should be given their own space because they bring attendees. RPGA is the only organized international RPG society and they have a strong system of internal marketing that is awesome for conventions to tap into just to increase the body count and sell badges.
You will most likely see a significant increase in RPGA if the rumor mill is correct about their new programs and if the DDI ever happens.
Quote from: Spinachcat;223101I am very involved in the California convention scene. No other RPG has adherrants like D&D who only play that one game. I have so rarely heard "I only play GURPS or WoD or whatever" versus the many times I have had very tentative players show up to my table and admit that they only play D&D.
This is exacerbated by RPGA which provides a convention track of only D&D games and the Living component enhances the loyalty to the RPGA only events. This will not change with Living Forgotten Realms. However, RPGA is GREAT for every convention and they should be given their own space because they bring attendees. RPGA is the only organized international RPG society and they have a strong system of internal marketing that is awesome for conventions to tap into just to increase the body count and sell badges.
You will most likely see a significant increase in RPGA if the rumor mill is correct about their new programs and if the DDI ever happens.
I am not alone!
Thanks for that added data point, Spinachat. It is truly nice to see that this problem is not limited to Montreal.
The RPGA thing is an issue every year. Yes, they bring asses to the seats, which is good for ticket sales, but they don't really contribute overall in any way. Since they don't mix with the others and are in a separate room, they don't add to the atmosphere of excitement and energy that is going on in the rest of the space. They do buy food, but that is about it.
I remember when Ptolus came out and I went over to a tableful of the RPGA guys just to have some chat with them a bit. I asked what they thought of it. They hadn't heard of it. I said, "You know, it's Monte Cook's campaign built around the 3.5 ruleset."
"Who?"
I pointed to the PHB sitting on the table in front of them.
It bums me out because I really dig the idea of a living campaign. But they might as well be playing WoW. It seems like they play just to accumulate sanctioned stuff.
Contrariwise, I have not been part of a group that only played D&D since junior high.
I think there's a contrast between the general "kitchen table gaming" scene and the RPGA. (To underscore this, most of the gamer I talk with locally tend to MOCK the RPGA.)
Quote from: walkerp;223057Yeah, probably. It has worked out that way in the long run, but the drought period and the behaviour of the people I did play with left some bitterness.
SOME bitterness?!?
Your d20 hate defines you, walkerp.
Quote from: walkerp;223121I am not alone!
Thanks for that added data point, Spinachat. It is truly nice to see that this problem is not limited to Montreal.
The RPGA thing is an issue every year. Yes, they bring asses to the seats, which is good for ticket sales, but they don't really contribute overall in any way. Since they don't mix with the others and are in a separate room, they don't add to the atmosphere of excitement and energy that is going on in the rest of the space. They do buy food, but that is about it.
I remember when Ptolus came out and I went over to a tableful of the RPGA guys just to have some chat with them a bit. I asked what they thought of it. They hadn't heard of it. I said, "You know, it's Monte Cook's campaign built around the 3.5 ruleset."
"Who?"
I pointed to the PHB sitting on the table in front of them.
It bums me out because I really dig the idea of a living campaign. But they might as well be playing WoW. It seems like they play just to accumulate sanctioned stuff.
You could just create gamers of your own. Invite work colleagues (or uni ones, don't know what you do for a living) and geeky friends and start a nice game. It's not that hard.
Quote from: Saphim;223263You could just create gamers of your own. Invite work colleagues (or uni ones, don't know what you do for a living) and geeky friends and start a nice game. It's not that hard.
I'm talking about a convention here, not about my own local play (got too much of that now vis a vis my free time). We average about 250 attendees so far and have a wide range of publicity (local internet sites, games stores, university clubs, local media) in both official languages. Most gamers in the community who raise their eyes above their GM screen know about it. It's a tough community though and a lot of gamers are weirdly reticent to come out and game.
Since Mearls is back posting on the forum, I'd like to hear his opinions about the "Tyranny of Fun".
I think such comments would be more interesting/relevant in the context of information in the context of company dynamics, which we will know better after the next round of layoffs. ;) Still, if Mike cares to comment, I would be interested in hearing his side.
Let's start with the rust monster. In my opinion, the rust monster, and losing now and then, is cool, exciting and fun. Moreover, it plays an useful role in campaigns by removing superfluous magical equipment that burdens down play.
My group tried 4th edition. The balance is nice and all, but every class being good at melee combat feels wierd. The wizard can take a couple feats and weild a Great Ax and do as much damage in Melee as a Fighter, and has the same Attack Bonus minus whatever the Str benefit difference is. Add to that a built in Ranged attack spam (Magic Missile) and Fireballs, and the only thing holding him back is lack of armor, just a few feats away, especialy without arcane spell failure chances, and his low HP. So the wizard is no better or worse at melee (or ranged) combat than the Fighter, or Rouge, or Cleric, or Warlord, or Paladin, or Ranger, or Warlock.
The only reason to play any class now is for it's specialization. Fighter if you want powerful melee special attacks, Paladin to Smite, Warlord to provide bonuses to rolls and to heal, Clerics to Turn Undead (they're almost useless at healing or buffing now, they were nerfed too hard), RAnger to wield two weapons and for favored enemy to deal extra damage, Rouges for lots of skills and good melee damage with negative status effects, the Warlock for high damage ranged attacks with negetive efects and the ability to Curse for extra damage, and Wizards if you want to hit a lot of things at once. Beond that, all classes are equal. And it sucks.
I enjoyed playing the wizard for the sheer flexibility in spell selection, trying to anticipate what would come up and how to respond. It was a cerebral chalange and I loved it. Now all my spells are attack spells, and all the utility stuff anyone, even the fighter with 10 Int, can use. He can even raise the freaking dead! And there is no reason to play a human, as the bonuses it gives are worthless in this edition. One extra at will power, a +2 to one stat, and one extra skill and feat in a system where you can exchange at will powers if you don't like your choice at each leve (not to mention changing skills, feats, other powers, ect.), every other race gives +2 to TWO stats (preset sure, but it's still two stats vs one) AND a uneique encounter power that's very useful, you get a feat every other level, AND one of the feats lets you select another skill. Humans are crap now and it makes no sense why they are so dominant. The apeal of humans was no penalties in exchange for minor benefits. Now they still give minor benefits, but there are no drawbacks for race. None. No negative stat modifiers that you had to weigh the decision against. I never played an Elven Wizard (despite the steryotype) because I felt that the negative Con modifier was too high a price for a d4 hitdice class, though others felt the trade off was favorable. Now there's no reason not to play the Eladrin since they give a bonus to Dex AND Int, two key stats for keeping a wizard alive. And they teleport. And they get skill bonuses. Compaired to that, humans are a joke to take. I much prefer the customization and specialization of 3.5 to the generic "A Hero is You" treatment in 4e.
Quote from: Zolem;251858My group tried 4th edition. The balance is nice and all, but every class being good at melee combat feels wierd. The wizard can take a couple feats and weild a Great Ax and do as much damage in Melee as a Fighter, and has the same Attack Bonus minus whatever the Str benefit difference is. Add to that a built in Ranged attack spam (Magic Missile) and Fireballs, and the only thing holding him back is lack of armor, just a few feats away, especialy without arcane spell failure chances, and his low HP. So the wizard is no better or worse at melee (or ranged) combat than the Fighter, or Rouge, or Cleric, or Warlord, or Paladin, or Ranger, or Warlock.
The only reason to play any class now is for it's specialization. Fighter if you want powerful melee special attacks, Paladin to Smite, Warlord to provide bonuses to rolls and to heal, Clerics to Turn Undead (they're almost useless at healing or buffing now, they were nerfed too hard), RAnger to wield two weapons and for favored enemy to deal extra damage, Rouges for lots of skills and good melee damage with negative status effects, the Warlock for high damage ranged attacks with negetive efects and the ability to Curse for extra damage, and Wizards if you want to hit a lot of things at once. Beond that, all classes are equal. And it sucks.
I enjoyed playing the wizard for the sheer flexibility in spell selection, trying to anticipate what would come up and how to respond. It was a cerebral chalange and I loved it. Now all my spells are attack spells, and all the utility stuff anyone, even the fighter with 10 Int, can use. He can even raise the freaking dead! And there is no reason to play a human, as the bonuses it gives are worthless in this edition. One extra at will power, a +2 to one stat, and one extra skill and feat in a system where you can exchange at will powers if you don't like your choice at each leve (not to mention changing skills, feats, other powers, ect.), every other race gives +2 to TWO stats (preset sure, but it's still two stats vs one) AND a uneique encounter power that's very useful, you get a feat every other level, AND one of the feats lets you select another skill. Humans are crap now and it makes no sense why they are so dominant. The apeal of humans was no penalties in exchange for minor benefits. Now they still give minor benefits, but there are no drawbacks for race. None. No negative stat modifiers that you had to weigh the decision against. I never played an Elven Wizard (despite the steryotype) because I felt that the negative Con modifier was too high a price for a d4 hitdice class, though others felt the trade off was favorable. Now there's no reason not to play the Eladrin since they give a bonus to Dex AND Int, two key stats for keeping a wizard alive. And they teleport. And they get skill bonuses. Compaired to that, humans are a joke to take. I much prefer the customization and specialization of 3.5 to the generic "A Hero is You" treatment in 4e.
I stopped reading what you posted as soon as I saw rouge.
Quote from: jswa;252000I stopped reading what you posted as soon as I saw rouge.
You know, if they still called them "thieves", we wouldn't have to put up with this "rouge" nonsense. :)
Quote from: jswa;252000I stopped reading what you posted as soon as I saw rouge.
How dare you assume that someone who makes this mistake is a
looser!Sorry, had to get that off my chest. :)
(http://home.metrocast.net/~adkohler/pics/Rogue-Rouge.png)
(Nicked from TBP)
Quote from: jswa;252000I stopped reading what you posted as soon as I saw rouge.
Truly pathetic.
Has all that time on the politics forum degraded your discourse so far? Rejecting valid points because of a typographical error?
Quote from: J Arcane;252122Truly pathetic.
Has all that time on the politics forum degraded your discourse so far? Rejecting valid points because of a typographical error?
Well, I also think it's a bunch of bullshit, but I decided to go with the rouge comment instead of getting involved in yet another pointless debate where neither side will give ground.
So maybe I inspired someone to use a spell check. Fuck, Firefox has one built in.
Thereby making my response
productive instead of tedious and not worth anyone's time.
Or perhaps my time discussing politics (and by discussing I mean posting a poll) has simply sapped my braincells to the point that I am naught but a mindless brute.
Either way. No sweat off my back.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;252012You know, if they still called them "thieves", we wouldn't have to put up with this "rouge" nonsense. :)
Because ye olde "theif" never lever led people into making spelling errors.
Quote from: J Arcane;252122Truly pathetic.
Has all that time on the politics forum degraded your discourse so far? Rejecting valid points because of a typographical error?
You saw valid points in Zolem's post? I certainly didn't.
I saw where he contradicted himself. For example, saying that a Wizard is as good as a fighter in melee combat then saying practically the next sentence that fighters are specialists in melee combat better than anyone else. He basically disproves his entire position of "all classes are equal" by citing his points which allegedly support it. Then there's his complaining that 4e allows customization with characters able to have a wide range of abilities at the start of the post and then praising 3e for that same exact characteristic at the end.
There are also mischaracterizations. The notable one is the complaint about how a 10 Int fighter can cast Raise Dead. While technically true, the 10 Int Fighter must do something akin to multiclassing by choosing specific feats having nothing to do with fighterness, and be 8th level. And he's still going to need to acquire a Ritual Book to master the ritual. It's definitely not a free and easy ability. Unless the complaint is that a fighter could use a magic item to raise dead, which is an odd sort of complaint (and which still requires the two feat expenditure).
So, no. I didn't see any valid points. Neither would anyone else who read his post and knew anything of the game.
Quote from: Gabriel2;252271You saw valid points in Zolem's post? I certainly didn't.
(...)
So, no. I didn't see any valid points. Neither would anyone else who read his post and knew anything of the game.
Er... I didn't see so much "points" as an "experience" or "opinion" of someone who
actually played the game, so I'm not sure how "anyone who knows about it" bears on it... obviously, he experienced it first hand.
Quote from: Zolem;251858snip
Errm, welcome to the RPGsite, Zolem! We're a friendly bunch, honest!
Caesar Slaad: the noise you are hearing is that of goalposts being moved. ;)
Coincidentally, there is a bigass "Tyranny of Fun" thread on Gleemax (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1089412) right now, with such choice quotes as:
Quote"Untruth dressed up as pretentious intelectualism and with heavy weight of text is still untruth." -- The Ubbergeek, WotC Forums
"Melan's an idiot. An eloquent, very well-written idiot, but an idiot nonetheless. He gets up on a soapbox with dreams of being a demagogue and gets it kicked out from under him because he forgot to build his soapbox out of facts twisted to support his argument." -- Ardent, WotC Forums
"This supposedly "brilliant" rant is, in actuality, the ramblings of a dim bulb." -- arderkrag, WotC Forums
"I still see the same arguments repeated, and no new material - it's becoming a bit of a weak argument, and more desperate, it seems.
We hear: fun, teamwork, simple, balanced.
Is that really all we need in a game? I guess for some it doesn't take a lot, and that's fine. Clearly, there are many more people who *don't* just accept that, however." -- Rant Casey, WotC Forums
"The general attitude I got from Melan is that not only should a game not be fun the entire time, but it should also frustrating and randomly punishing you for reasons beyond your control.
I certainly dont think that its Wizards of the Coast dictating when and how you should have fun, but simply an understanding of what makes games fun in general. I've taken game design courses, and have noticed where they have succeeded that previous editions of D&D (and even other RPGs) either fail or could use a lot of improvement." -- Antioch, WotC Forums
"I think the fallacy of the OP is the belief that there's something wrong with you if you want a reward from the game in order to have fun -- the mere *fact that you are playing the game* should somehow be "fun" in and of itself, because whether or not your Elven Ranger actually does anything within the game, it's somehow fun and satisfying to imagine your Elven Ranger standing there.
This is tied into the whole fallacy of the concept of "immersion" and the belief that to enjoy an RPG you must somehow actually conceive of the RPG world as a real place (a "living, breathing world") and therefore somehow be satisfied by the DM stating things as facts in the same way you would be if they happened to you in real life.
This is a POV that seems to me, frankly, deeply mentally disturbed, and when people mercilessly mock it in parodies of D&D ("I want to have sex with her!" "...Okay, give me a roll") it only makes the immersionists circle the wagons tighter and talk about how they're the Real True Gamers and everyone else is horrible and shallow." --ArcTan, WotC Forums
"And, so, I really don't know what to say. It does seem to be that Melan is defending a certain kind of attitude that just playing the game is enough -- that what's fun about the game is that it's this kind of pile of events, that "anything can happen", that you just sit around while you get jerked around by the DM and when your lovingly built character gets slaughtered with no saving throw by a super-powerful trap in the Tomb of Horrors that's just one more cool thing that happens.
...
What's the point of having the Rust Monster at all if its only purpose is to be a "test of faith" that the DM will wave his magic wand and make it better afterwards?
Oh, wait, I forgot, we're talking about the scary immersionist belief that *things that happen* in the game are inherently "fun", whether or not they're actually interesting or rewarding. Silly me." --ArcTan, WotC Forums
"It's just not fun. Maybe some people can wear that lack of fun as a badge of honor, but I say why? I learned modesty out in the real word. I learned humility from real people. I learned the error of pride in the arena of love. Why do I need to suffer those things in a game of fantasy where I've taken on the mantle of street scoundrel." --Exposed Wires, WotC Forums
"the article is written with such gravity and conviction, you would think the subject concerned such subject matters as loss of freedom, the censoring of art, or the loss of human life on a grand scale.
How can one speak so adamantly, with a view point set solidly on black and white, take such a trivial thing as a social event amoung friends and turn it into something so serious as to be on the grevious level of something like the bombings of Hiroshima." -- Chef Mike, WotC Forums
"For all the rhetoric that has gone on here, it all boils down on disenfranchised spellcaster players. The more and more this thread goes on, the more and more this becomes clear. You guys owned the game before to too great a degree, and now karma has taken its due. Get over it." -- thecasualoblivion, WotC Forums
"I get that a certain type of passive-aggressive poster will always heap praise on this kind of writing, but a few people who still sound halfway reasonable think the OP has a fair point. That really baffles me-the post he quotes is transparently hostile, reactionary, and uninformed." -- emwasick, WotC Forums
All in all, I consider the yield highly entertaining, and dare I say,
fun. ;) Note the hostility against DM power, the apellations to a limited reading of fair play, the disdain for D&Disms, the "gimme, gimme" attitude, the rant against a world being anything but a vehicle for balanced tactical situations, the standard lament of the escapist ("why face bad things in an imaginary game, when I am facing them in real life?")... There is not much need to argue against the tyranny of fun when your opponents are doing it so well on their own.
And again: I am not against people having fun. But I am very much against mindless feelgood entertainment painted as the epitome and only correct form of fun, even if it is prettied up with "game design". Those who get something other than mindless feelgood entertainment out of 4e should feel free to disregard my posts. Those who don't... well, gotta say, I am not particularly interested in your feelings. :pundit:
Finally, I must say that this thread is intelligent, interesting and downright civil in comparison with Gleemax; at least even those who disagreed with me could make a cogent and often convincing argument -- well, except Pseudoephedrine, but still.
It even has crypto-Forgery in it!
As you are no doubt aware, J Arcane, actually discussing this sort of thing goes nowhere fast. Maybe I inspired him to use a spell checker. Then I'd actually be able to add to the overall quality of this board.
Instead of, you know, doing whatever it is I do that makes me truly pathetic.
But I'll bite.
...
Okay. I just tried to read through his post again. Yeah, still not getting it.
As far as I can tell, he points out things about 4e he doesn't like.
And?
I don't like your avatar because it has yellw in it. I don't like yellw. You can't really refute my preference here, but you can tell me that I'm a dumbass and yellw has an 'o' in it.
That's pretty much what's going on here.
Quote from: jswa;252525But I'll bite.
...
Okay. I just tried to read through his post again. Yeah, still not getting it.
As far as I can tell, he points out things about 4e he doesn't like.
And?
I don't like your avatar because it has yellw in it. I don't like yellw. You can't really refute my preference here, but you can tell me that I'm a dumbass and yellw has an 'o' in it.
That's pretty much what's going on here.
What's yellw? :)
Quote from: Settembrini;252521It even has crypto-Forgery in it!
Yeah, Melan thinks a game should be more than simple fun. So pretentious....
Quote from: jswa;252525As far as I can tell, he points out things about 4e he doesn't like.
And?
His dislikes are shared by a lot of other long-time D&D players. So perhaps the style of play supported by 4E is one that a lot of long-time players won't enjoy.
It's useful to know which sorts of gamers will enjoy 4E and which are better served by other versions of D&D.
Quote from: droog;252561Yeah, Melan thinks a game should be more than simple fun.
Or rather, he personally enjoys past-times that are more than simply win-win-win-win-win-win-win.
Melan and the Shot Heard Around the World...
It is pretty amusing to see the amount of effort put in to denying the "Tyranny of Fun" arguement, especially since it has breached the gates of WotC. It almost looks like a panic reaction.
QuoteOr rather, he personally enjoys past-times that are more than simply win-win-win-win-win-win-win.
He should play
Nicotine Girls.
Quote from: jeff37923;252572Melan and the Shot Heard Around the World...
It is pretty amusing to see the amount of effort put in to denying the "Tyranny of Fun" arguement, especially since it has breached the gates of WotC. It almost looks like a panic reaction.
Exactalmundo!
Quote from: droog;252573He should play Nicotine Girls.
Why bother? Various D&D editions do the job pretty well already. And it's not like we are playing the Tomb of Horrors non-stop for months and months. But people lose stuff to rust monsters, occasionally make mistakes and roll really badly and die, or perform really well due to some clever idea or just pure dumb luck and get rewards in excess of what would be balanced for their power level. It's a different experience -- I am playing in a long-running (non D&D strictly speaking, but close enough) campaign where our characters are rich on the level of Boris Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich, but still find the situations we face very challenging. Completely unbalanced in the traditional sense, and completely outside the 4e fun paradigm, but entertaining nevertheless.
I would not like to live in a world where my options were D&D 4e and Nicotine Girls. I guess then I'd just play computer games like everyone else. :pundit:
Quote from: Melan;252520Caesar Slaad: the noise you are hearing is that of goalposts being moved. ;)
Coincidentally, there is a bigass "Tyranny of Fun" thread on Gleemax (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1089412) right now, with such choice quotes as:
Wow. Sounds like you are having a good old time in the Lion's den.
If I had a bit more time and patience today, I'd don my whip and jump in there with you. :cool:
Quote from: Melan;252579I would not like to live in a world where my options were D&D 4e and Nicotine Girls.
Good thing you don't, then. But you know, tyranny of fun and all that. I'm sure you can find something less fun than D&D.
Quote from: Caesar Slaad;252580Wow. Sounds like you are having a good old time in the Lion's den.
I'm not actually registered there (unless I am forgetting something). Some guy just copied my posts in there.
Quote from: droogGood thing you don't, then. But you know, tyranny of fun and all that. I'm sure you can find something less fun than D&D.
Good indeed. Right now, for example, I am responding to your posts, and let me assure you, it is less fun than D&D. ;) :D Probably ranks above Nicotine Girls, though.
Quote from: Melan;252585Right now, for example, I am responding to your posts, and let me assure you, it is less fun than D&D. ;) :D Probably ranks above Nicotine Girls, though.
No, I'm sure it doesn't.
Quote from: Melan;252520Coincidentally, there is a bigass "Tyranny of Fun" thread on Gleemax (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1089412) right now
You can stand to read more than the first few posts of a thread on the WotC forums? You're braver than I thought!
QuoteCompletely unbalanced in the traditional sense
I've been reading /tg/ a lot lately, on account of boredom and this site's rather depleted RPG discussion of late, and this is one that's been really bugging the shit out of me whenever the rather frequent 3e vs. 4e threads come up.
Whenever the 4e boosters ramble on about "balance", what really needs to be read there is not "in the traditional sense", but "combat balance". Every party member is apparently expected to be equally capable and useful in combat, outside of combat doesn't mean fuck all. And when they say combat balance, they also don't mean that each class should have a specific role, they mean each class should be pumping out the damage on par with every other class.
It's another aspect of the push to make the game just like a bloody MMO, only the irony is even many MMOs don't go as far as they demand and 4e has delivered. There's still distinct party roles even in WoW and WAR, and even in the case of PvP they're tweaked for often rather different methods of killing one's opponent even if they are ostensibly "balanced" against each other.
It's a very "gimme gimme" attitude, I agree. All about me, me, me, I must be the best at everything and if anyone in the party is better at anything than me it's "broken" or "unblanced", paired with an overemphasis on pure combat encounters and an apparent paucity of anything else.
Quote from: Haffrung;252563His dislikes are shared by a lot of other long-time D&D players. So perhaps the style of play supported by 4E is one that a lot of long-time players won't enjoy.
On the other hand, a lot of other long-time D&D players are enjoying the new edition and even comment about how much it feels like their old school games. So maybe that it's remotely the case...
Seanchai
QuoteOn the other hand, a lot of other long-time D&D players are enjoying the new edition and even comment about how much it feels like their old school games.
And most of the idiots I've seen making these comments aren't even old enough to have played the old school games, and by and large those comments don't stem from an actual understanding of old school play, but rather the pervasive stereotype of the old school as being all about hack-and-slash, Monty Haul dungeon crawling.
Go read Mearls' 4e vs. OD&D comparison. The man who DESIGNED 4e doesn't see them as the same. A lot of actual old school players here and elsewhere don't seem to see them as the same.
Mearls had a flash of insight there, back when he posted on the OD&D board.
Nothing against the guy, really. He's gotten a bit defensive over in a thread at the Chatty DM's blog (a couple links away from this thread, via Gleemax), but my general impression of him is positive.
However, he's revealed in various ways that "old school" is a foreign country to him. The latest was when he wrote that he couldn't "even begin to explain how or why Gary included" wandering monsters in D&D. (http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2008/08/in-praise-of-wandering-monsters.html) (Granted, he makes a stab of it and comes up with some positive suggestions.)
Not to contradict your point, though, J, which is dead-on.
Quote from: J Arcane;252654And most of the idiots I've seen making these comments aren't even old enough to have played the old school games, and by and large those comments don't stem from an actual understanding of old school play, but rather the pervasive stereotype of the old school as being all about hack-and-slash, Monty Haul dungeon crawling.
And most the idiot grognards whining about the feel of 4e haven't actually given it a fair shot because they're stuck in their 80's maschocistic fantasies about a game that never really existed and that they only remember fondly because it was a substitute for the women they couldn't get growing up. They're bawling, bitter, and bitching because even in the gaming world, they're outcasts.
Quote from: J Arcane;252654The man who DESIGNED 4e doesn't see them as the same. A lot of actual old school players here and elsewhere don't seem to see them as the same.
That's because they're not the same. Duh. Hence the words "feels like" instead of "is." Take time out of busy schedule writing foul-mouthed, venom-filled, ignorant ass rants to take a fucking English class.
Seanchai
Why, I do believe I've touched a nerve.
Ain't no outcast here, man. 4e bombed in my neck of the woods to the extent that the stores have stopped bothering with new stock. The other board I post on doesn't have any great shortage of 3e fans either. I'm playing Dark Heresy these days anyway so it means fuck all to me.
I suspect a bit of projection there. Can't find a group there, Seanchai? Can't imagine why no one would want to play with someone so utterly obtuse.
Quote from: Seanchai;252679And most the idiot grognards whining about the feel of 4e haven't actually given it a fair shot because they're stuck in their 80's maschocistic fantasies about a game that never really existed and that they only remember fondly because it was a substitute for the women they couldn't get growing up.
You could not be more full of shit. You could try, but you would not be successful.
What, precisely, qualifies you to decide that someone's gaming experience does not exist? Because it didn't exist for you? And what would possess so many to make false claims and come to some mass shared delusion.
The reason is apparent: because their mere existence without paying proper fealty to your spotless game would face you with the inevitable reality that *gasp* some people don't enjoy the sort of gaming it has to offer.
Quote from: Seanchai;252679And most the idiot grognards whining about the feel of 4e haven't actually given it a fair shot because they're stuck in their 80's maschocistic fantasies about a game that never really existed and that they only remember fondly because it was a substitute for the women they couldn't get growing up. They're bawling, bitter, and bitching because even in the gaming world, they're outcasts.
Seanchai
I got some bad news for you. In the group of twenty or so regular gamers I play with around here and several who really pushed for 4e on KnoxGamers.org, this is what has happened with 4e.
It got the attention of many, several of us even bought the Core Rulebooks. Yet after three months, everyone who I am in contact with has abandoned the game after trying it and either gone back to 3.5 or bought into the Pathfinder Playtest. The 4e books are left to gather dust while the 3.x and Pathfinder books are getting used like crazy.
Now, if you want to judge by message traffic on a forum, then go look at the traffic on KnoxGamers.org. There is significant traffic about 4e for the couple of months after it comes out, then a flurry of activity about arrainging 4e games, then silence. The conclusion I took from this and asking other gamers within the social network was that people had tried it it didn't work for them.
Oh, and the most common response I heard was, "It's the tabletop version of World of Warcraft."
Quote from: Seanchai;252679And most the idiot grognards whining about the feel of 4e haven't actually given it a fair shot because they're stuck in their 80's maschocistic fantasies about a game that never really existed and that they only remember fondly because it was a substitute for the women they couldn't get growing up. They're bawling, bitter, and bitching because even in the gaming world, they're outcasts.
Seanchai
I got some bad news for you. In the group of twenty or so regular gamers I play with around here and several who really pushed for 4e on KnoxGamers.org, this is what has happened with 4e.
It got the attention of many, several of us even bought the Core Rulebooks. Yet after three months, everyone who I am in contact with has abandoned the game after trying it and either gone back to 3.5 or bought into the Pathfinder Playtest. The 4e books are left to gather dust while the 3.x and Pathfinder books are getting used like crazy.
Now, if you want to judge by message traffic on a forum, then go look at the traffic on KnoxGamers.org. There is significant traffic about 4e for the couple of months after it comes out, then a flurry of activity about arrainging 4e games, then silence. The conclusion I took from this and asking other gamers within the social network was that people had tried it it didn't work for them.
Oh, and the most common response I heard was, "It's the tabletop version of World of Warcraft." This from people who were in their twenties, who are not grognards like me.
Quote from: Melan;252585I'm not actually registered there (unless I am forgetting something). Some guy just copied my posts in there.
Holy crap. I made it to page 6 of the Gleemax boards before giving up. Your essay
really got the fanboys riled up. Abandon hope all ye who enter there!
In general, I've found 4e to be boring. But I also thought 3.5 was boring.
I just don't like D&D.
Give me Savage Worlds and I'll show you a good time.
Savage Worlds, the new Exalted?
Unlikely.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;252810Unlikely.
Highly.
I love OD&D and 4e. They are totally different games and both rock. Over my 30 years of gaming, my best dungeon crawling has been with old school D&D (or T&T) and the power fantasy of 4e.
Our local Games Day had been getting 20-30 people under 3e. Now with 4e, we are getting 60 people each event (10 tables x 6 players). In October, we already have waiting lists to get into games and we are running out of space so we are expanding hours from 12-6 to two sessions 10-3 and 4-9 to accommodate the increase. Many newcomers are people who skipped 3e and had previously played AD&D.
Why the increase? Because people want to suffer and be miserable...or they are having a great time with the new game.
BTW, isn't "Tyranny of Fun" the kind of pseudo-intellectual cockwaddery that belongs on RPG.net instead? What part of this laughable screed isn't just a whiney cry of "No wanna read new game! No wanna play! Me pouty!"
The part that's:
a) "You did what (http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050217/050217_loonatics_hmed.hlarge.jpg) to Bugs Bunny?"
b) "The fact that people reject the ad-hoc socially-mediated creativity which characterized D&D since its inception, in favor of highly-regulated structures handed down from a commercial authority, says something about the times. Something I don't like."
Quote from: Melan;252520Finally, I must say that this thread is intelligent, interesting and downright civil in comparison with Gleemax; at least even those who disagreed with me could make a cogent and often convincing argument -- well, except Pseudoephedrine, but still.
Still sore after all these months? I suppose that when you get beaten so badly, it does take time for the scars to heal.
You're still a pretentious one-true-wayer with a Forge-like emphasis on designers and a paper tiger argument about why the games you like are superior to all others.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;252857The part that's:
b) "The fact that people reject the ad-hoc socially-mediated creativity which characterized D&D since its inception, in favor of highly-regulated structures handed down from a commercial authority, says something about the times. Something I don't like."
This remains demonstrably false in my own games of D&D 4e. Heck, it's even false on this forum (well, Design and Development), where I've been making up house rules, new monsters etc. for 4e for months now.
Until Melan can provide some evidence that this is actually going on, it's a baseless assertion. People do tend to talk more about published material on the internet, probably because it forms a common basis of discussion that both parties potentially have equivalent access to.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252883This remains demonstrably false in my own games of D&D 4e. Heck, it's even false on this forum (well, Design and Development), where I've been making up house rules, new monsters etc. for 4e for months now.
Until Melan can provide some evidence that this is actually going on, it's a baseless assertion. People do tend to talk more about published material on the internet, probably because it forms a common basis of discussion that both parties potentially have equivalent access to.
Come on now dude, you of all people should be smarter than such a ridiculous error in logic as to apply one's personal experience as a generality.
Go spend some time on /tg/, or the Wizards forums, far larger places than here, and tell me the zeitgeist doesn't trend toward being spoonfed whatever the "official" answer is.
And it's not just D&D either. I see it over and over again with a lot of the mainstream hobbyist attitude.
Quote from: J Arcane;252891Come on now dude, you of all people should be smarter than such a ridiculous error in logic as to apply one's personal experience as a generality.
Go spend some time on /tg/, or the Wizards forums, far larger places than here, and tell me the zeitgeist doesn't trend toward being spoonfed whatever the "official" answer is.
And it's not just D&D either. I see it over and over again with a lot of the mainstream hobbyist attitude.
I'm using my personal experience to demonstrate that an overly general statement is false because my lone experience constitutes an exception. ;)
I do agree that people on the internet talk more about published material, and do seek to appeal to the authority of a designer or game company over their individual experiences.
However:
1) This is not unique to 4e, as you said, but is in fact common to most internet discussion of fandoms. It's even done in OD&D discussions. Referring to the authority of a foundation (or founder), or at least a controller-interpreter, is quite common in most kinds of discussions that intend to persuade others. It drives me a bit nuts personally (and that includes "But Gary and Dave Arneson did...", but I don't rule it out as completely illegitimate either.
2) I think this process is not an accurate representation of people's individual games, but comes rather from the needs of public discussion. You have only limited, imperfect information about my setting, my houserules, and the composition of my group, and I am in the same situation regarding yours. On the other hand, we can both read the FRCS and discuss it from an epistemically equal basis. If I make an assertion about the FRCS, you don't need any special private information that I have to assess that assertion.
I think this publicity, this ability to treat a piece of material published for common consumption in an epistemically equal way, is why we focus on this kind of material in our public discussions of the game. This in turn gives the illusion of especial importance to it in play.
For example, OneTinSoldier recently looked like a fool in the thread on PvP because he started talking about my game while lacking rudimentary information like what our campaign concept was, how the game had developed prior to an after a particular point in it that I had described, etc. What he did was presume (incorrectly) to have an epistemic equality with me about the game I'm in.
Presuming that no one willingly wants to look like a fool, and people generally want to say interesting things, it makes sense that they would focus on things that they can discuss with others in an interesting way without sounding foolish. It's much easier to fulfill those desires with published material than with private material.
This is related to the reason people use published settings, IMHO, which is because they are epistemically equal - all players have ideally or potentially equal access to information about the setting.
Anyhow, the important thing here is not to mistakenly think online discussion about public material determines real play. It may have some influence, but homebrewing is still going on, new classes are being created all the time (RPG.net's d20 forum has several up), and house rules are abounding. It's just not as fun to talk about that stuff with strangers.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;252857The part that's:
a) "You did what (http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050217/050217_loonatics_hmed.hlarge.jpg) to Bugs Bunny?"
b) "The fact that people reject the ad-hoc socially-mediated creativity which characterized D&D since its inception, in favor of highly-regulated structures handed down from a commercial authority, says something about the times. Something I don't like."
More or less. See Gleemax for the evidence: can't get any more official than that. Of course, I am not discounting that other people are doing something interesting and creative with 4e instead of base rules-fuckery. But taking five random Gleemax threads, you are much more likely to find the former, along with the sentiments that belong straight to the tyranny of fun. That's the target audience, and the focus group the WotC design team is in closest actual communication with.
Also, unsurprisingly, Seanchai has joined the Gleemax brigade. Way to go, Seanchai.
Quote from: jeff37923;252714I got some bad news for you.
I've got bad news for you: you're in the minority. Never move away from area because that's just going to lead to disappointing times.
Seanchai
Quote from: J Arcane;252683Why, I do believe I've touched a nerve.
Dude, if a vitrolic response is the response to a nerve being touched, you must be a bundle of nerves because you don't seem to be able to open your mouth with some incoherent rant falling out...
Quote from: J Arcane;252683Ain't no outcast here, man.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Your behavior here belies any claim that you can get along with normal, socialized folk...
Quote from: J Arcane;252683Can't find a group there, Seanchai?
Nope, I have one. Is that all you've got?
Seanchai
Quote from: Melan;252904Also, unsurprisingly, Seanchai has joined the Gleemax brigade. Way to go, Seanchai.
I'm sorry - I generally ignore your baseless and bitter hate-on for 4e. What's the "Gleemax brigade"?
Seanchai
Quote from: J Arcane;252891Come on now dude, you of all people should be smarter than such a ridiculous error in logic as to apply one's personal experience as a generality.
And yet, that's the heart of the whole "4e isn't popular" argument. You've got a game that sold out of two years worth of books in a couple of months. It continues to sell - the Forgotten Realms Players Guide is #302 in books on Amazon and the Adventure's Vault is #218 (while, for example, White Wolf's latest Exalted book is #116,373). But somehow it must be unpopular...because you don't like it.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;253042I've got bad news for you: you're in the minority. Never move away from area because that's just going to lead to disappointing times.
Seanchai
Evidence that doesn't support your view is really disturbing, isn't it?
Quote from: Settembrini;252780Savage Worlds, the new Exalted?
Sett, that is just beneath you. Come on. Your taking easy shots at the wrong target and missing by a mile. If you aren't going to do your work, you aren't allowed to be the uber-critic.
Quote from: Seanchai;253066And yet, that's the heart of the whole "4e isn't popular" argument. You've got a game that sold out of two years worth of books in a couple of months. It continues to sell - the Forgotten Realms Players Guide is #302 in books on Amazon and the Adventure's Vault is #218 (while, for example, White Wolf's latest Exalted book is #116,373). But somehow it must be unpopular...because you don't like it.
Seanchai
Pathfinder Beta is #60,852. The 3.5 PHB is #6552, the 3.5 DMG is #5715, and the 3.5 MM is #11,676. The 3.0 PHB is #79,407.
All of those ranking numbers are higher than the Exalted book you mentioned. You are not dealing with a spike in sales which nobody will deny that 4e has, but does 4e have the long tail on the sales curve? That will determine if 4e is a success or just a momentary flash in the pan.
Quote from: Seanchai;253044Dude, if a vitrolic response is the response to a nerve being touched, you must be a bundle of nerves because you don't seem to be able to open your mouth with some incoherent rant falling out...
He seems pretty coherent to me. You just don't like what he has to say. So what else is new?
Quote from: SeanchaiSorry, I don't buy it. Your behavior here belies any claim that you can get along with normal, socialized folk...
And you're sweetness and light? How many flamefests have you been involved in again? Probably more than any of us would care to count. Please giveth us a royal break.
Quote from: SeanchaiAnd yet, that's the heart of the whole "4e isn't popular" argument. You've got a game that sold out of two years worth of books in a couple of months. It continues to sell - the Forgotten Realms Players Guide is #302 in books on Amazon and the Adventure's Vault is #218 (while, for example, White Wolf's latest Exalted book is #116,373). But somehow it must be unpopular...because you don't like it.
Did J Arcane actually say that 4e was unpopular? Unless I'm mistaken, he didn't actually say that. He said:
Quote from: J ArcaneCome on now dude, you of all people should be smarter than such a ridiculous error in logic as to apply one's personal experience as a generality.
Go spend some time on /tg/, or the Wizards forums, far larger places than here, and tell me the zeitgeist doesn't trend toward being spoonfed whatever the "official" answer is.
And it's not just D&D either. I see it over and over again with a lot of the mainstream hobbyist attitude.
That's not really an assertion that 4e is unpopular. It's an assertion that the masses will embrace what the "official" stuff is. Which is true. If 4e was radically different from what it is now, it would probably
still be the most popular game, because it's D&D. Branding and marketing are powerful things, and never to be underestimated.
Quote from: jeff37923;253110You are not dealing with a spike in sales which nobody will deny that 4e has, but does 4e have the long tail on the sales curve? That will determine if 4e is a success or just a momentary flash in the pan.
Let's be less insane.
Regardless of anyone's love or hate of 4e, the reality stands that 4e is the only RPG being backed by a major corporation. Hasbro/Wotc has the deepest and strongest connection in the Book Trade, the Game Trade and the Internet of any RPG company with at least ten times the financial power of their nearest competitor. Add to this, the D&D Brand is the single most powerful brand in RPGs with the longest history of success. Add to this, D&D is the only RPG with a global player support network that includes several hundred thousand members.
Will 1e, 2e, 3e or 4e sell better in 20 years? Nobody at WotC cares. 4e is the Official Edition right now and it will sell better than anything else on the current market until 5e comes around in 2015 and that will sell better than any competitor.
Gamers, like most people, are very trained to buy the New Stuff.
Quote from: Spinachcat;253122Let's be less insane.
I laughed for a good five minutes when I saw it was you posting this statement.
Quote from: Spinachcat;253122Let's be less insane.
I laughed for a good five minutes when I saw who posted this statement.
Quote from: Spinachcat;253122Gamers, like most people, are very trained to buy the New Stuff.
So, you view gamers as sheeplike herd animals who need to be told what to buy because they don't know what's fun for them? That's pretty fucking elitist of you, especially since it shows a derisive attitude towards the very social group that you are a part of. Got any more self-loathing to share?
Quote from: jeff37923;253097Evidence that doesn't support your view is really disturbing, isn't it?
Apparently not as disturbing as realizing that the mainstream's tastes are different from your own.
But really, what evidence? Your (biased) word about what the lay of the land is like in your neck of the woods?
Quote from: jeff37923;253097All of those ranking numbers are higher than the Exalted book you mentioned. You are not dealing with a spike in sales which nobody will deny that 4e has, but does 4e have the long tail on the sales curve? That will determine if 4e is a success or just a momentary flash in the pan.
Are you sure you're not denying it? Because selling over two years worth of books in as many months doesn't strike me as "a spike in sales."
Seanchai
Quote from: Spinachcat;253122Regardless of anyone's love or hate of 4e, the reality stands that 4e is the only RPG being backed by a major corporation.
You really think that's how it works, don't you?
Quote from: Spinachcat;253122Add to this, the D&D Brand is the single most powerful brand in RPGs with the longest history of success. Add to this, D&D is the only RPG with a global player support network that includes several hundred thousand members.
In other words, "Yep, 4e is popular."
Quote from: Spinachcat;253122Nobody at WotC cares. 4e is the Official Edition right now and it will sell better than anything else on the current market until 5e comes around in 2015 and that will sell better than any competitor.
In other words, "Yep, 4e is popular."
Quote from: Spinachcat;253122Gamers, like most people, are very trained to buy the New Stuff.
In other words, "Yep, 4e is popular."
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;253217Apparently not as disturbing as realizing that the mainstream's tastes are different from your own.
But really, what evidence? Your (biased) word about what the lay of the land is like in your neck of the woods?
Are you sure you're not denying it? Because selling over two years worth of books in as many months doesn't strike me as "a spike in sales."
Seanchai
Then I'd suggest that you shit me out some sales figures to provide proof of your own assertions. I'm saying what I'm seeing around me in my neck of the woods, and have already told you where to look to see what I see.
Quote from: Seanchai;253217Are you sure you're not denying it? Because selling over two years worth of books in as many months doesn't strike me as "a spike in sales."
Now, I don't really know or care how successful the 4E books have been for WotC. But I have to ask: what in fuck does "two years worth of books" mean?
It's not another take on the ole' "sold out its print run in x weeks" nonsense, is it? Are gamers all so commercially illiterate that they mistake wholly subjective marketing terms for hard numbers?
Quote from: jeff37923;253226Then I'd suggest that you shit me out some sales figures to provide proof of your own assertions.
None have been released. What we have been told is a) 4e's runs were bigger than 3.5s and 3e's, b) that they're on their third printing, and c) that each run was meant to last for a year.
Moreover, we have Amazon's sales ranks and 4e's appearance on the New York Times Bestseller's list.
So, yeah, just a tad more objective than "None of the dudes around here like it."
Seanchai
Quote from: Haffrung;253227But I have to ask: what in fuck does "two years worth of books" mean?
A WotC staffer stated on TBP that each print run was meant to last them for a year. They didn't give out actual numbers, just that it was meant to be a year's supply of books. Hence their surprise and delight when they sold out so quickly.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;253252None have been released. What we have been told is a) 4e's runs were bigger than 3.5s and 3e's, b) that they're on their third printing, and c) that each run was meant to last for a year.
Moreover, we have Amazon's sales ranks and 4e's appearance on the New York Times Bestseller's list.
So, yeah, just a tad more objective than "None of the dudes around here like it."
Seanchai
So what you are saying is that, "Those dudes who published the books claim it is selling like hotcakes without giving us any proof."
Tell me more about this objectivity you are claiming....
EDIT:
And you still don't seem to get that it doesn't matter if a company sells out of a print run if we don't know how many copies are in the print run to begin with.
I know I'm being snide and I should quit that if I want to get my point across.
Now, with the advent of things like ebay and amazon.com, when it comes to selling a book you have to look at the entire area under the sales over time bell curve and not just the highest point. I think that 4e has had initially strong sales, but will they remain as strong over time is questionable. From what I have seen and heard from other gamers, and I admit it should be considered anecdotal, people have spent money on 4e to try it which accounts for the high initial sales numbers, but a significant number have decided that 4e does not work for them and have gone back to their original prferred game system which seems to be 3.5 (and some of those have instead embraced Pathfinder).
Now, you keep mention Amazon's sales ranking as evidence of 4e popularity but you forget to define that number by indicating the date on which the sales ranking was recorded. Will 4e have the same sales ranking 6 months from now? A year from now? Three years from now? That will determine the overall success.
I think it is significant that 3.5 Core Rulebook sales are still ranked in the mid-thousands 5 years after the publishing date and with a newer version of the game having been released. To me that shows that 3.5 may very well have a long tail on its sales bell curve that will be statistically significant.
The most interesting sales figure regarding 4e will be the membership to DDI if they ever get the game table up and running smoothly. Since 4e was designed to be an easy translation to online play, that number will be the most notable determiner of success or failure.
Quote from: jeff37923;253148So, you view gamers as sheeplike herd animals who need to be told what to buy because they don't know what's fun for them?
Gamers, like many consumers, are drawn to major brands and the new shiny.
4e is the new shiny from the major brand. Thus, it's sales are going to dwarf all other sales. This is not rocket science.
Quote from: jeff37923;253148That's pretty fucking elitist of you
Why thank you!
Quote from: Seanchai;253224You really think that's how it works, don't you?
Yes, that is how it works. Marketing campaigns fueled with corporate money sell products to consumers.
Quote from: Spinachcat;253283The most interesting sales figure regarding 4e will be the membership to DDI if they ever get the game table up and running smoothly. Since 4e was designed to be an easy translation to online play, that number will be the most notable determiner of success or failure.
So considering how fucked up the online table is reported being means that by your criteria 4e is a total failure. That's harsh, Spinichcat.
Quote from: jeff37923;253286So considering how fucked up the online table is reported being means that by your criteria 4e is a total failure. That's harsh, Spinichcat.
4e isn't a total failure. It only needs to be a short-term success, until they get the next edition going. Now...will 4e be just as successful in three years? That's iffy, but
right now, it's extremely popular. The thing is, the gaming populace is getting more jaded. They now
expect a new edition for D&D every few years, so I suspect they'll be less emotionally attached to 4e in the long run.
4e is major-league popular now, but I doubt it will have any real longevity. The castration of any OGL for 4e has helped assure that. We had 8 years of 3.x, and those years will be greatly expanded with the advent of Pathfinder. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that 3.x (supported by third-party publishers) will have more longevity than 4e. Now watch that statement get Seanchai all riled up...;)
It's obviously successful by roleplaying game industry standards, but those standards aren't high ones. The proper question is: does 4e keep enough existing gamers and recruit enough new ones to increase the numbers of people really playing the game, especially in light of MMORPGs? Seanchai is of course welcome to present hard, verifiable data.
And that's the business part - not even touching on the questions of identity, target audience and the image of what a roleplaying game should be etc. which are the primary focus of this thread.
Quote from: jeff37923;253276So what you are saying is that, "Those dudes who published the books claim it is selling like hotcakes without giving us any proof."
Tell me more about this objectivity you are claiming...
Except, as I clearly said, it's not just WotC staffers' word we have to go on. We have sales figures, sales rank, it's inclusion in bestseller's list, etc.
Quote from: jeff37923;253276And you still don't seem to get that it doesn't matter if a company sells out of a print run if we don't know how many copies are in the print run to begin with.
Oh, no, I get it. And it's a perfectly valid argument.
But, again, while we don't have numbers, we do have some idea of the magnitude of the print run, even dismissing WotC staffers' claims. You simply don't want to believe it's popular.
Quote from: jeff37923;253276Will 4e have the same sales ranking 6 months from now? A year from now? Three years from now? That will determine the overall success.
Great. I take it you're retracting statements about it's popularity then and reserving judgment for another two and a half years.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;253525We have sales figures, sales rank, it's inclusion in bestseller's list, etc.
But, again, while we don't have numbers, .
So which is it? Both?
Bah, you're not dealing in reality here.
@melan: did it occur to you that the WotC-lovers and melan-bashers do not adress or refute or even attack your argument? They go straight to DEFENDING the tyrranny of fun as a concept. So your analysis is spot on, even in their minds.
It´s just so they like it, which is even more sad.
This seems to be the case on Gleemax. I'd say this forum has had substantial counter-arguments, especially in the first 150 posts or so. But yeah, quite a lot of response was not actually about disagreeing with my message, just not liking it. In the case of the Gleemax community, it was a given, since they are heavily tied to the focus groups and most enthusiastic target audience of 4e style gaming. Of course they didn't like the message. It wasn't much of a surprise on RPGNet either (there is to my knowledge no tyranny of fun thread there as such, but there is similar discussion (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=416570)), although for slightly different reasons.
I have to say, though: it is possible to play 4e in ways where the tyranny of fun is not a strong issue, just like it is possible to play in the Forgotten Realms in a way that ignores super-NPCs, social-liberals-in-renfaire-drag societies, and the omnipresence of magic. One of the most fortunate things in gaming is that roleplayers are more able to adapt games to their tastes than they are given credit for.
Will be interesting to see what kind of stamp 4e will leave on game culture, and what kind of stamp gamer culture will leave on 4e, and subsequent editions, whatever form they will take. I expect that, outside the Gleemax hardcore, there will be a compromise solution due to inertia and other factors - social dynamics, the need to maintain gaming groups between competing preferences, etc. But in the first of my posts (the 2006 one from ENWorld), I also remarked how a series of small compromises can lead to unfavourable concessions. Death by ten knife stabs instead of getting a truck dropped on your head is still death, it just happens more slowly.
Having played 4E for (yet) another 6 hours yesterday, I'm afraid that future editions of D&D, if they stay "on track" of current game design paradigms (as identified by Melan), will go even further to cater to the tyranny of fun. You see, I rolled poorly for 5 hours consecutively and so I couldn't do fuck all in the game. Even with "you deal damage even if you miss" I hardly dealt damage, and I was nearly (gosh!) killed several times all over because the DM didn't roll poorly (he didn't roll brilliantly, but that wasn't required). Plainly, 4E hasn't found a way yet to secure automatic success, and certainly hasn't got rid of the most central thing of D&D: if you roll poorly, you suck. No matter how cleverly you play and decide. (There used to be a rule on skill challenges whereby clevery roleplaying ideas earn automatic victories (Escape from Sembia), but that was erased in the DMG.)
What my group came up with is that D&D 5E "should" have an in-built mechanism to get rid of this random craziness (no, don't want any of that in D&D). So instead of rolling a d20 you get a deck of 60 cards with numbers 1-20 evenly distributed. So you're guaranteed to draw three times each number before the deck is used up. What's really cool, of course, is that that enables players with a poker mentality to calculate chances of success each time the deck approaches its final draws. As in, "I'm gonna use my daily power now, knowing that there's a 0.42 chance of getting a 20 and maxing out damage."
Funnily, my experiences have shown that 4e is way more dependent on your roll. Most of the time you have a 50% chance of failing at anything.
If you fail, you keep going, but your turn is over.
It´s also documented in the VideoCast they did a while ago.
Player input = state power, roll dice, say "didn´t make it"
Quote from: Settembrini;253641Funnily, my experiences have shown that 4e is way more dependent on your roll. Most of the time you have a 50% chance of failing at anything.
At low levels, that's been precisely my experience with 3E too, so no significant departure here.
Quote from: Settembrini;253641Player input = state power, roll dice, say "didn´t make it"
And that's the next problem, irrespective of you lucky you are with the dice. Which is a pity since I think you can do a complex yet convenient stunt-oriented game with 4E, taking a leaf or two out of Mearls'
Book of Iron Might. All you need is a 4E DM Screen: you got DCs for maneuvers per level and damage output set out for you (that's the table from DMG, p. 42).
And you got all the conditions you might want to inflict on monsters apart from damage output (dazed, immobilized, ...) - if you add one of those conditions, just add 5-15 to your DC or volunteer to take an opportunity attack if the stunt fails. (<-- Buy "lowering your DC" by accepting additional risks.) Add in the crazy "shift/slide/pull monster or ally for n (1,2,...) squares" effects, and you basically got
all of 4E's building blocks set out in front of you on next to no space.
That type of thing becomes almost necessary once you've run out of daily and encounter powers, so as to avoid the endless repetition of the same at-wills (booooring!). However, trying to find players with a mindset geared towards that free-wheeling game experience has become quite difficult. People are quite happy to stick with pre-fabricated options
even if it is boring, since they aren't looking for that sort of brainwork when playing 4E. I take it to be one of Melan's most salient points of how that's symptomatic of current gaming culture: less interest in handling the game creatively on both sides of the screen. Players have no interest to tweak the game during play, and DMs have less interest in making up stuff - they more happily buy supplement after supplement. I find this deeply ironic since, in my estimate, the 4E rules design actually provides a much better framework for
mechanically sound creativity on the fly than 3rd edition, yet as written 4E comes across as totally averse to it. The DMG (p.189) actually
doesn't want teh DM to tweak with the rules, and the extant stunt system (DMG, p.42) is far too uninspiring to catch the players' interest.
What is still a mystery to me, and I´d be very interested to hear from someone informed:
The formulas for Power-Creation are openly in the DMG.
The powers themselves are highly repetitive and affect mostly the same ressources (shift, damage +x & y).
What is in the splatbooks?
What sort of new stuff can there be?
Look through the Class Acts column in the Dragon.
Quote from: Settembrini;253648What is in the splatbooks?
What sort of new stuff can there be?
Look at
Adventurer's Vault. Mechanical innovation? Zero. Previews of
Martial Power likewise.
Quote from: Settembrini;253648The formulas for Power-Creation are openly in the DMG.
The 4E DM Toolkit makes this even more transparent: http://dmtools.de.vu/
Quote from: Settembrini;253648What is still a mystery to me, and I´d be very interested to hear from someone informed:
The formulas for Power-Creation are openly in the DMG.
The powers themselves are highly repetitive and affect mostly the same ressources (shift, damage +x & y).
What is in the splatbooks?
What sort of new stuff can there be?
Yeah, i mentioned this way back. It's a brilliant
and dodgy piece of design work. It's a piece of piss to write stuff for, which is why it's brilliant for official designers - it's dodgy that if folk ever really catch on, it could stuff up sales of splat-books. Edit: Which may have informed WotC decision to only release 3 setting books for each line. I think it's very possible that there's a definitive time-line for 4e in someones desk.
Quote from: jeff37923;253606So which is it? Both?
When I said we don't have numbers, I meant from WotC and, if I recall, I think I was talking about print run size. We do have numbers from places such as Comics & Games Retailer Magazine.
Seanchai
Quote from: Settembrini;253641Funnily, my experiences have shown that 4e is way more dependent on your roll.
So, for all your talk, you're playing 4e now, huh?
Seanchai
I have to congratulate Palladium on the dice rolling issue. In most of their games, as long as you roll over a 4, you hit your target and damage their ablative armor unless they spend an action to attempt to dodge by rolling higher than your attack. You feel like you are hitting more often because you are whittling away armor with every attack.
The big problem with D&D is that every attack over 10+Dex modifier is technically a hit, it's just the armor that stops the penetration. So instead of the blow bouncing off armor, we say "It's a Miss"
While mechanically the same, it is important for GMs and players to engage and describe how the blows almost hit. Yet another reason I love how Spite damage was added into T&T.
Here's how you mechanically fix the Miss Issue. Make the base Defense equal 8 instead of 10. That 10% difference means a lot more smashy smashy for everyone. If you want to be overly kind to players, just do that to the monsters.
Quote from: jeff37923;253286So considering how fucked up the online table is reported being means that by your criteria 4e is a total failure. That's harsh, Spinichcat.
It is perfectly fine to have a fucked up program in Alpha and Beta testing. All that matters is the final product for sale and the continual support of that product.
DDI might be a total failure, but we can only make that determination once the game table is a legitimate product for sale.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;253385The castration of any OGL for 4e has helped assure that. We had 8 years of 3.x, and those years will be greatly expanded with the advent of Pathfinder.
I seriously doubt the OGL did much for WotC's sale of 3.5 material. The D20 license however freed them up from doing adventures and provided more supplements on the market.
With 4e, I suspect publishers will go the Kenzer route and simply produce 4e stuff and ignore the license. If WotC discovers any financial numbers that prove the OGL increased WotC sales, I am quite sure the 4e license will be altered. Instead, the OGL appears to been a freaking disaster in granting competitors a better way to grab WotC customers. Their mistake could mean that Pathfinder develops a notable marketshare.
However, I suspect we will see a division between 3.5 players and Pathfinder players as the Pathfinder game becomes less and less directly and immediately compatible with 3.5 core. Kinda like using C&C stuff to play B/X.
I am looking to this weekend's 60 player 4e Games Day. I am going to clobber the innocents with my Tyranny of Fun stick until I break their gamer spirits and drain them of any creativity.
Quote from: Spinachcat;253739With 4e, I suspect publishers will go the Kenzer route and simply produce 4e stuff and ignore the license.
It seems as if the publisher who have chosen to do this - I know of only two - aren't meeting with a lot of success...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;254048It seems as if the publisher who have chosen to do this - I know of only two - aren't meeting with a lot of success...
Seanchai
I've only heard anecdotal evidence on how
anyone is doing with 4e support, anecdotal or no. Has anyone heard any concrete accounts yet on how GSL supporters are doing?
EDIT: Speaking of GSL, I was just given this (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=58360&src=FrontPage) to review!
I am bumping this thread for the purpose of letting folks know that the Original Post got referenced at TV Tropes here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys) (scroll down to the RPG section). A dubious distinction at best.
Well, I see JimLotFP got linked for his "I Hate Fun" blog post. That's really closer to what this thread is about (whether you agree with it or not) than "A perfect example of what happens when you mix this with Fan Dumb is shown here", which doesn't even come close to the point.
I should really update this thread with more quotes from dedicated 4e fans on various forums (including the epic 1000+ posts shitstorm here), but unfortunately, I am also busy writing my dissertation, so no go. Maybe on another occasion. :wizard:
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;286805Well, I see JimLotFP got linked for his "I Hate Fun" blog post. That's really closer to what this thread is about (whether you agree with it or not) than "A perfect example of what happens when you mix this with Fan Dumb is shown here", which doesn't even come close to the point.
Quite right.
Quote from: Trevelyan;220047If I didn't know better, I'd guess you were working purely frm hearsay and hadn't actually read the 4E core books. I've said it before and I'll no doubt say it again, but a lot of what you mention above is explicitely refuted by the 4E books.
Just because they say "if you don't like a rule don't use it" Does not mean they are truly open to house ruling. I have in fact read the books and they do try to say that "these are guidelines" However the game is such a heavily BALANCED system does not leave any room for free thought. I emphatically agree with the poster in that 4th ed applauds bad gamers. The system feeds American needs to consume in great quantities and leaves quality and creativity at the doorstep of what RPGs used to be.
Roleplaying is an Imagination Engine. Its a way for people to get together and play cowboys and indians again with a couple of rules to help simulate reality. HASBRO has forgotten why these things are so great. The system has ruled its way out of "bang your dead!" Now its all bang, you now have three strikes until your dead, oh wait no I have a daily power that negates all bangs.
Thay have put together a money making juggernaut bent on crushing all other gaming styles in its wake. You cant truly enjoy this game without buying 6 core books at 39.00 a pop. You cant play this game without a monthly subscription to D&D Insider. There is no way that this game can be played without expensive collectible miniatures!!
TSR has set the standard for gaming since... forever. Now with Hasbro's new soak em dry mentality they have put together a Pièce de résistance. The real damage is soon to come as all the other game manufacturers will have to clone this horrible creativity stifling monster.
On a side note I will buy the miniatures but I am selling my 4ed box set on eBay. I am going back to WFRPG.
We use coins. They're like pennies apiece. I got my books for half the price you quote- new.
Quote from: Melan;286887I should really update this thread with more quotes from dedicated 4e fans on various forums (including the epic 1000+ posts shitstorm here), but unfortunately, I am also busy writing my dissertation, so no go. Maybe on another occasion. :wizard:
We'll have to hold you to that.
RPGPundit
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;286905TSR has set the standard for gaming since... forever. Now with Hasbro's new soak em dry mentality they have put together a Pièce de résistance. The real damage is soon to come as all the other game manufacturers will have to clone this horrible creativity stifling monster.
You know, I don't really agree with everything else you said in your post, but this is the one thing that really got me thinking.
What you SHOULD have said here is "the real damage will come
IF the other game manufacturers clone this monster".
That's one of the best measures of if a new edition is "successful" or not from a design point of view. D&D 1e (and OD&D) were obviously the biggest success in that sense in that virtually all RPGs are in one sense or another based on OD&D's design concepts and basic framework even to this day.
2e didn't inspire fuck all. It was Vampire that was inspiring people in the 90s and games were borrowing stuff from WW; more in setting and pretentiousness than system because there wasn't any real system innovation, though even there the horrid WW-style Dice Pools, though not original, might not have been as popular had it not been for them.
3e INSPIRED. Or more specifically, D20 did. It revolutionized how people thought about game design. Open source gaming. Single Unified mechanics. Even the basic layout of RPGs; if you look at books that were considered perfectly well laid-out before 3e came out, today you read them and feel like they aren't quite well-organized because they don't follow the organization structure 3e used and that became almost universally adopted.
Will this thing they call 4e really end up inspiring anyone? Will new games that come out really end up being full of 4ncoutars, and treat their setting like a meaningless mmorpg backdrop and be all about the power-cards?
Frankly, I can't really imagine it right now. I can't imagine almost anything from 4e ending up making a big impact on other games.
Its been out long enough already that it would have started doing so already if it was going to, and from what I see 4e has inspired fuck all thus far.
Once again, D&D has lost the ideological vanguard in gaming.
And yeah, in one sense, thank god, but in another, that's only going to be bad for gaming in the long run, because while people won't be looking at 4e to imitate for their own games, they will end up looking elsewhere. Which is exactly what the Swine wanted, it the reason that they wanted to cripple D&D into being a purely "gamist" game all along, so it couldn't inspire, and the Swine could usurp that ideological vanguard.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;286935Will this thing they call 4e really end up inspiring anyone? Will new games that come out really end up being full of 4ncoutars, and treat their setting like a meaningless mmorpg backdrop and be all about the power-cards?
Frankly, I can't really imagine it right now. I can't imagine almost anything from 4e ending up making a big impact on other games.
Its been out long enough already that it would have started doing so already if it was going to, and from what I see 4e has inspired fuck all thus far.
Once again, D&D has lost the ideological vanguard in gaming.
RPGPundit
The 4e-likes are coming. The people playtesting them are under NDAs. Remember this in a year's time or so.
Quote from: RPGPundit;2869353e INSPIRED. Or more specifically, D20 did. It revolutionized how people thought about game design. Open source gaming. Single Unified mechanics. Even the basic layout of RPGs; if you look at books that were considered perfectly well laid-out before 3e came out, today you read them and feel like they aren't quite well-organized because they don't follow the organization structure 3e used and that became almost universally adopted.
RPGPundit[/QUOIMO
you are partly correct. OPEN SOURCE gaming was a revolution to gaming. But I don't think it was an inspiration to anyone except those who wanted to jump on the WIZ bangwagon and collect some cash for product. Proof is in all the clunky translations into d20 systems. Deadlands, Starwars, CTHULU, and a passel of other games had unique interesting gaming systems but d20's conform or die effect had the unintentional consequence of d20 cloning.
I agree 4th is not likely going to be directly cloned (IP lawyers will see to that) but it will change how games are played. Just like you said White Wolf did in the 90's D&D 4th will do it now.
Just wait, Power Cards and Magic Items for 4th will become collectible and sold in little foil wrapped packs.
Quote from: RPGPundit;2869353e INSPIRED. Or more specifically, D20 did. It revolutionized how people thought about game design. Open source gaming. Single Unified mechanics. Even the basic layout of RPGs; if you look at books that were considered perfectly well laid-out before 3e came out, today you read them and feel like they aren't quite well-organized because they don't follow the organization structure 3e used and that became almost universally adopted.
RPGPundit
Oh yeah, 3e read like a boring ass biology book. The only good is the table of contents actually told you where to start hunting for the rules buried in text blocks were. That I will say is something they kept in 4th.
UTTER UNREADABLITY
But they have pretty pictures
Quote from: rpgpundit;286935which is exactly what the swine wanted, it the reason that they wanted to cripple d&d into being a purely "gamist" game all along, so it couldn't inspire, and the swine could usurp that ideological vanguard.
MUHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Our plans draw near to fruition, Professor Edwards!! Soon all roleplayers are belong to us!!!!
I'm cold, let's burns some witches.
On Equilibrium
Everyone now knows how dangerous swallowing stones is. A friend of mine even coined the expression 'Dan-in-ston', which means: 'It's dangerous to ingest stones.' And a good thing too. 'Dan-in-ston' can be easily remembered and, as required, instantly recalled.
He worked, this friend of mine, as a stoker on a steam engine. He travelled either the northern line or to Moscow. He was called Nikolay Ivanovich Serpukhov and he smoked Rocket cigarettes at thirty-five kopecks a packet, and always said that they made him cough less, while those costing five roubles, he says, 'always make me choke'.
And so Nikolay Ivanovich once chanced to get in to the restaurant in the Yevropeyskaya Hotel. Nikolay Ivanovich sat at a table and at the next table some foreigners were sitting munching apples.
At this point Nikolay Ivanovich said to himself: -- This is interesting -- said Nikolay Ivanovich -- A man's life this!
Barely had he said this to himself when from out of the blue a Fairy appeared in front of him, saying: -- My good man, what do you need?
Well, of course, in a restaurant you do get a commotion from which, it may be said, this unknown diminutive lady may have sprung. The foreigners even ceased munching their apples.
Nikolay Ivanovich himself rather had the wind up and spoke rather offhandedly, so as to give her the brush-off. -- I'm sorry -- he said -- but I don't really require anything in particular.
-- You don't understand -- said the unknown lady -- I -- she said -- am what is called a Fairy. In the merest jiffy I'll lay on whatever you fancy.
Nikolay Ivanovich happened to notice that a citizen in a grey two-piece was listening intently to their conversation. The maitre d'hotel was rushing through the open doors and behind him some other specimen with a cigarette in his mouth.
-- Bloody hell! -- thought Nikolay Ivanovich -- there's no telling what's going on.
And there was indeed no telling what was going on. The maitre d'hotel was leaping around the tables, the foreigners were rolling up the carpets and generally the devil only knew what! They were all doing whatever they felt like!
Nikolay Ivanovich ran out to the street and didn't even pick up his hat from the custody of the cloakroom; he ran out on to Lassalle Street and said to himself: -- Dan-in-ston! It's dangerous to ingest stones -- Nothing like this ever really happens, surely!
And arriving home, Nikolay Ivanovich told his wife: -- Don't be alarmed, Yekaterina Petrovna, and don't get worried. Only there's no equilibrium in the world. It's just an error of some kilogram and a half over the universe as a whole, but it's really a surprising thing, Yekaterina Petrovna, totally surprising!
And that's all.
Burn him! He speaks in parables!
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;287040On Equilibrium
Everyone now knows how dangerous swallowing stones is. A friend of mine even coined the expression 'Dan-in-ston', which means: 'It's dangerous to ingest stones.' And a good thing too. 'Dan-in-ston' can be easily remembered and, as required, instantly recalled.
He worked, this friend of mine, as a stoker on a steam engine. He travelled either the northern line or to Moscow. He was called Nikolay Ivanovich Serpukhov and he smoked Rocket cigarettes at thirty-five kopecks a packet, and always said that they made him cough less, while those costing five roubles, he says, 'always make me choke'.
And so Nikolay Ivanovich once chanced to get in to the restaurant in the Yevropeyskaya Hotel. Nikolay Ivanovich sat at a table and at the next table some foreigners were sitting munching apples.
At this point Nikolay Ivanovich said to himself: -- This is interesting -- said Nikolay Ivanovich -- A man's life this!
Barely had he said this to himself when from out of the blue a Fairy appeared in front of him, saying: -- My good man, what do you need?
Well, of course, in a restaurant you do get a commotion from which, it may be said, this unknown diminutive lady may have sprung. The foreigners even ceased munching their apples.
Nikolay Ivanovich himself rather had the wind up and spoke rather offhandedly, so as to give her the brush-off. -- I'm sorry -- he said -- but I don't really require anything in particular.
-- You don't understand -- said the unknown lady -- I -- she said -- am what is called a Fairy. In the merest jiffy I'll lay on whatever you fancy.
Nikolay Ivanovich happened to notice that a citizen in a grey two-piece was listening intently to their conversation. The maitre d'hotel was rushing through the open doors and behind him some other specimen with a cigarette in his mouth.
-- Bloody hell! -- thought Nikolay Ivanovich -- there's no telling what's going on.
And there was indeed no telling what was going on. The maitre d'hotel was leaping around the tables, the foreigners were rolling up the carpets and generally the devil only knew what! They were all doing whatever they felt like!
Nikolay Ivanovich ran out to the street and didn't even pick up his hat from the custody of the cloakroom; he ran out on to Lassalle Street and said to himself: -- Dan-in-ston! It's dangerous to ingest stones -- Nothing like this ever really happens, surely!
And arriving home, Nikolay Ivanovich told his wife: -- Don't be alarmed, Yekaterina Petrovna, and don't get worried. Only there's no equilibrium in the world. It's just an error of some kilogram and a half over the universe as a whole, but it's really a surprising thing, Yekaterina Petrovna, totally surprising!
And that's all.
This story hurts my precious head. Please, no more...I beg of you.
Quote from: droog;287050Burn him! He speaks in parables!
That make no sense.
Quote from: jeff37923;287056That make no sense.
I'm sure Pierce will condescend to explain it for you if you ask nicely.
Do we really have to have a reason to burn people? That's going to fuck everything up for me.
Quote from: droog;287078I'm sure Pierce will condescend to explain it for you if you ask nicely.
That's OK. I've found that if people want to make a point, then they write in a way to ensure that their point is understood.
Quote from: jeff37923;287126That's OK. I've found that if people want to make a point, then they write in a way to ensure that their point is understood.
I think his point is, "I read Russian novels". :)
What he would like everyone to beg him to explain, however, is rather more boring. "Have fun doing what you are doing and don't worry about it".
Quote from: Aos;287096Do we really have to have a reason to burn people? That's going to fuck everything up for me.
Some of us need a reason, Aos. But not you; you're a special snowflake...
Quote from: Aos;287096Do we really have to have a reason to burn people? That's going to fuck everything up for me.
Those who need a reason lack imagination and self-discipline.
You're fine.
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;286944you are partly correct. OPEN SOURCE gaming was a revolution to gaming. But I don't think it was an inspiration to anyone except those who wanted to jump on the WIZ bangwagon and collect some cash for product. Proof is in all the clunky translations into d20 systems. Deadlands, Starwars, CTHULU, and a passel of other games had unique interesting gaming systems but d20's conform or die effect had the unintentional consequence of d20 cloning.
It goes beyond that. D20 ended up creating a wealth of D20 and OGL games; but it also inspired how games are written, designed, and laid-out, in games where there was no direct connection whatsoever to 3e, D&D, or D20. It became the gold-standard for "how to organize a game book".
The example of this is Paranoia XP, where the creator claimed he borrowed no influence whatsoever from D20, and even expressed an open dislike for D&D/D20, and yet it was obvious that much of his design theory and the layout for his book was influenced by D20 anyways.
RPGPundit
Yeah, sorry, D20 really doesn't deserve any real credit for revolutionizing anything. What made 3e good was simply that they finally got with the fucking program and revamped the system to something resembling the current state of the art, instead of clinging to 1977.
Unified mechanics, sensible rules layout, genuine character creation flexibility, all this stuff had been done by other games elsewhere, what made it a big deal was it was D&D finally doing them, and with a new more powerful (and better marketed) company behind it, which for the rest of us who'd gotten fed up with it over the years, meant we could play D&D again without fighting the rules or houseruling the hell out of it.
And here D&D4 is, following the pack again, except this time it's not even the RPG world it's bothering with, since they already rendered it utterly sterile with the OGL and the reams of shitty D&D clones it spawned. No, instead they've had to leech their ideas from whole other types of games, like MMOs, Heroscape, and story games.
So, did you bump this thread JUST so you could remind us of you wacky diatribe?
I'm necroing this thread to add to the record the following post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/275325-when-status-effects-annoy-players.html) from another board, which for me illustrates what
Melan was talking about way back when.
Quote from: MorrusI'm findind an issue whereby status effects appear to be fun-removing effects for the players.
Stunned
Slowed
Restrained
Prone
Petrified
Marked
Immobilized
Blinded
Dazed
Deafened
Dominated
Helpless
Restrained
Slowed
Stunned
Weakened
Unconscious
So that's the list of 4E status effects. Most bad guys inflict status effects along with damage. But the majority of them really piss off the players - to the point where they're not having fun any more. A lot of them are almost "miss a turn" statuses (often more than a turn), or "do nothing fun" statuses; and the players in question get really agitated by the situation. Even those which aren't actually "miss a turn" (like stunned, petrified, unconscious) can often mean "your turn is irrelevant" (like slowed if you're 5 squares away, blinded, etc.) And it's even worse if you have more than one status on you.
Do you have this problem? If so, what do you do about it? Do you simply not use the statuses?
According to
Morrus, being marked, restrained, or dazed are among the things which make playing the game "unfun" for his players.
My gut reaction is, "What a bunch of crybabies." I know that's impolitic, but there it is.
Alas, in 4e this is really, really unfun. Because the statuses can´t be avoided by clever play. You HAVE to fight, and you WILL miss turns out of MANY turns and combat has been made so grindy, that it´s a chore.
I prefer level draining undead any day over 4e turn missing. Also, even the turns you dont miss basically are dunderheaded stuff like: roll a twelve or more to generate a combat encounter advancement token.
4e combats are way more fun when you have more than one character to control. If you have only one, it´s ridiculously stupid, long-winded and pointless.
QuoteMost bad guys inflict status effects along with damage.
Is it that common? Because I'd be pretty annoyed if I had to suck incapacitation effects in every single damn fight I fought.
Quote from: Settembrini;374914Alas, in 4e this is really, really unfun. Because the statuses can´t be avoided by clever play.
This, exactly this. It's a 50/50 die roll beyond your control. Sure, your party's "leader" (warlord/cleric/Divine Power paladin build) can (a) boost your saves to avoid getting conditioned in the first place or (b) remove conditions on his turn. But when
your PC is not a leader himself there's nothing
he can do beyond investing in certain feats alongside (a).
Thank god they pushed condition-removing spells and (more importantly) scrolls out of everyone's reach in combat.
Quote from: The Shaman;374908My gut reaction is, "What a bunch of crybabies." I know that's impolitic, but there it is.
Catering to "crybabies" may very well be inevitable, in such a business. Most likely the "crybabies" are their main source of revenue.
There's the assertion that old timers + grognards are most likely no longer paying customers. If the upcoming 4E D&D "red box" set turns out to be a failure, WotC will probably have enough evidence to back up the assertion that old timers + grognards are completely irrelevant to their business model. (If the upcoming 4E Essentials D&D product line turns out to also be a failure, this will most likely be conclusive evidence to back up this assertion).
If the crybabies continue to bring in revenue while the old timers + grognards do not buy any of their products, it's a no-brainer that they will continue to cater to the crybabies.
Once the crybabies start to abandon 4E D&D in a mass exodus, that's when they'll release a 5E D&D.
More evidence of crybabies-
http://www.loremaster.org/content/54-dice-heresy-chris-sims.html
Hitting 60% of the time just isn't good enough. And this from a developer. Lame.
Quote from: mhensley;374925More evidence of crybabies-
http://www.loremaster.org/content/54-dice-heresy-chris-sims.html
Hitting 60% of the time just isn't good enough. And this from a developer. Lame.
Heh.
In 4E it was:
- 50% probability to hit a minion
- 25% probability to hit a boss monster
In the "new normal" of a future "crybaby" version of 5E D&D, it will be:
- 95% probability to hit a minion
- 75% probability to hit a boss monster
95% probability is rolling a 2 or better on a d20.
75% probability is rolling a 6 or better on a d20.
Quote from: ggroy;374920Catering to "crybabies" may very well be inevitable, in such a business. Most likely the "crybabies" are their main source of revenue.[...]
If the crybabies continue to bring in revenue while the old timers + grognards do not buy any of their products, it's a no-brainer that they will continue to cater to the crybabies.
It never ceases to amaze me how some people (not you, ggroy) may think that somehow there are some ways of pretending to be a gay-ass elf that are 'manlier' than others.
Also, I'm quite mystified by the notion that one must 'endure' some things to get the fun, and that there is some hard work that needs to be done to be a real gamer. What's wrong with the game being fun from minute one for some people?
Quote from: Imperator;374934Also, I'm quite mystified by the notion that one must 'endure' some things to get the fun, and that there is some hard work that needs to be done to be a real gamer. What's wrong with the game being fun from minute one for some people?
Whether real or perceived, some people insist on doing everything by the "school of hard knocks"?
I've noticed this too in other unrelated areas, such as university. The undergraduate curriculum at many universities has been perceived to be "dumbed down" over the decades. The old timers (ie. tenured professors) who went through the old "school of hard knocks" system, think that the "crybaby" youngsters are getting a "free ride" compared to what the old timers went through decades earlier.
It's sort of similar to the "I walked 3 miles to school in the rain, snow, etc ..." rant of some old fogies. :)
Quote from: ggroy;374920If the crybabies continue to bring in revenue while the old timers + grognards do not buy any of their products, it's a no-brainer that they will continue to cater to the crybabies.
They must follow the money ("or else"), except I think this particular trail leads to a descent into irrelevance. Which, mind you, is a comfortable place for hobbyists, but not a sustainable business model. Maybe their new intro game will do good, and in that, I wish them well. But I just don't see anything for the core tabletop business other than a string of victories eventually leading to defeat. Successfully defending Festung Berlin for one more week is
not a victory condition.
WRT the specific thread, what I find interesting from Morrus's OP (and I believe him to be a smart person) is that the selection process of "fun" vs. "unfun" does not seem to have stopped with the release of 4e. At a time, it was about multi-kill hold person and sleep spells; then, equipment loss. Now? Dazed? Missing a turn? Being marked? I rest my case.
________
Caveat because I am sure to get this accusation again: No, the "tyranny of fun" does not apply to all 4e games. Yes, you can have a great game if you play 4e (although I would recommend 3.0 or older systems before it). No, my posts don't apply to the fine, charming people who play in the RPGA, so no need to get offended.
Quote from: Melan;374938They must follow the money ("or else"), except I think this particular trail leads to a descent into irrelevance. Which, mind you, is a comfortable place for hobbyists, but not a sustainable business model. Maybe their new intro game will do good, and in that, I wish them well. But I just don't see anything for the core tabletop business other than a string of victories eventually leading to defeat. Successfully defending Festung Berlin for one more week is not a victory condition.
They'll eventually figure out one day whether it is more viable to license or even outright sell the D&D intellectual property to somebody else, than to continue "flogging the dying D&D horse".
Quote from: Imperator;374934It never ceases to amaze me how some people (not you, ggroy) may think that somehow there are some ways of pretending to be a gay-ass elf that are 'manlier' than others.
Also, I'm quite mystified by the notion that one must 'endure' some things to get the fun, and that there is some hard work that needs to be done to be a real gamer. What's wrong with the game being fun from minute one for some people?
Because that's not the way
we did it when
I was growing up!
That's a nearly universal human flaw. It rears its head everywhere.
Bringing up something that ties back into this topic (from the ENWorld thread) from none other than Ethan Skemp, "CCP NA/White Wolf Publishing":
Quote from: BarastrondoOne of my co-workers would argue, and I find it difficult to disagree, that when you miss a turn you aren't playing Monopoly anyway. You're watching everyone else play Monopoly until you're allowed to play again.
...
Now, maybe it's an exciting fight. But you're still not playing. You're waiting and observing. And although that might be an enjoyable pastime for some players, I doubt it merits status as some form of sacred cow of the hobby. If the chance of non-participation were that important to roleplaying, there'd be more games out there with rules for making the GM "miss a turn" now and again so the spectator role could be passed around more liberally.
Notice how this is a completely reasonably worded position, yet at the same time a sentiment that rests on the assumption that the game
a) has to have something for you every time, all the time;
b) the screen time of other players either doesn't contribute to your fun, or actively takes away your opportunities to have it;
c) you can't spend that time in a fun way (by kibbitzing, going to have a smoke, sitting back and listening, hatching up a plan etc.).
Where does this lead to? In my opinion, it leads to the realisation that playing with yourself is more rewarding than playing with others. Take that, roleplaying games.
I note, again, that this is not even the players' fault: it was the designers who engineered the game to be
all about the "core experience" and relegated everything else to the box marked "filler". Surprise of surprises, it turns out in the end that while the "core experience" has the intensity, it doesn't have the complexity - it would have needed more to bring out all the rich flavour and possibilities, which was in the stuff that got cut away in the name of streamlining the basic design.
Now this is what I call "
The Tyranny of Fun". (dun dun ;) )
Quote from: ggroy;374942They'll eventually figure out one day whether it is more viable to license or even outright sell the D&D intellectual property to somebody else, than to continue "flogging the dying D&D horse".
That could be a pretty agreeable exit strategy, but its success (for D&D, if not necessarily the IP holder) would depend on how valuable the brand remains at the selloff point, and how far the damage to the game itself would go. A new publisher would have to make the same difficult choices, maybe with less pressure to make record money, but probably less capital too - cater to the complainers and endure slow and steady shrinkage, or make a huge overhaul and split the community with the threat that you may not get new players for those you have just lost. Nasty.
The nightmare option is that D&D and its player network sustains so much damage/gradual loss that it becomes less valuable to own than the minimal asking price worth the IP holder's time, in which case it will enter IP Hell and the tabletop scene as we know it will be finished.
Hypothetically, if 3E D&D was never created and WotC continued on instead with 2E AD&D all the way to 2010 today, would D&D still be a valuable and viable intellectual property on the market?
Quote from: Melan;374946I note, again, that this is not even the players' fault: it was the designers who engineered the game to be all about the "core experience" and relegated everything else to the box marked "filler". Surprise of surprises, it turns out in the end that while the "core experience" has the intensity, it doesn't have the complexity - it would have needed more to bring out all the rich flavour and possibilities, which was in the stuff that got cut away in the name of streamlining the basic design.
But Ethan's not a WotC developer, and he's wrong about 4e. All three of your points hold true for 4e players; it's regrettable that Morrus' players don't get that, but so it goes.
Quote from: Melan;374946Notice how this is a completely reasonably worded position
No, it fails at step 1, by comparing D&D to
Monopoly and regarding the design concept of the "Jail" square on the board as inherently faulty design in either game.
Imagine, if you will, a
Monopoly game where players (in addition to all the other stuff) occasionally draw action cards which lets them slide any player - competing player or themselves - 1-2 squares forward/backward on the board.
In the early stage of the game (few properties sold), you'd use that card to pull opponents into jail, because at that stage, missing a turn or several in jail would be a severe penalty for that player - he'll be missing opportunities to buy additional properties.
In the later stage of the game when all properties are sold, the incentive to use the card this way is gone. However, now you'd be well served to use that card on
yourself to get yourself onto the safe Jail square, and watch the rest of the players burning cash while you take a nice time out without burning any.
In short, the jail square fills a design space in any game where giving oneself extra turns or depriving other players of their turns is important to the victory condition. Pulling competing players into such squares or zones is what 4E is all about.* Similar mechanisms to influence how many actions you and your opponents get per turn are prevalent in contemporary Eurogames like
Dominion, and the only thing we're seeing is that people have difficulty comprehending that 4E is very much a Eurogame in that respect.
4E's conditions are basically ways for the DM and the party to screw each other with respect to how many opportunities they get to launch attack actions on each other per turn. It is, in other words, the only escape from letting the game grind into pure "I attack, roll damage, then you attack, roll damage" (short of the Intimidation roll to demoralize opponents), an opportunity for the game to really shine tactically.
And people like Morrus
still complain. They don't want such respites from hp attrition. They want the "I attack, roll damage, then you attack, roll damage" with no interruption. That post on Enworld that re-designs all conditions into penalties on attack rolls
and nothing else is the purest expression of this desire.
*Literally, but also more figuratively. For an extremely literal example look at the torturer encounter in
KotS, inspired by a similar encounter in Hill Giants' Steading: the torturer is trying to pull a PC into the iron maiden, so that the PC suffers damage
and is shut away for a turn during which he can't launch an attack action. Similar stuff in D&D 3.x: getting knocked prone was a pain in the ass because it ate up your move action
just to stand up again and provoked attacks of opportunity from hostile bystanders if you tried that.
Windjammer: enlightening!
Quote from: Windjammer;374963Imagine, if you will, a Monopoly game where players (in addition to all the other stuff) occasionally draw action cards which lets them slide any player - competing player or themselves - 1-2 squares forward/backward on the board.
...
In the later stage of the game when all properties are sold, the incentive to use the card this way is gone. However, now you'd be well served to use that card on yourself to get yourself onto the safe Jail square, and watch the rest of the players burning cash while you take a nice time out without burning any.
You clearly didn't read up on all the errata for the sixth edition of
Asswhole Monopoly. After some careful breakdown of the numbers, it is statistically more beneficial to shift your opponent onto your own properties, but only after you have a hotel there. ;)
Quote from: The Shaman;374908According to Morrus, being marked, restrained, or dazed are among the things which make playing the game "unfun" for his players.
My gut reaction is, "What a bunch of crybabies." I know that's impolitic, but there it is.
My gut reaction is that Morrus needs to read the rulebook because "most" monsters do not inflict status effect and most status effects do not cause you to miss a turn.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;374970My gut reaction is that Morrus needs to read the rulebook because "most" monsters do not inflict status effect and most status effects do not cause you to miss a turn.
Yeah, I read the whole EnWorld thread and I don't get where Morrus (or a couple of his supporters) are coming from. I understand the "being taken out of combat all the time is lame" argument, I just don't see how it applies.
My 4e campaign has run over a year now with tons of combat against all kinds of different creatures.
* Stunned rarely ever comes up (I think it happened once, maybe twice the whole campaign). And when it does, it stuns like one guy for maybe one round and its a power the monster can only use once.
* Immobilized is almost never a problem. Even when it comes up, people are already in position and no longer need to move.
* Being knocked prone is barely an inconvenience.
* Slowed is not even worth tracking it has so little effect on the game.
* I have yet to even get to a creature with dominate or petrify (there's, what, a handful in all of MM1&2?)
I would understand Morrus' comments better if I knew what he was talking about. How is it his group manages to encounter stun-powered creatures over and over again?
If anything, I think the vast majority of status effects are too weak on PCs - mostly because they usually only hit 1 PC out of the whole group and the status effect lasts maybe 2 rounds at most; though it almost never gets to that because of effects that cancel statuses, etc.
Maybe Morrus and his players haven't really read the rules that well? Or are just really terrible players?
Quote from: Melan;374946c) you can't spend that time in a fun way (by kibbitzing, going to have a smoke, sitting back and listening, hatching up a plan etc.).
I guess that's the part that really gets me. It's as if the game's design is completely myopic regarding the actual game play, what really happens in the room when the game is played. The rules *are* the game, and the game is meant to be *the rules*. Everything else seems to be either filler, or incidental. That, to me, is really bad game design.
Quote from: The Shaman;374908I'm necroing this thread to add to the record the following post (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/275325-when-status-effects-annoy-players.html) from another board, which for me illustrates what Melan was talking about way back when.According to Morrus, being marked, restrained, or dazed are among the things which make playing the game "unfun" for his players.
My gut reaction is, "What a bunch of crybabies." I know that's impolitic, but there it is.
I would SO not have fun -at all- with such a game.
Quote from: Benoist;374995I would SO not have fun -at all- with such a game.
Reply #500 bitches!
Raising the hit percentage in a quick combat game like 1st ed AD&D might make a little sense, as the rounds move pretty quickly. Increasing them in 4e doesn't make a lot of sense, as the action of a player on their turn is quite detailed and takes up a much greater amount of time to decide and resolve.
Quote from: Melan;374965Windjammer: enlightening!
Agreed and seconded.
Quote from: StormBringer;374998#500 bitches!
Raising the hit percentage in a quick combat game like 1st ed AD&D might make a little sense, as the rounds move pretty quickly. Increasing them in 4e doesn't make a lot of sense, as the action of a player on their turn is quite detailed and takes up a much greater amount of time to decide and resolve.
Well the reason I would not have fun is that it's all about "having stuff to do with the rules" all the time, and if one player ever gets off a turn, or -God forbid- gets paralized or something, then it's a huge badwrongfun issue that absolutely needs to be corrected for everyone to have fun again. How about mimicking your paralized stance at the table when it's your turn and making other players laugh with that? Or try to twitch from time to time? Or following what's going on for the others at the game table, for that matter?
It is fucking absurd! Like I said, it's so myopic as to what the game is, isn't, can and can't be that I don't know where to begin to be honest. It's a fucking board game for these guys. It's playing the rules, the rules are the game, the game is the rules. If the rules say your character does nothing, then you do nothing. The game's dead for you. WTF?! This is SO fucking stupid on so many levels. And THESE are veterans of gaming? Are you fucking kidding me?!??
Not to mention, there is less variety in outcomes at the game table if you nuke these conditions, which make fights all turn out the exact same way, with the same expectations (of more damage, save or suck or whatever)... it's so fucking boring! God's sakes! :eek:
Quote from: Benoist;374994The rules *are* the game, and the game is meant to be *the rules*.
That's a Forgism.
Quote from: One Horse Town;375002That's a Forgism.
That's bullshit, Dan, and you know it.
The point is, the rules should be addressing what would reasonably be considered to occur during a session (game), and not be working to address the activities around the game table.
Quote from: One Horse Town;375002That's a Forgism.
If by this you mean that this "
The rules *are* the game, and the game is meant to be *the rules*" BS is a forgism, I agree!
Quote from: StormBringer;375005The point is, the rules should be addressing what would reasonably be considered to occur during a session (game), and not be working to address the activities around the game table.
What I'm getting at, personally, is that a set of rules that completely ignores how the game is actually played outside of its realm can only result in a faulty game design. That's why I use the word "myopic", in the sense that the design is so focused on the rules themselves and how they function in a vacuum, that it completely ignores the bigger picture, the game itself.
Quote from: Benoist;375009If by this you mean that this "The rules *are* the game, and the game is meant to be *the rules*" BS is a forgism, then I agree.
Well, that is what i quoted, so any confusion from SB and yourself is rather puzzling.
Quote from: One Horse Town;375010Well, that is what i quoted, so any confusion from SB and yourself is rather puzzling.
Nah, that's what I thought you meant. SB's reaction confused me.
Quote from: One Horse Town;375010Well, that is what i quoted, so any confusion from SB and yourself is rather puzzling.
My apologies, I think I blanked out the last part of the sentence as a natural reaction or something and focussed on the 'rules are the game' part without taking the context into account. I read that in light of the arguments on behalf of the recent rulesets to direct the 'spotlight' or 'screen time' or whatever the kids these days call 'your turn' in preference to just making a good game.
EDIT: And by 'good game', I mean a reasonably robust set of rules that are flexible and 'transparent' enough for the players to tweak without causing massive havoc affecting the mechanics as a whole.
Quote from: Imperator;374934It never ceases to amaze me how some people (not you, ggroy) may think that somehow there are some ways of pretending to be a gay-ass elf that are 'manlier' than others.
Also, I'm quite mystified by the notion that one must 'endure' some things to get the fun, and that there is some hard work that needs to be done to be a real gamer. What's wrong with the game being fun from minute one for some people?
I think the issue is not one of "manliness", but rather of having a basic level of maturity. Having to lose a turn is a common feature of family boardgames and one would expect that someone beyond a certain age would be able to suck it up and play on. If a player feels that waiting for other players to take a turn while they miss one is such a great imposition and an infringement of their "right to fun", then perhaps another hobby would a better fit. A game without the possibility of setbacks or loss is hardly a game at all.
Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;375014Having to lose a turn is a common feature of family boardgames and one would expect that someone beyond a certain age would be able to suck it up and play on. If a player feels that waiting for other players to take a turn while they miss one is such a great imposition and an infringement of their "right to fun", then perhaps another hobby would a better fit.
Actually, missing a turn is not part of
modern boardgame designs. I spend a lot more time playing boardgames and hanging out on Boardgamegeek than I do with RPGs, and I can tell you that 4E is clearly driven by modern boardgame design principals. And one of those principals is that all players should be involved at all times, with a minimum of downtime. Games where players miss a turn or have to wait a few minutes to take a turn are derided as moronic anachronisms.
I think it's time to recognize that D&D is now a sub-hobby of the broader boardgaming hobby. And it's impossible to understand the design principals and the ongoing development of the game without understanding what's going on in the boardgaming hobby.
So anyone who's really interested in the future of D&D should head over to BGG and spend a few days browsing the forums and game ratings there.
Quote from: Haffrung;375018Actually, missing a turn is not part of modern boardgame designs. I spend a lot more time playing boardgames and hanging out on Boardgamegeek than I do with RPGs, and I can tell you that 4E is clearly driven by modern boardgame design principals. And one of those principals is that all players should be involved at all times, with a minimum of downtime. Games where players miss a turn or have to wait a few minutes to take a turn are derided as moronic anachronisms.
Fair enough. However there are still alot of anachronistic games on the shelves at Wal-mart and Toys-R-Us etc. I would think most people have played Monopoly, Uno, Life, Sorry, and so on; at some point in their childhood and I would hope doing so helped teach them how to be a good sport and play well with others. It could be wishful thinking, I know. ;)
Quote from: Benoist;375011Nah, that's what I thought you meant. SB's reaction confused me.
It's not something i'd accuse 4e of doing, though.
Quote from: One Horse Town;375031It's not something i'd accuse 4e of doing, though.
No, 4e confuses me on a regular basis. ;)
Quote from: One Horse Town;375031It's not something i'd accuse 4e of doing, though.
I would. Just did, as a matter of fact.
Quote from: Benoist;375035I would. Just did, as a matter of fact.
This is actually getting quite painful...I know you did, which was why i said i wouldn't.
Fuck it, i'll leave the rainmen to the thread. Carry on.
Quote from: One Horse Town;375038This is actually getting quite painful...I know you did, which was why i said i wouldn't.
Fuck it, i'll leave the rainmen to the thread. Carry on.
I know you know. I was just confirming the differenciation you were making.
But what the heck. *shrug*
Quote from: SgtSpaceWizard;375014I think the issue is not one of "manliness"
No idea how one would define "manliness" when it comes to tabletop rpg games these days.
Decades ago, I suppose I would have defined rpg "manliness" as one being proficient at playing an rpg with a very complicated ruleset. Something along the lines of Rolemaster perhaps.
Quote from: ggroy;375047No idea how one would define "manliness" when it comes to tabletop rpg games these days.
Decades ago, I suppose I would have defined rpg "manliness" as one being proficient at playing an rpg with a very complicated ruleset. Something along the lines of Rolemaster perhaps.
That is more like 'geekliness', though, isn't it? :)
Morrus' Players should play more Call of Cthulhu, IMO.
Quote from: StormBringer;375053That is more like 'geekliness', though, isn't it? :)
Probably.
The question is what exactly differentiates "rpg manliness" from "rpg geekliness".
sounds like Matt James would like to see players hit 90% of the time. Also having a fixed damage for attacks. seems like many of game designers have a problem with probability. may be that their is a real fear of uncertainty. remember rpgs are not board games and the rules do not equate to the whole of the game.
Quote from: steelmax73;375096sounds like Matt James would like to see players hit 90% of the time. Also having a fixed damage for attacks. seems like many of game designers have a problem with probability. may be that their is a real fear of uncertainty. remember rpgs are not board games and the rules do not equate to the whole of the game.
That article looks like it was actually written by Chris Sims, who is/was working at WotC.
http://twitter.com/ChrisSSims
http://community.wizards.com/chris_sims
EDIT: Chris Sims was one of the guys that was purged in the xmas 2009 WotC layoffs.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/268912-wizards-coast-layoffs-rob-heinsoo-logan-bonner-chris-sims.html
Hmm, seems to be a issue with 50% hit chance eh? I appreciate them trying to have streamlined mechanics but at the cost of probability issues.
Older editions had iterative attacks for non casters so it helped. Spell casters auto hit while the target rolled for defensive action instead.
If 5e goes towards making the PCs hit often or auto hit even, but dealt damage/effects that can be reduced by enemies, then eventually the attack system for D&D will be completely be different, almost to a point of a new game.
But that's just me thinking out loud.
Quote from: areola;375108If 5e goes towards making the PCs hit often or auto hit even, but dealt damage/effects that can be reduced by enemies, then eventually the attack system for D&D will be completely be different, almost to a point of a new game.
But that's just me thinking out loud.
I wouldn't read too much into the musings of a guy who isn't at WotC any more. Not that Chris Sims isn't a good designer, but if it's indicative of anything, it's indicative of directions he wasn't allowed to go while he was there.
Quote from: Imperator;374934It never ceases to amaze me how some people (not you, ggroy) may think that somehow there are some ways of pretending to be a gay-ass elf that are 'manlier' than others.
Oh, please.
It's not about
machismo,
Imperator. It's about how challenging the game is to play. Going from save versus death to save versus suck to, "I don't even want to be inconvenienced!" reduces the challenges presented by during play.
I like the
New York Times crossword puzzle because it's usually more difficult to complete than the one in my local paper. If I finish the
NYT puzzle I don't beat my chest over it, nor do I think it makes me more attractive to women or causes other men to piss themselves in my presence. It's just more fun to do.
Quote from: Imperator;374934Also, I'm quite mystified by the notion that one must 'endure' some things to get the fun, and that there is some hard work that needs to be done to be a real gamer. What's wrong with the game being fun from minute one for some people?
Because fun isn't necessarily pushing the "WIN!" button.
Quote from: Haffrung;375018Actually, missing a turn is not part of modern boardgame designs. I spend a lot more time playing boardgames and hanging out on Boardgamegeek than I do with RPGs, and I can tell you that 4E is clearly driven by modern boardgame design principals. And one of those principals is that all players should be involved at all times, with a minimum of downtime. Games where players miss a turn or have to wait a few minutes to take a turn are derided as moronic anachronisms.
That's an interesting observation and comparison.
Quote from: Benoist;375059Morrus' Players should play more Call of Cthulhu, IMO.
I think they should play
Candyland.
Get stuck on licorice, lose a turn. Draw the Gingerbread Man card, and you go back nearly to the beginning of the board, no matter where your game piece is when you draw it.
My five-year-old and three-year-old are more tolerant of adversity in game-play than
Morrus' players, it would seem.
Seriously: can you imagine these guys playing CoC, making Sanity checks and actually failing them? How about getting OWNED by nearly every creature of the Mythos? "But but... if we meet it, it has to be challenging, but fair, right? We can take it down! We SHOULD be able to!" RIIIIGHT. Party? Meet Yog-Sothoth. Yog-Sothoth? Meet party. :D
Quote from: The Shaman;375126My five-year-old and three-year-old are more tolerant of adversity in game-play than Morrus' players, it would seem.
Ouch. :)
(Candyland is one of those games looked down upon by the Forg^H^H^H Eurogamer set, right?)
There are many different kind of challenges though. There is the challenge of surviving the adventure through excellent tactics, saving the princess and earing lots of gold.
But there is also the challenge of getting into a fictional character's head and portraying that character in a consistent and true way. In those instances where you win or lose the scenario, whether you start competent or grow into it kind of fade into second place.
And the there is the game that doesn't take itself too seriously. You want to kick mosnter butt; the challenge isn't so much winning, it's about doing it in stlye (or in the case of Paranoia, dying in style).
Come on people, let's not suffocate the hobby with narrow definitions. What does that gain us except for more flames?
Quote from: Soylent Green;375144But there is also the challenge of getting into a fictional character's head and portraying that character in a consistent and true way.
Except there are no metrics to determine this. Do you lose XP if you don't feel like talking in your funny voice this week? Rough day at work, and you aren't quite the flamboyant Bard tonight is counted as a 'loss'?
This is entirely rife with that fiat that story game fans seem to hate with the fury of a thousand suns when the GM does it. How is it different when the group does it as a whole? Now you have to pixel bitch with five players instead of just the one.
It's great that people have fun this way, but wouldn't it be easier to try out for some local amateur plays instead of trying to shoehorn rules into it? Where is the challenge in having your Dwarf say "Aye, lad!" in a thick Scottish accent all the time?
Quote from: StormBringer;375149Except there are no metrics to determine this. Do you lose XP if you don't feel like talking in your funny voice this week? Rough day at work, and you aren't quite the flamboyant Bard tonight is counted as a 'loss'?
This is entirely rife with that fiat that story game fans seem to hate with the fury of a thousand suns when the GM does it. How is it different when the group does it as a whole? Now you have to pixel bitch with five players instead of just the one.
It's great that people have fun this way, but wouldn't it be easier to try out for some local amateur plays instead of trying to shoehorn rules into it? Where is the challenge in having your Dwarf say "Aye, lad!" in a thick Scottish accent all the time?
Nonsense. If I paint a picture, what is the metric of my success?
Roleplaying game sare as much a creative endevor as they are a game. Different groups mix the two ingredienets in different proportions and as such not all people enjoy all style of roleplaying.
Why is that so hard to accept? Why must we all bow to one universal orthodoxy?
And no, it would not be easier to join a local amatuer theatre group, playing a character some other person wrote, rehearsing the same script day in day out. You are just being silly.
Quote from: Soylent Green;375144There are many different kind of challenges though.
Yes, but while that might make an interesting discussion in its own right, it's not pertinent to this topic.
This is about the specific kinds of challenges, backed by game mechanics, presented by games and how they've been made less formidable in successive editions, to the point where even delaying a character and missing a turn as a player is now considered excessive by some.
Quote from: The Shaman;375161This is about the specific kinds of challenges, backed by game mechanics, presented by games and how they've been made less formidable in successive editions, to the point where even delaying a character and missing a turn as a player is now considered excessive by some.
By Morrus' players, anyhow. The general consensus of the thread over there is very similar to the consensus here: namely, his players should stop expecting everything to be easy.
Quote from: Soylent Green;375153Nonsense. If I paint a picture, what is the metric of my success?
Like most painters, you would die penniless only to have your work discovered 75 or 100 years later and sold for millions of dollars.
QuoteRoleplaying game sare as much a creative endevor as they are a game. Different groups mix the two ingredienets in different proportions and as such not all people enjoy all style of roleplaying.
Luckily, no one here is saying any different.
QuoteWhy is that so hard to accept? Why must we all bow to one universal orthodoxy?
Who is making this demand, exactly? If you consider them to be ROLE PLAYING games, you really shouldn't expect to have much common ground with people who considers them role playing GAMES. Don't wander in and pitch a fit about oppression while demanding external validation. I dig the shit out of Nobilis, but I realize it isn't a very popular game (especially around here), and I don't demand equal representation from theRPGsite based on my choice to play Nobilis instead of Amber.
Everyone can have all the opinions they want, no matter how crazy, if they keep them private. I don't care about those, and I wouldn't even know about them anyway. But if you trot them out for the public to see,
someone will disagree with you. Full stop. You do not get universal accolades simply for holding a position.
QuoteAnd no, it would not be easier to join a local amatuer theatre group, playing a character some other person wrote, rehearsing the same script day in day out. You are just being silly.
Write your own play. Write a book. Start a collaborative writing group. There are thousands of things to do when you want to exercise your creativity without shackling it to a set of arbitrary rules that are not even remotely designed for free-form writing.
Let me ask again:
Do you lose XP if you don't feel like talking in your funny voice this week?
Rough day at work, and you aren't quite the flamboyant Bard tonight is counted as a 'loss'?
Where is the challenge in having your Dwarf say "Aye, lad!" in a thick Scottish accent all the time?
In other words, you are stripping out just about every element that contributes to the
game part. Nobody here cares what you do at your table. Honestly, we don't. But you are talking to a bunch of people who are quite enamoured with the
game part. Even worse for you, though, is that you seem to think the rest of us have no idea there is a 'role playing' component. Of course we know about that part! We just don't put as much emphasis it, as discussions revolving around 'better role playing' are usually just tips from the most recent local amateur fiction writer's club meeting. I trust you to know what is most enjoyable for your group; if it is 100% play acting and no rules, go for it. But know your audience if you want to take it public.
You are arguing against a position no one here is defending.
Quote from: Windjammer;374919This, exactly this. It's a 50/50 die roll beyond your control. Sure, your party's "leader" (warlord/cleric/Divine Power paladin build) can (a) boost your saves to avoid getting conditioned in the first place or (b) remove conditions on his turn. But when your PC is not a leader himself there's nothing he can do beyond investing in certain feats alongside (a). Thank god they pushed condition-removing spells and (more importantly) scrolls out of everyone's reach in combat.
Sounds like 4e is saying you need a leader in your party (or two) otherwise you just need to suck it up and take the effects. Man who would have thought to make combat tense by making it deadly and having things that just frustrate your ability to act.
Quote from: The Shaman;375126My five-year-old and three-year-old are more tolerant of adversity in game-play than Morrus' players, it would seem.
QFT. Avoiding or overcoming setbacks should be part of any game.
Quote from: Melan;375143(Candyland is one of those games looked down upon by the Forg^H^H^H Eurogamer set, right?)
Of course it is. It's a boardgame that has sold well for decades and that children enjoy. Therefore it is evil and clearly the worst-designed game in the world.
Eurogamers loathe popular, fun games about interesting subjects that anyone could play. They only like unpopular games for the intellectual elites that combine the fun of math with the fascinating world of farming, like Puerto Rico and Agricola.
Quote from: jgants;374981* Stunned rarely ever comes up (I think it happened once, maybe twice the whole campaign). And when it does, it stuns like one guy for maybe one round and its a power the monster can only use once.
* Immobilized is almost never a problem. Even when it comes up, people are already in position and no longer need to move.
* Being knocked prone is barely an inconvenience.
* Slowed is not even worth tracking it has so little effect on the game.
* I have yet to even get to a creature with dominate or petrify (there's, what, a handful in all of MM1&2?)
I'm in three 4e games, technically. One is D&D Encounters. One of the others is a Paragon-level one and the other Heroic.
Stunned is by far the worst, but I've rarely encountered it. Dominate follows up Stunned as the most annoying, but it has also been rare for us.
Dazed happens fairly frequently, but you still get an action and a free Save against the condition. We, too, basically ignore Immobilized and Slowed when they do befall us as we're usually where we want to be or can teleport about.
I'd be curious to see how many monsters out there inflict status conditions and what they are. I wonder if there's an easy way to look that up...
Seanchai
Quote from: jgants;375364Eurogamers loathe popular, fun games about interesting subjects that anyone could play. They only like unpopular games for the intellectual elites that combine the fun of math with the fascinating world of farming, like Puerto Rico and Agricola.
We don't always agree, you and I, but that is some funny shit right there. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;375264Let me ask again:
Do you lose XP if you don't feel like talking in your funny voice this week?
Rough day at work, and you aren't quite the flamboyant Bard tonight is counted as a 'loss'?
Where is the challenge in having your Dwarf say "Aye, lad!" in a thick Scottish accent all the time?
Lots of DMs award good role-playing with xp.
If the result of you not being the flamboyant bard is that the table doesn't have as much fun as they did the week before hasn't everyone lost?
You say that but remembering to differentiate between a Glaswegian slur and the relatively clipped tones of a shopkeeper from Edinburgh can be quite a challenge :)
Now the real roleplay challenge is when you are prepared to make a sacrifice that is in character that results in the death of your PC. I don't mean the wishy-washy don't worry we will get you ressed in the next town death I mean the 'never coming back from it, no chance end off..' death. To take a PC with 4 or 5 years of history and fight the unbeatable foe so the rest of the party can get to safety, even though you know there is no way you are getting out of there (of course its heroic roleplayign as opposed to the cowardly sort I tend to prefer :) )
This thread is linked to from TVTropes.
Quote from: B.T.;387153This thread is linked to from TVTropes.
Link?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys
From the reference section on RPGs:
QuoteA perfect example of what happens when you mix this with Fan Dumb is shown here
where "this" references the entry and "here" links to the current thread. The juxtaposition of "StopHavingFun" with "FanDumb" is then diagnosed as "Narm" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Narm), sc. "a moment that is supposed to be serious, but due to either over-sappiness, poor execution, excessive Melodrama, or the sheer absurdity of the situation, the drama is lost to the point of becoming unintentionally funny."
The next reference is to James Raggi's famous "I hate Fun" post,
QuoteDo you want to have fun playing RPGs? James Raggi considers you inferior. "Inferior" is perhaps too nice a word; "the scum of the earth" is a more accurate way of putting it. He even put up an followup to the article insulting anybody who was linked to it from this wiki.
Could be that the reference was penned by someone who got the cold shoulder and/or middle finger by Raggi.
Hah!
Ironically, the article's discussion of Super Smash Bros. players as an example is a sterling analogy for the design and player philosophy that lead to 4e in the first place.
QuoteA special mention must be given to those who play Super Smash Bros. As a Mascot Fighter, the gameplay revels in chaos and unpredictability; Items spawn all over the place, the very shape of the stage can change, and some areas of some stages can even hurt you. Naturally, some gamers, especially those who play in tournaments, want to lessen this to remove the luck factor, but, like everything, some take this way, way too far. For example, in Melee, rather than playing in the labyrinthine Temple, or the frequently shifting Brinstar Depths, the type of gamer described here plays only in the static Battlefield, or the completely featureless Final Destination, with no items, to remove all the luck factors. The sheer number of options available (and passed over by this type of player) really polarizes the series' fandom. Not really a problem, to each his own right? Sadly, wrong. You can't go into any Smash discussion without flame wars about how the game is to be played properly with some people claiming that items and certain stages are for noobs and using them automatically proves that the player isn't as good as the tournament players. To them, anyone who doesn't play like them only care about some Flanderized notion of playing for fun and don't play the game like it's supposed to be more effectively played.
As described so wonderfully by this comic: http://legendaryfrog.deviantart.com/art/Hardcorez-75608753
Christ, even threads about 4e are now popping up as tropes that started with video games.
Quote from: CRKrueger;387214Christ, even threads about 4e are now popping up as tropes that started with video games.
...and the circle is now complete.
Heh. There's a link to James Raggi's "I hate fun" rant, too.
This website is like a manual of how to think like an ENWorld/RPGnet-bot. Very informative.
No accident; the same clash of game design philosophies and priorities is not exclusive to RPGs - in the last few years, they have also cropped up in discussions of computer games. The perfect case study is the hyper-convenient and heavily fun-influenced Deus Ex: Invisible War, which was a significant departure from the significantly more open-ended Deus Ex. From the idea of "immersive simulation", design has progressed to a focused experience, and new games are extensively focus groupped to see how they conform to buyer expectations.
Unlike RPGs, some of this change is due to the costs of producing a time unit of gameplay, which has seen a significant increase since the late 90s, but the underlying ideas of positive reinforcement and assumed user friendliness are basically identical. Take a look at a game discussion board and you will see a lot of references to "short attention span consoletards" vs. "aging, nostalgic PC gamers". TVTropes is a site mostly written by the former, while the TTLG forums (http://www.ttlg.com/forums/forum.php) are a base for people who prefer complex simulation games, typically with a late 90s aesthetic. In a large subset of game players, the supposed "advances" of gaming has produced alienation, dissatisfaction, a sense of artificial constraints and a search for alternative gaming opportunities.
It is interesting to watch how, absent a supply of suitable commercial products, the second set has turned to modding to produce their own entertainment. Fan missions (http://thiefmissions.com/) for the Thief games number over 800, from small levels to complex multi-mission campaigns that could as well be full games (here (http://thief.wikia.com/wiki/FM:T2_Disorientation_-_Melan/screenshot) are some screenshots from one of them I built). Players for these levels number in the hundreds or thousands despite the fact that the technology is now more than 10 years old and has severe editor limitations.
Deus Ex mods are less common, but include mini-campaigns such as DX: Zodiac (http://www.planetdeusex.com/zodiac/), Redsun 2020 (http://www.moddb.com/mods/redsun-2020/downloads/redsun-2020-v113) and The Nameless Mod (http://thenamelessmod.com/), a total conversion with several hours of recorded dialogue, a branching story and a strongly freeform approach to problem-solving. DX: TNM surpasses original DX in the openness and scope of gameplay, and despite its really weird premise, has garnered favourable critical and customer attention from magazine coverage to a Mod of the Year award.
The most ambitious project here is probably the recently released The Dark Mod (http://www.thedarkmod.com/), a Doom 3 total conversion to recreate and advance the ideas of the earlier Thief games, which were abandoned for Thief 3: Deadly Shadows for commercial/design-related reasons. In that sense, TDM is the equivalent of a "simulacrum game" like OSRIC - a mod platform to build your own levels. Check out mine: URL (http://www.mindplaces.com/darkmod/fmdetails.php?id=13).
"ADD Consoletards" vs. "Roleplayers LOLZ"
L33t vs. N00b
Hardcore (those with no life) vs. Casual (those with no skill)
Nerfs vs. "Balance"
Thank you WotC. Making the first MMOG on paper now means we get to engage in all these wonderful debates as well as GNS. :D
It's interesting though, these video game conflicts have been around since UO and EQ for the most part. I've never seen them really applied to tabletop games until 3.5 with extreme character building and of course, 4e.
I think it should be pointed out that Melan decries "fun" (of the player entitlement type) being hard-wired into the game and being rammed down the throats of DMs who dare to inconvenience the players with things like equipment loss (slimes, rust monsters, etc.) and death (... everything ...), while Jimlotfp just doesn't want people to enjoy RPGs, period.
I am currently (re)reading the 4e DMG and I have to admit the shift to "DM is not the enemy", "working together to tell a story", etc. - even going so far as to say that the DM should make adjustments to the game world based on player intent, is quite a change from how I've always played D&D.
One of the examples is where the PCs are trying to deal with a lich, and ask if there is a wizard college in town where they might find info on the lich when he was still alive. The DM knows there isn't one, because he hadn't put one there, but the guide says you should say "yes" and then make up the details on the fly and integrate the College and its NPCs later as they might provide more info/hooks down the line. Not a horrible idea, and I've done similar things in the past, I'll admit, but putting it in the DMG as an example of how things should be... hrm. Seriously, the section is called "Don't be afraid to say yes" or something like that. One of the "pro tips" is the author recounting how his 9-year-old completed an encounter, then took off on his own and decided he was going to search for treasure, and he was going to set off a trap, and so on - and the DM thought that was a good idea to let him steer his own story.
Maybe. If you're playing with a 9-year old.
Also, there is serious word-count given to finding ways to not kill PCs, including fudging monster die rolls or abilities if the encounter ends up being too powerful for PCs.
So - in short, the players can steer the game, to an extent at least, and the DM should try to "challenge" but not kill the players.
If you can't die, then what's the challenge?
Quote from: Werekoala;387338I am currently (re)reading the 4e DMG and I have to admit the shift to "DM is not the enemy", "working together to tell a story", etc. - even going so far as to say that the DM should make adjustments to the game world based on player intent, is quite a change from how I've always played D&D.
One of the examples is where the PCs are trying to deal with a lich, and ask if there is a wizard college in town where they might find info on the lich when he was still alive. The DM knows there isn't one, because he hadn't put one there, but the guide says you should say "yes" and then make up the details on the fly and integrate the College and its NPCs later as they might provide more info/hooks down the line. Not a horrible idea, and I've done similar things in the past, I'll admit, but putting it in the DMG as an example of how things should be... hrm. Seriously, the section is called "Don't be afraid to say yes" or something like that. One of the "pro tips" is the author recounting how his 9-year-old completed an encounter, then took off on his own and decided he was going to search for treasure, and he was going to set off a trap, and so on - and the DM thought that was a good idea to let him steer his own story.
Maybe. If you're playing with a 9-year old.
Also, there is serious word-count given to finding ways to not kill PCs, including fudging monster die rolls or abilities if the encounter ends up being too powerful for PCs.
So - in short, the players can steer the game, to an extent at least, and the DM should try to "challenge" but not kill the players.
If you can't die, then what's the challenge?
I have a big problem with every single of these philosophical points you mention.
Every single one of them.
These are known. I ranted about them time and time again.
I'll comment further later if need be.
Quote from: Werekoala;387338I am currently (re)reading the 4e DMG and I have to admit the shift to "DM is not the enemy", "working together to tell a story", etc. - even going so far as to say that the DM should make adjustments to the game world based on player intent, is quite a change from how I've always played D&D.
One of the examples is where the PCs are trying to deal with a lich, and ask if there is a wizard college in town where they might find info on the lich when he was still alive. The DM knows there isn't one, because he hadn't put one there, but the guide says you should say "yes" and then make up the details on the fly and integrate the College and its NPCs later as they might provide more info/hooks down the line. Not a horrible idea, and I've done similar things in the past, I'll admit, but putting it in the DMG as an example of how things should be... hrm. Seriously, the section is called "Don't be afraid to say yes" or something like that. One of the "pro tips" is the author recounting how his 9-year-old completed an encounter, then took off on his own and decided he was going to search for treasure, and he was going to set off a trap, and so on - and the DM thought that was a good idea to let him steer his own story.
Maybe. If you're playing with a 9-year old.
Also, there is serious word-count given to finding ways to not kill PCs, including fudging monster die rolls or abilities if the encounter ends up being too powerful for PCs.
So - in short, the players can steer the game, to an extent at least, and the DM should try to "challenge" but not kill the players.
If you can't die, then what's the challenge?
While much of all this is not bad conceptually, especially if used as part of one's style of gaming rather than as the entirety of how one plays, I agree that it's unfortunate to be presented in the DMG the way it is. To me, this is akin to my complaint about fluff text in monster books - too many people take it as canon, the only way something can be played, rather than as a suggestion. I think it would have been interesting - and cool - if they'd included a section, or some thoughts, on Old School DMing, or more specifically (because not everyone played "Old School" the same way), the "DM vs. Players" style of DMing.
Quote from: Benoist;387339I have a big problem with every single of these philosophical points you mention.
Every single one of them.
These are known. I ranted about them time and time again.
I'll comment further later if need be.
It's all fluff text. Ignore it. If you don't like that others play that way, then don't game with them. If you don't game with them, then there's no reason to be against any of it.
Interesting discussion.
Well, sure, it's not presented as "written in stone" by any means, but with it being presented as examples of how the DM should do things, in a way it becomes the "default" setting, if you know what I mean. Killer DMs are no fun, certainly, but I don't like the idea of a DM fudging rolls to keep people alive so they don't "ruin the fun".
Again, if there is no danger, then what is the challenge?
The way I look at it is every group has a different approach to the game; I would be wary of any one size fits all GM advice (whether it is "the GM as player friend" or "GM as player enemy" or something in the middle). I personally like games where characters drop dead every once in a while, but I am not averse to playing in a game where the threat of death isn't as strong (or absence all together). And if someone wants prefers a style that isn't my first choice, I don't really see the point of going to war over them with it. If someone likes linear adventures, with a GM who fudges results to save PCs, it is no skin off my back.
Quote from: ColonelHardisson;387352It's all fluff text. Ignore it. If you don't like that others play that way, then don't game with them. If you don't game with them, then there's no reason to be against any of it.
To me explanations and advice to GMs are just as important to a game,
if not more, actually, than the rules themselves. Particularly if we're talking about new GMs to RPGs who pick up a game for the first time. It affects their understanding of what RPGs are and are not, and how to manage different aspects of game play.
The notion that you can ignore such advice is of course very true, just like you can ignore rules entirely. A great GM could make any game awesome. We all know that. But these rules and advice aren't geared towards awesome GMs. They're geared towards newbies and mediocre-to-decent GMs who want to understand the game and get better at it.
Ignoring this or that part of the advice provided does not somehow magically erase the fact that such advice was included in the game for a reason, and was thought to be helpful to people who want to run the game. Just like a rule being faulty isn't somehow magically erased if you just ignore it in game play.
So your argument fails, as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Benoist;387357To me explanations and advice to GMs are just as important to a game, if not more, actually, than the rules themselves. Particularly if we're talking about new GMs to RPGs who pick up a game for the first time. It affects their understanding of what RPGs are and are not, and how to manage different aspects of game play.
The notion that you can ignore such advice is of course very true, just like you can ignore rules entirely. A great GM could make any game awesome. We all know that. But these rules and advice aren't geared towards awesome GMs. They're geared towards newbies and decent GMs who want to understand the game and get better at it.
.
I do agree that GM advice in books can be helpful. I certainly owe a lot of my own style to what I picked up from different gaming books in their advice sections. However I quickly learned that every book has a POV that might not match my own, and mixing and matching advice is really what worked for me. And often, advice that I took to heart in 1993, I reject in 2010. I can forgive a game book, if the advice section was written by someone I just disagree with philosophically, provided the other chapters of the book are useful. If its a great game, with crappy advice, I won't really hold it against the game.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;387359I can forgive a game book, if the advice section was written by someone I just disagree with philosophically, provided the other chapters of the book are useful. If its a great game, with crappy advice, I won't really hold it against the game.
Not me. I love both old and new Worlds of Darkness, but there is a complete schizophrenia between what the authors think their game emulates, and what it actually achieves in game play, for instance. The net result is that great GMs run great games with WoD, but you have legions of average GMs out there who just drink the WoD Kool Aid and propagate ideas that are in the end nocive to game play in a variety of ways I won't get into, which in turns inspire other game designs, and leads to all sorts of aberrations, both in game play and in game design, over the years.
Same thing here. Even moreso when you consider we are not talking about Random RPG #XX, but
Dungeons & Freaking Dragons, the 800 pounds game in the room, the gateway of many gamers into the hobby, etc etc.
Quote from: Benoist;387361Same thing here. Even moreso when you consider we are not talking about Random RPG #XX, but Dungeons & Freaking Dragons, the 800 pounds game in the room, the gateway of many gamers into the hobby, etc etc.
I would have to agree with this. I don't want to get all melodramatic, but I think in some ways WotC has kind of neglected the 'legacy' of D&D as the primary portal into role-playing. No one cares if "Stan's Shitty Free PDF Role Playing System" has a section that advises the GM to constantly fellate the characters and give them anything they want in terms of equipment or ability scores. When D&D advises to give the players their wish list items, or to whole cloth change the setting according to the player's whims (Werekoala's example of a Wizard College in mind here), there can be problems when they discover new games. Especially since those games are not likely to share the same design ethos, and may be less enjoyable because of it. A stark example would be Paranoia, but I am sure others can come up with less blatant examples.
Just want to thank J_Arcane and Melan for their insightful posts. Changed a lot how I perceive the wider spectrum of computer games and how they've changed over the past 10-15 years.
I'd add that the (to my knowledge) most vocal proponent of what Melan loosely termed the open-ended approach is Yathzee, whose Zero Punctuation reviews have mercilessly shown the utter ineptness of contemporary computer game design. Contrast his review of Fable 2 (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/346-Fable-2) with a historically very insightful review of Thief the Dark Project (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/544-Thief-The-Dark-Project).
(I recalled Zero Punctuation because Melan referenced the latter game.)
Quote from: Benoist;387361Not me. I love both old and new Worlds of Darkness, but there is a complete schizophrenia between what the authors think their game emulates, and what it actually achieves in game play, for instance. The net result is that great GMs run great games with WoD, but you have legions of average GMs out there who just drink the WoD Kool Aid and propagate ideas that are in the end nocive to game play in a variety of ways I won't get into, which in turns inspire other game designs, and leads to all sorts of aberrations, both in game play and in game design, over the years.
I don't play storyteller, so I can't really comment on that. If there is an actual disconnect between mechanics and what the designers think they are acheiving, then that is a point worthy of criticism. But I've just never been troubled by different GM philosophies. If something doesn't work for me, I don't use it. If it does I do. If it is in vogue now for the DMG to say "everybody wins" is the best way to play, I am just not that impacted by that. To be fair, I don't play 4E, so I am not really in a position to criticize or praise the 4E gm philosophy.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;387381If something doesn't work for me, I don't use it. If it does I do. If it is in vogue now for the DMG to say "everybody wins" is the best way to play, I am just not that impacted by that.
And it's all fine and good, which amounts to the Colonel's argument that "this is fluff text, ignore it". Thing is, that's your case, my case, the Colonel's case, but not every GM does that. Especially not people picking up the game for the first time or trying to better themselves by reading the advice presented by the book. i.e. this. We've come full circle. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=387357&postcount=560)
Quote from: Windjammer;387374Just want to thank J_Arcane and Melan for their insightful posts. Changed a lot how I perceive the wider spectrum of computer games and how they've changed over the past 10-15 years.
I'd add that the (to my knowledge) most vocal proponent of what Melan loosely termed the open-ended approach is Yathzee, whose Zero Punctuation reviews have mercilessly shown the utter ineptness of contemporary computer game design.
Or it could be that like always, very few things are truly excellent.
I mean, you could argue that 70s rock is better than most modern day rock. But if you actually go back in time, you'll realize the bad shit just got filtered out over the decades. There are plenty of older games Yahtzee would absolutely trash. And growing up with the NES and a computer in the house, I remember plenty of shitacular games on both that I suffered through.
Plus, there are companies who continually put out games that are better than their old counterparts. Look at Valve's games. Every title they have pushed out is consistently better than the last. Team Fortress 2 managed to be both extremely challenging with a fair learning curve to play competitively and far more engaging both in terms of gameplay and presentation than the original.
Also, it's interesting to note that computer/video-games that are done more "traditionally" or that cater to more "hardcore" players score well above average in reviews, unlike tabletop, where a lot of games styled after older rulesets often get tossed as "archaic."
Oh, and minor quibble. Video/computer game development is pretty muddled right now, as traditional Western PC developers shift to consoles and development/gamer cultures change. There is a bit of a blurred line between what constitutes a more traditional design and one that is new, and there are still companies making games that cater to a more traditional demographic (thus, more Diablo, more Starcraft, more Half-Life, and a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate that some people claimed was "too hard").
The same thing exists in tabletop design, but because it's a smaller and more obsessive community, people are willing to draw lines more clearly. Most video-gamers do not give a shit, and as mainly a PC gamer, I think most of my "brethren" give too much of a shit, too. There's a reason why my external hard-drive is only full of the "classics", because those are the ones that managed to stand above the heap of shit that was released in the last two to three decades.
The most dire problem right now is that with Western developers doing a better job at pumping out decent games than Japanese studios, you've got a flood of the "hardcore" demographic making their games and catering to adults on consoles, whereas consoles were once primarily the realm of kids. Without an influx of young gamers who have true brand loyalty (I love Sonic! I love Mario, etc) on the console end of things, the industry is setting itself up for the same collapse that plagued comic books. Of course, PC gaming, as the last time the console industry collapsed due to over-saturation, will remain unaffected and possible go through a revival.
Tabletop is already well past the point of no return in terms of creating games that are accessible to children as well as challenging and interesting enough for adults. My gut tells me that my generation, the people who came in with 3rd edition, or the teens and college-aged peeps who started with 4e because D&D is "geek chic" and Penny-Arcade talks about it, I honestly feel like we're the last gasp before the so-called "industry" goes back to being next to nothing and a downward trend starts accelerating.
Quote from: Werekoala;387338but the guide says you should say "yes" and then make up the details on the fly
Perfect example of designers wanting to "go narrative" but not really understanding WTH that means. The original quote is "say yes...or roll the dice" which comes from Dogs in the Vineyard.
Of course the designers of 4e don't understand what Baker was talking about so we get "say yes, and let players design your world by making shit up that directly benefits them."
Quote from: CRKrueger;387405Perfect example of designers wanting to "go narrative" but not really understanding WTH that means. The original quote is "say yes...or roll the dice" which comes from Dogs in the Vineyard.
Of course the designers of 4e don't understand what Baker was talking about so we get "say yes, and let players design your world by making shit up that directly benefits them."
If it's interesting, I don't see why that would be a problem. I mean obviously it can be taken too far, but if (for example) a player wants to create an assassins guild and a secret prophecy or something, because he's playing an assassin and he wants something cool for his backstory.. I'm all for it. Proactive suggestions (which are a far more ancient and venerable tradition than anything forgie nitwits ever came up with) can make a DMs life a lot easier, keep the players engaged, and provide creative direction.
Your hypocrisy continues to abound, AM.
If Ron Edwards makes the next D&D, will you be there to defend everything you once fought too?
Quote from: J Arcane;387437Your hypocrisy continues to abound, AM.
If Ron Edwards makes the next D&D, will you be there to defend everything you once fought too?
Well, there was a period when everyone made the decision to either stay at GO or joined the forge, and I was one of the guys who never went. So I guess history says "no"?
Players being proactive about helping build details of the campaign world (or DMs being willing to listen to suggestions) isn't something those guys invented, by any stretch.
Quote from: Peregrin;387397There's a reason why my external hard-drive is only full of the "classics", because those are the ones that managed to stand above the heap of shit that was released in the last two to three decades.
I'm not too sure about that. Sure, I've got
Missile Command and
Icewind Dale, and
Civilization, and
Star Trek and
Rogue/Nethack still installed on my PC, and I still regularly play these games.
Iv'e also got my kids a PS3.
Little Big Planet and
Red Dead Redemption are both Blockbuster Games, chock full of awesome, that even standalone (Iv'e so far successfully resisted signing up for the PS3 Network account), offer almost limitless play opportunities.
LBP comes with a better than complete, level generator that allows you to create, save, and share your own game levels. You are really only limited by your imagination and the time you want to expend creating new adventures. My kids make about a new game level about every week, and they are 7 and 9 now.
RDR Is a Western Genre game that offers multiple indepth storylines, multiple career choices, and some of the best new roleplaying opportunities since Baldur's Gate/Fallout was originally released. I have completed about 2/3 of the basic storyline with this over the last month or so, but can see some real interesting MMORPG play down the road when I finally do signup for a PS3 Network account.
By the way, you can completely burn down the Jail in
Armadillo by shooting out the lanterns that are lit at night in the Sherriffs office. My daughter taught me that. She became wanted by the law after that, but managed to pay off the bounty and get a pardon from the governor for her more law abiding crime fighting activities later on down the road. She's still leaning from time-to-time towards becoming an outlaw but has so far resisted the temptation.
Most of her time is spent wrangling and breaking Mustangs, and she's busied herself of late, trying to obtain the best collection of horses west of the Mississippi.
The only thing I want to use a PS3 for is to play endless God of War series...
Quote from: GameDaddy;387440I'm not too sure about that. Sure, I've got Missile Command and Icewind Dale, and Civilization, and Star Trek and Rogue/Nethack still installed on my PC, and I still regularly play these games.
I don't see how this conflicts with what I posted.
Good games have been made, and always will be made. But just because you don't pay attention to the shovelware and crappy games doesn't mean they aren't floating around out there.
My argument was that game design hasn't become "inept", but that, as always, there are a ton of forgettable games amidst the few gems we'll always remember and always go back to.
Or just some us like one type of game more than others...like God of War series. :)
Quote from: Nightfall;387446Or just some us like one type of game more than others...like God of War series. :)
You've tried Red Dead Redemption? It's currently my favorite MMORPG game. Even standalone, there's bunches of npc's in it.
I don't like Westerns. Guns and NF don't mix well.
Quote from: Peregrin;387397I honestly feel like we're the last gasp before the so-called "industry" goes back to being next to nothing and a downward trend starts accelerating.
I disagree.
People love interactive, face to face storytelling. Very soon, the portable technology will allow RPGs to have WoW graphics and invisible mechanics so future RPGers will be focussed on roleplaying their characters and experiencing their adventures...but their inner imagination will be bolstered by next-gen maps and minis.
Quote from: CRKrueger;387405Of course the designers of 4e don't understand what Baker was talking about so we get "say yes, and let players design your world by making shit up that directly benefits them."
Or they actually played D&D...with other gamers.
Players contributing ideas to the game world is NOT new. There have always been GMs who were open to incorporating their players' ideas.
As for wish-list magic items, WTF is the big deal if your Imaginary Elf gets his Imaginary Magic Bow?
Quote from: Nightfall;387449I don't like Westerns. Guns and NF don't mix well.
You know you can use a knife, right? It's the weapon of choice for hunting, and if you are really good, you can bring down most of the gunfighters. For some reason the duels always have you default to using a six-shooter. Frankly, I like the repeating rifle better.
I wonder if there will be an expansion featuring native americans, and native american weapons?
Gameday,
Knifes are fine with NF. But I like axes of many sizes, and dragons. Some how dragons and westerns don't exactly mix. That or demons. Hence God of War gets me what I want, ripping carnage against classic monsters.
Also I'm a fan of Deadliest warrior and they pretty much agreed, gunpower weapons = death for most non-armored (and some armored) opponents. So that kind of kills the fun for me.
*agrees with Spin-chat* While some of us DM prefer a modicrum of control over the world we tell, giving the players what they want helps in the long term game by saying "Sure your input is good." besides Encounters might not work for me and/or the people I hang with, but it's a good way to get people to take the first steps.
Also the only thing wrong with imaginary bows for imaginary elves is if it brings down the imaginary dragon that's the size of a skyscraper in one shot. But if it's something the PC had back in the day that's SUPPOSED to do that...then hey let it happen.
Quote from: Spinachcat;387451People love interactive, face to face storytelling. Very soon, the portable technology will allow RPGs to have WoW graphics and invisible mechanics so future RPGers will be focussed on roleplaying their characters and experiencing their adventures...but their inner imagination will be bolstered by next-gen maps and minis.
What do minis and maps do that makes RPGs more focused on that attractive storytelling purpose? Because I'm not seeing it. They're a tool used for a specific technique, but they don't do anything for the experience in terms of separating RPGs from other games or stressing the strengths of tabletop.
I've nothing against virtual worlds or simulations, but those are more akin to a crossover between tabletop and video-games -- something distinct in its own right that is different from tabletop play.
Plus, I can role-play just fine in Neverwinter Nights if I want to have a digital avatar tacked onto the experience with a ruleset I can let the computer handle.
Quote from: Spinachcat;387451As for wish-list magic items, WTF is the big deal if your Imaginary Elf gets his Imaginary Magic Bow?
Then why bother to play? Here, next time you want to start up a game, print this out:
Your imaginary Elf wins everything, has all the magic and women in the world, and constantly bones them with his 10 foot cock.
See? I just saved you four to six months worth of Saturdays toiling away, waiting for some stingy DM to give you that stuff!
Oh, and while Yahtzee does bash a lot of stupid game designs, I find these words of wisdom a little more potent:
QuoteFans are clingy complaining dipshits who will never, ever be happy no matter what concessions you make for them, and the sooner you learn to tune out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you'll be for it.
No matter what anyone does with D&D, there will be a group of people somewhere who hate it. It's a natural law of the universe. Some people hated AD&D. Some people hated 2e. Some people hated 3e. Some people hate 4e. And it continues...
Quote from: StormBringer;387473Your imaginary Elf wins everything, has all the magic and women in the world, and constantly bones them with his 10 foot cock.
See? I just saved you four to six months worth of Saturdays toiling away, waiting for some stingy DM to give you that stuff!
Your DM gives you a 10 foot cock after just 6 months?
How Monty Haul of you.
The 4e wish list concept does not negate any reason to play.
OD&D = you go in the dungeon, kill the monsters and find some cool magic.
4e = you go in the dungeon, kill the monsters and find some cool magic that fits your character concept.
In superhero RPGs like Champions, you don't have to give XYZ goodies at the end of the adventure. The heroes go out and do shit because they are heroes. 4e plays like that. Your Imaginary Elf goes out into the world to kick ass and be the big damn hero. His gear is secondary.
In OD&D, the quest for accumulation is usually the major focus. You go into dungeons to get the kickass gear.
Its just a different style of play.
And one that is very appealing, but this should not surprise anyone. Its just yet another step of control over the character creation and ongoing build process. Items become like feats. You tack them on to enhance or diversify the character.
If you look at the 4e math, you will see that magic items are FAR weaker game-changers than in OD&D. AKA, your +1 magic sword bonus is nice, but you already have a +9 from level and ability, versus a +1 magic bonus when your level and ability only get you to +4 feels different.
Quote from: Spinachcat;387530Its just a different style of play.
It is not a different style of play, it is an entirely different game.
OD&D: DM decides to stock a pile of loot with magic items, every character gets one. DM decides not to stock a pile of loot with any magic items, nobody gets one.
WotC's fantasy game: DM, STOCK THE PILE OF LOOT WITH MAGIC ITEMS SO EVERYBODY CAN GET ONE.
IT'S THE RULES, AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU'RE AN ASSASSIN OF FUN.
Quote from: Peregrin;387509Oh, and while Yahtzee does bash a lot of stupid game designs, I find these words of wisdom a little more potent:
No matter what anyone does with D&D, there will be a group of people somewhere who hate it. It's a natural law of the universe. Some people hated AD&D. Some people hated 2e. Some people hated 3e. Some people hate 4e. And it continues...
Dammit. I wish I would have said that. :)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;387535It is not a different style of play, it is an entirely different game.
OD&D: DM decides to stock a pile of loot with magic items, every character gets one. DM decides not to stock a pile of loot with any magic items, nobody gets one.
WotC's fantasy game: DM, STOCK THE PILE OF LOOT WITH MAGIC ITEMS SO EVERYBODY CAN GET ONE. IT'S THE RULES, AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU'RE AN ASSASSIN OF FUN.
Exactly. It's not just a
different style, it is now the
only style.
Quote from: Werekoala;387355...I don't like the idea of a DM fudging rolls to keep people alive so they don't "ruin the fun".
It was Gygax's advice in the 1e DMG...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;387569It was Gygax's advice in the 1e DMG...
So... now I should like it? I was always a "let the dice fall where they may" sort.
Quote from: Benoist;387387And it's all fine and good, which amounts to the Colonel's argument that "this is fluff text, ignore it". Thing is, that's your case, my case, the Colonel's case, but not every GM does that. Especially not people picking up the game for the first time or trying to better themselves by reading the advice presented by the book. i.e. this. We've come full circle. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=387357&postcount=560)
I do see your point. I think part of the issue is there are really just a number of ways to approach the game, and a number of schools of thought when it comes to GMing. The problem, for me, lies in saying one approach fits everyone. What I would rather see with something like D&D (since it is the go to standard) is an overview of the different approaches along with the pros and cons of each. I am always skeptical when someone tells me they have "the one true path" for gaming. I don't mind someone making an argument for one approach for their system, but when it becomes dogma, I think it can be an issue.
As an example, I started out GMing with Ravenloft, during 2E. I took every word in the ravenloft boxed set as gospel. The books said for it to be scary you have to do Y not X. There was a sort of code of horror. As I got older, while I understood much of the advice to be helpful, I realized there are many different approaches to horror, and how well each one works really depends on the make up of the group. I found some of the techniques in the Ravenloft boxed set were effective for some people, but for others, gore or just the very real threat of character death was what was called for. First impressions are always very powerful, but if you grow as a person, you can always shed the negatives of a first impression.
Quote from: Peregrin;387509No matter what anyone does with D&D, there will be a group of people somewhere who hate it. It's a natural law of the universe. Some people hated AD&D. Some people hated 2e. Some people hated 3e. Some people hate 4e. And it continues...
Yathzee's words are the truest Truth ever spoken, and the reason for me to have hobbies while hating many fans of said hobbies.
And also, Peregrin is right on the rest.
Quote from: StormBringer;387545Exactly. It's not just a different style, it is now the only style.
Mate, I usually like your posts but I just cannot take this statement seriously. Internet has made this kind of thinking absolutely untrue.
Quote from: Spinachcat;387530The 4e wish list concept does not negate any reason to play.
OD&D = you go in the dungeon, kill the monsters and find some cool magic.
4e = you go in the dungeon, kill the monsters and find some cool magic that fits your character concept.
Harley Davidson = You sit on a motorized vehicle to go wherever you want
(http://www.r8-bayern.de/upload/motoradhaendler-in-bamberg.jpg)
Obesity Scooter = You sit on a motorized vehicle to go wherever you want without walking
(http://lovinitlowcarb.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/ramona-scooter-fat-re-cropped.jpg)
QuoteIn superhero RPGs like Champions [...]
...are the start towards Forgery.
Holy shit. Thumbnails are your friend. Or maybe resizing, at least.
Also, Harleys are pretty dated engineering-wise, and a significant portion of the people who ride them are douchebags. Do you really want to draw that analogy? :P
I must admit. I laughed out loud.
Settembrini won the thread, can we kill this thread now so we can start the next 4e battle royale w/cheese?
Quote from: Peregrin;387592Holy shit. Thumbnails are your friend. Or maybe resizing, at least.
Also, Harleys are pretty dated engineering-wise, and a significant portion of the people who ride them are douchebags. Do you really want to draw that analogy? :P
I am from Wisconsin, and I have to concur. Since the mid 90's or so, they have been re-tooled into over priced status toys for doctors and lawyers.
I don't think the GM handing out 'wish list' items in 4e is the best analogy to the obesity scooter, tho--a DM in D&D who consistently put out magic items nobody can use is just a tool, after all. The wish list is just basically 'don't be a tool' advice, where some of the work is taken of the GM's hands. This is a natural consequence of the massive verbiage and narrow specifications of the character classes, the GM simply can't be expected to keep up with all the words, so a wish list narrows down his reading.
I think minions of 4e are a better example.
In RPGs, you can build your character to kill lots of weak monsters if you want. In 4e, the minions come pre-easily killable, no actual skill/knowledge/intent by the player necessary, so it's a 'facilitate the fat, stupid, and lazy' accommodation like the obesity schooter often is.
Quote from: Doom;387633I don't think the GM handing out 'wish list' items in 4e is the best analogy to the obesity scooter, tho--a DM in D&D who consistently put out magic items nobody can use is just a tool, after all.
In older editions of D&D, it was common for GMs to determine what magical items were present in a particular hoard by rolling on tables to randomly generate them.
Traditionally, a DM in D&D who consistently puts out magic items nobody can use is just a DM who by pure random chance has happened to roll a series of numbers that didn't provide items useful to their particular party.
Does rolling a particular series of number on some dice make someone a tool? I hope not.
Quote from: bombshelter13;387634In older editions of D&D, it was common for GMs to determine what magical items were present in a particular hoard by rolling on tables to randomly generate them.
Traditionally, a DM in D&D who consistently puts out magic items nobody can use is just a DM who by pure random chance has happened to roll a series of numbers that didn't provide items useful to their particular party.
Does rolling a particular series of number on some dice make someone a tool? I hope not.
True dat.
The odds of rolling up a magical glaive-guisarme are exactly zero. It's not even on the Miscellaneous Weapons chart. There is only one weapon that would not be very common for a character to take a proficiency in, and that is the
Trident (military fork) +3. 15% odds for getting Armour & Shields, 10% odds for getting Swords. About a quarter of the time, you will get something useful, because Magic Users (and Monks) are the only ones that can't wear
any armour, and Thieves, Rangers and Druids are the only ones with restrictions. 20% Potions, 15% Scrolls, and 5% Rings, so another 40% chance of getting an item someone can use (in a reasonably diverse party). 5% chance of getting something that generally only Magic Users can employ on the Rods, Staves and Wands table. 15% total for getting one of the Miscellaneous Magic tables. The explanatory paragraph below that even details why the odds are they way they are. Magic Users get expendable stuff, everyone else gets durable items.
I know it happens sometimes; there are three treasure hoards in a row with nothing the party can use. But the odds are they will have a good set of magic items by level 8 or 10. So, the complaint about magic items is somewhat baffling to me, and I don't see what the problem is that needed fixing in this case. That
eversmoking bottle won't see daily use, but when you need some cover to escape an entire tribe of orcs and their ogre/giant leaders, nothing works better.
Quote from: StormBringer;387637I know it happens sometimes; there are three treasure hoards in a row with nothing the party can use.
The odds of there being nothing the party can use drop if the PCs have hirelings and/or henchmen along. Even if there is nothing the PCs can use in a horde, chances are a hireling or henchman could -- and giving a hireling or henchman a magic item is a great way to make them very loyal.
Quote from: StormBringer;387637True dat.
The odds of rolling up a magical glaive-guisarme are exactly zero. It's not even on the Miscellaneous Weapons chart. There is only one weapon that would not be very common for a character to take a proficiency in, and that is the Trident (military fork) +3. 15% odds for getting Armour & Shields, 10% odds for getting Swords. About a quarter of the time, you will get something useful, because Magic Users (and Monks) are the only ones that can't wear any armour, and Thieves, Rangers and Druids are the only ones with restrictions. 20% Potions, 15% Scrolls, and 5% Rings, so another 40% chance of getting an item someone can use (in a reasonably diverse party). 5% chance of getting something that generally only Magic Users can employ on the Rods, Staves and Wands table. 15% total for getting one of the Miscellaneous Magic tables. The explanatory paragraph below that even details why the odds are they way they are. Magic Users get expendable stuff, everyone else gets durable items.
I know it happens sometimes; there are three treasure hoards in a row with nothing the party can use. But the odds are they will have a good set of magic items by level 8 or 10. So, the complaint about magic items is somewhat baffling to me, and I don't see what the problem is that needed fixing in this case. That eversmoking bottle won't see daily use, but when you need some cover to escape an entire tribe of orcs and their ogre/giant leaders, nothing works better.
I had actually managed to avoid this thread. Crap.
I almost never rolled for exact treasure. But I used to use to roll for what you are talking about above; the type of stuff found. And then I'd make a logical (based on where it is found) treasure set from there.
My whole internal quest with gaming has been to try to create as much an opportunity for in-game logic as possible. This does not always preclude rolling for area specific encounters or treasure types, but it does preclude creatures ignoring possibly useful treasures.
It also includes a large amount (much larger than in the DMG) of misc/useful items. I am the GM who places
roasting pans of temperature control (+10% to cooking skills) and
Evercoal,
shirts and leggings of warmth, and scroll of the '
umbrella' cantrip.
Because internal campaign logic is my weirdo holy grail.
The use or lack thereof of any given (non-weapon) magic item is entirely in the hands of the players. If you cannot after consideration find a use for an item - even to use as a tool of assassination against another person - then you are a poor role player.
4e wishlists enforce bad play by DMs and players both, period. There is no escaping this fact.
Yeah, I found the part about the "wish list" kinda wierd too. Last session, I got a magic +1 war pick since my character was using a pick (it also does a neat thing though, on a crit it pins the opponent to the floor via a magical "duplicate" of itself). I know the odds of randomly rolling one in the old system were astronomical, but then again, that's what magic weapon shops are/were for.
Still, its better in the "regular" game where you get a couple of item cards for actual magic items to choose from, instead of the RPGA "+1 magic weapon" where you just choose what it is.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;3876594e wishlists enforce bad play by DMs and players both, period. There is no escaping this fact.
Well, that's one opinion.
I think wishlists are controversial because the people who are horrified by them see magic item acquisition as a major goal of the game. So of course if a character gets to kinda choose his own gear, that's as if the DM just hands him the "I win" button.
But if the game is
not actually about magic item acquisition then wishlists are merely a factor of character development. So that argument is pretty easy to disregard.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387662But if the game is not actually about magic item acquisition then wishlists are merely a factor of character development. So that argument is pretty easy to disregard.
Are you talking about "the game", 4e in general, or "the game", "a" game run by a GM in particular?
Are you saying that 4e is not about acquiring magic items?
Quote from: Benoist;387663Are you talking about "the game", 4e in general, or "the game", "a" game run by a GM in particular?
Are you saying that 4e is not about acquiring magic items?
It's the least magic-item dependent version I've seen. There's no "Can only be hit by magical weapons".
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387662Well, that's one opinion.
I think wishlists are controversial because the people who are horrified by them see magic item acquisition as a major goal of the game. So of course if a character gets to kinda choose his own gear, that's as if the DM just hands him the "I win" button.
But if the game is not actually about magic item acquisition then wishlists are merely a factor of character development. So that argument is pretty easy to disregard.
In any game where the acquisition of treasure is a purported reward for the PC, or in any game where the treasure so acquired improves the ability of a player to succeed in that game, I'd see wishlists as a poorly designed mechanic, since players will search after these items.
But as I was expounding on above, especially in any Roleplaying game, mechanics that promote in-game logic promote immersion, and those that promote metagaming are the opposite.
Magic items wishlists are special because they promote metagaming on *2* seperate levels. On the character level, the make the character look at what they want for their 'character build' development down the road, making goals more bent around the charactersheet, not the character.
Worse, wishlists are the opposite of what I describe above. I place logical treasure that promotes in game thinking.
Quote from: meMy whole internal quest with gaming has been to try to create as much an opportunity for in-game logic as possible. This does not always preclude rolling for area specific encounters or treasure types, but it does preclude creatures ignoring possibly useful treasures.
It also includes a large amount (much larger than in the DMG) of misc/useful items. I am the GM who places roasting pans of temperature control (+10% to cooking skills) and Evercoal, shirts and leggings of warmth, and scroll of the 'umbrella' cantrip.
Because internal campaign logic is my weirdo holy grail.
Wish lists are the opposite of this. They are the opposite of creating an 'in-game' logical framework.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387647I had actually managed to avoid this thread. Crap.
I almost never rolled for exact treasure. But I used to use to roll for what you are talking about above; the type of stuff found. And then I'd make a logical (based on where it is found) treasure set from there.
My whole internal quest with gaming has been to try to create as much an opportunity for in-game logic as possible. This does not always preclude rolling for area specific encounters or treasure types, but it does preclude creatures ignoring possibly useful treasures.
It also includes a large amount (much larger than in the DMG) of misc/useful items. I am the GM who places roasting pans of temperature control (+10% to cooking skills) and Evercoal, shirts and leggings of warmth, and scroll of the 'umbrella' cantrip.
Because internal campaign logic is my weirdo holy grail.
I'd agree with this. One of the best Items I even placed was this book that was like a kind of bag of holding. You opened it at a double page sreap and there would be a roaring fire, or a bowl of clear water or a carpenters tool bag , or a pair of matched dueling pistols, or a selection of chef's knives and seasoning, or even a plate of roast beef with all the trimmings. :)
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387665It's the least magic-item dependent version I've seen. There's no "Can only be hit by magical weapons".
Wrong. Encounter balance builds in and assumes positive modifers from magical equipment. The same conceit was present in 3.5.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387665It's the least magic-item dependent version I've seen. There's no "Can only be hit by magical weapons".
There's even an option to turn magic items off entirely if you like. And yes, I am saying 4E is not about acquiring magic items. It's also not about "killing monsters and taking their stuff".
I suspect this also might be the reason that some people are so put off by 4E's detailed and dynamic combats: their expectations of the what the game is about are completely different.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387673There's even an option to turn magic items off entirely if you like. And yes, I am saying 4E is not about acquiring magic items. It's also not about "killing monsters and taking their stuff".
I suspect this also might be the reason that some people are so put off by 4E's detailed and dynamic combats: their expectations of the what the game is about are completely different.
What is 4e about?
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;387672Wrong. Encounter balance builds in and assumes positive modifers from magical equipment. The same conceit was present in 3.5.
Ok, well, let's put this back to you then: Explain the effects of spell resistance and damage resistance in 3.5 and how it will effect a party of characters of below it's level, equal to it's level, and slightly above it's level. (Use CR's here.)
I will be happy to provide the comparison information with 4E, or if you like, you can provide it yourself.
Here's a sneak preview. I played 3rd edition throughout the life of the entire game, pretty much weekly. So there are some bonuses that magic items will provide in 4E, true. But they are nowhere near the reliance on SR and DR that magic items in 3e require. And we could also get into the attribute items as well (gloves of dex, circlet of wisdom, belt of strength.. you needed those to face the higher CRs).
But I bet 4E has the least dramatic reliance on PCs having magic. That's what "least magic-item dependent version " means here, I think.
Quote from: Benoist;387674What is 4e about?
Adventure.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387681Adventure.
So 4e is a generic adventure role playing game. Is that what you are saying?
Quote from: jibbajibba;387671I'd agree with this. One of the best Items I even placed was this book that was like a kind of bag of holding. You opened it at a double page sreap and there would be a roaring fire, or a bowl of clear water or a carpenters tool bag , or a pair of matched dueling pistols, or a selection of chef's knives and seasoning, or even a plate of roast beef with all the trimmings. :)
Kudos, my type of magic.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387668But as I was expounding on above, especially in any Roleplaying game, mechanics that promote in-game logic promote immersion, and those that promote metagaming are the opposite.
.
Well, I have two answers to that.
1) I think that's kind of a false dichotomy.
2) It may just be that strict simulative models are only a high priority for people who have a certain mental concept of gaming. I realize that strict simulative models and physics engines are what some people think is extremely important, but for me it's not. I can't help but think I'm not alone.
Quote from: Benoist;387663Are you talking about "the game", 4e in general, or "the game", "a" game run by a GM in particular?
Are you saying that 4e is not about acquiring magic items?
Of course not, 4e magic items sucks.
There are many 2e\3e magic items that I'd like to have in real life if they were real, but 4e magic items? not so much. There are some cool items , probably, (even if I can't think to one at the moment), but for most of them I'd rather have the money, thank you very much.
I'm not trying to shit on 4e. AM basically spoke about expectations and how if you look at 4e expecting for magic items to be the point of the game, or killing things and taking their stuff, for that matter, then you're basically setting yourself up for disappointment. OK - I take him at his word, here.
So I ask the next natural question: what is 4e about, then?
"Adventure".
Which I don't really understand. That's why I'm asking AM to develop/explain. I'm not trying to set up a fight here.
Quote from: Benoist;387684So 4e is a generic adventure role playing game. Is that what you are saying?
nope. Dungeons and Dragons is not generic. Although it doesn't necessarily mandate any particular setting or world.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387679Ok, well, let's put this back to you then: Explain the effects of spell resistance and damage resistance in 3.5 and how it will effect a party of characters of below it's level, equal to it's level, and slightly above it's level. (Use CR's here.)
I will be happy to provide the comparison information with 4E, or if you like, you can provide it yourself.
Here's a sneak preview. I played 3rd edition throughout the life of the entire game, pretty much weekly. So there are some bonuses that magic items will provide in 4E, true. But they are nowhere near the reliance on SR and DR that magic items in 3e require. And we could also get into the attribute items as well (gloves of dex, circlet of wisdom, belt of strength.. you needed those to face the higher CRs).
But I bet 4E has the least dramatic reliance on PCs having magic. That's what "least magic-item dependent version " means here, I think.
From everything I have read, this is the truth. The game is more superheroic, with more reliance on the power growth of the character more than the items they find. Less Arthur Excalibur and more Superman.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387697From everything I have read, this is the truth. The game is more superheroic, with more reliance on the power growth of the character more than the items they find. Less Arthur Excalibur and more Superman.
Well, there are no Superman characters in 4E, so keep in mind that if you want to rely on things you merely "read" you should consider the source, and consider that you might end up with a pinhole view of what actually goes on. This is particularly true given all of the haters who have an active and dedicated stake to misrepresenting 4E because they find it a cultural affront.
4E characters are likely to be killed, terribly wounded, and have all manor of terrible things happen to them.. but theyre are also likely to get back up and shake it off and finish the battle.
So it's not Superman, it's more John Mcclane.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387647It also includes a large amount (much larger than in the DMG) of misc/useful items. I am the GM who places roasting pans of temperature control (+10% to cooking skills) and Evercoal, shirts and leggings of warmth, and scroll of the 'umbrella' cantrip.
Because internal campaign logic is my weirdo holy grail.
Quote from: jibbajibba;387671I'd agree with this. One of the best Items I even placed was this book that was like a kind of bag of holding. You opened it at a double page sreap and there would be a roaring fire, or a bowl of clear water or a carpenters tool bag , or a pair of matched dueling pistols, or a selection of chef's knives and seasoning, or even a plate of roast beef with all the trimmings. :)
These are fantastic magic items.
Quote from: Werekoala;387661Still, its better in the "regular" game where you get a couple of item cards for actual magic items to choose from, instead of the RPGA "+1 magic weapon" where you just choose what it is.
Even for a tournament game, that is a shitty magic item, even moreso the delivery.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;387659The use or lack thereof of any given (non-weapon) magic item is entirely in the hands of the players. If you cannot after consideration find a use for an item - even to use as a tool of assassination against another person - then you are a poor role player.
Flawless victory.
Quote from: Peregrin;387509Oh, and while Yahtzee does bash a lot of stupid game designs, I find these words of wisdom a little more potent:
QuoteFans are clingy complaining dipshits who will never, ever be happy no matter what concessions you make for them, and the sooner you learn to tune out their shrill, tremulous voices the happier you'll be for it.
No matter what anyone does with D&D, there will be a group of people somewhere who hate it. It's a natural law of the universe. Some people hated AD&D. Some people hated 2e. Some people hated 3e. Some people hate 4e. And it continues...
I couldn't find the exact source of this quote, but to me this isn't just a "some people hate version X" it actually goes right to the crux of the matter, or the Tyranny of Fun. How so? The "clingy complaining dipshits" who are never happy are the ones that a game designer (or DM)
should "tune out" rather than appeasing (by nerfing the rust monster, by removing the possibility of character death, by suggesting or fulfilling magic item "wish lists", etc.) Or, let's go to the source:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=131786&postcount=70
Quote from: MelanSo instead, they try to remove things from the game which are not fun. What isn't fun? The things the fans complain about. But who complains? In short, the kind of people older rulebooks (and pardon my edition snobbery, but that's just how I see it) warned us about. People whose characters got their swords destroyed by a rust monster and who threw a hissy fit over it. People whose characters died to a hold person spell and who wrote angry letters to Dragon magazine. People who didn't have fun, whose entertainment was destroyed by this monster or that spell. Meet WotC's focus groups, meet the people who are the target audience for future releases. The people 4e will be designed to accommodate.
But then again, I'm taking that out of context, so maybe Yahtzee means something else, but to me its a clear warning to steer clear of the tyranny of fun trap.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387698Well, there are no Superman characters in 4E, so keep in mind that if you want to rely on things you merely "read" you should consider the source, and consider that you might end up with a pinhole view of what actually goes on. This is particularly true given all of the haters who have an active and dedicated stake to misrepresenting 4E because they find it a cultural affront.
4E characters are likely to be killed, terribly wounded, and have all manor of terrible things happen to them.. but theyre are also likely to get back up and shake it off and finish the battle.
So it's not Superman, it's more John Mcclane.
I only played one session of 4e, as I have said before. I am NOT an expert. And yes, much of what I know, I read, though much of what I have read is the rulebooks.
And most of what I have read seperately is from logs and sites that play 4e. getting information from one source is always bad. Might as well watch Fox for news.
John Mcclane did not have superpowers, to devolve into geekdom slightly here. Superman has superpowers. I would not use John Mcclane to characterize 2e, let alone a game that has 30 levels and that plan epic destinies and moves into godhood.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387702I only played one session of 4e, as I have said before. I am NOT an expert. And yes, much of what I know, I read, though much of what I have read is the rulebooks.
And most of what I have read seperately is from logs and sites that play 4e. getting information from one source is always bad. Might as well watch Fox for news.
John Mcclane did not have superpowers, to devolve into geekdom slightly here. Superman has superpowers. I would not use John Mcclane to characterize 2e, let alone a game that has 30 levels and that plan epic destinies and moves into godhood.
But the point is- it's not the superpowers themselves that define what goes on in the game-- it's the level of action.
Also when you start to characterize the game with characters like Superman, you are implying unlikely abilities.
So... in which editions of D&D (which has always been a fairly magical fantasic game) can the characters stop time itself, or reverse it.. or wish things into or out of existence once they get to a certain level? I'm not saying such magical ideas can't happen, but which editions put this kind power directly in the hands of the PCs?
The answer: All editions except 4th.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387696nope. Dungeons and Dragons is not generic. Although it doesn't necessarily mandate any particular setting or world.
OK. It's just that the word "Adventure" seems very broad in meaning to me. If 4e is not about "killings things and taking their stuff", if it's not about acquiring riches, or magic items, I'd like to understand what it is about. Maybe then I could understand some of the stuff that's been baffling me ever since the game started to be advertised.
So. It's not about just "adventure", in all its broad, generic meaning, is it?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387673There's even an option to turn magic items off entirely if you like. And yes, I am saying 4E is not about acquiring magic items. It's also not about "killing monsters and taking their stuff".
I suspect this also might be the reason that some people are so put off by 4E's detailed and dynamic combats: their expectations of the what the game is about are completely different.
Are detailed and dynamic combats "adventure"? Maybe one part, but not all of it.
I've played enough 4e (20+ sessions including an RPGA event and 3 different DMs from our group) to form my own opinion and to me it feels like a game about "detailed and dynamic combat" which often leaves little time for the rest of the "adventure".
Quote from: Benoist;387704OK. It's just that the word "Adventure" seems very broad in meaning to me. If 4e is not about "killings things and taking their stuff", if it's not about acquiring riches, or magic items, I'd like to understand what it is about. Maybe then I could understand some of the stuff that's been baffling me ever since the game started to be advertised.
So. It's not about just "adventure", in all its broad, generic meaning, is it?
I think Adventure is big enough as a concept. Characters are in constant danger and conflict, pursuing tasks in a dynamic and heroic manner.
I will say this: I have run many adventures where the PCs forgot to even bother looking for treasure after an encounter, or "search the bodies" or whatever. Often enough there are very specific missions going on, they have places to be, or for other reasons.. they can't spend time looting or selling.
Quote from: AMQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegBut as I was expounding on above, especially in any Roleplaying game, mechanics that promote in-game logic promote immersion, and those that promote metagaming are the opposite.
.
Well, I have two answers to that.
1) I think that's kind of a false dichotomy.
2) It may just be that strict simulative models are only a high priority for people who have a certain mental concept of gaming. I realize that strict simulative models and physics engines are what some people think is extremely important, but for me it's not. I can't help but think I'm not alone.
1) I don't think so. We've spoken of this before, thee and I. I still see in-game logic as critical for immersion. The players need to be able to think as their characters, at some level, to immerse at any level.
Metagaming is the opposite. It is thinking of the rules, thinking like the player.
When the players capture the mess area and kitchen for the elite Orc chieftant, they are going to find Evercoal and my roasting pan. Not the Gauntlets the player wished for.
In my opinion, at least.
2)I think a lot of players and GMs want differnt things, and these things change. And not everyone wants simulation or even in-game logic to be their highest priority...some people want a tactical combat game that feels like the way they want their characters to feel in combat; other people want wide-open rule structures that allow each GM to adjudicate as they go.
I am VERY aware that my ruleset is not only different from 4e, but very different from the games I grew up with as well.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;387672Wrong. Encounter balance builds in and assumes positive modifers from magical equipment. The same conceit was present in 3.5.
Having played the game using a char who had extremely few magical items, none of which were the appropriate level for him, it's not too bad. Getting CA takes care of a lot of the difference at anything below paragon, so you only miss maybe 10% more often at anything paragon and lower.
This was the same in 3.x, except for enemies with DR/magic.
The whole idea of "encounter balance" in 3.x and 4e is a bugaboo. Outside of a few test adventures and the occasional sport encounter, my group almost never "balanced" encounters and things worked just fine.
Quote from: jormungand1;387705Are detailed and dynamic combats "adventure"? Maybe one part, but not all of it.
I've played enough 4e (20+ sessions including an RPGA event and 3 different DMs from our group) to form my own opinion and to me it feels like a game about "detailed and dynamic combat" which often leaves little time for the rest of the "adventure".
Well, what part did you miss out on? Consider an action movie as a sort of template for an adventure. It sort of has a beginning, an initial conflict, a series of dynamic and spectacular action scenes, and eventually the main climactic point, and then an ending.. or a lead in to the next adventure.
The bulk of those movies are action scenes.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387703So... in which editions of D&D (which has always been a fairly magical fantasic game) can the characters stop time itself, or reverse it.. or wish things into or out of existence once they get to a certain level? I'm not saying such magical ideas can't happen, but which editions put this kind power directly in the hands of the PCs?
The answer: All editions except 4th.
I actually agree with that. The big difference being, in my mind, that you've got some iterations of the game that basically take the character from a layman, almost-mundane status to the pinacle of world-shattering, unlikely indeed, abilities, whereas 4e smoothes out the progression from a Heroic status to a Superheroic one. Basically, starting characters in say, AD&D, are weaker than their 4e counterparts, but AD&D epic characters will in some cases (thinking of MUs in particular, here) be much more powerful than their 4e equivalents.
I'd guess this has to do with the way the math was reworked to make "all levels the 'sweet spot' of the game".
So just pointing the super/heroic nature of 4e is kind of a red herring, to me, when trying to find out what this game is really about.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387698Well, there are no Superman characters in 4E, so keep in mind that if you want to rely on things you merely "read" you should consider the source, and consider that you might end up with a pinhole view of what actually goes on. This is particularly true given all of the haters who have an active and dedicated stake to misrepresenting 4E because they find it a cultural affront.
4E characters are likely to be killed, terribly wounded, and have all manor of terrible things happen to them.. but theyre are also likely to get back up and shake it off and finish the battle.
So it's not Superman, it's more John Mcclane.
Indeed, I once killed a PC by having some skeletons roll a boulder down a gully onto him after he'd taken a couple of hits. It's not hard to get killed.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387707I think Adventure is big enough as a concept. Characters are in constant danger and conflict, pursuing tasks in a dynamic and heroic manner.
I will say this: I have run many adventures where the PCs forgot to even bother looking for treasure after an encounter, or "search the bodies" or whatever. Often enough there are very specific missions going on, they have places to be, or for other reasons.. they can't spend time looting or selling.
I know we're on to something here, Peter. Forgive me if I'm not satisfied by the answer. There must be more to it than just "4e is about Adventure in D&D dressing". What's to differenciate 4e from any other Fantasy role playing game out there other than the "D&D hodge-podge dressing" (i.e. beholders, drows, etc), then? Nothing?
It's all a matter of decors?
Quote from: LordVreeg;3877081) I don't think so. We've spoken of this before, thee and I. I still see in-game logic as critical for immersion. The players need to be able to think as their characters, at some level, to immerse at any level.
Metagaming is the opposite. It is thinking of the rules, thinking like the player.
Well, I think players require less handholding than that. I know that there's a strong tendency to think "oh WE roleplay, but nobody else does..not like us" (and you might even believe that its having rules that allows for this to happen.
But the truth is, you don't know if the first condition is even true, and the second one is entirely a matter of opinion.
QuoteWhen the players capture the mess area and kitchen for the elite Orc chieftant, they are going to find Evercoal and my roasting pan. Not the Gauntlets the player wished for.
In my opinion, at least.
Why would you think it would be otherwise in 4E D&D?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387703But the point is- it's not the superpowers themselves that define what goes on in the game-- it's the level of action.
Also when you start to characterize the game with characters like Superman, you are implying unlikely abilities.
So... in which editions of D&D (which has always been a fairly magical fantasic game) can the characters stop time itself, or reverse it.. or wish things into or out of existence once they get to a certain level? I'm not saying such magical ideas can't happen, but which editions put this kind power directly in the hands of the PCs?
The answer: All editions except 4th.
Unlikely abilities is certainly what many games are about.
I also agree with you about Time Stop and Wish. I have mentioned before that I am not an OSR schill comparing 4e to what I am playing. I don't play D&D anymore, either.
There are some rules, however, and some situations that are similar to those that drove me away, but amplified, in 4e. And there are time where people do argue from only one perspective, and that make it hards.
Pseudoephedrine, on the other hand, has my complete respect in her knowledge and use of Runequest as well as 4e.
I agree with you, as I said, that 4e is less about magic items. But that is because it is more about the power growth of the PC themselves. 'It's not the 'superpowers' themselves that make up the game, it's the level of action?'
I don't even understand what that means. It is, often, the level of power of the character's vs the rest of the world and power growth curve that defines much of the game, actually.
I'd say 4e does epic high fantasy really well, if that's what you're trying to figure out. I'd be comfortable running sequences like the hunt for Humbaba or the Siege of Troy using the system, whereas I don't think 3.x could really capture the feel of those sequences.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387716'It's not the 'superpowers' themselves that make up the game, it's the level of action?'
I don't even understand what that means.
Me neither. I noted that phrasing too, and I don't really know what to make of it.
Quote from: Benoist;387714I know we're on to something here, Peter. Forgive me if I'm not satisfied by the answer. There must be more to it than just "4e is about Adventure in D&D dressing". What's to differenciate 4e from any other Fantasy role playing game out there other than the "D&D hodge-podge dressing" (i.e. beholders, drows, etc), then? Nothing?
It's all a matter of decors?
4th Edition D&D is just Dungeons and Dragons. It has the easiest to use and most engaging interfaces, and it wins fans (and keeps them) based on that alone. There's nothing else like it. It doesn't need to work too hard to be different, it pretty much defines the entire hobby.
Quote from: Benoist;387711I actually agree with that. The big difference being, in my mind, that you've got some iterations of the game that basically take the character from a layman, almost-mundane status to the pinacle of world-shattering, unlikely indeed, abilities, whereas 4e smoothes out the progression from a Heroic status to a Superheroic one. Basically, starting characters in say, AD&D, are weaker than their 4e counterparts, but AD&D epic characters will in some cases (thinking of MUs in particular, here) be much more powerful than their 4e equivalents.
I'd guess this has to do with the way the math was reworked to make "all levels the 'sweet spot' of the game".
So just pointing the super/heroic nature of 4e is kind of a red herring, to me, when trying to find out what this game is really about.
I will get back to this later. I'm not feeling that great, but this is one of those places I feel like I disliked where AD&D was and I dislike more where the newer versions have gone. Epic Destiny, indeed.
But maybe I am wrong.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387717I'd say 4e does epic high fantasy really well, if that's what you're trying to figure out. I'd be comfortable running sequences like the hunt for Humbaba or the Siege of Troy using the system, whereas I don't think 3.x could really capture the feel of those sequences.
What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is what this game is exactly about. You know how you can take a game and in one or two sentences, you can pretty much convey the core concept of the game. Like "it's about going down the dungeon, killing things, taking their stuff, going back to the village, and repeat" (I seem to remember that's how Mike Mearls summarized D&D some time ago)? I'd like someone who really knows the game inside out to describe 4e using a sentence or two, like this.
I'd like to understand what this game is supposed to be used for.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387717I'd say 4e does epic high fantasy really well, if that's what you're trying to figure out. I'd be comfortable running sequences like the hunt for Humbaba or the Siege of Troy using the system, whereas I don't think 3.x could really capture the feel of those sequences.
We talked about that once. Less heroic and more mythic, was where we seemed to end.
Not Superman, but Gilgamesh? More Väinämöinen? (trying to find mythos that are not dominated by magical items...)
Quote from: LordVreeg;387716Pseudoephedrine, on the other hand, has my complete respect in her knowledge and use of Runequest as well as 4e.
Hah, thanks. I'm a guy though. I just got a purty face. ;)
Personally, 4e isn't my favourite system d20 variation out there (I love Iron Heroes), but I do think it's unfairly treated. I do like it for what I think it does well: high-action, epic, high fantasy. The Dawnlands setting (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=8875) I put together for it was built with that in mind, frex.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387716I agree with you, as I said, that 4e is less about magic items. But that is because it is more about the power growth of the PC themselves. 'It's not the 'superpowers' themselves that make up the game, it's the level of action?'
I don't even understand what that means. It is, often, the level of power of the character's vs the rest of the world and power growth curve that defines much of the game, actually.
Well, in D&D, the level of action rarely differentiates very significantly from the rest of the world, because encounters scale, and locations scale. So by the time your guys reach 20th level, chances are they hang out in Sigil or something and still never differ very much from the rest of the world. The types of battles that characters engage in at 20th or 30th may indeed involve some flashy abilities, but it's actually not that different than what they are doing at 1st or 11th.
Note that this is not the case in 3rd edition, when you dealt with something in the "epic" range- often enough you had to spend several rounds negating spells, cutting through SR, and working through some of the instant death effects (like Wail of the banshee, or finger of Death, or Prismatic Shields, etc) before the battle even really starts to take place.
Quote from: Benoist;387721What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is what this game is exactly about. You know how you can take a game and in one or two sentences, you can pretty much convey the core concept of the game. Like "it's about going down the dungeon, killing things, taking their stuff, going back to the village, and repeat" (I seem to remember that's how Mike Mearls summarized D&D some time ago)? I'd like someone who really knows the game inside out to describe 4e using a sentence or two, like this.
I'd like to understand what this game is supposed to be used for.
"You are heroes who go on quests, building up your strength and remaking the world until eventually you can challenge the gods themselves."
YMMV.
I'd say Hercules would be the paradigm for a 4e PC.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387726"You are heroes who go on quests, building up your strength and remaking the world until eventually you can challenge the gods themselves."
YMMV.
I'd say Hercules would be the paradigm for a 4e PC.
It's cool. Any feedback is welcome at this point.
I understand the quests and building up strength thingies (i.e. levelling and all that goes with it, I assume). 4e contains rules to challenge the gods themselves? In the core books? Is that really a central theme of the game?
Quote from: LordVreeg;387723We talked about that once. Less heroic and more mythic, was where we seemed to end.
Not Superman, but Gilgamesh? More Väinämöinen? (trying to find mythos that are not dominated by magical items...)
Gilgamesh, the heroes of the Iliad, Hercules, and the heroes of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Mythic is a good way to describe it.
TBH, other than some variants of d20, I've never thought D&D was particularly good at low fantasy, so I don't see 4e's emphasis on the mythic as a radical break from 3.x and 2e's emphasis on the heroic.
Quote from: AMQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreeg1) I don't think so. We've spoken of this before, thee and I. I still see in-game logic as critical for immersion. The players need to be able to think as their characters, at some level, to immerse at any level.
Metagaming is the opposite. It is thinking of the rules, thinking like the player.
Well, I think players require less handholding than that. I know that there's a strong tendency to think "oh WE roleplay, but nobody else does..not like us" (and you might even believe that its having rules that allows for this to happen.
But the truth is, you don't know if the first condition is even true, and the second one is entirely a matter of opinion.
No. It's not about handholding. It is simply that some rules are written to certain things better than others. Very purely and simply. In-game logic helps immersion, and immersion is the opposite of metagaming.
Quote from: AMQuote from: LVWhen the players capture the mess area and kitchen for the elite Orc chieftant, they are going to find Evercoal and my roasting pan. Not the Gauntlets the player wished for.
In my opinion, at least.
Why would you think it would be otherwise in 4E D&D?
Because you have wishlists. That was what we were talking about, remember?
A game that has them will give PCs what they want in a game as a priority, regardless of the context. My example above is context being given priority.
Unless you have a chef class, in which case, you might have me.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387730No. It's not about handholding. It is simply that some rules are written to certain things better than others. Very purely and simply. In-game logic helps immersion, and immersion is the opposite of metagaming.
I disagree.
QuoteBecause you have wishlists. That was what we were talking about, remember?
A game that has them will give PCs what they want in a game as a priority, regardless of the context. My example above is context being given priority.
Unless you have a chef class, in which case, you might have me.
It's still up to the Dm to determine what treasure (if any) is present in any encounter. You can also ignore the player's list entirely. It's nothing more than a player saying "yeah, I eventually want to get that fochluan bandore for my bard.. " and the Dm considering whether or not there could be an adventure with a fochluan bandore in it.
Quote from: Benoist;387728It's cool. Any feedback is welcome at this point.
I understand the quests and building up strength thingies (i.e. levelling and all that goes with it, I assume). 4e contains rules to challenge the gods themselves? In the core books? Is that really a central theme of the game?
Well, massive earth-threatening evils a la Sauron etc.. Orcus, Demogorgon & Vecna are written up as monsters for it that top-level PCs are meant to fight. It's epic-tier stuff, obviously, but you rise from saving the town from goblins to the kingdom from liches to the world from Orcus. The idea is a constant escalation of the conflict's stakes and scope as PCs rise in power. I do find, just empirically, that I'm willing to throw grander and more outright magical threats at PCs.
So, for example, in the heroic-tier Dawnlands game I ran, the PCs had to save the town of Stoneshore from a horde of undead elves a leper-shaman had summoned by in turn summoning a giant centipede spirit from the realm of dreams to eat the undead using an elaborate ritual. The story ended with them battling this eladrin warlock who had orchestrated the whole thing so his demonic master could feed off the death and emerge into the world.
OTOH, the 3.x conquistador game I ran at about the same level range with the same players involved the PCs exploring a lost Aztec-style city whose inhabitants had degenerated into barbarian cannibal elves and which was now run by a necromancer. They fought skeletons, and some of the elves, and some were-rats and a giant stone statue of a spider temporarily animated. It felt considerably lower in scope and scale - the necromancer wasn't planning to take over the world or anything - and the PCs were never really going to go beyond being somewhat stronger and tougher versions of what they were already.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387709Having played the game using a char who had extremely few magical items, none of which were the appropriate level for him, it's not too bad. Getting CA takes care of a lot of the difference at anything below paragon, so you only miss maybe 10% more often at anything paragon and lower.
This was the same in 3.x, except for enemies with DR/magic.
The whole idea of "encounter balance" in 3.x and 4e is a bugaboo. Outside of a few test adventures and the occasional sport encounter, my group almost never "balanced" encounters and things worked just fine.
Which is fine. I've never messed much with CR or balanced encounters. I never really found it that much of a chore balancing combat in older editions without these mechanical crutches. I just disagree with the prior assertion that magical items aren't an important part of the game; they are factored into the mathmatics of the engine. That's part of the reason the "Itemless" option appeared in DMG2; you can more easily emulate the Iron Heroes "its not the sword, but the arm that wields it" trope.
Quote from: StormBringer;387699Even for a tournament game, that is a shitty magic item, even moreso the delivery.
Well, I'll tell you this - with the Powers that every class has (in essence, "spells") I don't think magic items are anywhere near as important anymore. I sure haven't really missed them much at all, so far - I've looked over a couple of the cards and shrugged them off, mostly - just kept the pick since my character was using a pick (and that's why it WAS a pick). Even healing potions are "meh" now because of surges.
Another interesting tidbit from some lunchtime reading - in the quests section of the DMG (where it talks about how to structure them for adventures) it actually says you should let players come up with their OWN quests, based on their characters - "and remember, say yes as often as possible!"
Yes, it included the exclaimation point.
O.o
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387729Gilgamesh, the heroes of the Iliad, Hercules, and the heroes of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Mythic is a good way to describe it.
TBH, other than some variants of d20, I've never thought D&D was particularly good at low fantasy, so I don't see 4e's emphasis on the mythic as a radical break from 3.x and 2e's emphasis on the heroic.
Good, I'm glad I am getting it.
And I see each incarnation of D&D less able to model what i play, very, very mortal games with very slow growth. I just see 4e as worse at it than the games I left behind. I did not consider 0/AD&D good with it, as I left, partially because characters were getting as many HP as a warhorse within 5-6 levels of play.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387730In-game logic helps immersion, and immersion is the opposite of metagaming.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387732I disagree.
The explains a whole helluva lot. If you think Immersion isn't decreased in direct proportion to the amount of Metagaming then of course you love 4e and aren't bothered by dissociative mechanics.
What it comes to is, and I realize this is going to sound horribly elitist, you don't really know what Immersion is, because you haven't experienced it to the same degree some of us have, you're just not wired that way. Which is fine, but it makes it really pointless discussing things like Immersion with you.
Quote from: Werekoala;387747Another interesting tidbit from some lunchtime reading - in the quests section of the DMG (where it talks about how to structure them for adventures) it actually says you should let players come up with their OWN quests, based on their characters - "and remember, say yes as often as possible!"
Yes, it included the exclaimation point.
O.o
I like the idea of letting the players come up with quests; I thought it was pretty analagous to dropping hooks into their character background, something I try and get my players to do anyhow.
Hm. A GURPS background advantage or patron is a hook if the GM wants to use it. Letting the players come up with their own quests may be a hook too, but it hooks the DM, not the player, IMO.
Clarification - to me a "quest" is mandatory (almost like a geas or something) rather than just an interesting background quirk - that might just be my personal interpretation.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387749Good, I'm glad I am getting it.
And I se each incarnation of D&D less able to model what i play, very, very mortal games with very slow growth. I just see 4e as worse at it than the games I left behind.
We tend to play low fantasy, gritty games, so we've moved onto other systems, though I don't mind going back and playing a bit of 4e now and then. Right now, I'm working on an RQ2 supp (Moragne) and a D&D 3.x / Iron Heroes complete rebuild with my buddy for a swords-and-sorcery style game we'll probably start later this year once nWoD wraps up.
I don't have any problem with people selecting different fantasy game systems to achieve different tones or tell different kinds of stories. I do it all the time.
Quote from: Werekoala;387747Another interesting tidbit from some lunchtime reading - in the quests section of the DMG (where it talks about how to structure them for adventures) it actually says you should let players come up with their OWN quests, based on their characters - "and remember, say yes as often as possible!"
Yes, it included the exclaimation point.
O.o
Yikes.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387756We tend to play low fantasy, gritty games, so we've moved onto other systems, though I don't mind going back and playing a bit of 4e now and then. Right now, I'm working on an RQ2 supp (Moragne) and a D&D 3.x / Iron Heroes complete rebuild with my buddy for a swords-and-sorcery style game we'll probably start later this year once nWoD wraps up.
I don't have any problem with people selecting different fantasy game systems to achieve different tones or tell different kinds of stories. I do it all the time.
Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."
Yes.
I play very gritty, very social-heavy games, with a growth curve built for very long term campaigns/games. Not many games do that well. No finger pointing. Just fact.
BTW, I've really liked the Moragne stuff I've seen.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;387751I like the idea of letting the players come up with quests; I thought it was pretty analagous to dropping hooks into their character background, something I try and get my players to do anyhow.
Or just having characters have goals they pursue. I'm not a big one for sitting back and letting the DM's wave of plot wash me along, nor are some of the other guys in my group.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387758Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."
Definite agreement there.
QuoteBTW, I've really liked the Moragne stuff I've seen.
Thanks, I don't know if you read the RPG Haven, but I'm writing an adventure for it right now, which is why there hasn't been new setting material in a while. Warren of the Leper Queens (http://www.therpghaven.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1101)
Edit: Also yes, for those starting to notices themes: Almost every game I run / world I build does feature giant arthropods, magical lepers, someone's heart getting cut out or throat getting slit, cannibals and demons/monsters worshipped as gods.
Quote from: AMQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegNo. It's not about handholding. It is simply that some rules are written to certain things better than others. Very purely and simply. In-game logic helps immersion, and immersion is the opposite of metagaming.
I disagree.
with what part, exactly? I was not trying to be difficult, or for once, elitest. Are you disagreeing that Immersion and Metagaming are opposites?
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387761Thanks, I don't know if you read the RPG Haven, but I'm writing an adventure for it right now, which is why there hasn't been new setting material in a while. Warren of the Leper Queens (http://www.therpghaven.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1101)
That's where I saw it. I loved the NPCs.
I found it funny because Isomage is mentioned and he does SO much work to help me with my IRC game. He has coded so much for the hell of it for our game. I have no idea how to pay him back.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387764That's where I saw it. I loved the NPCs.
I found it funny because Isomage is mentioned and he does SO much work to help me with my IRC game. He has coded so much for the hell of it for our game. I have no idea how to pay him back.
Yeah, his tools are extremely useful to me as well, thus the shout-out. Haven't found another cave generator that's nearly as good.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387735Well, massive earth-threatening evils a la Sauron etc.. Orcus, Demogorgon & Vecna are written up as monsters for it that top-level PCs are meant to fight. It's epic-tier stuff, obviously, but you rise from saving the town from goblins to the kingdom from liches to the world from Orcus. The idea is a constant escalation of the conflict's stakes and scope as PCs rise in power. I do find, just empirically, that I'm willing to throw grander and more outright magical threats at PCs. (awesome example)
Alright. I see where you're going with this.
Quote from: StormBringer;387757Quote from: Werekoala;387747Another interesting tidbit from some lunchtime reading - in the quests section of the DMG (where it talks about how to structure them for adventures) it actually says you should let players come up with their OWN quests, based on their characters - "and remember, say yes as often as possible!"
Yes, it included the exclaimation point.
O.o
Yikes.
I don't really see how that's different from the Paladin seeking atonement or a Holy Avenger sword in First Ed, honestly. I mean, yeah, the "say yes! Exclamation Point!" part strikes me as shitty advice, but the principle of it isn't bad at all, if the GM is in control. Any GM should welcome feedback and ideas from players for side quests or stuff they'd want to do in the game. Whether that fits the campaign, how it ultimately does, etc must be left to the GM to decide.
In my Ptolus game a player basically wanted to be part of one of the noble houses of the city. I just said "alright". She wanted to be an adventurer, and that didn't sit well with the family. Part of the "downtime role playing" of the game involved her dealing with her family, with the blame, the familial love still being there, the cousin who wants to become an adventurer too and wreck her future in the process, that sort of thing. This took a life of its own in the game, and it was cool for us.
So... I think the principle's fine. That's the delivery that's moronic, if anything.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387758Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design
Completely off-topic: did you put down Vreeg's rules of setting design in writing somewhere? How about discussing them in a separate thread? :D
Well, like I said, these are just things that jump out at me as I'm reading the rules. Its not stopping me from enjoying the game, its just reinforcing how different it is from what I've done before.
Quote from: Benoist;387774Completely off-topic: did you put down Vreeg's rules of setting design in writing somewhere? How about discussing them in a separate thread? :D
I'm at work right now.
I'll dig them out some time soon, but I found these crossposted in the CBG .
Vreeg's first Rule of Setting Design,
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."
Vreeg's Second Rule of Setting Design,
Consistency is the Handmaiden of Immersion and Versimilitude. Keep good notes, and spend a little time after every creation to 'connect the dots'. If you create a foodtuff or drink, make sure you notate if the bars or inns the players frequent. Is it made locally, or is it imported? If so, where from? If locally made, is it exported?
Vreeg's Third Rule of Setting Design,
The World In Motion is critical for Immersion, so create 'event chains' that happen at all levels of design. The players need to feel like things will happen with or without them; they need to feel like they can affect the outcome, but event-chains need velocity, not just speed.
Vreeg's Fourth Rule of Setting Design,
Create motivated events and NPCs, this will invariably create motivated PCs. Things are not just happening, they happen because they matter to people (NPCs). There is no overacting here, make sure that the settings and event-chains are motivated and that the PCs feel this.
that's all I can find right now.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387707I think Adventure is big enough as a concept. Characters are in constant danger and conflict, pursuing tasks in a dynamic and heroic manner.
I will say this: I have run many adventures where the PCs forgot to even bother looking for treasure after an encounter, or "search the bodies" or whatever. Often enough there are very specific missions going on, they have places to be, or for other reasons.. they can't spend time looting or selling.
I don't think that's at all specific to 4e though. AD&D 2e has always played pretty much like that in my experience, and even 3e did sometimes.
Quote from: Benoist;387721What I'm trying to wrap my mind around is what this game is exactly about. You know how you can take a game and in one or two sentences, you can pretty much convey the core concept of the game. Like "it's about going down the dungeon, killing things, taking their stuff, going back to the village, and repeat" (I seem to remember that's how Mike Mearls summarized D&D some time ago)? I'd like someone who really knows the game inside out to describe 4e using a sentence or two, like this.
I'd like to understand what this game is supposed to be used for.
In my estimation, 4E is pretty much about playing fantasy superheroes.
This is a bit of an oversimplification of course, but 4E is built around exception based rules design, meaning that the game is based around PC's acting contrary to the physics that govern the rest of the world they live in. By definition, this makes it a superhero game, albeit with a bit of epic fantasy window dressing.
Granted, PC's are not superheroes in the vein of Dr. Strange, Superman or the Silver Surfer...but certainly they operate on the level of the X-Men or Avengers.
To me, 4E stands out for what it isn't, more than it stands out for what it is. The original game through 2E was vague and open to interpretation, while 3E was a Frankenstein mishmash trying to be everything at once. 4E is very focused and specific, and a lot of things that were done with D&D aren't really supported by 4E at all.
In a general sense, I think they got it right. 4E better represents the game I've been trying to get out of D&D since 2E than anything previous. It also better resembles(in a general sense) the game described by the 3.5 books and the game people were trying to play with 3.5 back before the announcement of 4E split people into camps. I was a regular lurker on the WotC forums and rpg.net before the announcement of 4E, and the 3.5E system seemed in conflict in a general sense with the game people were discussing.
Quote from: Shazbot79;387846In my estimation, 4E is pretty much about playing fantasy superheroes.
This is a bit of an oversimplification of course, but 4E is built around exception based rules design, meaning that the game is based around PC's acting contrary to the physics that govern the rest of the world they live in. By definition, this makes it a superhero game, albeit with a bit of epic fantasy window dressing.
Granted, PC's are not superheroes in the vein of Dr. Strange, Superman or the Silver Surfer...but certainly they operate on the level of the X-Men or Avengers.
I wouldn't go that far. I'd put it more on the level of playing fantasy action heroes. There isn't as clear a break between PCs and normals as there are between Supers and normals. PCs are more defined by having more resources and being able to dig deeper for a little extra in a crisis than having more power.
Take John McLean from Die Hard. He looks perfectly normal, its only when everything goes to shit and people are shooting at him that you see he's different.
Quote from: Werekoala;387570So... now I should like it? I was always a "let the dice fall where they may" sort.
Nope. It's simply not something that's been added as advice in any recent edition.
Seanchai
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;387847In a general sense, I think they got it right. 4E better represents the game I've been trying to get out of D&D since 2E than anything previous. It also better resembles(in a general sense) the game described by the 3.5 books and the game people were trying to play with 3.5 back before the announcement of 4E split people into camps. I was a regular lurker on the WotC forums and rpg.net before the announcement of 4E, and the 3.5E system seemed in conflict in a general sense with the game people were discussing.
Yeah. The uselessness of fighters in 3.5, the need for extensive buffing before combat and the dominance of save-or-dies really clashed with the kinds of games people wanted to play (the descriptions of which always seemed to include the words "deadly" and "low magic"). 4e handles those problems really well.
Quote from: Shazbot79;387846In my estimation, 4E is pretty much about playing fantasy superheroes.
This is a bit of an oversimplification of course, but 4E is built around exception based rules design, meaning that the game is based around PC's acting contrary to the physics that govern the rest of the world they live in. By definition, this makes it a superhero game, albeit with a bit of epic fantasy window dressing.
Granted, PC's are not superheroes in the vein of Dr. Strange, Superman or the Silver Surfer...but certainly they operate on the level of the X-Men or Avengers.
I'm not sure I agree. 'Exception-based' doesn't really mean characters are breaking physics, exactly...virtually EVERY ability a character has in ANY game system has to be an 'exception'. For an ability to be worth mentioning, it has to be something a character can't already do - unless another character could do it without a bonus. In 3.5 you example Combat Reflexes is an 'exception' because it lets you do something you normally couldn't - make an AoO when flat-footed.
4e may have a supers feel because the word 'power' floats around alot, but 3.5 characters have more setting-breaking powers by a substantial margin. Whether you consider that a feature or a bug is up to you.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;387849Take John McLean from Die Hard. He looks perfectly normal, its only when everything goes to shit and people are shooting at him that you see he's different.
Die Hard only makes sense once you realize that Unbreakable is its prequel. ;)
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;387859Yeah. The uselessness of fighters in 3.5, the need for extensive buffing before combat and the dominance of save-or-dies really clashed with the kinds of games people wanted to play (the descriptions of which always seemed to include the words "deadly" and "low magic"). 4e handles those problems really well.
The "low magic" part of 3.5e complaints was about setting breaking magic(mostly non-combat) and magic that reduced non-spellcasters to sidekick status. This problem was mostly a creation of 3E, as these issues were theoretically possible in earlier editions but rarely happened at the table. That sort of magic has been almost entirely removed in 4E. I'm not sure what you mean by deadly. Most of the complaints on that score I remember were complaints about random death to dice, of which save-or-die was the most obvious example. Despite what people say about 4E, death is very possible in 4E. I've killed a number of PCs as DM, and our local RPGA has produced more than its share of casualties. It requires a series of dice rolls to go against you in 4E to die though, and its difficult to die without making some bad decisions to help those dice rolls along. Every death I've seen in 4E was somebody's fault(either the dead PC or their friends), as opposed to a die roll.
Quote from: jormungand1;387701But then again, I'm taking that out of context, so maybe Yahtzee means something else, but to me its a clear warning to steer clear of the tyranny of fun trap.
There's not much context to get -- it's a blurb from an ad.
Coming from the
cultural context of video-games and the "Developer's Paradox", it means
everyone who is a fan that bitches. It is
not exclusionary. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try to change things, nor does it mean you shouldn't keep some things as they are.
Any alteration to a franchise will result in bitching from any part of the fandom.
It's not a call to a certain style of design, it has nothing to do with Melan's own personal views on this supposed "tyranny", it's merely making the statement that you, as the developer, will never be able to do anything right, no matter what, whether you're developing Melan's dream game or catering to AM's personal tastes. A group of people will always be unhappy.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;387865The "low magic" part of 3.5e complaints was about setting breaking magic(mostly non-combat) and magic that reduced non-spellcasters to sidekick status. This problem was mostly a creation of 3E, as these issues were theoretically possible in earlier editions but rarely happened at the table. That sort of magic has been almost entirely removed in 4E. I'm not sure what you mean by deadly. Most of the complaints on that score I remember were complaints about random death to dice, of which save-or-die was the most obvious example.
While I have lost the occasional PC in 3.x, I never found it particularly deadly compared to other games (WFRP, BRP, even earlier versions of D&D, etc.). You get a lot of HP if you build your char right (or have the right spells on), it's easy to jack up your saves to resist most save-or-dies, and you're usually coated in layer upon layer of ablative defenses (deathward, spell turning, spell resistance, antimagic shell, etc.) and soaked in healing magic for most of combat anyhow.
Damage scales poorly in 3.x, so a fireball or other "blast" spell will only rarely kill an equivalent level monster. Frex, a 5th level fireball will deal about 18 points of damage on average (if the saving throw for half is failed, for that matter), while a CR5 monster with a d8 HD has on average 23 HP. A hardy CR5 monster (d12 HD) has on average 33 HP. It was because of this problem with damage that save-or-dies became so important.
The situation also works in reverse for monsters attacking PCs, but is exacerbated because PCs usually have easier access to healing magic than monsters do (Wands of Lesser Vigour in particular were basically game-breaking).
And despite the above, I still see people regularly say that they want their 3.5 games to be "deadly" and for "damage to mean something" and so on.
Quote from: Werekoala;387755Hm. A GURPS background advantage or patron is a hook if the GM wants to use it. Letting the players come up with their own quests may be a hook too, but it hooks the DM, not the player, IMO.
Clarification - to me a "quest" is mandatory (almost like a geas or something) rather than just an interesting background quirk - that might just be my personal interpretation.
By the current definition, Quests aren't mandatory. They're just .. goal centered adventures. In AD&D1e, they offer the same advice for an assassin who decides to independently undertake the study of poisons, for example.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;387865That sort of magic has been almost entirely removed in 4E.
The Rituals break a setting pretty throughly. Phantom Steeds, recalling a chest, teleport, etc.
If you use the 4e ritual system there are a lot of implications for a setting in there.
Quote from: Shazbot79;387846In my estimation, 4E is pretty much about playing fantasy superheroes.
This is a bit of an oversimplification of course, but 4E is built around exception based rules design, meaning that the game is based around PC's acting contrary to the physics that govern the rest of the world they live in. By definition, this makes it a superhero game, albeit with a bit of epic fantasy window dressing.
Granted, PC's are not superheroes in the vein of Dr. Strange, Superman or the Silver Surfer...but certainly they operate on the level of the X-Men or Avengers.
That was kind of what I was saying to AM.
Quote from: CRKrueger;387750...you don't really know what Immersion is, because you haven't experienced it to the same degree some of us have, you're just not wired that way. Which is fine, but it makes it really pointless discussing things like Immersion with you.
So Immersion is something that you can't explain to others, only exists in the minds of those who HAVE experianced it to the same degree as some of you have (and presumably as a result agree with you), and has no obligation to be discussed with nonbelivers?
When did Immersion stop being a term of discussion and start being a prop for religious enlightenment?
Ps, I would define the opposite of the metagame, the game itself, playing without paying attention to the meta environment. It would (in 4th edition ) include things like not taking the so called "patch" feats and playing Skill Challenges directly as they are in the DMG1. It would best perhaps be called Naive or Good Faith (in the system and your fellows if you want to get specific) Gaming.
Quote from: Logos7;387926So Immersion is something that you can't explain to others, only exists in the minds of those who HAVE experienced it to the same degree as some of you have (and presumably as a result agree with you), and has no obligation to be discussed with nonbelievers?
When did Immersion stop being a term of discussion and start being a prop for religious enlightenment?
As soon as you put a capital "I" on it.
People believe what they want to believe. But yes, this is the exact same tactic that has been used to justify the forgie supremacist/brain damage complex when they had that going on. But then, as now, it turned out that we were talking about people who simply had no fucking idea how other people game, or why things work.
I think people gloss over the fact that personal taste has as much or more to do with immersion than the system. If you dislike a system, you're going to have trouble being immersed, simply due to your dislike. If you like a system you'll put more personal effort into immersion.
Quote from: Logos7;387926When did Immersion stop being a term of discussion and start being a prop for religious enlightenment?
It's not a prop so much as an argument of convenience.
"This game is bad."
"Why? I like it."
"It's not immersive."
"What does that mean?"
"I can't explain it. It means different things to different folks. You have to experience it to know what it is."
"So...the game is bad because of something you can't even really define or that folks agree on?"
"Yep."
"..."
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;387946It's not a prop so much as an argument of convenience.
"This game is bad."
"Why? I like it."
"It's not immersive."
"What does that mean?"
"I can't explain it. It means different things to different folks. You have to experience it to know what it is."
"So...the game is bad because of something you can't even really define or that folks agree on?"
"Yep."
"..."
Seanchai
OK, i'm busy and at work, but the stupidity-level on this thread just went through the roof.
The only people who think Immersion cannot be defined are the folks who don't like how it has been defined so far. For example, certain posters who keep posting on a subject but avoid answering this exact question.
Quote from: VreegQuote from: AMQuote from: LordVreegNo. It's not about handholding. It is simply that some rules are written to certain things better than others. Very purely and simply. In-game logic helps immersion, and immersion is the opposite of metagaming.
I disagree.
with what part, exactly? I was not trying to be difficult, or for once, elitest. Are you disagreeing that Immersion and Metagaming are opposites?
And for some definitions,
here is an old one, that is useful in seeing the earlier incarnation of the term. (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/theory/rgfa/faq0.html)
here is a more recent one (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Immersion)
And Seanchai, I have NEVER declined to give a definition for Immersion, nor have most people on this thread. Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player.
Not hard to explain at all.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387949And Seanchai, I have NEVER declined to give a definition for Immersion, nor have most people on this thread. Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player.
Not hard to explain at all.
Maybe I'm stuck on the definitions here, but beyond a certain point (the ability to "play" the character imaginatively) I would consider that the sign of a serious delusion.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387949And Seanchai, I have NEVER declined to give a definition for Immersion, nor have most people on this thread. Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player.
Not hard to explain at all.
Ditto.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387949Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player.
Not hard to explain at all.
It's the
why and
how that are tricky to figure out, and that's where people's personal preferences come into play.
Quote from: The Butcher;387958It's the why and how that are tricky to figure out, and that's where people's personal preferences come into play.
Why what? How... what? I don't understand.
Quote from: Benoist;387959Why what? How... what? I don't understand.
Why and how immersion happens.
Group A feels GURPS is an immersive system.
Group B thinks GURPS is too fiddly, but immersion happens when they're playing D&D.
Group C feels D&D is immersive, but only when playing with GM #1. GM #2 uses the same system, same dition, down to the same houserules, but his games just don't feel as immersive as GM #1's.
This is my personal, anecdotal experience.
OH. I see. I understand better now. Thanks.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387953Maybe I'm stuck on the definitions here, but beyond a certain point (the ability to "play" the character imaginatively) I would consider that the sign of a serious delusion.
What would be the "sign of a serious delusion", exactly? The ability to understand how another individual - fictitious or not - thinks, how they feel, how they would react to a given situation, and make a good faith attempt to ignore your own thoughts and emotional state as well as whatever window (be it a game or social interaction) that the information regarding the other entity has been attained, in an effort to understand what that entity would do in a given situation, to act as that individual would act?
That that would be a "sign of a serious delusion" is absurd.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387949Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player.
I thought you were posting from work, not a mental institution...
Seanchai
Quote from: The Butcher;387960Group A feels GURPS is an immersive system.
Group B thinks GURPS is too fiddly, but immersion happens when they're playing D&D.
Group C feels D&D is immersive, but only when playing with GM #1. GM #2 uses the same system, same dition, down to the same houserules, but his games just don't feel as immersive as GM #1's.
Which is what makes it bunk. I don't doubt the sincerity of those reporting immersion, but if it's so highly variable and personal, if it's not tied to anything specific or concrete, what's the point of using it as some kind of measure or discussion?
Seanchai
Am I right in assuming that this is an actually position ? That some people on here think that those that chose to try and get in the mind of their PC and act in character have some sort of mental illlness?
Is that a genuine position or an amusing ironic meta-joke harking back to Ron Edwards finest hour?
Out of interest is there a direct correlation between 4e fans and those that regard in character roleplay a delusional state?
Just curious?
I've said it before, but there are also different ways in which people immerse. I'm quite capable of immersing in a game when I'm the GM, but it's a different sort than when I'm a player.
QuoteAm I right in assuming that this is an actually position ? That some people on here think that those that chose to try and get in the mind of their PC and act in character have some sort of mental illlness?
Is that a genuine position or an amusing ironic meta-joke harking back to Ron Edwards finest hour?
Out of interest is there a direct correlation between 4e fans and those that regard in character roleplay a delusional state?
Just curious?
No correlations could ever be drawn because there will never be any studies.
Anywho, to answer your question, I think there's a definite difference between assuming the role of a character and trying to
become the character, and the words people use may make it seem like they're trying to do one or the other, because there is no clear, concise nomenclature for what they're trying to do.
As some grognards elsewhere have noted, there was a definite "arms length" between you and your character in older editions of D&D. You still used them as a device to explore the world and came up with a unique personality, etc, but you didn't try too hard to become them. In the 90s, with White-Wolf and other high-drama/story games, there came about the notion that if you weren't trying to
be and think like your character at all times (rather than just playing the role for fun), then somehow you were role-playing wrong. Because you're trying to really
act, and that required getting into the head of your char as much as possible, etc.
It's certainly possible to become immersed in the world without having a very emotional attachment to a character (or any of the method acting type stuff associated with it).
Even still, I don't think it's necessarily delusional to give characters their own life in your mind. This sort of method is what a lot of authors use to create interesting and dynamic characters with a spark of "life." I don't think the method is really necessary for "real" role-playing, though, nor do I think it necessarily requires a 1:1 relationship between player and character (otherwise my GMing would suck).
Quote from: Seanchai;387972I thought you were posting from work, not a mental institution...
Seanchai
Wow. I don't even know where to start. You are one serious fucktard, dude.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387715Quote1) I don't think so. We've spoken of this before, thee and I. I still see in-game logic as critical for immersion. The players need to be able to think as their characters, at some level, to immerse at any level.
Metagaming is the opposite. It is thinking of the rules, thinking like the player.
Well, I think players require less handholding than that. I know that there's a strong tendency to think "oh WE roleplay, but nobody else does..not like us" (and you might even believe that its having rules that allows for this to happen.
But the truth is, you don't know if the first condition is even true, and the second one is entirely a matter of opinion.
Immersion, by definition, requires the player to be making decisions as if they were the character. (Debates can certainly be waged over whether there's also a component of emotional identification or even a transubstantiation of consciousness. And, if so, to what degree those need to be established. And, in addition, whether or not that's healthy. But while all of that can provide interesting fodder for discussion, it all rests on the that fundamental foundation: Making decisions as your character.)
Dissociated mechanics, by definition, require the player to be making decisions which are only mechanical in nature -- the mechanics are disconnected from the game world (and, thus, the characters). Since the characters have no functional explanation for a dissociated mechanic, it follows that a decision made regarding a dissociated mechanic
cannot be a decision made as if the player were the character.
This isn't a matter of "handholding" or a lack thereof. Nor is it a matter of opinion. This is a fundamental, factual incompatibility: If you're using dissociated mechanics you are, by definition, not immersed in your character.
Going beyond that, I'm willing to make an even more provocative statement: When you are using dissociated mechanics you are not roleplaying. Which is not to say that you can't roleplay while playing a game featuring dissociated mechanics, but simply to say that
in the moment when you are using those mechanics you are not roleplaying.
I say this is a provocative statement because I'm sure it's going to provoke strong responses. But, frankly, it just looks like common sense to me: If you are manipulating mechanics which are dissociated from your character -- which have no meaning to your character -- then you are not engaged in the process of playing a role. In that moment, you are doing something else. (It's practically tautological.)
You may be multi-tasking or rapidly switching back-and-forth between roleplaying and not-roleplaying. You may even be using the output from the dissociated mechanics to inform your roleplaying. But when you're actually engaged in the task of using those dissociated mechanics you are not playing a role; you are not roleplaying.
I think the distinction is important because, IMO, it lies at the heart of what defines a roleplaying game. What's the difference between the boardgame
Arkham Horror and the roleplaying game
Call of Cthulhu? In
Arkham Horror each player takes on the role of a specific character; those characters are defined mechanically; the characters have detailed backgrounds; and plenty of people have played in sessions of
Arkham Horror where people have talked extensively in character.
I pick
Arkham Horror because it exists right on the cusp between being an RPG and a not-RPG. So when people start roleplaying during the game (which they indisputably do when they start talking in character), it raises the provocative question: Does it become a roleplaying game in that moment?
OTOH, I've had that same sort of moment happen while playing
Monopoly. For example, there was a game where somebody said, "I'm buying Boardwalk because I'm a shoe. And I like walking." Goofy? Sure. Bizarre? Sure. Roleplaying? Yup.
Let me try to make the distinction clear: When we say "roleplaying game", do we just mean "a game where roleplaying happens"? If so, then I think the term "roleplaying game" becomes so ridiculously broad that it loses all meaning. (Since it includes everything from
Monopoly to
Super Mario Bros..)
Rather, I think the term "roleplaying game" becomes meaningful when there is a direct connection between the
game and the
roleplaying. In other words, when the mechanics of the game:
(1) Allow you to input a decision made
as the character (in other words, a decision made while playing the role).
(2) Interpret that decision mechanically and provide a result which is also explicable
to the character (and, thus, can be used to continue playing the role).
In other words, roleplaying games are specifically defined by the fact that their mechanics are associated with the game world and the character.
Of course, as I wrote in the original essay on dissociated mechanics (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/dissociated-mechanics.html), all game mechanics are -- to varying degrees -- abstracted and metagamed. For example, the destructive power of a
fireball spell is defined by the number of d6's you roll for damage; and the number of d6's you roll is determined by the caster level of the wizard casting the spell. If you asked a character about d6's of damage or caster levels, they'd have no idea what you're talking about. But they could tell you what a fireball is and they could tell you that casters of greater skill can create more intense flames during the casting of the spell.
So a
fireball spell has a direct association to the game world. Which means that when you're making decisions about casting (or avoiding) a
fireball spell, you are roleplaying those decisions.
It's very tempting to see this in a purely negative light: As if to say, "associated mechanics don't get in the way of roleplaying".
But it's actually more meaningful than that: The act of using an associated mechanic
is the act of playing a role. No one's going to give you a Tony Award for it, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the act.
(Which doesn't mean you can't add a metagame component to it, of course. For example, "I know I can use my
fireball because the DM never hits us with more than three encounters per day.")
At this point, I'd like to head off a couple of likely responses at the pass:
(1) "You're saying that dissociated mechanics are bad!" No, I'm not. I'm saying they're inimical to playing a role. That's not the same thing. There's all kinds of things that dissociated mechanics can be useful for. When playing an RPG, most of us have agendas beyond simply "playing a role". (Telling a good story, for example. Or emulating a particular genre trope.) And dissociated mechanics have been put to all sorts of good use in accomplishing those goals.
This becomes even more true when we consider that many things we call roleplaying games would probably be more accurately described as "storytelling games". (
Wushu, for example. White Wolf's Storyteller, on the other hand,
is an RPG. Which is why this useful distinction of terminology will probably never prove functional.)
(2) "You're saying that 4th Edition isn't a roleplaying game!" No, I'm not. Large swaths of 4th Edition's mechanics are still clearly associative and I feel perfectly comfortable in describing the result as an RPG.
But it's equally true that the plethora of dissociated mechanics in 4th Edition make the game entirely unsuitable for those of us who, at best, want a very light spicing of situational dissociated mechanics. You can't do much of anything in 4th Edition without having your roleplaying disrupted by dissociated mechanics. (Particularly since the core mechanic of skill challenges are inherently dissociated in their design.)
Which is fine if those dissociated mechanics are serving some function you find valuable. In the case of 4th Edition's dissociated mechanics, I don't find this to be true. In the case of
Wushu or
3:16 - Carnage Amongst the Stars, I do. To some extent this is because I'm looking for something very different from D&D than I'm looking for in
3:16. But to a larger extent it's because I feel that everything 4th Edition does with dissociated mechanics could just as easily be done
without dissociated mechanics (and more usefully so).
But that's a separate debate.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;387982Wow. I don't even know where to start. You are one serious fucktard, dude.
You're saying it like it's any surprise.
Justin, I actually have the Alexandrian as one of the few hotlinks on my dsahboard.
So that you know.
And I read the Shakespearean bits with great enjoyment.
I think one of the problems with your argument is that you don't make it clear that Immersion is never 100%.
It is always a percentage. The mood, a good GM, a good setting, an associated mechanic, can all increase the immersion, the same as a bad day, a crappy GM, or a disassociated mechanic can decrease immersion.
It's not that one system or another precludes Immersion, some jsut have more associative Mechanics. And mechanics that force thinking like a player (we were talking about wishlists) disincline immersion, as it promotes metagaming.
Or that is my take.
I like Justin's post. He puts it in his own way, and I find myself in general agreement with what he's saying.
Quote from: AMQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegAnd Seanchai, I have NEVER declined to give a definition for Immersion, nor have most people on this thread. Immersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player.
Not hard to explain at all.
Maybe I'm stuck on the definitions here, but beyond a certain point (the ability to "play" the character imaginatively) I would consider that the sign of a serious delusion.
Ha.
No. Thinking 'as' a role, becoming a role, being 'in character', these are all examples. Serious delusion? I suppose you'll want to go to calling us devil-worshippers next?
Mechanics that encourage in-game thinking help this. Mechanics that encourage out-of game thinking (metagaming) hinder it. Again, very simple.
The fact that you argue this is why you keep coming across as someone who does not/does not want to understand the concept of roleplaying. I am sorry it comes across as an insult, but when something this basic and fundamental in the game is misunderstood, I don't know what else to think. I understand you run and play/played diffferent variations of D&D and other games, you evince, at times, good knowledge of games, but you are really coming across, again, as being argumentative and keeping arguments going just for the sake of it.
Quote from: Angry_Douchebag;387982Wow. I don't even know where to start. You are one serious fucktard, dude.
It's OK.
It's the internet. The place with little-to-no consequence for acting like no one ever would in public. It lets out the 7th grade misanthrope in some people.
It's either that, or he actually did not understand the post, which is almost sadder.
Justin Alexander and LordVreeg speak the truth.
I find it puzzling that some people have difficulty with the concept of 'immersion', thinking that it must either be purely subjective or involve mental illness.
Quote from: Akrasia;388004Justin Alexander and LordVreeg speak the truth.
I find it puzzling that some people have difficulty with the concept of 'immersion', thinking that it must either be purely subjective or involve mental illness.
If anything I find it hard, as an actor and a writer and creator of things who is used to such modes of thinking, to imagine one is not capable of such imagination.
I mean seriously, that sense of involving myself in the fiction to let it flow where it may, is the whole reason I became interested in all of this shit in the first place.
Does it really surprise anyone that the 4e ideologues seem incapable of understanding immersion? I mean if you really think that 4e didn't change so much on the roleplaying/immersion front, then that's sort of a given isn't it?
Some people are great at math, but couldn't tell you what two sentences of Paradise Lost meant. Others are great at reading people, or telling jokes or doing something else. Some GM's are great at tinkering with systems but can't write their own. Some can come up with great ideas for Sci-fi campaigns, but their creativity hits a roadblock in Fantasy. Why should the ability to use the imagination for immersive roleplaying be any different?
Quote from: CRKrueger;388007Why should the ability to use the imagination for immersive roleplaying be any different?
Because... we're talking about role playing games? ;)
Quote from: Akrasia;388004I find it puzzling that some people have difficulty with the concept of 'immersion', thinking that it must either be purely subjective or involve mental illness.
It's not purely subjective, but it is possible to break it down into distinct categories.
Quote from: Akrasia;388004I find it puzzling that some people have difficulty with the concept of 'immersion', thinking that it must either be purely subjective or involve mental illness.
You really shouldn't, considering the line of thought has been around since plato, (who considered actors dangerous because "what if they started acting like the [admittedly jerktastic] gods they depicted in their plays").
Quote from: Logos7;388015You really shouldn't, considering the line of thought has been around since plato, (who considered actors dangerous because "what if they started acting like the [admittedly jerktastic] gods they depicted in their plays").
Ahh. If Plato said it then, that makes it perfectly "reasonable". :D
People who are predisposed to mental illness sometimes seek out total escape in things like RPGs or video-games (or method acting), but that doesn't make the rest of us crazy.
Of course, it's extremely hard for an insane person to admit they have a problem, so who knows. ;)
All it is is a matter of knowing where to draw the line. Most people know where the line is at. Some people cross it and keep going until they hit the deep end. If 'Krog' keeps talking to you well after the game about his bounty kills, even in Calc class, you may want to consider getting 'Krog' some help.
Funny thing, the RL example I'm drawing Krog from was a 4e player I met en passant. There had to be some character immersion going on. :)
Quote from: Peregrin;388017People who are predisposed to mental illness sometimes seek out total escape in things like RPGs or video-games (or method acting), but that doesn't make the rest of us crazy.
Of course, it's extremely hard for an insane person to admit they have a problem, so who knows. ;)
Or they end up living like a hermit in the middle of nowhere, like Ted Kaczynski (the unabomber).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski
Quote from: Logos7;388015You really shouldn't, considering the line of thought has been around since plato, (who considered actors dangerous because "what if they started acting like the [admittedly jerktastic] gods they depicted in their plays").
:rolleyes:
Well, if it were still 4th century BCE you might have a point. However, the past 24 centuries have demonstrated amply that one can engage in a variety of immersive activities (e.g., roleplaying, acting, storytelling, writing, etc.) without suffering from any kind of mental illness.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387996Justin, I actually have the Alexandrian as one of the few hotlinks on my dsahboard. So that you know. And I read the Shakespearean bits with great enjoyment.
Thanks!
QuoteI think one of the problems with your argument is that you don't make it clear that Immersion is never 100%. It is always a percentage. The mood, a good GM, a good setting, an associated mechanic, can all increase the immersion, the same as a bad day, a crappy GM, or a disassociated mechanic can decrease immersion.
Oh, I agree.
My personal opinions of immersion is tied up with my own experiences as an actor, particularly my interest in Stanislavski's and Meisner's theories/practices of acting. And nobody ever manages to be 100% immersed at all times.
But it all rests on a basic foundation of "thinking like/as your character".
QuoteIt's not that one system or another precludes Immersion, some jsut have more associative Mechanics.
And here we disagree. If you are using a dissociated mechanic you are not immersed. That is very much the system precluding immersion. If immersion is happening at some other point in the same evening, that's fantastic. But it doesn't mean that it wasn't precluded by the system in that moment.
And, personally, I find true immersion to be a very delicate state of affairs. Even the best actors in the world struggle with it. It can't just be turned on or off like a switch. So if you're interested in immersion, I think it behooves you to take the roadblocks out of the way.
Non-immersive roleplaying is a bit easier to flip in and out of, so it's probably easier to balance the non-roleplaying of dissociated mechanics with the roleplaying you're doing outside of those dissociated mechanics.
But one place where I still find this heavily disruptive are new players: IME, new players tend to glom onto the idea of roleplaying really easily. With associated mechanics they just tell me what they want to do, I interpret it mechanically, and we keep playing. With dissociated mechanics, OTOH, they're forced to interface with the game mechanics. It creates a less intuitive learning environment. It also has an impact on play styles: With associated systems, new players are some of the most creative and out-of-the-box roleplayers you'll ever find. With dissociated systems, OTOH, new players are quickly taught to focus on figuring out and using the mechanics -- which means they get stuck in the box. They play the game like a boardgame.
Quote from: The AlexandrianQuote from: VreegIt's not that one system or another precludes Immersion, some jsut have more associative Mechanics.
And here we disagree. If you are using a dissociated mechanic you are not immersed. That is very much the system precluding immersion. If immersion is happening at some other point in the same evening, that's fantastic. But it doesn't mean that it wasn't precluded by the system in that moment.
You misunderstood.
Restated, I don't want to say that you can't be immersed in a specific game, or that any roleplayig game absolutely precludes immersion. Some games, however, have more associative mechanics than others.
In other words: yes, dissociated mechanics are the antithesis of immersion. Role playing game systems will have some mechanics that are associated, some dissociated, and will never absolutely reach either extreme of being constituted entirely of associated or dissociated mechanics.
That's what Vreeg means. Right?
Quote from: Benoist;388022In other words: yes, dissociated mechanics are the antithesis of immersion. Role playing game systems will have some mechanics that are associated, some dissociated, and will never absolutely reach either extreme of being constituted entirely of associated or dissociated mechanics.
That's what Vreeg means. Right?
That's what he means, yes. Of course, why listen to Lord Vreeg, he like immersive roleplaying so he's obviously insane, despite his posts nearly always being the definition of measured, logical discourse.
I think it's worthy to note that one of the most contentious RPGs, 4e, is also the one with one of the highest percentages of dissociative mechanics.
Quote from: Benoist;388022In other words: yes, dissociated mechanics are the antithesis of immersion. Role playing game systems will have some mechanics that are associated, some dissociated, and will never absolutely reach either extreme of being constituted entirely of associated or dissociated mechanics.
That's what Vreeg means. Right?
close enough.
I was running my online steel isle game at the same time. Makes me less effective, being in two places at once.
You can't get away from some metagame rules, the game needs some. It's just when you have a clear choice of a game that promotes in game logic, such as the type of creature that lives some where, or the type of treasure found, you want to use those rules.
Hell, when I used to give GMing pointers over 2 decades ago, i'd try to teach them to have things make sense.
Rules that fly in the face of this are the ones that destroy immersion.
Quote from: Benoist;388008Because... we're talking about role playing games? ;)
Ah... it's a
game,
that explains why in the world everyone has equal capacity to play chess, go, poker, charades, trivial pursuit... oh wait. :hmm:
Not being able to "play pretend" as a child (especially in a social situation with others) is actually a sign of autism.
Really, in order to not "get" what to do in a role-playing game, you'd have to be fucked up in the head. Literally. Not Ron Edwards pseudo-psychology style -- there's medical research into the affects of autism on creativity, imagination, and how those things intersect with common social "play" experiences.
Now, not "getting" what the goal of play is one thing, but if you're handed a character sheet and some personality cues, and someone tells you "you're playing X guy, he's kind of like Y guy from this other thing that you know", and you draw a complete blank and have no idea what to do (to the point where you can't relate to the activity on any level), it's a sign of stunted development.
After all, roles are things we deal with everyday in social situations. Without knowing how to employ them and "act", your social development really isn't complete.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;387990At this point, I'd like to head off a couple of likely responses at the pass:
(1) "You're saying that dissociated mechanics are bad!" No, I'm not. I'm saying they're inimical to playing a role. That's not the same thing. There's all kinds of things that dissociated mechanics can be useful for. When playing an RPG, most of us have agendas beyond simply "playing a role". (Telling a good story, for example. Or emulating a particular genre trope.) And dissociated mechanics have been put to all sorts of good use in accomplishing those goals.
This becomes even more true when we consider that many things we call roleplaying games would probably be more accurately described as "storytelling games". (Wushu, for example. White Wolf's Storyteller, on the other hand, is an RPG. Which is why this useful distinction of terminology will probably never prove functional.)
(2) "You're saying that 4th Edition isn't a roleplaying game!" No, I'm not. Large swaths of 4th Edition's mechanics are still clearly associative and I feel perfectly comfortable in describing the result as an RPG.
But it's equally true that the plethora of dissociated mechanics in 4th Edition make the game entirely unsuitable for those of us who, at best, want a very light spicing of situational dissociated mechanics. You can't do much of anything in 4th Edition without having your roleplaying disrupted by dissociated mechanics. (Particularly since the core mechanic of skill challenges are inherently dissociated in their design.)
Which is fine if those dissociated mechanics are serving some function you find valuable. In the case of 4th Edition's dissociated mechanics, I don't find this to be true. In the case of Wushu or 3:16 - Carnage Amongst the Stars, I do. To some extent this is because I'm looking for something very different from D&D than I'm looking for in 3:16. But to a larger extent it's because I feel that everything 4th Edition does with dissociated mechanics could just as easily be done without dissociated mechanics (and more usefully so).
But that's a separate debate.
This part of Justin's post sums up my own position on this. Good job, sir.
Quote from: Peregrin;388031Not being able to "play pretend" as a child (especially in a social situation with others) is actually a sign of autism.
Really, in order to not "get" what to do in a role-playing game, you'd have to be fucked up in the head.
I'm not talking about "get" as much as "get into". Everyone likes music, but some people really get into music and it the music they listen to becomes an important part of their lives. Some people get into literature more then others. Some people are avid movie-goers, others will catch the movie on cable if it happens to come on when they have free time. Even actors have different schools of acting they identify with.
Why is roleplaying any different...it's not.
Some people get into tactical aspects of combat more then others. Some people get into sandbox play more then others, some people get into dungeoneering more then others. Some people get into immersion more then others.
If you really get into immersion, 4e and it's highly dissociative mechanics aren't for you. If you don't get into immersion as much, you probably can't figure out why 4e bothers some people so much. 40,000 threads aren't going to let one side see the other's position. People are just wired differently.
No one's brain-damaged, no one's autistic, no one's insane, people just experience table-top role-playing in different ways.
Quote from: jibbajibba;387978That some people on here think that those that chose to try and get in the mind of their PC and act in character have some sort of mental illlness?
Nope. However, believing that you can really "become" the character is right up there with thinking you're Napoleon.
Seanchai
Quote from: CRKrueger;388007Does it really surprise anyone that the 4e ideologues seem incapable of understanding immersion?
I think they understand it well enough. They just don't need to shape it into a weapon, thus their use of the term, their definitions of it, etc., aren't colored by said need.
Seanchai
Well, that seems pretty conciliatory, but I still disagree. 4E is just as "immersive" as any game that uses dice and character sheets, and the distinction itself is bullshit.
Skill challenges were held up as the central dissociative theme and implied as mandatory parts of 4E a second ago, but all they really are is a way arrange plain old skill checks, and (perhaps more importantly) aren't in any way mandatory...I've seen and run plenty of games where no skill challenges took place. Wish lists were held up as a central immersion breaking theme yesterday and those are also completely not mandatory.
The real issue is this: It's D&D, and D&D ain't serious. THAT breaks your immersion. D&D (without plenty of changes) is not a game of personal introspection, historical reenactment or amateur melodrama. It's a game about adventure, and not particularly realistic adventures either. D&D is the animated series, the action movie, the silver-age comic book. It doesn't try to be anything else, and while some people don't appreciate that and have some other ideas? That's for them to pursue. No excuses for "just not liking it" are even necessary.
Oh by the way, that's at the core of the resentment against video games too.
So..whats the big problem? There actually isn't a big problem. The players like it, the guys who don't like it, aren't being forced to play, so in a mature world we should all be fine.
However some people do like to turn these terms and simple differences into something very hostile, and then feel as if they have to justify a never-ending litany of things they don't like, and are openly resentful of other peoples enjoyment. At that point, any excuse, any bullshit swine term-- will do.
It's tragic in that nobody actually needs an invented excuse not to like anything. People can simply like what they like (and dislike what they dislike..) and there's no need for any conflict.
Quote from: Seanchai;388069Nope. However, believing that you can really "become" the character is right up there with thinking you're Napoleon.
Seanchai
About a year before the end of 3.5 I ran my last major campaign and I advertised in a couple of places and got a number of emails and things from potential new players. One of the guys wrote that he "never broke character" before or after the game, and that he enjoyed wearing costumes, and would need the campaign to have certain details.
Also, he didn't drive, so he'd need a ride, to and from the game.
Ok, so it's funny right now, but whenever I hear about the super immersionists, I still think about that guy. Obviously it's a red flag, (nevermind that I don't have the time to handle some dude's transportation needs) but what struck me most about it is how inward-focused this guy was.
Quote from: CRKrueger;388066If you really get into immersion, 4e and it's highly dissociative mechanics aren't for you.
Or you can recognize the fact that all games are "dissociative" by their very nature, get over it, and do what you've always done while gaming...
But...nah.
Seanchai
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388074Ok, so it's funny right now, but whenever I hear about the super immersionists, I still think about that guy. Obviously it's a red flag, (nevermind that I don't have the time to handle some dude's transportation needs) but what struck me most about it is how inward-focused this guy was.
Yeah. That sounds incredibly anti-social. I prefer playing with the PCs on the character sheets and the human beings at the table.
Quote from: Seanchai;388075Or you can recognize the fact that all games are "dissociative" by their very nature, get over it, and do what you've always done while gaming...
All RPGs have some dissociative mechanics, but some RPGs have more than others. Generally, the more dissociative mechanics I have to regularly deal with, the less likely I am to enjoy playing the game. The more I have to think in game terms while playing, the less I enjoy the RPG. I prefer RPGs where the rules fade into the background most of the time.
For example, I prefer games where I can say my character tries to move to the side, waits for a chance to attack the orc priest when he's not expecting it then charge him, attacking with my axe. Having to actually move the character's figure on a battle grid, following a number of fiddly movement rules is more "game" than I want in my RPGs as I spend too much time thinking in terms of game rules than thinking in what I'm doing in the world. I also dislike games where game actions do not immediately and obviously map to real world actions without having to think up weird ways it could work.
Some dissociative things bother me more than others. An example of what may seem like a minor one (but bothered me greatly) was Gygax's idea in AD&D that PCs could not buy magic items but could sell them to NPCs (who could buy them obviously). This made no sense in the game world unless PCs worn signs that read "PC" so people in the world would know they could not sell magic items to them. The rule got dropped in my campaigns as it really did not have an in-world way of working and there were other ways to limit PC access to magic items that were not nearly so bluntly dissociative.
Some people have a higher tolerance for dissociative mechanics than others do, of course. To me, they are a huge issue that can, when taken too far for my tolerance, totally prevent my enjoyment of a game. Older TSR versions of D&D have less than newer WOTC versions. 4e has so many dissociative mechanics (and they come up so constantly), that I have not been able to enjoy playing 4e at all. This does not mean that 4e is a bad game, just that it is a bad game for those without a fairly high tolerance for dissociative mechanics.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388074About a year before the end of 3.5 I ran my last major campaign and I advertised in a couple of places and got a number of emails and things from potential new players. One of the guys wrote that he "never broke character" before or after the game, and that he enjoyed wearing costumes, and would need the campaign to have certain details.
Also, he didn't drive, so he'd need a ride, to and from the game.
Ok, so it's funny right now, but whenever I hear about the super immersionists, I still think about that guy. Obviously it's a red flag, (nevermind that I don't have the time to handle some dude's transportation needs) but what struck me most about it is how inward-focused this guy was.
There seems to be a least one of these guys in every local game community. In some cases there seems to be a running gag within these circles that "X" is someone great to play with...
P.S. Fuck you to hell, Andy and Tom.
I talked to a guy in a convention in France years ago who actually believed the world as we know it was Mage: the Ascension. He was from the Order of Hermes. His delusions were actually pretty complex and coherent. It was really hard to follow him because he just would not shut up once you got him started. Now, with hindsight, the symptoms he was showing were reminiscent of a schizophrenic person off his meds. That's probably what it was.
Quote from: Benoist;388081I talked to a guy in a convention in France years ago who actually believed the world as we know it was Mage: the Ascension. He was from the Order of Hermes. His delusions were actually pretty complex and coherent. It was really hard to follow him because he just would not shut up once you got him started. Now, with hindsight, the symptoms he was showing were reminiscent of a schizophrenic person off his meds. That's probably what it was.
This isn't just in tabletop rpg games. Many years ago I met some weird person who thought everything in Star Trek was for real. Years later I found out this guy was an undiagnosed schizophrenic.
Quote from: Seanchai;388069Nope. However, believing that you can really "become" the character is right up there with thinking you're Napoleon.
There is a pretty big difference between saying "I have a pretty firm grasp of this person (fictitious or not), and can view the world from their perspective and make decisions that they would probably make" and saying "I can become another person."
Quote from: GnomeWorks;388083There is a pretty big difference between saying "I have a pretty firm grasp of this person (fictitious or not), and can view the world from their perspective and make decisions that they would probably make" and saying "I can become another person."
I agree that there is, but I just think that the first thing is well within the bounds of 4E or any other game.
I love how quickly 4e fanatics have started resorting to Forgist rhetoric. Really just makes the connection all that much more clear.
Quote from: J Arcane;388085I love how quickly 4e fanatics have started resorting to Forgist rhetoric. Really just makes the connection all that much more clear.
But that's the opposite of true. It's actually the detractors that have enthusiastically jumped on things like capitalized terms (Immersion with a capital I), self-glorifying theories (disassociative mechanics!), and a hostile hold-the-line approach against the commoners who haven't yet grown to appreciate the self-nominated taste-makers.
Quote from: Benoist;388081Now, with hindsight, the symptoms he was showing were reminiscent of a schizophrenic person off his meds. That's probably what it was.
In other words, he was mentally ill. People who believe they can "become" their character to any real degree are mentally ill. You can only go so deep with "immersion," regardless of the game or circumstances.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;388089In other words, he was mentally ill. People who believe they can "become" their character to any real degree are mentally ill. You can only go so deep with "immersion," regardless of the game or circumstances.
Seanchai
You know there's a difference between what we are talking about and my schizophrenic example.
You are a disingenuous piece of shit. As usual.
Quote from: RandallS;388077All RPGs have some dissociative mechanics, but some RPGs have more than others.
That is true. However, as "immersion" and "dissociative" are subjective, any attempts to define a game as more immersive or more dissociative than any other in any objective sense are doomed to failure. As you yourself note, some things bother some folks but don't bother others.
So, again, I'm coming back to: What's the point of all this talk?
Seanchai
Quote from: GnomeWorks;388083There is a pretty big difference between saying "I have a pretty firm grasp of this person (fictitious or not), and can view the world from their perspective and make decisions that they would probably make" and saying "I can become another person."
Yes.
But "immersion" seems to be the later. Immersion doesn't seem to be simply making choices, as yourself, based on your idea of what a character would do. It seems to mean being so engrossed in your character that you make choices for him or her almost automatically on a subconscious level.
That
is much, much closer to "becoming" the character.
Seanchai
Quote from: Benoist;388090You are a disingenuous piece of shit. As usual.
And you think you're better than Shaz with stranger on the tram why again? I know you're pissed that your example was used against you, but a tad of decorum
Your behavior aside, you don't know what was wrong with the gentlemen in question. He might not be schizophrenic at all. What we know is a) he was behaving in-character in an extreme way and b) you felt that extreme behavior belied a mental illness.
I do, too. I believe that, despite claims to the contrary, healthy people cannot become so engrossed in a role that a distraction is too great for them compensate for.
Seanchai
This just in from Shawn-tea: really good actors are mentally ill.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;388096This just in from Shawn-tea: really good actors are mentally ill.
Indeed.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388084I agree that there is, but I just think that the first thing is well within the bounds of 4E or any other game.
I disagree.
In 3.5 and earlier, denizens of the fictional world can easily discuss their abilities. Some aspects - caster level, spell level, etc - are harder to discuss in-character than others, but if one assumes that the language exists to handle these discussions (IMC, magic-specific languages have such terminology, while normal languages don't), it's not so far-fetched.
In 4e, the number of mental contortions you have to work through to have an in-character discussion regarding what an individual is capable of are ridiculous. You can do it, I'm aware, and some folks seem to manage; but the idea of encounter and daily martial abilities (among other things) is just too bizarre, for me.
Part of the problem being run into here, I think, is that the statement "Game X has dissociative mechanics" is either a true or false statement - are the mechanics tied intrinsically to what is going on in the fiction, or not? - while how disruptive dissociation is to immersion varies from individual to individual. Apparently some folk manage to get by just fine with 4e; some people, myself included, do not.
Quote from: SeanchaiBut "immersion" seems to be the later. Immersion doesn't seem to be simply making choices, as yourself, based on your idea of what a character would do. It seems to mean being so engrossed in your character that you make choices for him or her almost automatically on a subconscious level.
As has been stated, I think you're being disingenuous.
There is a difference between assuming the mental life of another individual and
believing you are that individual. You can adopt the mental state of someone else while being fully aware of the fact that it is an adoption, that you are not actually that individual, just acting wholly as though you were.
The difference is that someone who does this, if you tell them to knock it off and get out of character, can do so. A mentally ill individual, such as you have been describing, probably wouldn't, and sounds like they wouldn't even recognize they were assuming a role.
There seems to be a pretty clear distinction there, at least to me.
Funny, because I've been told by others elsewhere (who happen to be hardcore immersionists) that if I'm just acting, I'm not really 'playing the character.'
Hm. :hmm:
Gamers use the same words to mean different things and can't agree on terms. Film at 11.
I know what immersion means to me, and I know some games make it easier than others. I've no real opinion on how good 4e is at it (although it looks like it would be bad) because I don't like the game for other reasons and have consequently never played it.
Quote from: Seanchai;388095I do, too. I believe that, despite claims to the contrary, healthy people cannot become so engrossed in a role that a distraction is too great for them compensate for.
Seanchai
So here Seanchai has essentially proved my point. He thinks someone who immerses into a character to the point where 4e's level of dissociative mechanics impedes that immersion is either lying about it, or clinically insane.
He believes the way he does because he does not immerse or perhaps cannot immerse to the level where such dissociative mechanics rip you right out of your immersion. He doesn't realize it's not a question of kind, but one of degree.
He's never had the chance to be on an actual movie set. You get an actor doing a serious dramatic scene, and no one makes a sound, no one even gets in their line of sight, because at that level of immersion it is extremely easy to lose it. We're not talking about anything even remotely equal to that level in roleplaying, but for some the level of immersion they attain is higher then the one Seanchai reaches. It doesn't make either one insane, it just makes one person immerse more.
Seanchai's starting to sound like those guys on a roleplaying server for a mmog who can't understand why everyone puts their Knight named Incredible Hulk on ignore, or claims he understands perfectly, but thinks everyone who does is insane or a dick.
The dialectic of the recent discussion in this thread has been somewhat interesting. :cool:
Justin Alexander and LordVreeg have advanced well reasoned explanations of how game mechanics can facilitate or impede immersion. In response, Seanchai has tried to connect a concern with immersion with mental illness, whereas Abyssal Maw (in addition to some gratuitous mental illness remarks) simply dismisses such points as 'bullshit,' without any meaningful argument or explanation. Is this how 4e advocates always engage in such discussions? (I usually ignore 4e threads here.)
The fact is that no game can be all things to all people. A game can be a very, very good game but nonetheless be full of 'disassociative mechanics', or indeed, be completely 'disassociative' in nature (chess, anyone?). Likewise, a game can be very good with respect to immersion, but poor in other respects (lacking robust mechanics to handle combat or other situations, etc.).
Two of my favourite games are
Call of Cthulhu and
Rolemaster 2e (now published as 'Rolemaster Classic'). It seems uncontroversial, indeed, obvious to me that the former game is far more 'immersive' in nature than the latter. During play, the mechanics of CoC, for the most part, 'fade into the background' far more than they do in RM. That doesn't mean that CoC is a better game than RM, as RM has certain virtues that CoC does not (e.g., detailed combat information, including colourful critical hit charts, a more nuanced magic system, etc.).
I don't understand why people who like 4e feel so defensive about the matter of immersion, either dismissing it entirely (as a sign of mental illness, or whatever) or arguing that immersion is purely subjective (without giving a remotely plausible explanation why, but simply asserting this).
(I do think that one's ability to 'immerse' him or herself in a role depends on that person's personality to a great extent. Some people are natural actors or storytellers, have especially vivid imaginations, and so forth. Nonetheless, I also think that a game's mechanics can facilitate or impede such immersion, and that
this is not 'subjective'.)
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388072... 4E is just as "immersive" as any game that uses dice and character sheets, and the distinction itself is bullshit...
Consider Justin Alexander's comparison of
Arkham Horror and
Call of Cthulhu. Both games use dice and character sheets. Do you
really think that AH is
just as immersive as CoC?
If so, then I guess that what you mean by 'immersion' is fundamentally different from what I mean by 'immersion' (and I have no idea what you mean by it).
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388072It's tragic in that nobody actually needs an invented excuse not to like anything. People can simply like what they like (and dislike what they dislike..) and there's no need for any conflict.
Of course people don't need an
excuse to like or dislike anything. As I understand it, the point about the disassociative mechanics of 4e is being offered as an
explanation for why some people don't like 4e. The point that they are making is that the disassociative mechanics of 4e prevent
them from having the kind of role-playing experience that they want. It's not that hard to understand. And it doesn't mean that 4e is not a great game for people who want different kinds of experiences. 4e is quite successful, so it obviously is appealing to
something that gamers like. But it seems perfectly plausible that 'immersive role-playing experiences' is not one of those things (or relatively low on the list of priorities of most 4e gamers).
I know thread morph over time, but I suspect some part of the reason for the defensiveness of 4e supporters on this thread can be found in the title of the thread itself.
I guess I can sum up my impressions thusly: I like 4e just fine. It is fun, but it is not like my traditional experienced with D&D (or any other RPG) in the past 30-odd years. I guess that was the intent, to make something dramatically different, and in that I think they succeeded. There are some things about it that I find odd, but if I keep them within the context of the game and rules as written, and don't worry so much about "what has come before", then I don't have a real problem with any of it.
I think 90% of the criticism of the game could have been avoided if they didn't label it "D&D" (really - if you look at the rules objectively, I think they're ok overall), but since they own the copyright to the name, I guess they have the right to use it as they see fit. Thus are the flames of war stoked. :)
So, I don't know if that makes me a "supporter" or not, but there ya go.
Quote from: Akrasia;388132Consider Justin Alexander's comparison of Arkham Horror and Call of Cthulhu. Both games use dice and character sheets. Do you really think that AH is just as immersive as CoC?
One of those is a board game. Now, I realize that's a popular slur that the haters like to use about D&D4e..but a slur is all it is.
Quote from: Akrasia;388132Justin Alexander and LordVreeg have advanced well reasoned explanations of how game mechanics can facilitate or impede immersion. In response, Seanchai has tried to connect a concern with immersion with mental illness, whereas Abyssal Maw (in addition to some gratuitous mental illness remarks) simply dismisses such points as 'bullshit,' without any meaningful argument or explanation. Is this how 4e advocates always engage in such discussions? (I usually ignore 4e threads here.)
Pretty much, yeah. The 4e likers do all their meaningful threads on 4e gaming on other forums (with the exception of AM, who has done some constructive posts on 4e gaming here.) Here they basically defend 4e against all comers on any possible criticism, some valid defenses, some not.
Quote from: Akrasia;388132I don't understand why people who like 4e feel so defensive about the matter of immersion, either dismissing it entirely (as a sign of mental illness, or whatever) or arguing that immersion is purely subjective (without giving a remotely plausible explanation why, but simply asserting this).
Because on therpgsite, that's how the 4Eers roll for the most part. By taking the ideologue position, they make anyone who disagrees look like they are ideologues also. It creates a false equivalency of arguements (the Fox News vs. MSNBC effect).
Quote from: Akrasia;388132(I do think that one's ability to 'immerse' him or herself in a role depends on that person's personality to a great extent. Some people are natural actors or storytellers, have especially vivid imaginations, and so forth. Nonetheless, I also think that a game's mechanics can facilitate or impede such immersion, and that this is not 'subjective'.)
Of course you see it easily, you're a person who can immerse themselves in a role to a greater extent then Seanchai, so you can look at 4e and easily see that it's very non-immersive compared to previous versions of D&D. Seanchai, however, doesn't see it and thus thinks we're all asshats or crazy or both, or he's pretending to act like that and is the asshat himself.
AM's whole "excuse to not like the game" is just his way of shifting the argument from the central point we've reached : some people immerse more then others.
Quote from: CRKrueger;388152Of course you see it easily, you're a person who can immerse themselves in a role to a greater extent then Seanchai, so you can look at 4e and easily see that it's very non-immersive compared to previous versions of D&D. Seanchai, however, doesn't see it and thus thinks we're all asshats or crazy or both, or he's pretending to act like that and is the asshat himself.
AM's whole "excuse to not like the game" is just his way of shifting the argument from the central point we've reached : some people immerse more then others.
I guess the answer to that is.. you've reached your "point" based on no evidence whatsoever. how would you even know? People do this- they assume that they're experts, that they know better than everyone else, that their experiences are more significant or whatever, but how on earth would you even know?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388155I guess the answer to that is.. you've reached your "point" based on no evidence whatsoever. how would you even know? People do this- they assume that they're experts, that they know better than everyone else, that their experiences are more significant or whatever, but how on earth would you even know?
Well you have people, like Akrasia said, logically and completely detailing how dissociate mechanics can be less immersive then associative ones, and you have the actual feedback of people who are saying that the dissociative mechanics of 4e do in fact support a level of immersion lower then the level they experienced in earlier versions of D&D (I am one of those people).
Then you have the other side which basically says "Nope, not possible, you're just coming up with that as self-justification or you're insane." Of course, such behavior is 100% expected if what I am saying is true, namely that you and Seanchai immerse on a lower level when you roleplay.You are
actually incapable of experiencing immersion at the level we are talking about, therefore you think we are assholes, insane, or just coming up with some justification for 4e putting sand in our collective vagina.
Which do I believe? Akrasia, Lord Vreeg, Justin Alexander, Benoist, myself and others are fooling ourselves or insane or... that you and Seanchai simply don't immerse as deeply. Which is more probable?
(http://whatsyourfantasy.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/gears2.jpg)
"Fourth edition sucks."
(http://blog.prospect.org/blog/weblog/the_more_you_know2.jpg)
Cool, I'm part of a faceless, nameless mass with no relation to my actual behaviour or position.
Akrasia> This forum is nearly useless for discussing 4e in a reasonable way, either pro or con. There's too much bad blood and too much talking past one another and all sorts of pseudo-intellectual production and bafflegab intended just to make one group feel better at the expense of the other.
I think immersion has far less to do with rulesets and far more to do with individual capabilities and tastes, and the group dynamics which mediate the expression of those capabilities and tastes. Talking about 4e as having "disassociative mechanics" and such is just an expression of a particular taste or set of experiences.
And of course, having made this point many times before (including, IIRC, on this very thread), it hasn't altered discussion one bit because it's not particularly useful as a rhetorical weapon.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388162Talking about 4e as having "disassociative mechanics" and such is just an expression of a particular taste or set of experiences.
Exactly, the expression of having a taste for rules that are based in the reality of the game world as much as possible as opposed to rules that have very little to do with the actual game world itself and are almost completely metagame based to produce a tactically balanced experience.
In other words, some prefer a highly immersive experience (which 4e by design cannot provide) so don't like 4e, and others don't care as much about immersion, and love the balanced mechanics and tactical challenge and so love 4e.
But, of course, you can't say that. You can say 4e is tactically more sound then other versions of D&D, you can say 4e is more balanced then other versions of D&D, both would be true, but god forbid you make the point that they got those benefits by reducing immersion, then you're insane or just fooling yourself into coming up with a reason when in actuality you don't like 4e "just because".
It's practically a form of political correctness at this point.
Quote from: CRKrueger;388066If you really get into immersion, 4e and it's highly dissociative mechanics aren't for you. If you don't get into immersion as much, you probably can't figure out why 4e bothers some people so much. 40,000 threads aren't going to let one side see the other's position. People are just wired differently.
No one's brain-damaged, no one's autistic, no one's insane, people just experience table-top role-playing in different ways.
Well obviously I'm insane if I'm able to immerse while playing 4e.
Quote from: Peregrin;388165Well obviously I'm insane if I'm able to immerse while playing 4e.
Degree, not kind.
Quote from: CRKrueger;388166Degree, not kind.
Well sure, but if I want "full immersion" the entire time, I'll go back to playing WoD rarely rolling dice with an eloquent DM who could act fairly well. Those were my most immersive experiences, but what was the point of having rules? Every time you pick up the dice or enter the "slow mo" of combat, it becomes difficult to immerse, so nearly any system can knock you back a pace.
That said, I'm perfectly able to throw together the necessary processes in my head to make "sense" of what happens in 4e, even when things become "dissociated". If you dislike having to do that, then it can interfere with immersion, but if you're one of those people who see the mechanics as merely a way to adjudicate what happens in the game world and not a set of sim models, then immersion is perfectly doable.
I mean, we're not talking about real virtual reality, here, we're talking about tabletop games that happen in your knoggin. As long as whatever the mechanics describe jives for you, there's no real barrier. It's not a matter of whether it's the game's fault or the player's fault, but a combination of both factors (how the person approaches thinking about the game and how the structure of the game jives with their expectations).
Tight modelling in sim design and heavily abstracted stuff in "dissociated" design are techniques that I don't believe
have to interfere with the ability to immerse, especially since immersion is not a single static state.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388162I think immersion has far less to do with rulesets and far more to do with individual capabilities and tastes, and the group dynamics which mediate the expression of those capabilities and tastes. Talking about 4e as having "disassociative mechanics" and such is just an expression of a particular taste or set of experiences.
I think they are more equal than you give them credit for. Take Akrasia's example of chess: You can certainly play the part of King Harold against your opponent, King Ogrek. But you will be doing some seriously heavy lifting, because the chess game itself is little more than a 'scoreboard' or 'tally' if you will. Obviously, the Rook can't
actually move. It's a building. The 'movement' is an extreme abstraction of the political manoeuvring of the royal court.
It's not 100% subjective. Chess is a shitty RPG because of the extreme abstraction or
disassociation. It is neither delusion nor mental illness. Because of the rules, some games simply make it more difficult to maintain a 'role' consistently. Piling on all kinds of fiction or explanation does not negate the fact that the underlying rules are not good for assuming a role. It re-inforces that you have to essentially ignore the rules, or subsume them greatly, in order to take on this role and maintain it.
Chess is a very extreme example, obviously, but I would find arguments that 'immersion' is a binary state to be
prima facie ridiculous. I doubt further inspection would reveal them to be any less specious. Hence, I think everyone can agree that there is a range that can be discussed, and different games will fall on this spectrum in different places. Where those lie on the continuum as a matter of personal preference (to a degree) is non-controversial, but that is not an argument in and of itself.
In the tabletop rpg world, levels of mental illness doesn't seem to be much different than many other niches I've come across over the years.
With that being said. In my own experience, the niches with the most number of mentally ill people I've come across are rock musicians (and wanna-be rock musicians) and artist types. (I don't know whether this is just an anomaly specific to my experiences). Though I can say from experience that logic and rational thinking are not the most useful tools in music and art, especially when it comes to creativity and writing new music. I suppose I can see how the illogical and spontaneous weird thinking of various mental illnesses, sometimes can create very interesting new original music and art.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388072Well, that seems pretty conciliatory, but I still disagree. 4E is just as "immersive" as any game that uses dice and character sheets, and the distinction itself is bullshit.
Your argument appears to be, "Nuh-uh, 'cause I say so."
That's not a particularly compelling argument. Allow me to boil down my post to its core logic:
(1) Immersive roleplaying, at a bare minimum, requires the player to make choices as their character.
(2) Dissociated mechanics do not allow the player to make choices as their character.
(3) Therefore, dissociated mechanics are fundamentaly incompatible with immersive roleplaying.
Which of these three points are you disagreeing with, exactly? Be specific. Explain why it's wrong. Otherwise you're just hurling around insults because you like to hear yourself talk.
QuoteSkill challenges were held up as the central dissociative theme and implied as mandatory parts of 4E a second ago,
I'm assuming you're referring to my post, so allow me to point out a couple of things:
(1) I have no idea what a "central dissociative theme" is supposed to be. I suspect it's pseudo-intellectual nonsense which indicates that you have no idea what we're talking about.
(2) I didn't say that they were a mandatory part of 4E, I said they were one of the games core mechanics. Which is indisputably true.
Quote from: Seanchai;388075Or you can recognize the fact that all games are "dissociative" by their very nature
That's obviously untrue. Do attempt to educate yourself on what the most basic terminology of the discussion means before making yourself look like a complete fool in the future. It doesn't take that much effort.
In addition, the difference between an associative mechanic and a dissociated mechanic is factual and demonstrable. Disputes may still arise, but that doesn't make it subjective any more than the statement "the earth is flat" is a subjective statement.
The conditions required for immersion, OTOH, can be quite subjective. But, as I mentioned before, the
fundamental aspect of immersion (and roleplaying in general, IMO) is the making of decisions as if you were your character. I can't tell you what will let someone achieve immersive roleplaying (if they ever will); but I can tell you with absolute surety that they are NOT immersed if they aren't making decisions as their character.
It's kinda like sex: I can't tell you what will personally satisfy your sexual needs. But I can say with absolute surety that if you're having sex then you're not a virgin.
EDIT: To fix stupid typo. Thanks, Saphim.
I've found, in my limited subjective experience, that those capable of a higher degree of empathy are more likely to immerse themselves within a role, while those less capable are the type of players that usssually own a character like any object, (rather then playing that character). 4e, it seems to me, was designed not with the intent of pleasing those who would immerse themselves in a character, but rather to pleasing those who would see the characters they play as something that is owned, much as one might consider a WoW character of high level. The sense of accomplishment comes in this regard not from the play of a role but rather from the levels attained and items gained. The character, meaning characterization possible, is ancillary to the accomplishment of reaching the next goal, of surviving to get the mcguffin, the next plus bonus, the next level, or whatever. The point is, that it is the sense of ownership and not roleplay that drives the new edition, bringing the tyranny of fun, with its limits to destruction and no, about. At least this is my opinion on the matter, (not that anyone asked or cared).
Take a day away from the office, and see what happens?
Quote from: AMWell, that seems pretty conciliatory, but I still disagree. 4E is just as "immersive" as any game that uses dice and character sheets, and the distinction itself is bullshit.
Skill challenges were held up as the central dissociative theme and implied as mandatory parts of 4E a second ago, but all they really are is a way arrange plain old skill checks, and (perhaps more importantly) aren't in any way mandatory...I've seen and run plenty of games where no skill challenges took place. Wish lists were held up as a central immersion breaking theme yesterday and those are also completely not mandatory.
Though even the guys in EN world living 4e seem to get what we are saying.
ENworld about wishlists ruining immersion (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/268176-simpler-treasure-system-mostly-random-loot.html)
No rules are mandatory; but it is a rule. It's in the rulenbook.You can skip any rules, but these are the rules as written. Saying that rule 'x' is in the rulebook but you don't have to use it is not really a good excuse. But by telling me that the best defence for wishlists not breaking immersion is that you don;t have to use that rule, you have said all you need to.
I think that a good GM and a good group and a good adventure have just as much to do with it as the mechanics. So in that sense, 4e can be just as immersive as any other RPG. I think a great GM makes up for a multitude of mechanical sins.
So far, I have defined immersion, and gotten mainly agreement and a few responses of, "uh-uh" without providing any logical discourse to back up their statements.
(
Quote from: LVImmersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player
. )
I stated that metagaming was the antonym/opposite of immersive gaming. Again, mainly agreement and absolutely no one giving me any reason to think I was not dead on.
Ergo, mechanics that encourage metagaming must reduce immersion. Not in any one game, not in and edition of D&D, in any game, in any ruleset.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388162Cool, I'm part of a faceless, nameless mass with no relation to my actual behaviour or position.
Akrasia> This forum is nearly useless for discussing 4e in a reasonable way, either pro or con. There's too much bad blood and too much talking past one another and all sorts of pseudo-intellectual production and bafflegab intended just to make one group feel better at the expense of the other.
I think immersion has far less to do with rulesets and far more to do with individual capabilities and tastes, and the group dynamics which mediate the expression of those capabilities and tastes. Talking about 4e as having "disassociative mechanics" and such is just an expression of a particular taste or set of experiences.
And of course, having made this point many times before (including, IIRC, on this very thread), it hasn't altered discussion one bit because it's not particularly useful as a rhetorical weapon.
No, you're not. Or at least, not to everyone.
I do disagree with you about the lack of objective truth here....not talking about any game in particular, but there are rules that promote metagaming...this is the opposite of in-game thinking, so it certainly reduces immersion. I don't find this fact subjective at all.
However, as I have said, a good GM, a good group of players, and a good adventure make up for a lot, and as I do not believe that 100% immersion is
ever possible. All games we play allow us to create some immersion, some are better than others, and some that may not be as good may offer other game benefits.
Quote from: raeth;388203I've found, in my limited subjective experience, that those capable of a higher degree of empathy are more likely to immerse themselves within a role, while those less capable are the type of players that usssually own a character like any object, (rather then playing that character). 4e, it seems to me, was designed not with the intent of pleasing those who would immerse themselves in a character, but rather to pleasing those who would see the characters they play as something that is owned, much as one might consider a WoW character of high level. The sense of accomplishment comes in this regard not from the play of a role but rather from the levels attained and items gained. The character, meaning characterization possible, is ancillary to the accomplishment of reaching the next goal, of surviving to get the mcguffin, the next plus bonus, the next level, or whatever. The point is, that it is the sense of ownership and not roleplay that drives the new edition, bringing the tyranny of fun, with its limits to destruction and no, about. At least this is my opinion on the matter, (not that anyone asked or cared).
Dude it's alright. Welcome to theRPGSite. Good post. :)
Quote from: raeth;388203I've found, in my limited subjective experience, that those capable of a higher degree of empathy are more likely to immerse themselves within a role, while those less capable are the type of players that usssually own a character like any object, (rather then playing that character). 4e, it seems to me, was designed not with the intent of pleasing those who would immerse themselves in a character, but rather to pleasing those who would see the characters they play as something that is owned, much as one might consider a WoW character of high level. The sense of accomplishment comes in this regard not from the play of a role but rather from the levels attained and items gained. The character, meaning characterization possible, is ancillary to the accomplishment of reaching the next goal, of surviving to get the mcguffin, the next plus bonus, the next level, or whatever. The point is, that it is the sense of ownership and not roleplay that drives the new edition, bringing the tyranny of fun, with its limits to destruction and no, about.
Good points all around.
QuoteAt least this is my opinion on the matter, (not that anyone asked or cared).
If we all just sat around waiting to be asked our opinion, there would be no internet message boards anywhere. :)
Quote from: raeth;3882034e, it seems to me, was designed not with the intent of pleasing those who would immerse themselves in a character, but rather to pleasing those who would see the characters they play as something that is owned, much as one might consider a WoW character of high level. The sense of accomplishment comes in this regard not from the play of a role but rather from the levels attained and items gained.
There are those of us who are able to gain satisfaction from role-play regardless, just as we did with 3e, even though that system generally rewarded you for being a mechanics monkey rather than really delving into a character. I don't see much of a difference, culturally, between 3e and 4e, other than players of one edition may really dislike the other. The adventure-path, charop, "give me the shiny" mentality was what almost drove me away from role-playing when I first started with 3.0.
If I really want to get in-character and not have to worry about being pulled out of that perspective, I'll choose a more (relatively) rules-lite, flexible system that allows for GM/player improvisation (OD&D/Basic, BRP, Savage Worlds, etc.) with very low handling time.
IMO, the more game you throw on the player's side of the screen, the more you're forced out of the role and more into a director's role because the machinations are clear as day in front of you. Not all mechanics are dissociative, but consciously manipulating the system is another way that you can be pulled out of a role (rather than having the GM adjudicate, or making a simple check for success/failure, etc.).
Take Exalted, for example. Nearly everything on the character sheet has an in-game analogue -- the strict world emulation is by design. But the minute you hop into combat (whether social or physical), you're forced to game the system as a player because you're constantly tracking modifiers and action speeds, and if you don't do that you're most assuredly going to lose. Less "Tell the GM what you want to do and then someone makes a check" and more "Ok, so if I Aim for 3 turns I get 6 extra dice to my pool, add in my charm for this, he's definitely wearing X armor so I should have enough to penetrate..." Sure, you can justify all of those decisions based on in-game knowledge, but the state of the mind of the player is very different.
That's not to say I didn't get "immersed" while playing Exalted, but like 4e, the answers to when and how are substantially different than playing something with less player-side crunch.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388185That's not a particularly compelling argument. Allow me to boil down my post to its core logic:
(1) Immersive roleplaying, at a bare minimum, requires the player to make choices as their character.
(2) Dissociated mechanics do not allow the character (I am assuming you mean player here) to make choices as their character.
(3) Therefore, dissociated mechanics are fundamentaly incompatible with immersive roleplaying.
Number 2 is an absolute statement which needs you to look into the heads of other people and into their gaming tables to verify, which you can't. Let's reduce it to a point which you can actually claim without resorting to guesswork:
Dissociative mechanics make it more difficult to make choices from the point of view of the character.
Well, to be frank, this is true for every edition of D&D, they are all full of mechanics that either poorly emulate the genre, a character or break the immersion by being poorly thought out or designed for different things.
It starts with Hitpoints proceeds to saving throws and ends with ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot. And we all know, there is plenty of more (well at least those of us who actually play roleplaying games). The same is true for all roleplaying games and I really don't see a reason for 4e to be singled out there.
Quote from: Saphim;388215Number 2 is an absolute statement which needs you to look into the heads of other people and into their gaming tables to verify, which you can't.
It doesn't require that at all. 'Disassociated mechanics' and 'immersion' are simply not two things you can have at the same time. If you are thinking as a player and deciding if it is better to slide an opponent three squares or to push them one square and stun them, by definition, you are not thinking like the character; you are not immersed. Your statement is the logical equivalent of claiming that rolling a nine in Monopoly could mean they
also rolled ten, but if you aren't at the table, you can't possibly know. Your claim is that A = ¬A. Or, more generously, that A
might equal ¬A
, but it's entirely subjective, so no one can say for sure.
Guess what? It's not subjective. A = Immersion.
¬A = Disassociated mechanics. As soon as people start trotting out arguments that something straightforward is 'subjective', it means they can't mount a coherent counter-argument, but desperately want the argument to be wrong or discredited.
QuoteLet's reduce it to a point which you can actually claim without resorting to guesswork:
Dissociative mechanics make it more difficult to make choices from the point of view of the character.
So, you fully understand that dissociative mechanics are the antithesis of immersion, but you contin-
QuoteWell, to be frank, this is true for every edition of D&D, they are all full of mechanics that either poorly emulate the genre, a character or break the immersion by being poorly thought out or designed for different things.
It starts with Hitpoints proceeds to saving throws and ends with ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot. And we all know, there is plenty of more (well at least those of us who actually play roleplaying games). The same is true for all roleplaying games and I really don't see a reason for 4e to be singled out there.
Oh, it was so you could follow up with utter bullshit and false equivalences that show you have no idea what people are talking about. Got it.
Seriously, what the fuck does "ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot" even mean? Does 'gold piece' take you completely out of the game? A 'scroll' totally breaks your ability to imagine? 'Helm of Brilliance' shatters your suspension of disbelief?
And this part right here? "...well at least those of us who actually play roleplaying games..." Shut the holy fuck up. You wrote the sentence "ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot" about earlier editions of D&D. That means you probably haven't so much as seen a cover of anything before 3.5 in person, let alone read or played any of them. The very fact that you didn't realize that the
Apparatus of Kwalish demolishes your statement all by itself, without having to mention any other magic item, is cold hard proof that you have been involved in RPGs for no more than a decade, and likely around five years.
Of course, there could be other reasons you want to use the 'non-4e gamers are irrelevant' style of argument.
@Immersion: There are plenty of people who claim to have immersive experiences while playing D&D4. That makes absolute statements about the 4e mechanics completely preventing immersion wrong by default.
@unimmersive loot names: Longsword +1. Or do you think that is what the weaponsmith engraved on the blade?
Quote from: Saphim;388215Quote2) Dissociated mechanics do not allow the player to make choices as their character.
Number 2 is an absolute statement which needs you to look into the heads of other people and into their gaming tables to verify, which you can't.
Absolute nonsense. If you are making a choice about something which the character is completely unaware, then you are NOT making that choice as the character. QED.
This doesn't require telepathy. It's common sense and basic logic.
Quote from: StormBringer;388217Seriously, what the fuck does "ridiculous and unimmersive names for loot" even mean?
I'm going to take a guess that he means "+1 longsword" on the basis that the characters don't know what the +1 means. But I would make two points:
(1) That assumes that "+1" or "1st level spell" don't actually have established meanings in the game world. But characters in my game world know about the "nine circles of magic"; and all the weapons we refer to as +1 in game mechanics are known as "mage-touched". The mechanic is associated directly to a property of the game universe.
If a player makes a decision based on the fact that a +2 weapon is better than a +1 weapon, that is not a decision dissociated from the character's reality: +2 weapons
are better in the character's reality, and that relationship can be determined by a character in a number of different ways.
(2)) As I've said before, all mechanics are abstracted and metagamed to one degree or another. But "abstracted" and "metagamed" are not synonymous with "dissociated".
A character wouldn't go around saying, "I have a Strength of 18." But that doesn't mean that the Strength score mechanic is dissociated: It is directly associated with the game world. Characters in the game world can tell that character A (Strength 18) is stronger than character B (Strength 10): Character A can carry more stuff; he hits harder; etc. etc. etc. There is a direct association between the mechanic and the game world. If a guy playing Character B decided not to arm wrestle with Character A because his Strength score was higher; that decision would be directly associated with the character's decision not to arm wrestle with Character A because he's stronger.
By contrast, take a simple "action point" mechanic: You, as a player, can choose to spend an action point in order to re-roll a missed attack.
This mechanic has no association to the game world: You are using one game mechanic (the action point) to manipulate another game mechanic (a die roll). The character is aware of neither the existence of action points nor the existence of the die roll. The decision to use (or not use) the action point is dissociated from the game world and has no analog in the character's decision-making process.
The distinction between associated and dissociated mechanics is apparently quite subtle for some people. For others (like myself), it's huge, blatant, and significant.
Quote from: Peregrin;388213There are those of us who are able to gain satisfaction from role-play regardless...
No doubt that is probably true. Even I have managed to have some fun role-playing moments while playing 4e despite my views about the system as a whole. The point though, and I think you grasp this as well with your post, is that system is going to matter in terms of role-play opportunity. That said, I feel that 4e has taken away from role-play by catering to those who find immersion in character and world to be of less value then other elements of the game.
Then again, there are some ... well, me .. who think that what makes a game immersive is not the how my character does something but the why he does something, or in other words it comes down to character motivation.
And that's for me things like Fate or Actions hep immersion, because they allow character motivation to be expressed mechanically in the game. I just cannot accept whether I want to rescue a random civilllian from a blazing building, I still roll the same dumd d20 against the same dumb odds as if I were tryring to rescue my baby daughter. In many systems I have no mechanical way to reflect that just maybe I care more about saving my daughter and might just put that extra bit of effort into it. All I have is social negotiation, the art of persuading the GM that this really important to my character.
Yeah, that is really immersive.
Note I am not asking for a guarantee that my character can save his daughter or that that everything always goes my way, but I do think want a way to express the that when it really matters to the character, he can dig deeper and try harder.
There are both associated and dissociated ways of modeling "my character is going to try a little harder to accomplish this".
With an associated mechanic you may or may not enter into your character wholly -- to immerse yourself in the character -- and (for example) choose to burn yourself horribly if it means you might be able to fight through the flames to your baby's crib.
But with a dissociated mechanic you are not immersed in your character. You are exiting the character, making a decision external to that character that you want to model their desperation, and then applying that decision mechanically in a way that has no analog to the character's decision-making process.
There's nothing wrong with entering that sort of authorial stance. But it's quite distinct from any sense of immersing yourself in a character. Quite the opposite, in fact.
When you say you're immersing yourself in the character, you appear to be meaning something completely different than what the term has typically been used to mean when it applies to roleplaying games. Further, I'm not sure how it relates to the common English meaning of the word. In what sense do you feel that you are personally immersing yourself in your character while using a dissociated mechanic? What do you mean when you say "immersion" if you are not, in fact, immersing yourself in the character or making decisions as if you were your character?
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388222Absolute nonsense. If you are making a choice about something which the character is completely unaware, then you are NOT making that choice as the character. QED.
This doesn't require telepathy. It's common sense and basic logic.
And yet people state that they do. So either all of these people lie or your insight isn't as profound as you think it is. I am going with the second option here as I don't think all those 4e players have a reason to lie.
@magic items: So your gamemaster looks up and says "in the hoard are three mage touched swords, 2 glaives that were majorly mage touched and a two handed sword that was really touched by a mage"? Really? That is the first time I hear of this. We always say +1 Sword/Axe/Whatever.
@action points: So there is no luck or heroic effort or any other of multiple of possible labels for such a thing in your gameworld? I don't believe that.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388232There are both associated and dissociated ways of modeling "my character is going to try a little harder to accomplish this".
Not so sure. Okay, I see how the burning building might allow for a choice "how much damage do I take before I give up" , so let's make the example even simpler.
The person to rescue from the fire is stuck under some really heavy bit of rubble. In most games, without some sort of Fate point, all you got is your Strength trait (or lifeting skill) vs some sort of difficulty number based on the weight of the rubble. How much you care about the person stuck under the rubble has no effect on your Strength roll unless you can persuade your GM to give you a modifier -that is to say out of character social negotiation.
Spending a Fate point under such circumstances shows the character really throwing everything they've got at the problem, it is going the extra mile. And if you still fail at least you know you tired your best.
Now that is immersive for me. I appreciate it's not the same for everyone which is why making generalisations about how one kind of mechanic is necessarily more immersive than another is very, very dangerous.
Quote from: Peregrin;388165Well obviously I'm insane if I'm able to immerse while playing 4e.
Good Lord, No. No one should infer that.
There are levels of immersion, and other factors that play into this. As I said before, a good GM, a good play group, a well made adventure...
It is not that game x or game y is impossible to immerse in. There are just mechanics in some games that enhance or reduce immersion.
You can still be insane if you want, but being able to immerse here or there or anywhere doe not determine this, though, as AM and benoist mentioned, it can be a symptom.;)
A warm up reminder.
Quote from: LVThe players need to be able to think as their characters, at some level, to immerse at any level.
Metagaming is the opposite. It is thinking of the rules, thinking like the player.
Quote from: Saphim;388233Quote from: JAAbsolute nonsense. If you are making a choice about something which the character is completely unaware, then you are NOT making that choice as the character. QED.
And yet people state that they do. So either all of these people lie or your insight isn't as profound as you think it is. I am going with the second option here as I don't think all those 4e players have a reason to lie.
@magic items: So your gamemaster looks up and says "in the hoard are three mage touched swords, 2 glaives that were majorly mage touched and a two handed sword that was really touched by a mage"? Really? That is the first time I hear of this. We always say +1 Sword/Axe/Whatever.
@action points: So there is no luck or heroic effort or any other of multiple of possible labels for such a thing in your gameworld? I don't believe that.
1) This is really not a debateable point. You are either metagaming or playing in-character. If you are metagaming, you cannot be playing in character. CANNOT. One precludes the other.
(not that the debateability or obvious logic has meant anything so far, so press on if you wish, the behavior certainly has precedent).
BTW, the popularity argument; i.e., a believe that many people feel the way thse same way, cuts little ice on the playing field of logic. It's nice, and can be used for a little extra oomph, but it makes for a crappy foundation of an argued position.
2a)Terminology has had little to do with the level of immersion so far; as it is more subjective and so far, much of the argument has been on entirely objective issues (with some ridiculous comments and assorted expected insults thrown in to keep us on our toes).
I actually agree that much of the terminology is less than helpful here. We try to use in-game terminology as much as possible when playing; things are not magic, they are 'void-sourced', and magic or the ways of magic are called the Wou (pronounced woo, for the curious).
2b) Action points, fate points, and the like are certainly disassociatve mechanics. You can use them if you want, they can lead to a fun game for a lot of people. They can represent luck or something in the game...but that does not change their status as a disassociative mechanic. They promote metagame thinking, thinking of a rule instead of thinking in character. The Player makes the choice to expend said action point, the character does not. A person is not thinking of using luck, luck just happens, it is not a choice if you are immersed.
(I felt like using a capital I in the last use of 'immersion' just for the hell of it there)
Quote from: Saphim;388221@Immersion: There are plenty of people who claim to have immersive experiences while playing D&D4. That makes absolute statements about the 4e mechanics completely preventing immersion wrong by default.
There are plenty of people that claim the Earth is flat, also.
Argumentum ad populum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) is a fallacy for a reason.
Quote@unimmersive loot names: Longsword +1. Or do you think that is what the weaponsmith engraved on the blade?
That is it? One item? Even if we expand this to anything with a 'plus', it's still meaningless as an argument. The vast majority of items do not have this, and no where does it say they must be referred to in this manner. There is a good deal of encouragement, in fact, to give weapons names such as 'Glamdring' or 'Caledfwlch' or pretty much
anything but 'longsword, +1'. You confuse the shorthand players used with actual rules and consider your point made. You are an expert at defeating strawmen, or you are intentionally debating in bad faith.
You just equaled people claiming to have an immersive experience with 4e to people who claim that the earth is flat and accused me of arguing in bad faith in the same post.
I'll just cut my losses here.
@LordVreeg: You cannot. Others apparently can. There is no reason to not believe them.
That has nothing to do with logic as immersion is a feeling and there is no way you can logically disprove over the internet someone feeling a certain way or another.
@types of mechanics: It might be a dissociative mechanic for you, for other people it might just be what the doctor ordered to be in there and feel what it means to be a hero and give everything at a certain moment. Preferences vary.
Inevitably all arguments have to be decided by evidence, and that's something that's lacking in almost any RPG discussion. You can label mechanics associative or disassociative, and claim that disassociative mechanics interfere with immersion, but without a statistically meaningful survey of people playing the game, it's all just intellectual exercise. Someone who comes along and says, "Nuh-uh, I immerse fine with these so-called disassociative mechanics!" is making a claim that is just as valid as the opposite.
Quote from: Saphim;388275You just equaled people claiming to have an immersive experience with 4e to people who claim that the earth is flat and accused me of arguing in bad faith in the same post.
I'll just cut my losses here.
@LordVreeg: You cannot. Others apparently can. There is no reason to not believe them.
That has nothing to do with logic as immersion is a feeling and there is no way you can logically disprove over the internet someone feeling a certain way or another.
@types of mechanics: It might be a dissociative mechanic for you, for other people it might just be what the doctor ordered to be in there and feel what it means to be a hero and give everything at a certain moment. Preferences vary.
The internet can be a tough medium. Your post
Stormy was giving you an example of Argumentum ad populum, which is a docuemented logical fallacy you were guilty of.
And please stop moving the goalposts. This is the conversation in question.
Quote from: saphimQuote from: LVQuote from: SaphimQuote from: Originally Posted by JAAbsolute nonsense. If you are making a choice about something which the character is completely unaware, then you are NOT making that choice as the character. QED.
And yet people state that they do. So either all of these people lie or your insight isn't as profound as you think it is. I am going with the second option here as I don't think all those 4e players have a reason to lie.
1) This is really not a debateable point. You are either metagaming or playing in-character. If you are metagaming, you cannot be playing in character. CANNOT. One precludes the other.
(not that the debateability or obvious logic has meant anything so far, so press on if you wish, the behavior certainly has precedent).
BTW, the popularity argument; i.e., a believe that many people feel the way thse same way, cuts little ice on the playing field of logic. It's nice, and can be used for a little extra oomph, but it makes for a crappy foundation of an argued position.
You cannot. Others apparently can. There is no reason to not believe them.
That has nothing to do with logic as immersion is a feeling and there is no way you can logically disprove over the internet someone feeling a certain way or another.
The comments in question were not dealing with the specific feeling of immersion, but metagaming vs staying in character. What you are disagreeing with is the supposition that when a player is making a decision based on knowledge they do not have or have access to, that the decision is not being made as the character, but as the player. The decision is not being made in-character.
Quote from: Saphim@types of mechanics: It might be a dissociative mechanic for you, for other people it might just be what the doctor ordered to be in there and feel what it means to be a hero and give everything at a certain moment. Preferences vary.
My friend, one does not preclude the other. I'm not saying it is a bad mechanic. I'm not saying it can't be part of a good game. I'm not complaining about preference. That's not why it is being catagorized as dissociative.
The criterion is based on whether the mechanic requires the player to make a decision out of character, based on a knowledge the Character would not have. Preferences may vary, true, but this is not an opinion, or a preference.
Quote from: two_fishes;388277Inevitably all arguments have to be decided by evidence, and that's something that's lacking in almost any RPG discussion. You can label mechanics associative or disassociative, and claim that disassociative mechanics interfere with immersion, but without a statistically meaningful survey of people playing the game, it's all just intellectual exercise. Someone who comes along and says, "Nuh-uh, I immerse fine with these so-called disassociative mechanics!" is making a claim that is just as valid as the opposite.
Now this is a little more like it.
I have to agree that while it seems to make almost routine sense, there is no way to
prove that mechanics that take you out of character help you think in-character.
This is why I have been arguing the whole time that there are many factors that aid immersion, and that mechanics are just one of them. I believe that a kick-ass GM and a good group and a good adventure might mean a higher score on the fictitious immersion-meter than better mechanics.
I am not saying that game x or game y precludes immersion.
I am not saying that AM has less immersion in his game as I do. Because no one can prove this.
What I am saying is that some mechanics can be construed as producing metagaming. Defined as not thinking in-game, defined as using knowledge not available to the character, or using rules knowledge outside the consiousness of the character.
Thinking as the player, NOT the character. You know, the opposite of immersion.
Quote from: LVImmersion is quite simply the experience of being able to think, feel, and be the character, not the player
And, if we can agree that said mechanic causes the
opposite of immersion...I think it is an obvious truism that mechanic reduces immersion.
I could argue any mechanic equally reduces immersion. Anytime I, as a player immersed in a character, must engage with the game mechanics to determine the outcome of an attempted task, I am removing myself from the character. If complexity is equal in all cases, whether the mechanics resolve the task via modelling physics of the world, or consideration of its value to the story, or competitively balanced odds, the outcome is the same--I must disengage with "immersion" and engage with rules and dice-rolling.
Quote from: Peregrin;388213IMO, the more game you throw on the player's side of the screen, the more you're forced out of the role and more into a director's role because the machinations are clear as day in front of you. Not all mechanics are dissociative, but consciously manipulating the system is another way that you can be pulled out of a role (rather than having the GM adjudicate, or making a simple check for success/failure, etc.).
I agree. That's one big thing in favor of OD&D and AD&D to me. In one case (OD&D) you basically have an interpretive system, with mechanics that are as incidental to the actual game play as you pretty much can get, and in the other (AD&D), you have what I call the Wizard of Oz effect, where most of the rules can be dealt with on the DM's side of the screen, rather than the player's side.
@Saphim and Twofishes
It's not a question of whether someone can immerse in 4e despite the dissociative mechanics. It's a question of whether those dissociative mechanics can allow someone to immerse to the degree that you could in a game without those dissociative mechanics.
As I keep saying, it's not a question of kind, but one of degree. If I played 4e, I'm sure at times I could be immersed and other times I would not be. However, based on the highly dissociative mechanics, anytime I interfaced with the combat system I would be not immersed to the level I prefer.
The high degree of dissociative mechanics in 4e preclude a high level of immersion, as Lord Vreeg and Justin Alexander have been proving, post after post, this is simply a logical fact.
If you immerse in 4e and I don't, it's because I prefer to immerse to a higher level then you do. Which is just fine, but don't tell me 4e is less immersive then other editions of D&D. It is far less immersive by design.
I am a big fan of sub-dividing the term RPG into different categories because it's obvious that the term role-playing means different things to different people, hence the term becomes so general as to be meaningless without qualifiers.
I'm starting to think the same can be said for immersion. A lot of people think of immersion as "losing yourself in something" ie. you get engrossed in what you are doing, then you realize 5 hours have gone by. You can certainly be having so much fun in 4e that you become totally ingrossed in it. You can certainly be so caught up in the story you're creating in a narrative game that the time flies by without realizing it.
What the "immersion crowd" in this thread are talking about however, is different, it's immersing into a setting, Lord Vreeg's "World in Motion".
Simulationist has been tainted by Uncle Ron, immersive unfortunately is becoming a "blanket term" because game designers do refer to different types of immersion.
So what the heck do we call it? I get the feeling that if we came up with better terminology we could avoid some of these 600 post knockdown drag outs where the real reason we're fighting is that we're essentially debating a term using different definitions.
Quote from: two_fishes;388284I could argue any mechanic equally reduces immersion. Anytime I, as a player immersed in a character, must engage with the game mechanics to determine the outcome of an attempted task, I am removing myself from the character. If complexity is equal in all cases, whether the mechanics resolve the task via modelling physics of the world, or consideration of its value to the story, or competitively balanced odds, the outcome is the same--I must disengage with "immersion" and engage with rules and dice-rolling.
Again, a good point and one that Justin does an admirable job with. All mechanics that a player must contend with are
at some level dissociative.
However, I have two points that need to be considered when judging this. The first is that I do not think all mechanics reduce immersion equally, as some of them require out-of character thinking BEFORE you engage in the game mechanic to determine the outcome of an attempted task. All character actions can be seperated into the decision to take an action and the mechanical interpretation of thataction. If the decision phase of the action BEFORE the mechanical interpretation is compromised, it is double-whammy, so to speak, eaning less time in-character.
In other words, I agree that the decision having your mage decide to cast a fireball at approaching enemies can be made in-character, and of course, there is a stepping back from immersion when you roll for damage.
But if the same player made the decision to cast a fireball because the player knew that that particular enemy is especially vulnerable to fire, and if the character had no way to know this, one would say the player was metagaming, and never acting in-character.
Please note that the decision phase is the only phase where one can be immersed, BTW. Every RPG mechanic is dissociative to a degree when you have to go through the mechaical interpretation.
So if the mechanic in question compromises the decision phase, I would consider that a less immersive mechanic, like Fate/action points.
More important, to me, are the GM rules for the game/adventure/setting encounters, treasures, etc, that have NOTHING to do with mechanical interpretations, but reduce use of in-game logic.
Wishlists and encounter parity remove the internal logic of a setting. If a player can assume that the difficulty level of an encounter is based on their ability level, it negates the need to use in game logic. These rules are dissociative without the Player every having to go through the mechanical interpretaion phase.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388185That's obviously untrue.
Actually, it's quite true.
Seanchai
Quote from: two_fishes;388137I know thread morph over time, but I suspect some part of the reason for the defensiveness of 4e supporters on this thread can be found in the title of the thread itself.
Pretty much. Lack of "immersion" and "dissociative mechanics" are just some of the latest volleys by folks who don't have the balls to just come out and say, "I don't like 4e. Thus you shouldn't like or play it either."
Seanchai
Quote from: CRKrueger;388127He thinks someone who immerses into a character to the point where 4e's level of dissociative mechanics impedes that immersion is either lying about it, or clinically insane.
No, I think a) what's immersive or not is entirely subjective and b) 4e's mechanics are any more of less disruptive to said immersion than any other set of mechanics.
Seanchai
Quote from: GnomeWorks;388109You can adopt the mental state of someone else while being fully aware of the fact that it is an adoption, that you are not actually that individual, just acting wholly as though you were.
Acting wholly? How could you ever act wholly as another person while still understanding that you're not that person? There's always going to be some kind of filter or process running in the background. For example, if you were "immersed" in the idea of being a person in a wheelchair and suddenly a fire broke out, the first thing that would pop in your head is, "I can just stand up and run away!"
Seanchai
Quote from: CRKrueger;388290I am a big fan of sub-dividing the term RPG into different categories because it's obvious that the term role-playing means different things to different people, hence the term becomes so general as to be meaningless without qualifiers.
I'm starting to think the same can be said for immersion. A lot of people think of immersion as "losing yourself in something" ie. you get engrossed in what you are doing, then you realize 5 hours have gone by. You can certainly be having so much fun in 4e that you become totally ingrossed in it. You can certainly be so caught up in the story you're creating in a narrative game that the time flies by without realizing it.
What the "immersion crowd" in this thread are talking about however, is different, it's immersing into a setting, Lord Vreeg's "World in Motion".
Simulationist has been tainted by Uncle Ron, immersive unfortunately is becoming a "blanket term" because game designers do refer to different types of immersion.
So what the heck do we call it? I get the feeling that if we came up with better terminology we could avoid some of these 600 post knockdown drag outs where the real reason we're fighting is that we're essentially debating a term using different definitions.
Verisimilitude.
"Realism" is right out, because you're playing a gnome who can make things catch on fire with her mind. "Immersion" is as you've noted a hapless three legged dog of a word. And "Simulationism" has been covered with six thousand word essays by the Ronster until it no longer means anything.
But Verisimilitude is a pretty good word. It's the extent to which the things that happen when you roll the dice and follow the rules match the way it seems like things
should happen when you read the flavor text and describe the action.
-Frank
Quote from: two_fishes;388277Inevitably all arguments have to be decided by evidence, and that's something that's lacking in almost any RPG discussion. You can label mechanics associative or disassociative, and claim that disassociative mechanics interfere with immersion, but without a statistically meaningful survey of people playing the game, it's all just intellectual exercise.
It's not the lack of statistics that's hampering the discussion, it's the highly subjective nature of the subject matter.
Seanchai
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388309Verisimilitude.
"Realism" is right out, because you're playing a gnome who can make things catch on fire with her mind. "Immersion" is as you've noted a hapless three legged dog of a word. And "Simulationism" has been covered with six thousand word essays by the Ronster until it no longer means anything.
But Verisimilitude is a pretty good word. It's the extent to which the things that happen when you roll the dice and follow the rules match the way it seems like things should happen when you read the flavor text and describe the action.
-Frank
Yeah, but Justin uses 3:16 as an example of something that's "dissociated", yet it has verisimilitude because the actions follow logic, it's just that the scale is zoomed out a bit (rather than "mismatching" what would happen in reality).
I mean, I'm all for using the term as it describes what certain people like in terms of how mechanics shape the game-world, but I'm not sure it's 100% compatible with Justin's ideas of "dissociated" or "associated" mechanics.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388309Verisimilitude.
"Realism" is right out, because you're playing a gnome who can make things catch on fire with her mind. "Immersion" is as you've noted a hapless three legged dog of a word. And "Simulationism" has been covered with six thousand word essays by the Ronster until it no longer means anything.
But Verisimilitude is a pretty good word. It's the extent to which the things that happen when you roll the dice and follow the rules match the way it seems like things should happen when you read the flavor text and describe the action.
-Frank
"Suspension of disbelief" is another important one, albeit one I'm afraid gamers have sadly all but forgotten.
To be honest I'm more and more finding it hard to find gamers who are even capable of it. Half of them are just that dense, and the other half seem to have sprung up around some hipster trend of simply refusing to accept premise, the kind of idiots who write things like "D&D dungeons are genocide".
Quote from: LordVreeg;388280The internet can be a tough medium. Your post
Stormy was giving you an example of Argumentum ad populum, which is a docuemented logical fallacy you were guilty of.
Saying you can't look into other people's heads is not a logical fallacy. "The opposition" kept making claims that they could not hold. End of story. It is not Argumentum ad populum every time something brings a crowd into the mix and I wasn't saying "you are wrong because these many other people say so" I was saying "you are wrong, because you contradict these many people who have no reason to lie and into whose heads you cannot look".
@moving the goalpost: I did not. I just didn't repeat metagaming, which I did not have to as plenty of people immerse themselves just fine while metagaming. And one guys metagaming is the next guys "genre emulation".
Quote from: J Arcane;388318"Suspension of disbelief" is another important one, albeit one I'm afraid gamers have sadly all but forgotten.
To be honest I'm more and more finding it hard to find gamers who are even capable of it. Half of them are just that dense, and the other half seem to have sprung up around some hipster trend of simply refusing to accept premise, the kind of idiots who write things like "D&D dungeons are genocide".
I'm wondering how much of a deforming mirror effect the internet creates in that respect.
I'm not meeting that many gamers who are completely stuck in their ways of suspending disbelief, if at all, but at the same time, the people I've been playing with for the last while have been people I introduced to RPGs myself: new comers to RPGs and children are usually more able to suspend disbelief than people who already are hardcore gamers, in my experience.
Still, there seems to be a "bladders for lanterns" effect on the internet. I wonder to which extent it makes this issue of suspension of disbelief or lack thereof a greater issue than it really is by giving virtual bullhorns to the "D&D is genocide" people in the first place.
Quote from: Saphim;388321...I wasn't saying "you are wrong because these many other people say so" I was saying "you are wrong, because you contradict these many people who have no reason to lie and into whose heads you cannot look".
It's the exact same thing, as soon as you are trying to show someone is 'wrong'. If you attempt to counter an argument by demonstrating a certain population adheres to
your argument, it is
ad populum, plain and simple.
Look, I am hardly a staunch epistemologist or anything. But there are ideas that are subjective, and ideas that are objective. Calling an argument 'subjective' in order to undercut the premise only means that you are incapable of addressing the actual discussion. Especially when you have several people presenting cogent, internally consistent, and coherent reasons why it isn't 'subjective'. So, this kind of crap may fly in your Philo 101 class, but around here, it gets irritating fast.
Quote from: Benoist;388325Still, there seems to be a "bladders for lanterns" effect on the internet.
WTF???
I have a plan to make trillions of dollars. Forget simple language translators, I am going to start a service that translates idioms. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;388328But there are ideas that are subjective, and ideas that are objective.
1 + 1 = 3
2 + 2 = 5
...
:p
Again, I'm not convinced that "associative" or "disassociative" are anything more than technical sounding jargon to lend credibility to a fairly arbitrary and subjective distinction between the sorts of mechanics you like and those you dislike. Justin Alexander said that disassociated mechanics "are disconnected from the game world" but does he mean by that. Fate points have been brought up as an example of disassociated mechanics, but Fate points are connected to the game world--their use has an effect on the game world. They may not have a direct corollary to the fiction, but I personally don't find the decision to use them any more disruptive to immersion than, say, comparing the physical strength score of my character against the determined weight of an object. It may be even less. If I as a player immersed in a character need to decide whether or not to decide to attempt lift something, I can make that decision and then decide to use the Fate point in the resolution, or do the strength/weight comparison in the resolution. In both cases, the decision point for the character happens "in immersion". Or, in both I can check my available Fate points or check the Strength/weight comparison prior to making the in-character decision. In both cases the immersion is "broken". It's a matter of when the rules are engaged rather than what the rules actually are.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;387990Going beyond that, I'm willing to make an even more provocative statement: When you are using dissociated mechanics you are not roleplaying
Why not? I may be using a "disassociated" mechanic, like Fate points, as a signal to indicate how much an outcome matters to me the player and by proxy me my character. I am looking at the situation as a character and giving it an emotional weight. As a player I may be aware of how that emotional weight affects the gameworld, but I don't see how that knowledge necessarily breaks my immersive connection with the character. It may even help. Spending Fate points costs me the player resources and so makes the decision more important; makes decisions that are important to me my character mechanically important to me the player. It heightens empathy with the character, facilitating immersion with the character.
And, I haven't seen any refutation that rules complexity has a far greater effect on most players ability to immerse than the actual manner of the rules. CRKreuger's stance seems to be that distraction is what breaks immersion ("You get an actor doing a serious dramatic scene, and no one makes a sound, no one even gets in their line of sight, because at that level of immersion it is extremely easy to lose it.") In that vein, the simpler (and typically, by necessity, "more disassociative") a mechanic is, the better it is for immersion. Association to the gameworld doesn't really enter into it, since any stop to roll dice is going to break immersion anyway. The more mental work the resolution mechanic requires, the more it's going to break immersion.
Quote from: StormBringer;388330WTF???
I have a plan to make trillions of dollars. Forget simple language translators, I am going to start a service that translates idioms. :)
LOL "Prendre des vessies pour des lanternes". French idiom. Means that you're taking something, considering an idea or concept say, and giving it much more importance than it really deserves.
Quote from: two_fishes;388333Again, I'm not convinced that "associative" or "disassociative" are anything more than technical sounding jargon to lend credibility to a fairly arbitrary and subjective distinction between the sorts of mechanics you like and those you dislike.
In practice, this is how political type discussions sometimes degenerate into. After awhile, it becomes a "battle of definitions".
I have one offline friend who always uses semi-political terms to mean something completely different than the dictionary definitions. Most of the time I have a hard time understanding the point he is trying to make, until I ask him to precisely define the terms he is using. After awhile, I feel like I'm wasting my time talking with him about anything political. (ie. He's essentially playing with loaded dice).
The last several times I talked politics with this particular friend, I always stopped him in mid-sentence and demanded that he define every term he is using, so that there was no misunderstanding. Essentially I caught him in a lie a few times, whenever he uses a particular term to mean different things in the same context. (ie. For example, this would be equivalent of defining the word "yes" to really mean "no", while simultaneously the word "no" to really mean "no"). He couldn't even get his own terminology straight, without twisting himself into verbal pretzel knots.
Quote from: Benoist;388325I'm wondering how much of a deforming mirror effect the internet creates in that respect.
I'm not meeting that many gamers who are completely stuck in their ways of suspending disbelief, if at all, but at the same time, the people I've been playing with for the last while have been people I introduced to RPGs myself: new comers to RPGs and children are usually more able to suspend disbelief than people who already are hardcore gamers, in my experience.
Still, there seems to be a "bladders for lanterns" effect on the internet. I wonder to which extent it makes this issue of suspension of disbelief or lack thereof a greater issue than it really is by giving virtual bullhorns to the "D&D is genocide" people in the first place.
It just seems like for one excuse or another, I can no longer seem to find real players who are willing and able to accept the fiction of the game world. It's not a thing for them, they're just not willing to treat it as a real environment, to suspend disbelief as it were.
I'll agree to a limited extent that the "D&D is genocide" types are more common on the Internet, but I've encountered people like that IRL too, who insist on arguing against the most basic premises of the game in the most narrowly defined way, either because they like being argumentative douchebags, or because they think it's "funny".
Then you have the players who simply don't pay any fucking attention to what's going on and just roll the dice whenever they're told to, the ones who're more in it to see how badass a character they can roll up and still get it past the GM, the ones who ignore or seem to even react with hostility to anything that might present even the most basic backstory or fiction into the game.
I've even encountered quite a few who seem to treat the very idea of actually roleplaying something with open hostility, like it's some magic threshold where suddenly the past-time has just become too much of a geek endeavor for their tiny cocks to withstand. The other day I actually had a prospective D&D player inform a friend and I that any use of "voices", as he put it, meant he'd refuse to participate further in the game.
I'm just fucking sick of it. The truth is, 4e isn't the problem, or the cause of the problem, it's just a symptom of it. It's a generation too in love with irony and a very video game mindset to actually engage the game as it was meant to played, as a fucking roleplaying game. D&D itself has become this ironic hipster geek thing, to be strutted out to gain "cred" in this burgeoning web geek culture that's formed in the last few years, and treated with the same overt self-awareness one expects from fans of B-movies and MST3K. Everything is fucking cliche and shite and no one takes anything remotely fucking seriously, because otherwise you've suddenly crossed an invisible line and become one of "those guys", you know, the guys who actually are geeks instead of pretending to be them because it's cool to say on the internet.
So you get lots of "dissociative mechanics" or whatever the fuck, because associating with them in the first place is anathema.
Quote from: Jarcaneand treated with the same overt self-awareness one expects from fans of B-movies and MST3K
D&D has always been treated with a goofy tone by a good portion of the players. Taking it seriously isn't wrong, but treating the game as a simple pastime and not worrying too much about sideline chatter and jokes has been going on since day fucking zero.
If anything, the "real roleplaying" bullshit has absolutely no root in the origins of the hobby.
Quote from: ggroy;3883311 + 1 = 3
2 + 2 = 5
...
:p
Exactly.
2 + 2 = 5, for sufficiently large values of '2'. :)
Quote from: Saphim;388321Saying you can't look into other people's heads is not a logical fallacy. "The opposition" kept making claims that they could not hold. End of story. It is not Argumentum ad populum every time something brings a crowd into the mix and I wasn't saying "you are wrong because these many other people say so" I was saying "you are wrong, because you contradict these many people who have no reason to lie and into whose heads you cannot look".
@moving the goalpost: I did not. I just didn't repeat metagaming, which I did not have to as plenty of people immerse themselves just fine while metagaming. And one guys metagaming is the next guys "genre emulation".
1) Actually, it is Argumentum ad populum everytime you bring a crowd into the mix. Which is par for the course.
Nothing can be proven to be true merely because other people believe it. It does not matter if they have a reason to lie and if anyone can see in their head.
2) "And one guys metagaming is the next guys "genre emulation""????
You know, words have definitions.
Metagaming has a definition. You should look it up.
And you moved the goalposts because you were not responding to the original question. But, by saying
Quote from: Saphimwhich I did not have to as plenty of people immerse themselves just fine while metagaming
you've come back around to it.
So when, by the definition of metagaming, you are not thinking as the character but thinking as the player, you are telling me that you are thinking as the character. And apparently, plenty of other people are capable of this act of doing something by not doing it.
You are more talented than I, apparently.
Quote from: Benoist;388336LOL "Prendre des vessies pour des lanternes". French idiom. Means that you're taking something, considering an idea or concept say, and giving it much more importance than it really deserves.
'Making a mountain out of a molehill'
See? It will be my path to untold wealth. That will be $5, please. Or 5 quatloos, or whatever strange currency you use up there. :)
Quote from: J Arcane;388339It just seems like for one excuse or another, I can no longer seem to find real players who are willing and able to accept the fiction of the game world. It's not a thing for them, they're just not willing to treat it as a real environment, to suspend disbelief as it were.
I'll agree to a limited extent that the "D&D is genocide" types are more common on the Internet, but I've encountered people like that IRL too, who insist on arguing against the most basic premises of the game in the most narrowly defined way, either because they like being argumentative douchebags, or because they think it's "funny".
Then you have the players who simply don't pay any fucking attention to what's going on and just roll the dice whenever they're told to, the ones who're more in it to see how badass a character they can roll up and still get it past the GM, the ones who ignore or seem to even react with hostility to anything that might present even the most basic backstory or fiction into the game.
I've even encountered quite a few who seem to treat the very idea of actually roleplaying something with open hostility, like it's some magic threshold where suddenly the past-time has just become too much of a geek endeavor for their tiny cocks to withstand. The other day I actually had a prospective D&D player inform a friend and I that any use of "voices", as he put it, meant he'd refuse to participate further in the game.
I'm just fucking sick of it. The truth is, 4e isn't the problem, or the cause of the problem, it's just a symptom of it. It's a generation too in love with irony and a very video game mindset to actually engage the game as it was meant to played, as a fucking roleplaying game. D&D itself has become this ironic hipster geek thing, to be strutted out to gain "cred" in this burgeoning web geek culture that's formed in the last few years, and treated with the same overt self-awareness one expects from fans of B-movies and MST3K. Everything is fucking cliche and shite and no one takes anything remotely fucking seriously, because otherwise you've suddenly crossed an invisible line and become one of "those guys", you know, the guys who actually are geeks instead of pretending to be them because it's cool to say on the internet.
So you get lots of "dissociative mechanics" or whatever the fuck, because associating with them in the first place is anathema.
Dammit, J, these pearls of wisdom make me wish we weren't assholes to each other semi-frequently. ;)
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388309Verisimilitude.
"Realism" is right out, because you're playing a gnome who can make things catch on fire with her mind. "Immersion" is as you've noted a hapless three legged dog of a word. And "Simulationism" has been covered with six thousand word essays by the Ronster until it no longer means anything.
But Verisimilitude is a pretty good word. It's the extent to which the things that happen when you roll the dice and follow the rules match the way it seems like things should happen when you read the flavor text and describe the action.
-Frank
It has always been one of my big terms. Verisimiltude = in-setting logic. Internal consistency.
If things make sense within the setting, players find it easier to react to the setting. Too much inconsistency and lack of logic, and immersion becomes more difficult.
Probably even with the capital "I".
Quote from: Peregrin;388341D&D has always been treated with a goofy tone by a good portion of the players. Taking it seriously isn't wrong, but treating the game as a simple pastime and not worrying too much about sideline chatter and jokes has been going on since day fucking zero.
If anything, the "real roleplaying" bullshit has absolutely no root in the origins of the hobby.
He isn't really talking about 'real roleplaying' or 'ROLEplaying over ROLLplaying'. It's a matter of people not willing to step into a mindset or accept different assumptions because they are too busy being 'ironic' or
posing as geeks. It's like the entire premise of
Wired magazine. You can be 'in the know' on all these geek topics, but still hang out with 'the guys' at the sports bar and be 'normal'. You can play casually, and still get in tune with how Haldek the Warrior thinks, or reacts to a situation.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388343You are more talented than I, apparently.
You are not alone. I, too, have a distinct lack of ability when it comes to doublespeak. We should form a support group.
Sure, but I'm more talking about tongue-in-cheek play more than casual play. Those goofy breaking the 4th wall type things have been going on since Gygax and Arneson's campaigns.
Posing as a photographer for Wizard's Monthly Top Ten in order to distract the archmage nemesis, etc. Those sort of things that some people would see as working against immersion have been going on since the first OD&D campaigns.
Hell, just a look at some of the PC and NPC names from the first campaigns and you'd half expect to see Rodney Dangerfield on the list.
It doesn't stop you from getting in-character, but coming from the posts I'm reading here, neither does it lend itself to the type of internally-consistent and believable campaigns that some people expect.
In fact, several grognards I've spoken with noted a definite "arms length" between player and PC before the late 80s/early 90s and the amateur thespian/story movement.
Of course, the unrealistic and goofy nature of D&D is why we have Runequest, after all, so people's expectations are being catered to, one way or another.
Quote from: StormBringer;388347He isn't really talking about 'real roleplaying' or 'ROLEplaying over ROLLplaying'. It's a matter of people not willing to step into a mindset or accept different assumptions because they are too busy being 'ironic' or posing as geeks. It's like the entire premise of Wired magazine. You can be 'in the know' on all these geek topics, but still hang out with 'the guys' at the sports bar and be 'normal'. You can play casually, and still get in tune with how Haldek the Warrior thinks, or reacts to a situation.
Indeed, it's a hard thing to put into words, because there's a temptation to fall into a number of terms I don't think quite fit the situation, or come across as looking like an opposite pretension.
I used "taking it seriously" there, and even that I don't quite like for it because it carries bad connotations for a lot of people.
I just mean that it seems like many gamers just won't accept a premise for any reason. "Immersion" is indeed a foreign concept to them, because they don't even think about the game in a consistent way.
It's just there as an excuse to get drunk, roll some dice, and bullshit, or to feel smart and cool for a few hours about how so above all this silly gaming nonsense they are, because they're so socially and intellectually stunted they can't do any of those things without such an excuse. This is what I'm talking about when I rail against the whole "Cheetoism" thing, and against the Forge and Story gaming, because I think it's exactly the kind of bullshit that prevents roleplaying games from actually being roleplaying games.
I think both ends are extremist nonsense that undermine the potential of roleplaying as a past-time and destroy the whole reason I got into these fucking things in the first place.
I'm glad to be acting again, because I apparently can't scratch the same itch in roleplaying anymore because no one knows how to actually do so.
Quote from: J Arcane;388339I'm just fucking sick of it. The truth is, 4e isn't the problem, or the cause of the problem, it's just a symptom of it. It's a generation too in love with irony and a very video game mindset to actually engage the game as it was meant to played, as a fucking roleplaying game. D&D itself has become this ironic hipster geek thing, to be strutted out to gain "cred" in this burgeoning web geek culture that's formed in the last few years, and treated with the same overt self-awareness one expects from fans of B-movies and MST3K. Everything is fucking cliche and shite and no one takes anything remotely fucking seriously, because otherwise you've suddenly crossed an invisible line and become one of "those guys", you know, the guys who actually are geeks instead of pretending to be them because it's cool to say on the internet.
So you get lots of "dissociative mechanics" or whatever the fuck, because associating with them in the first place is anathema.
Good points. Found myself nodding reading it.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388292Again, a good point and one that Justin does an admirable job with. All mechanics that a player must contend with are at some level dissociative.
However, I have two points that need to be considered when judging this. The first is that I do not think all mechanics reduce immersion equally, as some of them require out-of character thinking BEFORE you engage in the game mechanic to determine the outcome of an attempted task. All character actions can be seperated into the decision to take an action and the mechanical interpretation of thataction. If the decision phase of the action BEFORE the mechanical interpretation is compromised, it is double-whammy, so to speak, eaning less time in-character.
In other words, I agree that the decision having your mage decide to cast a fireball at approaching enemies can be made in-character, and of course, there is a stepping back from immersion when you roll for damage.
But if the same player made the decision to cast a fireball because the player knew that that particular enemy is especially vulnerable to fire, and if the character had no way to know this, one would say the player was metagaming, and never acting in-character.
Please note that the decision phase is the only phase where one can be immersed, BTW. Every RPG mechanic is dissociative to a degree when you have to go through the mechaical interpretation.
So if the mechanic in question compromises the decision phase, I would consider that a less immersive mechanic, like Fate/action points.
Your points reflect well with why I cannot stand the separation of At-will, Encounter, or Daily powers with regards to abilities that in any other edition would be at-will, or not restricted from use in the real world.
Everyone has their own reasons for playing.
I like getting into what makes my character tick, acting that out, and making unique voices and speech patterns for different characters/NPCs.
Other people don't like that, and they do just want to socialize with D&D as the excuse, maybe clear out some dungeons.
As long as people have fun, I've no problem with it. It's just a matter of finding the group that works for you. I don't think there's any "wrong" or "bad" way to play. I think that sort of exclusionary thinking works against any sort of community or potential growth the hobby could have if circumstances were right.
As for the young pseudo-intellectual hipsters, I don't know. I haven't met any so I can't comment.
Quote from: J Arcane;388351I'm glad to be acting again, because I apparently can't scratch the same itch in roleplaying anymore because no one knows how to actually do so.
Tabletop rpgs and LARPing aren't my first choice of niches for acting.
From my very brief time in acting more than a decade ago, I never really made much of a connection between acting and playing tabletop rpgs. As far as I was concerned, they were largely independent and "orthogonal" to one another.
Quote from: J Arcane;388339It just seems like for one excuse or another, I can no longer seem to find real players who are willing and able to accept the fiction of the game world. It's not a thing for them, they're just not willing to treat it as a real environment, to suspend disbelief as it were.
I'll agree to a limited extent that the "D&D is genocide" types are more common on the Internet, but I've encountered people like that IRL too, who insist on arguing against the most basic premises of the game in the most narrowly defined way, either because they like being argumentative douchebags, or because they think it's "funny".
Then you have the players who simply don't pay any fucking attention to what's going on and just roll the dice whenever they're told to, the ones who're more in it to see how badass a character they can roll up and still get it past the GM, the ones who ignore or seem to even react with hostility to anything that might present even the most basic backstory or fiction into the game.
I've even encountered quite a few who seem to treat the very idea of actually roleplaying something with open hostility, like it's some magic threshold where suddenly the past-time has just become too much of a geek endeavor for their tiny cocks to withstand. The other day I actually had a prospective D&D player inform a friend and I that any use of "voices", as he put it, meant he'd refuse to participate further in the game.
I'm just fucking sick of it. The truth is, 4e isn't the problem, or the cause of the problem, it's just a symptom of it. It's a generation too in love with irony and a very video game mindset to actually engage the game as it was meant to played, as a fucking roleplaying game. D&D itself has become this ironic hipster geek thing, to be strutted out to gain "cred" in this burgeoning web geek culture that's formed in the last few years, and treated with the same overt self-awareness one expects from fans of B-movies and MST3K. Everything is fucking cliche and shite and no one takes anything remotely fucking seriously, because otherwise you've suddenly crossed an invisible line and become one of "those guys", you know, the guys who actually are geeks instead of pretending to be them because it's cool to say on the internet.
So you get lots of "dissociative mechanics" or whatever the fuck, because associating with them in the first place is anathema.
I freaked out on a poster elsewhere about the whole alt/geek culture thing (geek lifestyle), as it just offended me. It still does. A lot of people I have a lot of respect give it cred, I find it an excuse for feeling good about themselves without reason.
4e isn't a problem at all; nor at the root of it. I dissect mechanics because I love gaming enough to design my own games to create the play I want. This also means my love of getting into theory with design makes me a little too serious. I want every game to succeed.
I also have a background in psych, so to me, roleplaying as a term means something, and the term RPG is a recent bastardization that came from it.
I guess a lot of it comes out of what you want to get out of your game.
I'll be back on later. Good post.
Quote from: Peregrin;388354Everyone has their own reasons for playing.
I like getting into what makes my character tick, acting that out, and making unique voices and speech patterns for different characters/NPCs.
Other people don't like that, and they do just want to socialize with D&D as the excuse, maybe clear out some dungeons.
As long as people have fun, I've no problem with it. It's just a matter of finding the group that works for you. I don't think there's any "wrong" or "bad" way to play. I think that sort of exclusionary thinking works against any sort of community or potential growth the hobby could have if circumstances were right.
As for the young pseudo-intellectual hipsters, I don't know. I haven't met any so I can't comment.
Community growth doesn't really do much for anyone when it comes at the expense of sub-dividing the hobby so forcefully that no-one can actually play with one another.
Especially when one of those factions starts driving game design more than the others.
What good is community growth, when only one side of the community is the one that's growing because the game that's growing it only encourages one way to play?
Quote from: J Arcane;388351Indeed, it's a hard thing to put into words, because there's a temptation to fall into a number of terms I don't think quite fit the situation, or come across as looking like an opposite pretension.
I used "taking it seriously" there, and even that I don't quite like for it because it carries bad connotations for a lot of people.
I just mean that it seems like many gamers just won't accept a premise for any reason. "Immersion" is indeed a foreign concept to them, because they don't even think about the game in a consistent way.
It's just there as an excuse to get drunk, roll some dice, and bullshit, or to feel smart and cool for a few hours about how so above all this silly gaming nonsense they are, because they're so socially and intellectually stunted they can't do any of those things without such an excuse. This is what I'm talking about when I rail against the whole "Cheetoism" thing, and against the Forge and Story gaming, because I think it's exactly the kind of bullshit that prevents roleplaying games from actually being roleplaying games.
I think both ends are extremist nonsense that undermine the potential of roleplaying as a past-time and destroy the whole reason I got into these fucking things in the first place.
I'm glad to be acting again, because I apparently can't scratch the same itch in roleplaying anymore because no one knows how to actually do so.
I see your point. One one hand there is Tom Hanks in
Mazes & Monsters and on the other hand there is Heroscape. Both are equally ignorant about the point of RPGs in the first place.
When I want to have a rewarding role-playing experience I'll play earlier editions of D&D, or COC, or Dragon Age, or WHFRG. When I want a knockdown dragout fantasy tactical experience, I'll play 4e or D&D Heroscape. (I don't hate 4e, I just know what itch it scratches for me and don't try to use it for what it wasn't designed for. YMMV)
Quote from: Peregrin;388354As long as people have fun, I've no problem with it. It's just a matter of finding the group that works for you. I don't think there's any "wrong" or "bad" way to play. I think that sort of exclusionary thinking works against any sort of community or potential growth the hobby could have if circumstances were right.
Some guys have a lot of fun playing Caps with their drinking buddies. Does that make it a great way to enjoy role playing games?
The contension isn't that people somehow cannot or should not have fun in whatever way they like. But just because you're having fun doesn't mean you're actually playing a role playing game.
That's always going to be a problem as long as D&D remains the flagship franchise of the industry.
At the same time, without D&D, I wouldn't have found WoD, or Dark Heresy, or a myriad of other games that encourage alternate play-styles and takes on role playing.
The other parts of the industry/community are just going to have to find ways to make themselves attractive enough to draw players away from the "gateway drug" of role-playing. It's always been that way.
Quote from: BenoistThe contension isn't that people somehow cannot or should not have fun in whatever way they like. But just because you're having fun doesn't mean you're actually playing a role playing game.
Right, but that doesn't mean if I'm against funny voices, or acting in first-person, or if I'm breaking the 4th wall, I've suddenly become anathema to role-playing.
Quote from: Peregrin;388360That's always going to be a problem as long as D&D remains the flagship franchise of the industry.
At the same time, without D&D, I wouldn't have found WoD, or Dark Heresy, or a myriad of other games that encourage alternate play-styles and takes on role playing.
The other parts of the industry/community are just going to have to find ways to make themselves attractive enough to draw players away from the "gateway drug" of role-playing. It's always been that way.
I see this argument a lot, but isn't it just as possible that the people getting into 4e are getting into the hobby because the face it presents them is what draws them to it?
That people who might be interested in the roleplaying side of things aren't getting into it because the roleplaying side isn't even being represented, and so don't ever get the opportunity to treat it as a "gateway drug"?
I lament the loss of the D&D vs. WW dichotomy because as much as people demean WW here, having both of those presenting those two possibilities I think made for a much more open hobby than what we've had since D20 more or less buried the second tier.
Quote from: Peregrin;388360Right, but that doesn't mean if I'm against funny voices, or acting in first-person, or breaking the 4th wall, I've suddenly become anathema to role-playing.
Actually, as for the bolded passage? Yes, that makes it anathema to role playing games.
Quote from: J Arcane;388357Community growth doesn't really do much for anyone when it comes at the expense of sub-dividing the hobby so forcefully that no-one can actually play with one another.
Especially when one of those factions starts driving game design more than the others.
What good is community growth, when only one side of the community is the one that's growing because the game that's growing it only encourages one way to play?
Unless WOTC starts releasing splatbooks on roleplaying or acting, I can see why they went with a more crunch-heavy ruleset. From what I have heard, actors can't afford shit anyway. :)
Note on my previous post: you can actually speak in third-person and still be role-playing in first-person in your mind. But if you are considering the game from a bird's eye view, with your character as being a completely separate construct from yourself, you're not playing a role playing game, to me. You might still be playing a storytelling game, though.
Quote from: Seanchai;388306No, I think a) what's immersive or not is entirely subjective and b) 4e's mechanics are any more of less disruptive to said immersion than any other set of mechanics.
Seanchai
And of course you think that way because you don't immerse to the same extent that others do, thank you once again for proving my point.
Quote from: Benoist;388362Actually, as for the bolded passage? Yes, that makes it anathema to role playing games.
*edit*
Caught your second post. I see your point. I was speaking mainly about describing your character's actions without speaking in their voice, not necessarily viewing them as only a construct.
Quote from: Peregrin;388366So if I describe my actions in a narrative way without acting in first-person, I'm not roleplaying? Gygax and people at his tables promoted a method of "not roleplaying"?
See my complementary post above yours.
Quote from: J Arcane;388361I lament the loss of the D&D vs. WW dichotomy because as much as people demean WW here, having both of those presenting those two possibilities I think made for a much more open hobby than what we've had since D20 more or less buried the second tier.
While I don't necessarily agree with the rest of your post, I definitely feel you here.
Quote from: BenoistSee my complementary post above yours.
See my edit. :D
Quote from: Peregrin;388368See my edit. :D
Yeah. It's alright. I fired the one-liner a bit too quickly there. My fault. :)
Quote from: J Arcane;388361I lament the loss of the D&D vs. WW dichotomy because as much as people demean WW here, having both of those presenting those two possibilities I think made for a much more open hobby than what we've had since D20 more or less buried the second tier.
What's the dichotomy from the WW side?
(I never played any WW rpgs. I didn't play any tabletop rpgs over the entire decade of the 1990's).
Quote from: J Arcane;388361I lament the loss of the D&D vs. WW dichotomy because as much as people demean WW here, having both of those presenting those two possibilities I think made for a much more open hobby than what we've had since D20 more or less buried the second tier.
I feel you too, here. I've actually a lot of good things to say about WW games. I just wish the pseudo-intellectual narrative ego-tripping bullshit was thrown out the window. When you ignore that, there are some real gems in terms of gaming in there.
The only thing we can hope for at this point is that a company with enough money will instigate a reactionary design ethos to counter 4e, and do the same thing that WW did in the 90s, and expand the spectrum a bit.
Quote from: Peregrin;388375The only thing we can hope for at this point is that a company with enough money will instigate a reactionary design ethos to counter 4e, and do the same thing that WW did in the 90s, and expand the spectrum a bit.
There's no doubt in my mind that it's going to happen somehow. You can't have a flagship like 4e taking RPGs in a direction like this without some counter-culture coming up with their own take at some point. The question is what form it will take. Who knows.
Quote from: JasperAK;388358When I want to have a rewarding role-playing experience I'll play earlier editions of D&D, or COC, or Dragon Age, or WHFRG. When I want a knockdown dragout fantasy tactical experience, I'll play 4e or D&D Heroscape. (I don't hate 4e, I just know what itch it scratches for me and don't try to use it for what it wasn't designed for. YMMV)
Just back from a party...this caught my eye...
wise, you are. Identify things for what they are good at, and use them for that.
Imagine that...
Quote from: Benoist;388376There's no doubt in my mind that it's going to happen somehow. You can't have a flagship like 4e taking RPGs in a direction like this without some counter-culture coming up with their own take at some point. The question is what form it will take. Who knows.
Well, the next big thing isn't going to be a new edition of Shadowrun, Catalyst's next phase of their bankruptcy trial isn't until August 9th. Probably won't be anything out of White Wolf either, considering what a low penetration their work actually has on a per-book basis and what an "afterthought" they are to their own parent company.
It pains me to say it: but I honestly think the next big thing is going to be something with a Celebrity Endorsement. The number of copies of these books that are actually being sold is so small that if some dude flacked his fantasy hartbreaker on The Daily Show, it would probably be the #2 or even #1 selling
game.
Get some gamer who is also a celebrity like Vin Diesel to put in the time to write a chapter in the core book for a new game, get some face time on some talk shows, and get the damn book in Barnes & Noble. We're sitting around talking about the impact of stuff like the Dresden Files RPG - when it sold like four thousand copies of each of two books. If someone drops an RPG book that is discussed on Fox & Friends, it could easily sell a hundred times that. And then
it would be the dominant word in RPGs.
No matter what it was!It could be a late 70s mass-of-charts game. It could be a late oughts wall-of-text game. It could be an early nineties story driven opus of impenetrable statistical engines. It could be something else entirely. The fact is that simply getting
noticed to the point where you have hundreds of thousands of people reading and playing (which is easy enough to do with a marketing blitz), would make your game the dominant thought in RPGs for the coming decade.
Or getting a foothold in China or India. That would work to. The first game that is a "hit" in the PRC gets 13 million players. Tomorrow. That would catapult them so far into dominance of the industry that they would thereafter define the industry.
-Frank
The problem these days is that time is too valuable a commodity for most people to commit any to lengthy tabletop games. Video games aren't in direct competition with tabletop as far as experience goes, but they definitely are in terms of how easily each fits into your schedule.
The only thing I could see hoping for is that there's some sort of "post video-game" RPG revival as geek chic continues to penetrate popular culture. That's still pretty pie-in-the-sky, though.
I think Dark Heresy really showed the promise of catching the lightning in the bottle, but completed mismanagement from two seperate companies sure solved that.
True, DH gained steam pretty fast but kind of petered off.
Dragon Age, AFAIK, was a flop from the start.
Blizzard is only interested in quick-cash CCGs, board-games, and other "mini-game"/paraphernalia type tie-ins.
If any of the big CRPG companies released an RPG with their name on it, with strong tie-ins to the main product (and the associated marketing), they might be able to tread some water, but it'd still be risky. White-Wolf and D&D 3e managed it because of near-perfect timing in terms of pop/geek culture. But now that video-games have gotten so big, it's hard to get the spotlight off them.
Personally, I'd love to see a Fallout RPG, but I don't think Beth has expressed any interest in tabletop, especially now that they're self-admitted console-only players because "we don't have time for that more complex stuff -- we just want to have fun."
Quote from: Saphim;388233And yet people state that they do. So either all of these people lie or your insight isn't as profound as you think it is. I am going with the second option here as I don't think all those 4e players have a reason to lie.
Okay, look:
(1) You claim you're making a decision
as if you were your character.
(2) The character is
completely ignorant of the decision in question.
That is not possible. If you're making that claim you are either mistaken or you are lying.
This is indisputable. Frankly, I'm done discussing it. If you want to continue beating your fists against the brick wall of a tautology, go right ahead, but I'm not going to waste my time on such inane idiocy any longer.
Now, what I have
already said is that it's quite possible to roleplay all around that dissociated mechanic. But at the moment you are using the dissociated mechanic (and, thus, making a decision about which your character is completely ignorant) you ARE NOT ROLEPLAYING.
In making this statement I am, as I have
said before, presuming a definition of roleplaying as being "the making of decisions as if you were the character". And I'm perfectly willing to debate whether or not that's an appropriate definition of the term.
But if you accept that roleplaying is "the making of decisions as if you were the character", then the fact that you are not roleplaying while you are using dissociated mechanics is, as I have said, indisputable.
Period.
Quote@magic items: So your gamemaster looks up and says "in the hoard are three mage touched swords, 2 glaives that were majorly mage touched and a two handed sword that was really touched by a mage"? Really? That is the first time I hear of this. We always say +1 Sword/Axe/Whatever.
Sometimes. But it's also irrelevant. You are still confusing abstracted/metagamed mechanics for dissociated mechanics. (A fact you would have been forced to confront if you weren't cherry-picking statements from my posts.)
Quote@action points: So there is no luck or heroic effort or any other of multiple of possible labels for such a thing in your gameworld?
Sure. But the decision "my character is going to be lucky here" has no analog in the game world. That's what makes it a dissociated mechanic.
Let's compare this to a nearly identical associated mechanic: The character has a two-headed coin that was given to him by the Goddess of Luck. Once per day he can call upon the Goddess of Luck to help spin the odds a little bit in his favor for a few moments. This, mechanically, translates into rolling twice and keeping the better result.
The difference is subtle, but distinct and meaningful. Until you are capable of recognizing the difference, you're just flailing blindly in this discussion.
Quote from: Saphim;388275@types of mechanics: It might be a dissociative mechanic for you, for other people it might just be what the doctor ordered to be in there and feel what it means to be a hero and give everything at a certain moment. Preferences vary.
But I suspect the root of your problem lies here: You assume that dissociated mechanics are innately bad, and therefore if you like something it must not be a dissociated mechanic.
There's nothing innately good or bad about dissociated mechanics. They are a tool. Like any tool, they are good for some things and bad for others.
Quote from: two_fishes;388277Inevitably all arguments have to be decided by evidence, and that's something that's lacking in almost any RPG discussion. You can label mechanics associative or disassociative, and claim that disassociative mechanics interfere with immersion, but without a statistically meaningful survey of people playing the game, it's all just intellectual exercise. Someone who comes along and says, "Nuh-uh, I immerse fine with these so-called disassociative mechanics!" is making a claim that is just as valid as the opposite.
JA: I'm going to define "run" as "to move swiftly on foot so that both feet leave the ground during each stride". I am therefore going to conclude that someone who has had both of their legs surgically removed cannot run.
two_fishes: Without a statistically meaningful survey of people who move around, it's all just an intellectual exercise. Someone who comes along and says, "Nuh-uh, I run just fine without any legs!" is making a claim that is just as valid as the opposite.
No. They're not. If they want to dispute the definition of "running", that's fine. That's a discussion we can have. But if you accept the definition, it follows that people without legs cannot run. It's no longer a matter of opinion.
Quote from: Peregrin;388316Yeah, but Justin uses 3:16 as an example of something that's "dissociated", yet it has verisimilitude because the actions follow logic, it's just that the scale is zoomed out a bit (rather than "mismatching" what would happen in reality).
Yup. Verisimilitude is a useful term, but it's describing something distinctly different from the associated/dissociated terminology.
For example,
Monopoly could be re-designed so that it's property values closely matched current property values in the real world. The result would have a high degree of verisimilitude, but it wouldn't make the game's mechanics any less dissociated.
Now, people who are interested in associated mechanics are probably likely to want verisimilitude, too, because both values cater to a similar set of tastes. And associated mechanics may innately bring some degree of versimilitude with them. But there isn't a direct connection between the two.
Quote from: Benoist;388362QuoteRight, but that doesn't mean if I'm against funny voices, or acting in first-person, or breaking the 4th wall, I've suddenly become anathema to role-playing.
Actually, as for the bolded passage? Yes, that makes it anathema to role playing games.
Here I would disagree. I think that one can play a role without necessarily acting the role.
The key here is the continuum of "as if" in my definition of roleplaying: "Making definitions as if you were the character."
At one end of that continuum you have a completely logical construct: "I think that Bob the Warrior would do X."
As you move along that continuum, you begin putting yourself more and more "in the character's shoes" as you move more and more towards something that we would recognize as acting. In other words, as you move along that continuum you are moving from logic (concluding that X would be Bob's action) to emotion (feeling that X would be Bob's action).
Stanislavski's acting method is entirely predicated around the construction of the "magic if" or "as if". And when we talk about "immersion" we're talking about something very much akin to that semi-transcendental state that Stanislavski talks about in which you move beyond the logical or cognitive construct of the "as if" entirely -- where you stop having to think about your acting and simply become the character.
Another way of looking at this is to consider the character as a meme-construct that you create in your brain: At one end of the continuum you are very much aware of what you're putting into the meme-construct, how the meme-construct is processing that input, and why the output exists the way that it does. At the other end of the continuum, the meme-construct is essentially a "black box".
These meme-constructs are similar to the images we build up of other people's mental states during social interaction. Recent neural science is demonstrating that not only are these meme-constructs in many ways hard-coded into our brains, but that there's a hard-coded connection between these meme-constructs and our own consciousness: When we see someone crying, we're hard-coded to recognize their sadness and to feel sad ourselves. When we see someone laughing, we're hard-coded to feel happy ourselves.
This is why so much of acting theory is built upon a fundamentally empathetic structure. The roles we play are illusionary people to whom we forge an intensely empathetic bond to the point of complete identification.
And to bring this back around to the point: In other words, at one end of the scale we have a meme-construct that we identify with 100% (immersion). And at the other end of the scale we have a meme-construct that we hold at a complete arm's length (for which I don't have a handy term).
Most of us, of course, fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum. And will, in fact, move backwards and forwards along the continuum depending on any number of factors. But my big point here is that you can hold that meme-construct at complete arm's length and still be roleplaying.
Quote from: Peregrin;388401The problem these days is that time is too valuable a commodity for most people to commit any to lengthy tabletop games. Video games aren't in direct competition with tabletop as far as experience goes, but they definitely are in terms of how easily each fits into your schedule.
The only thing I could see hoping for is that there's some sort of "post video-game" RPG revival as geek chic continues to penetrate popular culture. That's still pretty pie-in-the-sky, though.
What will really make the scene *pop* is when an RPG system, a newer one, is really good enough for long-term, campaign play, has basic, advanced an optional rules, and is used in a large scale video game, so it brings fans to the tabletop version from both directions. It needs to get the hardcore gamer not to hate it, the newer and more casual player to enjoy the more basic rules, and to bring in some curious video gamers who want to see what it is all about when you have a live GM.
Quote from: Benoist;388376There's no doubt in my mind that it's going to happen somehow. You can't have a flagship like 4e taking RPGs in a direction like this without some counter-culture coming up with their own take at some point. The question is what form it will take. Who knows.
Unfortunately, I think the hobby has shrunk to the point that the reaction is only online rather than on the shelves of stores, and is already with us in the form of the OSR. If
V:tM was an echo of the boom of '81, the echoes are just getting smaller.
Quote from: CRKrueger;388365And of course you think that way because you don't immerse to the same extent that others do, thank you once again for proving my point.
I'm actually the big roleplayer of my two groups, both as a player and (especially) as a GM. But nice try.
Seanchai
Quote from: Peregrin;388405Dragon Age, AFAIK, was a flop from the start.
I found it! My FLGS finally got it in! I think it's not a fantastic benefit to sales when it takes months for a copy to arrive at an FLGS.
Seanchai
Quote from: two_fishes;388333Again, I'm not convinced that "associative" or "disassociative" are anything more than technical sounding jargon to lend credibility to a fairly arbitrary and subjective distinction between the sorts of mechanics you like and those you dislike.
Probably because that's just what's happening. You've got the classics going on here: neologisms/jargon, theories that don't explain what's actually happening and seen at the gaming table, pronouncements about what is and what is not a roleplaying game, et al..
We humans use the same basic pattern over and over to attack that which we dislike, fear, or don't understand.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;388438Probably because that's just what's happening. You've got the classics going on here: neologisms/jargon, theories that don't explain what's actually happening and seen at the gaming table, pronouncements about what is and what is not a roleplaying game, et al..
We humans use the same basic pattern over and over to attack that which we dislike, fear, or don't understand.
Seanchai
I think my irony meter just broke.
Quote from: Seanchai;388438Probably because that's just what's happening. You've got the classics going on here: neologisms/jargon, theories that don't explain what's actually happening and seen at the gaming table, pronouncements about what is and what is not a roleplaying game, et al..
We humans use the same basic pattern over and over to attack that which we dislike, fear, or don't understand.
Seanchai
Oh please.
As If you have been able to do anything but anklebite and dismiss what you have proven you can't actively debate.
Please offer something other than mewling dissatisfaction with other people's reasoned debate. I'm perfectly willing to hear and to respond to why you think you are right and other people are wrong. Just stop wasting space flinging random vitriol.
Quote from: StormBringer;388440I think my irony meter just broke.
No kidding. Get a power-painter for that kettle, I want it DARK...
Quote from: The_Shadow;388421Unfortunately, I think the hobby has shrunk to the point that the reaction is only online rather than on the shelves of stores, and is already with us in the form of the OSR. If V:tM was an echo of the boom of '81, the echoes are just getting smaller.
Well, in the real world, R&D often looks to marketting to see what they can do better. I can see it now, "5e, with
*NEW* immersive mechanics!"
Quote from: LordVreeg;388205No, you're not. Or at least, not to everyone.
I do disagree with you about the lack of objective truth here....not talking about any game in particular, but there are rules that promote metagaming...this is the opposite of in-game thinking, so it certainly reduces immersion. I don't find this fact subjective at all.
I'm not saying there's isn't a fact-of-the-matter when it comes to specific experiences. But whether a rule promotes disassociation or not is highly contextual based on the experience.
Here's an example from a 4e game I was in where what you might think of highly "disassociative mechanics" were quite immersive, and something you might think of as "immersive" was actually the opposite.
We were wandering along having been teleported to a strange land and trying to find our way home. We started hearing some noises, and it turned out some Umber Hulks were pincer-ambushing us. We fought two, and they were way more powerful than us, so we started running. This became a skill challenge.
The skill challenge was that each round, everyone rolled an appropriate skill (Endurance and Athletics, mainly), as did the hulks. We needed to build up 8 successes of difference to have gotten far enough away. Each round, the difficulty of the check went up as we got more tired. If the hulks catch up to the number of successes you have, they catch you and Bad Shit [tm] happens.
So, narratively, it's this hectic chase, and the cleric in our party can't make it. He drops back, the hulks grab him, and he gets torn to shreds in a short combat. I'm playing a rogue at the time, and my rogue has really shitty Endurance, so I'm proposing all sorts of alternate checks to Curtis, some of which go off, some of which (Acrobatics to leap over obstacles is cool, Perception to find a place to hide isn't).
Finally, I'm something like two checks away from succeeding. I'm the last guy in this chase, one PC having gotten away and the cleric having been eaten. There's a bridge up ahead over a stream.
So I think to myself "OK, tremorsense isn't going to work in water, so I just need to dive over the side of the bridge". I fail the check that round, get to the bridge, and dive into the water just as the hulks catch up.
Now, the bridge is a curved / arched footbridge spanning maybe fifty feet, so I figure that if I roll over the side, hit the water, and swim under it, I'll be out of sight, and can make some wicked hide check.
This leads to an hour long argument with the DM over whether or not I actually broke line of sight with the Umber Hulks when I dropped over the side, with the calculation of sight lines using geometry, etc. I've got a couple other PCs on my side here (it was one of them who was doing the geometry), and basically things grind to a halt because of a difference in the imagined world (the DM goes back on the bridge being curved, and instead claims it was flat, etc.)
Anyhow, I end up getting killed by the hulks in the end, but for me, the more immersive part of that situation was fleeing from the Hulks, gradually tiring, and having to try something crazy to get out of that situation, and the least immersive part was dickering over the exact set-up of bridge, stream and water level.
It's experiences like that (and I've had similar experiences with many different systems over the years) that lead me to believe that what counts as "disassociative" and "immersive" are not found in the rules of an RPG, but derive from the actual play experience.
QuoteHowever, as I have said, a good GM, a good group of players, and a good adventure make up for a lot, and as I do not believe that 100% immersion is
ever possible. All games we play allow us to create some immersion, some are better than others, and some that may not be as good may offer other game benefits.
The second experience I would relate regarding this point is the "long IC conversation between the DM and another PC" experience that I'm sure we've all sat through at one point or another. My buddies Curtis and Rob, in the Iron Heroes Dessinger campaign that's partially written up on this site, once had an hour and a half long IC discussion which went from fascinating to kind of boring b/c no one else was in the scene. While it was kind of important to the story at the time, and both are excellent roleplayers (they are in fact the best people at portraying RPG characters I have ever met, which is why I continue to RP with them to this day), it wasn't particularly immersive for me or my buddy Chris, who were just kind of sitting on our hands the entire time.
That experience had nothing to do with mechanics or the specific ruleset we were using, and yet it bore directly on our feelings of immersion at the time.
Quote from: StormBringer;388169I think they are more equal than you give them credit for. Take Akrasia's example of chess: You can certainly play the part of King Harold against your opponent, King Ogrek. But you will be doing some seriously heavy lifting, because the chess game itself is little more than a 'scoreboard' or 'tally' if you will. Obviously, the Rook can't actually move. It's a building. The 'movement' is an extreme abstraction of the political manoeuvring of the royal court.
It's not 100% subjective. Chess is a shitty RPG because of the extreme abstraction or disassociation. It is neither delusion nor mental illness. Because of the rules, some games simply make it more difficult to maintain a 'role' consistently. Piling on all kinds of fiction or explanation does not negate the fact that the underlying rules are not good for assuming a role. It re-inforces that you have to essentially ignore the rules, or subsume them greatly, in order to take on this role and maintain it.
Chess is a very extreme example, obviously, but I would find arguments that 'immersion' is a binary state to be prima facie ridiculous. I doubt further inspection would reveal them to be any less specious. Hence, I think everyone can agree that there is a range that can be discussed, and different games will fall on this spectrum in different places. Where those lie on the continuum as a matter of personal preference (to a degree) is non-controversial, but that is not an argument in and of itself.
Oh, I wouldn't deny that some games in general don't allow for immersion, if we're considering the set of all possible games and including things like chess, jumping jacks and tag and the like. But I think RPGs form a unique subset of all games, and that the distinct feature that makes a RPG a RPG is precisely that is a game in which one acts out the role of a character in an imaginary world.
And I think any game that belongs to that subset and has that feature can be immersive. What's important there, IMHO, is how the group dynamics and individual players' actions allow them to engage with the world and other PCs and how they use the rules, rather than the content of the rules themselves. I don't find Perception checks themselves to be inherently disassociative, for example. I don't even find it disassociative to be asked to make a bunch of them in a row if I'm searching a room or a house. But I do find it disassociative to be asked to make one every ten feet when I'm just wandering along (Jim Bob has a story about having to do this in a GURPS campaign, IIRC).
Quote from: LordVreeg;388418What will really make the scene *pop* is when an RPG system, a newer one, is really good enough for long-term, campaign play, has basic, advanced an optional rules, and is used in a large scale video game, so it brings fans to the tabletop version from both directions. It needs to get the hardcore gamer not to hate it, the newer and more casual player to enjoy the more basic rules, and to bring in some curious video gamers who want to see what it is all about when you have a live GM.
That's nearly impossible. Harder than avoiding the dreaded "Developer's Paradox" in video games.
I'm not saying it
can't be done, but you'd have to have the most amazing PR to ensure success. Someone everyone loves. Neil Patrick Harris or something.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388447I'm not saying there's isn't a fact-of-the-matter when it comes to specific experiences. But whether a rule promotes disassociation or not is highly contextual based on the experience.
Here's an example from a 4e game I was in where what you might think of highly "disassociative mechanics" were quite immersive, and something you might think of as "immersive" was actually the opposite.
We were wandering along having been teleported to a strange land and trying to find our way home. We started hearing some noises, and it turned out some Umber Hulks were pincer-ambushing us. We fought two, and they were way more powerful than us, so we started running. This became a skill challenge.
The skill challenge was that each round, everyone rolled an appropriate skill (Endurance and Athletics, mainly), as did the hulks. We needed to build up 8 successes of difference to have gotten far enough away. Each round, the difficulty of the check went up as we got more tired. If the hulks catch up to the number of successes you have, they catch you and Bad Shit [tm] happens.
[...]
So, narratively, it's this hectic chase, and the cleric in our party can't make it. He drops back, the hulks grab him, and he gets torn to shreds in a short com
Anyhow, I end up getting killed by the hulks in the end, but for me, the more immersive part of that situation was fleeing from the Hulks, gradually tiring, and having to try something crazy to get out of that situation, and the least immersive part was dickering over the exact set-up of bridge, stream and water level.
Two things, one, skill challenges don't works that way, (unless Mike Mearls put out yet another variant) but that is not really important here.
Second. this is not an example of dissociative mechanic, actually that is a good example of an associative mechanic, you roll endurance checks to see if you keep running, if you fail you get tired and start losing ground, if you succeed you gain ground, there is an almost perfect correspondence between the mechanics and what actually happen in the game world, hence associative mechanic, hence immersion. Q.E.D.
Quote from: Seanchai;388438I'm actually the big roleplayer of my two groups, both as a player and (especially) as a GM. But nice try.
Kind vs. Degree. You can be the big roleplayer of your Chess club because you name all the pieces and use voices when you move, that doesn't mean you're immersing deeply in roleplaying a character.
Quote from: Seanchai;388438We humans use the same basic pattern over and over to attack that which we dislike, fear, or don't understand.
And one of those patterns is to ignore logic entirely and to declare the objective as subjective in a means to completely skirt the argument. Something you have been doing in this thread from the beginning, because you obviously don't get what JA and LV are consistently and repeatedly proving logically, or you don't care, and are simply arguing the reverse in the pattern of the ideologue, or even more simply, the troll.
Either way, thank you for proving my point, yet again. ;)
Quote from: Just Another User;388469/snip
Second. this is not an example of dissociative mechanic, actually that is a good example of an associative mechanic, you roll endurance checks to see if you keep running, if you fail you get tired and start losing ground, if you succeed you gain ground, there is an almost perfect correspondence between the mechanics and what actually happen in the game world, hence associative mechanic, hence immersion. Q.E.D.
I was thinking the same thing while I was reading.
Quote from: Just Another User;388469Two things, one, skill challenges don't works that way, (unless Mike Mearls put out yet another variant) but that is not really important here.
Second. this is not an example of dissociative mechanic, actually that is a good example of an associative mechanic, you roll endurance checks to see if you keep running, if you fail you get tired and start losing ground, if you succeed you gain ground, there is an almost perfect correspondence between the mechanics and what actually happen in the game world, hence associative mechanic, hence immersion. Q.E.D.
I'm glad I'm not the only person who had that feeling reading Pseudoephedrine's rambling story. Skill challenges
don't work that way, but the choice he was describing - the choice to just keep running (making another Endurance test) or try to pull out something crazy - was very much an in-character choice. The character knew he was sneaky (had a high Stealth) and also knew he couldn't keep running forever (had a low Endurance). No inputs into that decision were outside the character's experience, nor were they outside the logical expectations of the world.
But yeah... skill challenges aren't opposed rolls, nor do individual characters fail them on their own. The team successes / failures obviously weren't being tracked, and the entire situation doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to any skill challenge rules that were ever actually printed.
-Frank
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388447I'm not saying there's isn't a fact-of-the-matter when it comes to specific experiences. But whether a rule promotes disassociation or not is highly contextual based on the experience.
Here's an example from a 4e game I was in where what you might think of highly "disassociative mechanics" were quite immersive, and something you might think of as "immersive" was actually the opposite.
We were wandering along having been teleported to a strange land and trying to find our way home. We started hearing some noises, and it turned out some Umber Hulks were pincer-ambushing us. We fought two, and they were way more powerful than us, so we started running. This became a skill challenge.
The skill challenge was that each round, everyone rolled an appropriate skill (Endurance and Athletics, mainly), as did the hulks. We needed to build up 8 successes of difference to have gotten far enough away. Each round, the difficulty of the check went up as we got more tired. If the hulks catch up to the number of successes you have, they catch you and Bad Shit [tm] happens.
So, narratively, it's this hectic chase, and the cleric in our party can't make it. He drops back, the hulks grab him, and he gets torn to shreds in a short combat. I'm playing a rogue at the time, and my rogue has really shitty Endurance, so I'm proposing all sorts of alternate checks to Curtis, some of which go off, some of which (Acrobatics to leap over obstacles is cool, Perception to find a place to hide isn't).
Finally, I'm something like two checks away from succeeding. I'm the last guy in this chase, one PC having gotten away and the cleric having been eaten. There's a bridge up ahead over a stream.
So I think to myself "OK, tremorsense isn't going to work in water, so I just need to dive over the side of the bridge". I fail the check that round, get to the bridge, and dive into the water just as the hulks catch up.
Now, the bridge is a curved / arched footbridge spanning maybe fifty feet, so I figure that if I roll over the side, hit the water, and swim under it, I'll be out of sight, and can make some wicked hide check.
This leads to an hour long argument with the DM over whether or not I actually broke line of sight with the Umber Hulks when I dropped over the side, with the calculation of sight lines using geometry, etc. I've got a couple other PCs on my side here (it was one of them who was doing the geometry), and basically things grind to a halt because of a difference in the imagined world (the DM goes back on the bridge being curved, and instead claims it was flat, etc.)
Anyhow, I end up getting killed by the hulks in the end, but for me, the more immersive part of that situation was fleeing from the Hulks, gradually tiring, and having to try something crazy to get out of that situation, and the least immersive part was dickering over the exact set-up of bridge, stream and water level.
It's experiences like that (and I've had similar experiences with many different systems over the years) that lead me to believe that what counts as "disassociative" and "immersive" are not found in the rules of an RPG, but derive from the actual play experience.
The second experience I would relate regarding this point is the "long IC conversation between the DM and another PC" experience that I'm sure we've all sat through at one point or another. My buddies Curtis and Rob, in the Iron Heroes Dessinger campaign that's partially written up on this site, once had an hour and a half long IC discussion which went from fascinating to kind of boring b/c no one else was in the scene. While it was kind of important to the story at the time, and both are excellent roleplayers (they are in fact the best people at portraying RPG characters I have ever met, which is why I continue to RP with them to this day), it wasn't particularly immersive for me or my buddy Chris, who were just kind of sitting on our hands the entire time.
That experience had nothing to do with mechanics or the specific ruleset we were using, and yet it bore directly on our feelings of immersion at the time.
Actually, I love the session-story, and those particular skill mechanics are not dissociative, since they don't include any metagaming. It sounds like an epic rundown/escape....the part I'm talking about is not subjective, since there is an absolute, black-and-white litmus test.
The skill checks in question are not requiring metagaming/out-of-character thinking and they are not reducing in-game logic. So they are not dissociative.
I love the whole hectiv chase thing, well designed. And the way you tried to find other answers...
Quote from: Just Another User;388469Two things, one, skill challenges don't works that way...
Skill challenges work however the DM or group wants them to work.
Seanchai
Quote from: CRKrueger;388473You can be the big roleplayer of your Chess club because you name all the pieces and use voices when you move, that doesn't mean you're immersing deeply in roleplaying a character.
Gotcha. Immersion and roleplaying are not related. In one, you figure out how a character would act and respond and in the other, you figure out how a character would act and respond. Totally different things...
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;388488Skill challenges work however the DM or group wants them to work.
Seanchai
Mmh, that is true for every single rule for every single RPG ever created , so unless you are trying to say that every rule
ever is a skill challenge I don't see what is your point.
Quote from: Just Another User;388491Mmh, that is true for every single rule for every single RPG ever created , so unless you are trying to say that every rule ever is a skill challenge I don't see what is your point.
My point is that the rules for Skill Challenges are pretty damn flexible. There's nothing about what Pseudoephedrine described that can't, using the RAW, be a Skill Challenge if that's how the DM set up the Skill Challenge.
For example, on page 85 of the DMG 2, there's a section for group check.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;388500My point is that the rules for Skill Challenges are pretty damn flexible. There's nothing about what Pseudoephedrine described that can't, using the RAW, be a Skill Challenge if that's how the DM set up the Skill Challenge.
Seanchai
Mearls has also gone on record that he runs them completely stealth, occasionally asking for a check but never telling the player what it's for, so by the end of a scene he has an overall tally.
Quote from: CRKruegerKind vs. Degree. You can be the big roleplayer of your Chess club because you name all the pieces and use voices when you move, that doesn't mean you're immersing deeply in roleplaying a character.
You mean like how Arneson used to do with lots of games before he applied the concept to Chainmail?
From what I've read of early documents (and talking with people who actually were part of Gygax' group or lived near them) "roleplaying" wasn't the first (or only) choice for what to call these games. I feel like a lot of people (esp during the story/character/plot movements coming from AD&D 2e campaigns and White-Wolf) retroactively applied the actual definition of roleplaying onto the hodgepodges these games existed as back then.
Also, how does the old-school concept of "challenge the player, not the character" apply, then, if the goal is total immersion in a character? The statement seems rather direct to me -- you're not asking someone to make a best guess as to what their character would be capable of, but asking the player very directly to solve a problem presented in the game. If someone deliberately did something stupid because "it's what my character would do, he has a 6 intelligence", especially in a dungeon-environment, that's not going to gel well with the assumed play style.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388478I'm glad I'm not the only person who had that feeling reading Pseudoephedrine's rambling story. Skill challenges don't work that way, but the choice he was describing - the choice to just keep running (making another Endurance test) or try to pull out something crazy - was very much an in-character choice. The character knew he was sneaky (had a high Stealth) and also knew he couldn't keep running forever (had a low Endurance). No inputs into that decision were outside the character's experience, nor were they outside the logical expectations of the world.
But yeah... skill challenges aren't opposed rolls, nor do individual characters fail them on their own. The team successes / failures obviously weren't being tracked, and the entire situation doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to any skill challenge rules that were ever actually printed.
-Frank
What Frank said. A skill challenge pools successes across multiple characters, so using Skill Challenge Rules As Written the whole group adds their Endurance checks together to see how far they run (Group Hug everybody!).
You can duplicate this in 3.5 by getting 6 monks to Grapple each other, and then have each move the entire Grapple on their turn...but attempting this as an actual tactic in 3.5 is something that should provoke righteous DM spanking, rather than being the actual default rules.
Quote from: Seanchai;388500My point is that the rules for Skill Challenges are pretty damn flexible. There's nothing about what Pseudoephedrine described that can't, using the RAW, be a Skill Challenge if that's how the DM set up the Skill Challenge.
For example, on page 85 of the DMG 2, there's a section for group check.
Seanchai
And frankly, what Pseudoephedrine describes is a perfectly associative mechanic.
As well as being a damn good bit of gaming drama.
Quote from: Just Another User;388469Two things, one, skill challenges don't works that way, (unless Mike Mearls put out yet another variant) but that is not really important here.
:rolleyes:
Skill challenges work any damn way the group pleases. This particular one wasn't even much of a departure from the framework as laid out in the DMG.
I notice that the only people here insisting that skill challenges must work a particular way, or else I'm not doing it right are people who don't play 4e.
QuoteSecond. this is not an example of dissociative mechanic, actually that is a good example of an associative mechanic, you roll endurance checks to see if you keep running, if you fail you get tired and start losing ground, if you succeed you gain ground, there is an almost perfect correspondence between the mechanics and what actually happen in the game world, hence associative mechanic, hence immersion. Q.E.D.
Yes, I agree it's a mechanic that assists immersion. That's why my story is prefaced with a short statement that it demonstrates the use of what is widely being bandied about as a "disassociative" mechanic to enhance immersion. It was, should you read the post carefully, part of a discussion about whether certain mechanics are inherently "disassociative" or not.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388478I'm glad I'm not the only person who had that feeling reading Pseudoephedrine's rambling story. Skill challenges don't work that way,
:rolleyes:
QuoteBut yeah... skill challenges aren't opposed rolls, nor do individual characters fail them on their own. The team successes / failures obviously weren't being tracked, and the entire situation doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to any skill challenge rules that were ever actually printed.
:rolleyes:
These sorts of silly comments don't even deserve rebuttal.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388479Actually, I love the session-story, and those particular skill mechanics are not dissociative, since they don't include any metagaming. It sounds like an epic rundown/escape....the part I'm talking about is not subjective, since there is an absolute, black-and-white litmus test.
The skill checks in question are not requiring metagaming/out-of-character thinking and they are not reducing in-game logic. So they are not dissociative.
I love the whole hectiv chase thing, well designed. And the way you tried to find other answers...
It's because of experiences like this that I'm not convinced that mechanics have any sort of inherent "disassociative" or "immersive" features. We take skill challenges and fiddle with them all the time, as we do with combat, and the other mechanical features of the game. Nor is this unique to 4e - we do the same sort of thing with pretty much any and every system we play. What that fiddling does is help us to immerse.
But the same mechanics, in another group, would only serve to deprive them of their immersion. Try asking anyone who's played D&D 3.x extensively how they handle the "holding a knife at a non-helpless hostage's throat" situation, and you'll find that different groups have widely varying ways of handling it.
Quote from: Peregrin;388501From what I've read of early documents (and talking with people who actually were part of Gygax' group or lived near them) "roleplaying" wasn't the first (or only) choice for what to call these games. I feel like a lot of people (esp during the story/character/plot movements coming from AD&D 2e campaigns and White-Wolf) retroactively applied the actual definition of roleplaying onto the hodgepodges these games existed as back then.
You are conflating 'role playing' with 'amateur thespian hour'. As an accountant by day, charging into a group of heavily armed thugs intent on killing you would be the last thing on your mind. Dorgan the Fighter, however, would not think twice about yelling a battle cry and engaging the unruly mob. Role playing. Or maybe Dorgan is a bit more retrospect, and circles them while the main party distracts them. Also roleplaying.
QuoteAlso, how does the old-school concept of "challenge the player, not the character" apply, then, if the goal is total immersion in a character? The statement seems rather direct to me -- you're not asking someone to make a best guess as to what their character would be capable of, but asking the player very directly to solve a problem presented in the game.
In a manner consistent with the character. An engineer would have clear ideas how to disable just about any device the DM can concoct. However, playing as the woodland bound Druid, they would limit their input to forestry or related subjects. Roleplaying.
QuoteIf someone deliberately did something stupid because "it's what my character would do, he has a 6 intelligence", especially in a dungeon-environment, that's not going to gel well with the assumed play style.
If it was consistently harmful to the point of disrupting the game, you would be correct. On the other hand, while difficult, making less than smart decisions would be exactly what would be expected from such a player. Roleplaying. It doesn't always involve winning or even getting the best possible outcome. Sometimes, it means things don't go as well as planned.
from what Pseudoephedrine writes it does seem like the chase scene was more like a pre-skill-challenge use of skils, in this case very similar to the chase system used in say James Bond 007, that to the new skill challenge system as written.
Effectively here each PC was asked to make a skill check to increase range and the umber hulks make one to decrease range and if range got beyond '8' they escaped. To say that this was an implementation of the skill
-challenge system RAW does seem to be stretching it as has been said in skill-challenges the focus on the whole group pooling sucesses and the lack of an opposed role to remove sucesses do seem to be reasonably essentail. Now that is not to say that skill-challenges are inherrently wrong or that this is not a way to make good use of them but I for one have been running chases like this since about '83 so I don't think you can tie it directly to the skill challenge system rather it is a system a lot of folks have used that looks a bit like skill challenges. In exactly the same way I have been using very similar systems for stuff like crafting and the like for as long. You know, okay to make this sword you need to make 3 skill checks for the blade using metalworking then you need to make a lertherworking check for the scabbard, if you get a critical sucess that counts as 2 checks or you can have 'fine' quality. If you get a criitcal failure then the blade is flawed and you need to reforge it..... Now that sounds like an associative use of skill-challenges but its not really its just a bloody obvious way of using skills that has been a part of just about every RPG game since the early 80s.
I think where the skill-challenge causes people to get annoyed is where its used for stuff that was previously roleplayed out, maybe with a roll in the background, such as bribing a guard, or where its used to solve stuff that would previously have been the players thinking round a problem which now becomes a few dice rolls. so the classic 'there are 2 doors, one speaks the thruth one always lies. behind one is a dragon the other is a portal to freedom which one do you open.' if this becomes a skill-challenge where the PCs need to amass 8 sucesses using a range of spuriously linked skills then its a bit shit.
just my opinion of course.
Yeah. Having each player make a series of skill checks against a time limit to personally accomplish some goal (whether it be "escape" or "build a boat" or whatever) is a very reasonable way to do things, and people have been doing that to resolve events for a long time.
That's not what Skill Challenges are though. Skill challenges use, you know, the skill challenge mechanics. If you're just going to make stuff up and end up using functional subsystems that DMs have been using for 30 years in lieu of the actual mechanics in 4e D&D, why use the 4e terminology?
-Frank
Quote from: Seanchai;388438Probably because that's just what's happening. You've got the classics going on here: neologisms/jargon, theories that don't explain what's actually happening and seen at the gaming table, pronouncements about what is and what is not a roleplaying game, et al..
We humans use the same basic pattern over and over to attack that which we dislike, fear, or don't understand.
Your theory seems to run aground on the fact that I have an entire closet full of games featuring dissociated mechanics; have recommended multiple games featuring dissociated mechanics in this very thread; and have even bluntly stated that dissociated mechanics are not innately good or bad.
But, no. You're probably right. I'm a vampire and dissociated mechanics are my sunlight.
(Which must be why I'm sparkling.)
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388447But whether a rule promotes disassociation or not is highly contextual based on the experience.
I'm not really sure what "promotes disassociation [sic]" is supposed to mean. It doesn't seem to have any meaning in terms of dissociated mechanics.
QuoteHere's an example from a 4e game I was in where what you might think of highly "disassociative mechanics" (...) The skill challenge was that each round, everyone rolled an appropriate skill (Endurance and Athletics, mainly), as did the hulks. We needed to build up 8 successes of difference to have gotten far enough away. Each round, the difficulty of the check went up as we got more tired. If the hulks catch up to the number of successes you have, they catch you and Bad Shit [tm] happens.
Actually, that looks like an associated mechanic to me. It depends on exactly what the "Bad Shit [tm]" would be, but assuming it's just a variant on "the umber hulks catch up and can do nasty shit to me", I'm not seeing anything particularly problematic.
As I mentioned in my playtesting 4th edition (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/playtesting-4th.html) essays, written around the same time as the original dissociated mechanics essays (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/dissociated-mechanics.html), skill challenges work well when they're boiled down to nothing more than complex skill checks:
Quote from: Playtesting 4th EditionWhat it really boils down in the final analysis is that complex skill checks are a useful mechanic. In other words, when you have a specific task defined by a concrete goal and a single method of success -- such as disabling a trap, disarming a bomb, or playing a game of Chess -- that is best modeled as a sequence of discrete actions, the basic formula of X successes before Y failures is a useful way of representing that mechanically. Even the S-curve probability distribution works well for these types of scenarios (it becomes a feature instead of a bug as skill trumps luck in larger and more complex tasks).
You can even get away with generalizing this to some extent: For example, you can use this structure to say that you can disable a magical trap by making Arcana checks, Thievery checks, or by dealing damage to the structure of the trap. By allowing these disparate checks to all feed into a single complex skill check, you facilitate cooperation in a way that's far more dynamic and interesting than just using the Aid Another action.
The example you're citing here doesn't impose any of the innate or emergent dissociated behaviors of the greater skill challenge system. (In fact, as others have noted, that doesn't actually seem to follow any of the many different rules WotC has published for skill challenges.)
Nor did it become a dissociated mechanic once you guys started dickering over sight lines. There are all kinds of things that can break immersion, and I've got no problem putting "dickish DMing" or "needless rules lawyering" on the list.
QuoteWhile it was kind of important to the story at the time, and both are excellent roleplayers (they are in fact the best people at portraying RPG characters I have ever met, which is why I continue to RP with them to this day), it wasn't particularly immersive for me or my buddy Chris, who were just kind of sitting on our hands the entire time.
The length of that sequence actually seems quite irrelevant to the question of immersion: Since you weren't actually roleplaying your character during that scene, maintaining immersion through that sequence would be highly unlikely. (For much the same reason that actors who have immersion-like experiences onstage rarely have those moments continue while they're off-stage. It can be happen, but it's rare.)
Quote from: Peregrin;388501Also, how does the old-school concept of "challenge the player, not the character" apply, then, if the goal is total immersion in a character?
I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest that immersion is the ONLY goal a player can have in a roleplaying game. Nor is it the only way to roleplay.
In fact, several of us have been saying exactly the opposite of that.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388509:rolleyes:
Skill challenges work any damn way the group pleases. This particular one wasn't even much of a departure from the framework as laid out in the DMG.
More power to you. Rule 0 is a great thing.
But it probably shouldn't be terribly surprising that analysis of the RAW isn't going to accurately reflect your self-admitted house rules.
JA: The probability distribution of this 3d6 mechanic in this Hypothetical RPG results in X, Y, and Z.
Pseudophredine: That's not true. We roll 1d20 instead of 3d6 and we don't see that probability distribution.
Well, duh.
To sum up: The example you posted of a "disassociative [sic] mechanic" was not, in fact, a dissociated mechanic. Unsurprisingly, it demonstrated none of the characteristics of a dissociated mechanic (since it wasn't one).
Your continued insistence that this is the sort of mechanic that we're referring to as "disassociative" [sic] despite the fact that everyone else in the thread is saying, "Nope. That's not dissociated." Is ludicrous. You are beating the crap out of a strawman you have concocted out of fancy and thin air.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388536YOU'RE NOT PLAYING IT RIGHT START PLAYING IT RIGHT I READ THE RULES AND YOU'RE NOT PLAYING RIGHT PAGE 42 SAYS SO!!!111
It may surprise you to learn, should a cure for your autism ever be found, that skill challenges are meant to be a framework adapted to specific situations by DM and PCs. They are similar in this respect to pretty much every other rule in almost every other roleplaying game. The skill challenge I described resembles other situations because it is not some radical break from those situations, but merely a flexible codification of possible ways to run those situations mechanically.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388538I'm not really sure what "promotes disassociation [sic]" is supposed to mean. It doesn't seem to have any meaning in terms of dissociated mechanics.
Yes, it certainly doesn't, because as I've said several times, I don't think there are such things as dissociated mechanics, merely dissociated experiences. "Promoting dissociation" therefore refers to something dissociating one from being immersed in the game, rather than something that a rule can have as an inherent property.
QuoteActually, that looks like an associated mechanic to me. It depends on exactly what the "Bad Shit [tm]" would be, but assuming it's just a variant on "the umber hulks catch up and can do nasty shit to me", I'm not seeing anything particularly problematic.
If you would read either my post or the several following comments I have made on it, you would realise that the intent is to contrast the claim that skill challenges are "dissociative mechanics" (made on this thread by others, and which I believe is false) with the experience of using a skill challenge to promote immersion.
My intent, since I appear to have to not only state it, but restate it and restate it and restate it, is to contrast the claim that a particular kind of mechanic is dissociative with an actual play experience where the use of the mechanic was not because I believe my example shows the claim that the particular kind of mechanic is dissociative is false. The purpose of doing this is demonstrate that immersion and dissociation are not properties of mechanics or rules, but of experiences at the table, of which rules are only a secondary component.
QuoteNor did it become a dissociated mechanic once you guys started dickering over sight lines. There are all kinds of things that can break immersion, and I've got no problem putting "dickish DMing" or "needless rules lawyering" on the list.
That's right. The experience of dissociation does not rely on specific mechanics, but is governed by a variety of other factors, one important one being what is going on interpersonally at the table (an argument or whatever else).
QuoteThe length of that sequence actually seems quite irrelevant to the question of immersion: Since you weren't actually roleplaying your character during that scene, maintaining immersion through that sequence would be highly unlikely. (For much the same reason that actors who have immersion-like experiences onstage rarely have those moments continue while they're off-stage. It can be happen, but it's rare.)
Audiences do have immersive experiences as well as actors. A lot of very good art is designed to create such experiences.
QuoteMore power to you. Rule 0 is a great thing.
But it probably shouldn't be terribly surprising that analysis of the RAW isn't going to accurately reflect your self-admitted house rules.
JA: The probability distribution of this 3d6 mechanic in this Hypothetical RPG results in X, Y, and Z.
Pseudophredine: That's not true. We roll 1d20 instead of 3d6 and we don't see that probability distribution.
Well, duh.
The problem is that you're understanding the skill challenge mechanics as laid out in the DMG as a rigid, inviolable system instead of a framework. The book itself doesn't claim that, nor have the developers claimed that, nor do the actual players of the game claim that. The only people who claim that appear to be people who are not playing 4e.
Frankly, nothing we did was a radical departure from skill challenges as laid out in the book. There was an initiative order, a variety of skills were available (though Endurance was the most important), and everyone participated. We used a relative scale for success rather than a static one, but it's unclear why one alternative radically changes the feel of skill challenges at the table while another does not.
QuoteTo sum up: The example you posted of a "disassociative [sic] mechanic" was not, in fact, a dissociated mechanic. Unsurprisingly, it demonstrated none of the characteristics of a dissociated mechanic (since it wasn't one).
Your continued insistence that this is the sort of mechanic that we're referring to as "disassociative" [sic] despite the fact that everyone else in the thread is saying, "Nope. That's not dissociated." Is ludicrous. You are beating the crap out of a strawman you have concocted out of fancy and thin air.
It would be helpful if you would read my posts rather than simply pretending to.
Quote from: jibbajibba;388529from what Pseudoephedrine writes it does seem like the chase scene was more like a pre-skill-challenge use of skils, in this case very similar to the chase system used in say James Bond 007, that to the new skill challenge system as written.
No, it is that the skill challenge system as written is not a radical departure from these kinds of prior uses.
QuoteEffectively here each PC was asked to make a skill check to increase range and the umber hulks make one to decrease range and if range got beyond '8' they escaped. To say that this was an implementation of the skill
-challenge system RAW does seem to be stretching it as has been said in skill-challenges the focus on the whole group pooling sucesses and the lack of an opposed role to remove sucesses do seem to be reasonably essentail.
Not in the slightest. There are all sorts of skill challenges that violate those "essential" features, both published and otherwise.
QuoteNow that is not to say that skill-challenges are inherrently wrong or that this is not a way to make good use of them but I for one have been running chases like this since about '83 so I don't think you can tie it directly to the skill challenge system rather it is a system a lot of folks have used that looks a bit like skill challenges.
That's because, once again, there is no radical break between the two. The skill challenge system is a codified framework that you, or at least people who actually play 4e, are encouraged to tinker with and alter as you please.
QuoteIn exactly the same way I have been using very similar systems for stuff like crafting and the like for as long. You know, okay to make this sword you need to make 3 skill checks for the blade using metalworking then you need to make a lertherworking check for the scabbard, if you get a critical sucess that counts as 2 checks or you can have 'fine' quality. If you get a criitcal failure then the blade is flawed and you need to reforge it..... Now that sounds like an associative use of skill-challenges but its not really its just a bloody obvious way of using skills that has been a part of just about every RPG game since the early 80s.
Yes, which is why it is silly to get so angry about skill challenges and to make wild claims about how they prevent people from immersing themselves, etc.
QuoteI think where the skill-challenge causes people to get annoyed is where its used for stuff that was previously roleplayed out, maybe with a roll in the background, such as bribing a guard, or where its used to solve stuff that would previously have been the players thinking round a problem which now becomes a few dice rolls. so the classic 'there are 2 doors, one speaks the thruth one always lies. behind one is a dragon the other is a portal to freedom which one do you open.' if this becomes a skill-challenge where the PCs need to amass 8 sucesses using a range of spuriously linked skills then its a bit shit.
just my opinion of course.
Yes, I agree that would be fucking retarded. But you aren't required to run that as a skill challenge without roleplaying in 4e, anymore than you were required to handle it as a series of rolls without roleplaying in any other edition.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388539I am a pig fucker who fucks pigs. Because I imprinted on Miss Piggy as a sexual ideal as a child and as I grew up I used actual living pigs as the vessels for my semen. Which is strangely unsatisfying, because I would rather that they were more like Miss Piggy and less like actual pigs. As is, they are pretty much 100% actual pigs.
Seriously dude, don't fake quote people. It's juvenile, it's insulting, and it's a waste of everyone's time. If you argue against someone, argue against what they are actually saying, not bullshit strawmen you create out of their words.
I never told you to stop playing the way you were playing or to adopt a by-the-book approach. What I said was that the system you described is a really old system for chases that far predates the
word skill challenges, and
does not follow the rules for skill challenges in any book. It doesn't follow the structure, it doesn't produce comparable results, it doesn't have the same action order,
nothing.
I'm not telling you to play differently, I'm trying to get you to use words to mean what they actually mean in a discussion that has already been derailed repeatedly by having people Humpty Dumpty the language into unrecognizability. You can play however you want. But if you say you made "an attack roll" I am going to assume you rolled a d20 and applied your to-hit bonus to it and compared the combined result to a target's defenses. And not that you used some other mechanic from some other system such as making a maneuver selection and comparing it with your opponent's maneuver selection to determine whether your blow impacted them or not.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388545Seriously dude, don't fake quote people. It's juvenile, it's insulting, and it's a waste of everyone's time. If you argue against someone, argue against what they are actually saying, not bullshit strawmen you create out of their words.
Frank, you have done this already on this thread at least once. You have very little ground to complain when others do it back to you. You deserve little other than abuse and contempt for your dishonesty.
QuoteI never told you to stop playing the way you were playing or to adopt a by-the-book approach. What I said was that the system you described is a really old system for chases that far predates the word skill challenges, and does not follow the rules for skill challenges in any book. It doesn't follow the structure, it doesn't produce comparable results, it doesn't have the same action order, nothing.
Well since you seem to know, Frank, what action order did we use? I'm real curious, so go ahead and tell us all what my group did to determine the order of actions, based on the information I provided.
It's this kind of sophistic, pretentious, lying bullshit that really annoys me, Frank.
Once again, you don't appear to understand that the skill challenge system is a flexible framework. Everyone I've ever played the game with does, and the designers of the game appear to, so it appears to be you, and a couple of other guys who don't like 4e, who are the ones claiming that any departure from that system "doesn't produce comparable results" (whatever that vacuous horseshit statement is supposed to mean).
QuoteI'm not telling you to play differently, I'm trying to get you to use words to mean what they actually mean in a discussion that has already been derailed repeatedly by having people Humpty Dumpty the language into unrecognizability. You can play however you want. But if you say you made "an attack roll" I am going to assume you rolled a d20 and applied your to-hit bonus to it and compared the combined result to a target's defenses. And not that you used some other mechanic from some other system such as making a maneuver selection and comparing it with your opponent's maneuver selection to determine whether your blow impacted them or not.
Frank, you really don't understand what you're talking about here.
Simply put, we altered the skill challenge system, as players of 4e are encouraged to do, to fit the specific circumstances we found ourselves in. We did not make some radical departure from the system, either. Your RAWBAW is irrelevant here. There's no confusion of terminology, except by a small group of people, yourself included, who stand to gain rhetorically by claiming that it is not a skill challenge despite having neither reason nor authority to do so.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388547Frank, you have done this already on this thread at least once. You have very little ground to complain when others do it back to you. You deserve little other than abuse and contempt for your dishonesty.
When? Can you name a time that I did that on this thread, or at all for that matter, for you to have done it back to me? This is my sixth post on this entire multihundred post flame fest, so I'm
certain you can find an example. You know, if it exists and you aren't just a lying sack of shit.
QuoteWell since you seem to know, Frank, what action order did we use? I'm real curious, so go ahead and tell us all what my group did to determine the order of actions, based on the information I provided.
You claimed that the opposition got
an action. And further, got one each round. That's not the action order of a skill challenge. Here would be a good place to use a quote from you. And since unlike you, I am not a fucking liar, I will use your actual statement:
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe skill challenge was that each round, everyone rolled an appropriate skill (Endurance and Athletics, mainly), as did the hulks.
The action order in a skill challenge is that the players generate a success or a failure, and then there is either an immediate result or a mere tallying towards a later result. There is no place in the action order for the NPCs.
So... fuck you. You're wrong. You're a liar. And even in the contexts of your lies, you are still wrong. So fuck all the way off you fucking piece of fucking shit.
-Frank
Good stuff...
Well, here's an actual chase skill challenge using the actual skill challenge rules. DMG, page 78.
QuoteUrban Chase
To catch up with or escape from the
NPCs, you have to navigate the cityscape faster and
smarter than your opponent.
Level: Equal to the level of the party.
Complexity: 5 (requires 12 successes before 3
failures).
Primary Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics, Perception,
Streetwise.
(lots of other stuff that's not especially useful)
Success: you catch your quarry
Failure: you lose your quarry
There's more there if you want, but you can see how this goes. One character makes 12 Athletics check with their huge athletics bonus, the rest of the characters stand there scratching themselves and either saying "Pass" or Rolling Perception checks to give Athleto a +2 bonus. After the equivalent of 12 rounds of running, the skill challenge is passed, the PCs catch the bad guys, and combat begins between all the PCs and the Bad Guys, who they just caught...notwithstanding that using Common Sense (TM) most of the party should be 500+ feet away.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;388550Well, here's an actual chase skill challenge using the actual skill challenge rules. DMG, page 78.
Yeah but don't you see, Johnson, that's just really a
suggestion of one way they could possibly work. Sure that example pretty much matches every type of skill challenge I've seen in the 4e modules I do own or have seen online, but again, that's just a framework that everyone knows you're supposed to just ignore and toss the rules out. It's still a Skill Challenge though...
Funny how the people that keep arguing that everything is subjective appear to be the ones who are redefining terms or just plain ignoring logic.
And now, for something completely different. (http://users.wolfcrews.com/toys/vikings/)
Quote from: CRKrueger;388559And now, for something completely different. (http://users.wolfcrews.com/toys/vikings/)
SHIT YEAH FUCKING LED ZEPPELIN
Sorry. Do carry on. ;)
Quote from: CRKrueger;388559And now, for something completely different. (http://users.wolfcrews.com/toys/vikings/)
That's awesome. That rivals the Chewbacca Defense for sheer stopping power...:)
OK, fine, maybe I'm being overly literal. If we accept a Skill Challenge as anything where characters roll >1 skill check, then ....they may or may not be nonsensical (and hence immersion breaking), mostly depending on what proportion of the actual rules were thrown out to construct something that works more organically.
Please return to whatever prior topic captures your interest.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;388562OK, fine, maybe I'm being overly literal.
I don't think you are. Pseudoephedrine is talking about the Group Chase rules from Minds Eye Theatre published back in 1996 or so. People have been doing extended and repeated opposed tests for a long time now. And it muddies the water to use nomenclature for the 4e skill challenge interchangeably with them.
QuoteIf we accept a Skill Challenge as anything where characters roll >1 skill check, then ...
Well first of all, we'll have completely lost control of language and we will be unable to communicate with each other. As even Pseudoephedrine said (in between accusing people of mental illness and dishonesty while constructing and burning strawmen and deliberately and insultingly constructing falsely attributed quotations):
Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe skill challenge system is a codified framework
You're welcome to do things that are not in that framework. But you're
not welcome to use things outside of that framework
and then call it a skill challenge. A simple test is a simple test, an opposed test is an opposed test, an extended opposed test is an extended opposed test. None of those are "skill challenges." Doesn't make them bad things to do, but it does make them something else.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388566You're welcome to do things that are not in that framework. But you're not welcome to use things outside of that framework and then call it a skill challenge.
Hey, Psuedo? You're welcome to stretch the framework as far as you please and call it a skill challenge. You can also design encounters that don't fit the templates on page 58 of the DMG if you want; I'll throw that one in as a freebie.
Quote from: Thanlis;388567Hey, Psuedo? You're welcome to stretch the framework as far as you please and call it a skill challenge. You can also design encounters that don't fit the templates on page 58 of the DMG if you want; I'll throw that one in as a freebie.
Sorry to appear simple so then can we reduce a skill-challenge to anything where you roll one or more skill checks? I think that's fine and few people would argue that it doesn't work but its not exactly a new mechanic.
As Frank points out simple checks, multiple checks with a target number of checks to complete a complex task and opposed checks have all be in use for years by everyone.
What does a Skill-challenge bring to the game if its just this sort of stuff?
I mean it is sited as a whole new aspect to D&D but it seems like its just codifying something that people have been doing since forever (3 climb rolls to get up this wall Bob, right you are squire...)
Quote from: PSEUDOEPHEDRINEQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegActually, I love the session-story, and those particular skill mechanics are not dissociative, since they don't include any metagaming. It sounds like an epic rundown/escape....the part I'm talking about is not subjective, since there is an absolute, black-and-white litmus test.
The skill checks in question are not requiring metagaming/out-of-character thinking and they are not reducing in-game logic. So they are not dissociative.
I love the whole hectiv chase thing, well designed. And the way you tried to find other answers...
It's because of experiences like this that I'm not convinced that mechanics have any sort of inherent "disassociative" or "immersive" features. We take skill challenges and fiddle with them all the time, as we do with combat, and the other mechanical features of the game. Nor is this unique to 4e - we do the same sort of thing with pretty much any and every system we play. What that fiddling does is help us to immerse.
But the same mechanics, in another group, would only serve to deprive them of their immersion. Try asking anyone who's played D&D 3.x extensively how they handle the "holding a knife at a non-helpless hostage's throat" situation, and you'll find that different groups have widely varying ways of handling it.
JA also mentioned this, you're using/mixing terminology without understanding it.
Look above where I write, "the part I'm talking about is not subjective, since there is an absolute, black-and-white litmus test."
What I am talking about here is the terms "associative" and "dissociative", which are defined 'as mechanics that
require the player to think as the player and not the character, mechanics that depend on on metagame logic to operate'.
You can argue, if you wish, that you don't believe that dissociative mechanics don't reduce immersion in every game, or something like that. But what defines that as associative and dissociative is very black and white.
I can see in your emails, you are using the term loosely. It looks like you are using associative to mean, 'promoting immersion', whereas that meaning is subjective, as opposed to the actual meaning, above. JA and I may believe that a dissociative mechanic reduces immersion, but that is not the definition.
And as I said, it was a good story and a bit of GMing. I personally don't care where it came from; whether it was houseruled or 4e directly. I guess someone might get cranky if they felt you were using it as a description of a game that it is not from, but I felt you were just trying to use an example of a rule you thought was a good example of something, whether it really was or not.
Quote from: jibbajibba;388568Sorry to appear simple so then can we reduce a skill-challenge to anything where you roll one or more skill checks? I think that's fine and few people would argue that it doesn't work but its not exactly a new mechanic.
As Frank points out simple checks, multiple checks with a target number of checks to complete a complex task and opposed checks have all be in use for years by everyone.
What does a Skill-challenge bring to the game if its just this sort of stuff?
I mean it is sited as a whole new aspect to D&D but it seems like its just codifying something that people have been doing since forever (3 climb rolls to get up this wall Bob, right you are squire...)
Well, you're right that people have used skill checks forever, and we hope they always will. We also hope people will continue to use rulesets as frameworks but have the balls and common sense to houserule to make a better game experience. no problem so far.
what a few people are having a problem with, I think, is the idea that someone is using a houserule solution to defend a system/ruleset. Anyone can houserule anything, so the general feeling is talk about any rule or houserule you want to, but only use RAW to define a system.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388574what a few people are having a problem with, I think, is the idea that someone is using a houserule solution to defend a system/ruleset. Anyone can houserule anything, so the general feeling is talk about any rule or houserule you want to, but only use RAW to define a system.
Fortunately, the skill challenge framework is explicitly defined and designed as a framework rather than a hard and fast set of rules. The dead giveaway is the example which doesn't doesn't use failures to determine the end point, etc., etc.
Quote from: Thanlis;388576Fortunately, the skill challenge framework is explicitly defined and designed as a framework rather than a hard and fast set of rules. The dead giveaway is the example which doesn't doesn't use failures to determine the end point, etc., etc.
framework is the operative word here. More games should look at this idea.
Quote from: jibbajibba;388568As Frank points out simple checks, multiple checks with a target number of checks to complete a complex task and opposed checks have all be in use for years by everyone.
That's all that skill challenges are. Although there's a certain a mount of organization, just because the whole point is that it's something that a single skillcheck alone can't resolve.
Here's a recap of one of the ending scenes of my D&D3 campaign from 5 years ago.. (http://the-never.livejournal.com/370968.html)Aside from combat, there were a lot of things that were handled as skills in order to reverse the ascension of a lich into godhood. Multiple skill checks, with a possibility of failure after accumulated failures.
I have another far less detailed recap that involves a 3-part challenge- (http://charm.the-never.net/charmwiki.pl/GameLog)they had to steal one part of a key from an unbeatable foe (during a wrestling match), roll aside a heavy rock (and fend off an allip) for another, retrieve the third part from a giant wasp nest.. and then swim down a 200' underwater tunnel, solve a puzzle and unlock the resting place of the final treasure.
QuoteWhat does a Skill-challenge bring to the game if its just this sort of stuff?
I mean it is sited as a whole new aspect to D&D but it seems like its just codifying something that people have been doing since forever (3 climb rolls to get up this wall Bob, right you are squire...)
The only people who are up in arms about them aren't actually playing D&D4, so I don't think it matters
that much. The point is, all these are is frameworks. Skill checks are rules, sure, but skill
challenges are not as rigid as people are trying to make them out to be.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388579That's all that skill challenges are. Although there's a certain a mount of organization, just because the whole point is that it's something that a single skillcheck alone can't resolve.
Here's a recap of one of the ending scenes of my D&D3 campaign from 5 years ago.. (http://the-never.livejournal.com/370968.html)Aside from combat, there were a lot of things that were handled as skills in order to reverse the ascension of a lich into godhood. Multiple skill checks, with a possibility of failure after accumulated failures.
I have another far less detailed recap that involves a 3-part challenge- (http://charm.the-never.net/charmwiki.pl/GameLog)they had to steal one part of a key from an unbeatable foe (during a wrestling match), roll aside a heavy rock (and fend off an allip) for another, retrieve the third part from a giant wasp nest.. and then swim down a 200' underwater tunnel, solve a puzzle and unlock the resting place of the final treasure.
The only people who are up in arms about them aren't actually playing D&D4, so I don't think it matters that much. The point is, all these are is frameworks. Skill checks are rules, sure, but skill challenges are not as rigid as people are trying to make them out to be.
They actually appear to be one of the better and more malleable parts of the particular ruleset.
They seem to bring out the best in many GMs, when I read the descriptions of games using them.,
Quote from: LordVreeg;388582They actually appear to be one of the better and more malleable parts of the particular ruleset.
They seem to bring out the best in many GMs, when I read the descriptions of games using them.,
The problem is, where
don't you read one of these great skill challenges? In the rulebooks, where they appear highly dissociative. People can change them, sure, but the 4e crowd want their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to defend the system by showing how they've altered the RAW, and yet claim that the RAW isn't dissociative because it can be changed into one of their great examples. :huhsign:
Shifting definitions, claiming logical points are subjective, these are the kinds of defenses you are reduced to when you won't accept even a minor contention: that 4e reaches it's tactical complexity and high game balance, by dissociating the mechanics to the point that it impedes a high level of immersion.
When we were playing on Sunday, we were trying to sneak up on a gate to check out the guard situation. Each person tried a different tactic (stealth and athletics mostly, with one going the bluff route) and we each rolled for our own successes, without helping each other. That was a skill challenge we were all involved in (trying to surveil the gate) but we performed seperately - so how does that fit into the argument? Should we have just had one person surveil, supported by the others in the group?
We also had a handful of other challenges where the group DID support someone's action (trying to fast-talk someone in this case - one person doing most of the talking, the others chiming in with support, and yes, we all actually said stuff and then rolled, so we were kinda acting I guess).
So in one session, we did it both ways. Were we wrong?
Quote from: CRKrueger;388584The problem is, where don't you read one of these great skill challenges? In the rulebooks, where they appear highly dissociative. People can change them, sure, but the 4e crowd want their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to defend the system by showing how they've altered the RAW, and yet claim that the RAW isn't dissociative because it can be changed into one of their great examples. :huhsign:
Shifting definitions, claiming logical points are subjective, these are the kinds of defenses you are reduced to when you won't accept even a minor contention: that 4e reaches it's tactical complexity and high game balance, by dissociating the mechanics to the point that it impedes a high level of immersion.
Well, becasue I am such a stickler when there is cause, I try to look for the bright side in every comment and post when there is not. Gaming is fun, 4e is bringing new gamers into the RPG fold, companies are making money selling gaming stuff, etc, this is all good.
I'm a big game theory/game design guy, and passionate about that. I think that people can immerse in all RPGs, but that you can look at mechanics and learn a lot about what they do and don't do well. That's more tha goal.
Quote from: Werekoala;388586When we were playing on Sunday, we were trying to sneak up on a gate to check out the guard situation. Each person tried a different tactic (stealth and athletics mostly, with one going the bluff route) and we each rolled for our own successes, without helping each other. That was a skill challenge we were all involved in (trying to surveil the gate) but we performed seperately - so how does that fit into the argument? Should we have just had one person surveil, supported by the others in the group?
Actually if you were having all successes and failures add in to the same overall success tally, you'd be playing Skill Challenges as written and as intended. Nothing wrong with that.
Now one thing that a lot of people (including me) object to is the fact that as written, you would be
tactically better off by having every one of your party members just say "Fuck it. The Ranger is good at this shit, just let him do the surveillance, I'll be in my tent." There are various workarounds and house rules floating about to encourage players to do
exactly what you did by making it either mandatory or tactically superior to just having the Ranger make perception checks over and over again.
QuoteWe also had a handful of other challenges where the group DID support someone's action (trying to fast-talk someone in this case - one person doing most of the talking, the others chiming in with support, and yes, we all actually said stuff and then rolled, so we were kinda acting I guess).
So in one session, we did it both ways. Were we wrong?
No. Both methods of doing things are legal within the Skill Challenge format. The second technique is tactically superior in the rules as written. By such a massive margin that players who analyze their chances of success in such things generally find it to be rather constricting. Technically everyone doing their own thing to "help" measurably and demonstrably harms the team's chance of success. A lot of people don't think it should.
But in any case, nothing actually
requires you to optimize your tactics in any system. And if you're using the post errata difficulty guidelines it probably isn't going to matter much, since your chances of failing are actually very low as long as you get to pick your skill use.
-Frank
Quote from: Werekoala;388586When we were playing on Sunday, we were trying to sneak up on a gate to check out the guard situation. Each person tried a different tactic (stealth and athletics mostly, with one going the bluff route) and we each rolled for our own successes, without helping each other. That was a skill challenge we were all involved in (trying to surveil the gate) but we performed seperately - so how does that fit into the argument? Should we have just had one person surveil, supported by the others in the group?
We also had a handful of other challenges where the group DID support someone's action (trying to fast-talk someone in this case - one person doing most of the talking, the others chiming in with support, and yes, we all actually said stuff and then rolled, so we were kinda acting I guess).
So in one session, we did it both ways. Were we wrong?
wrong in what way?
From the RAW?
In terms of dissociative or associative? Purely associative.
From the GM standpoint? Sounds great, sounds like great fun, especially the last part with chiming in...I can see that one, hell, i'm immersing in it from here.
Quote from: CRKrueger;388584The problem is, where don't you read one of these great skill challenges? In the rulebooks, where they appear highly dissociative. People can change them, sure, but the 4e crowd want their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to defend the system by showing how they've altered the RAW, and yet claim that the RAW isn't dissociative because it can be changed into one of their great examples. :huhsign:
Shifting definitions, claiming logical points are subjective, these are the kinds of defenses you are reduced to when you won't accept even a minor contention: that 4e reaches it's tactical complexity and high game balance, by dissociating the mechanics to the point that it impedes a high level of immersion.
Maybe the real problem is that youv'e taken some advice for a DMing technique in the DMG ad interpreted it as "rules as written" rather than merely a framework for actually playing.
Frameworks aren't that easy to explain. But my example from five years ago reads like so:
"The third part of the key was hidden high up in the nest of a giant paper-wasp-- some 80' off of the ground. This task was more straightforward-
Niv and Ro'oka managed to climb to the nest.
Niv cast an obscuring mist around the outside and then taunted the winged beast out into the air. The wasp chased Niv directly into the rest of the group, who stood with readied weapons. While the rest of the group readied to meet the wasp on the ground,
Ro'oka dashed into the nest and retrieved the last part of the key.
"
So here was a challenge that involved an athletics check, a bluff, some fancy casting (arcana), and a stealth check.. it's pretty much exactly what a skill challenge looks like. Skill challenges (as described in the DMG) are obviously a DM technique--often enough completely improvised-- the designers are trying to help players (via teaching, examples, advice, and structure) in creating these kids of action oriented scenes in a presentable format with XP attached. It isn't exactly new, no, but it is a technque that has never appeared in the DMG before.
Quote from: J ArcaneThen you have the players who simply don't pay any fucking attention to what's going on and just roll the dice whenever they're told to, the ones who're more in it to see how badass a character they can roll up and still get it past the GM, the ones who ignore or seem to even react with hostility to anything that might present even the most basic backstory or fiction into the game.
I must be stupid lucky, because I've never seen this and even have kind of a hard time imagining it.
QuoteI've even encountered quite a few who seem to treat the very idea of actually roleplaying something with open hostility, like it's some magic threshold where suddenly the past-time has just become too much of a geek endeavor for their tiny cocks to withstand. The other day I actually had a prospective D&D player inform a friend and I that any use of "voices", as he put it, meant he'd refuse to participate further in the game.
In fairness, though, "voices" are pretty off-putting for me for a number of reasons. All women being baritones for example.
I do try to talk in character and keep a good tone of voice given the situation though. So I'll try and sound angry for angry people rather than trying to sound like a 90 year old woman.
QuoteI'm just fucking sick of it. The truth is, 4e isn't the problem, or the cause of the problem, it's just a symptom of it. It's a generation too in love with irony and a very video game mindset to actually engage the game as it was meant to played, as a fucking roleplaying game. D&D itself has become this ironic hipster geek thing, to be strutted out to gain "cred" in this burgeoning web geek culture that's formed in the last few years, and treated with the same overt self-awareness one expects from fans of B-movies and MST3K. Everything is fucking cliche and shite and no one takes anything remotely fucking seriously, because otherwise you've suddenly crossed an invisible line and become one of "those guys", you know, the guys who actually are geeks instead of pretending to be them because it's cool to say on the internet.
Ironic hipster geeks? What is this, 2005? I'm pretty sure we're all sick to death of pretending to like things by now (those 4 people who were on board with all that to begin with I can't speak for).
QuoteSo you get lots of "dissociative mechanics" or whatever the fuck, because associating with them in the first place is anathema.
Again, just not seeing it. Why can't incompetent people just design a bad game from time to time without it being a sign of the times?
4e is a very competently designed game for it's target audience and stated goals.
It's just that those goals are goddamn retarded.
It's the same retarded demographic that gets all hopped up on Steampunk and Zombies and "pirates vs. ninjas" and raptor Jesus and the rest of the inane, mostly in-joke based modern Internet geek culture.
If you can't see this shit around you, well, I envy you, but it's there, and it's getting goddamn obnoxious, especially when it starts undermining genuine expression.
Quote from: J Arcane;3886044e is a very competently designed game for it's target audience and stated goals.
It's just that those goals are goddamn retarded.
Disagree. A lot of the design goals, I'd even say most of them, were very reasonable design goals. However, 4e D&D consistently fails to meet those goals. The design is very shoddy and the game is absolutely dominated by a "patch it later" mentality. We are dozens of patches into the skill challenge system, and the only positive thing that 4vengers can say about it is that they can still just
not use the printed rules, and grab functional mechanics out of other games from the nineties to use instead.
QuoteIt's the same retarded demographic that gets all hopped up on Steampunk and Zombies and "pirates vs. ninjas" and raptor Jesus and the rest of the inane, mostly in-joke based modern Internet geek culture.
If you can't see this shit around you, well, I envy you, but it's there, and it's getting goddamn obnoxious, especially when it starts undermining genuine expression.
Raptor Jesus and Steampunk
are genuine expression. There's nothing pure about Gygax ripping off Tolkien, Pohl Anderson, Jack Vance, Leiber, and Greek Myth in order to hit "frappé" on the concept blender. Taking a bunch of fantastic and fictional elements and mixing them together to tell stories in a fantasy world is what Dungeons & Dragons has
always been.
Yes, styles change over time, but that doesn't make them
worse. It just makes them
different. And sometimes, change is good. Complaining about how kids these days have pirates and ninjas - as opposed to the purity of the old days when you had Lankhmar and Oriental Adventures - that's just blatant hypocrisy. What's next, do you want to get the "kids these days" off your
lawn?
-Frank
This thread has been a fun read the last few days.
How is that whole 'engaging with bullshit arguments like they are legitimate' thing going for everyone? I predict at least another dozen or two posts where 'rules as written' needs to be carefully explained over and over, as well as the reason it is the only way to discuss matters related to the rules.
Quote*snipped*
-Frank
How ironic you should resort to an age reference when you're clearly too goddamn old to even understand what I'm on about.
There's a pretty clear difference in the modern distraction-based Internet culture, one a lot of very smart people have written volumes about, and a lot of people young enough to actually understand it who could tell you what they've written already.
All your comment demonstrates is you have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about because you don't have any experience with the culture I'm referring to. And your analogies fail utterly because they completely ignore the very words even presented in this thread that make it clear they're not the same phenomenon.
So I'll start here, and see if I can make some ground by using an actually accurate analogy an old fucker like yourself might actually get: Are you familiar with Mystery Science Theater 3000, or with B-movie fandom? Or at least with the phrase "so bad it's good"?
Quote from: J Arcane;388607So I'll start here, and see if I can make some ground by using an actually accurate analogy an old fucker like yourself might actually get: Are you familiar with Mystery Science Theater 3000, or with B-movie fandom? Or at least with the phrase "so bad it's good"?
I love MST3K!
I'm not really helping, am I?
Quote from: StormBringer;388608I love MST3K!
I'm not really helping, am I?
I do too. I think the guys who worked on it are all incredibly funny, talented people who made a great show, and are making another one with Rifftrax. Though at times I grow weary of it in great doses, because to be frank, as great fun as it can be occasionally to see them make light of such terrible films, at the end of the day,
you're still watching a really awful movie. I've started to prefer Rifftrax, because at least there they're usually working with much better base material, something you might actually watch on it's own.
But more to the point, it's a great thing to point and laugh at that sort of awfulness now and again, but it's another thing to actually confuse it for something worth a damn, to start believing the bad really is good and overextending it's welcome past the point of any humor or entertainment into the just plain sad.
This isn't about borrowing from other works, it's about a culture that has devolved to the point where it relies solely on ironic cliche because they've lost the ability to acknowledge anything genuinely decent. That relies on constant, uninterrupted streams of pop-culture references and cliches that were hoary and silly 20 years ago, and at this point have just become inane.
No one can do anything genuine, anything with substance, just spout lame "memes" that weren't that funny the first time, and get progressively less so with age.
It's pathetic.
Quote from: J Arcane;388607All your comment demonstrates is you have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about because you don't have any experience with the culture I'm referring to. And your analogies fail utterly because they completely ignore the very words even presented in this thread that make it clear they're not the same phenomenon.
So I'll start here, and see if I can make some ground by using an actually accurate analogy an old fucker like yourself might actually get: Are you familiar with Mystery Science Theater 3000, or with B-movie fandom? Or at least with the phrase "so bad it's good"?
I am familiar with all of those things. I preferred Joel to Mike.
But unlike you, I
can see the continuity between 4chan and the past. And I find people grieving over how "over the top" things have gotten with warforged and zombie pirates to be
hilarious in the context of the Serious Business that was
Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. So when I say that I understand where Raptor Jesus, what I should really be saying is:
(http://users.rcn.com/rnlflagg/raptorjesus.jpg)
Yours really is a complaint which is best responded to with dismissive image macros and lolcats.
-Frank
Regarding the "patching" issue, we talked about that a bit on Sunday as well (I'm the 4e "newb" of the group so I have questions...) and I decided it was a product of the "permanent Beta Testing" culture. If you notice, video games are no longer complete at release, almost universally, and even MMOs are that way - and by "complete" I mean bug-free and playable when released. It never used to be this way, but now, you're just supposed to drop you $60, load the game, and immediately patch it (usually many times). The new Star Trek Online is a prime example of having to pay $14.95 a month to beta test a "release-quality" game. Oh, sure, they keep patching the hell out of it and have slim content releases and such, but they have to do that to make the game playable. In fact, the MMOs are probably the worst about this (another piece of the 4e/MMO puzzle?).
My comments re: 4e (that got some nods) is that there are books on the shelf right now (specifically the core books) that if you bought them for full price and sat down with a group that has been at it for months or years, I would not be able to participate at an optimal level. There have been tons of changes / additions / tweaks / removals that ensure my books are just very pretty paperweights (aside from Monster Manual probably). I need the DDI subscription and the Character Builder to be up-to-date. I don't have a problem with that in theory, but I do have a problem with so-called core books being obsolete and STILL being sold at full MSRP. Oh, sure, its easy to get updates, and it only costs $5.00 a month, blah blah, yadda yadda. Not the point.
It would be comparable to someone just now getting into Warcraft with only the core game, and everyone he wants to play with playing Wrath of the Lich King, in areas the "newb" doesn't have access to, much less all the character updates and such.
So, that's my take on the "patching" of 4e.
Quote from: J Arcane;388609I do too. I think the guys who worked on it are all incredibly funny, talented people who made a great show, and are making another one with Rifftrax.
I have got to get some more Rifftrax. Don't forget Joel Hodgson is also doing Cinematic Titanic (http://www.cinematictitanic.com/)
QuoteThough at times I grow weary of it in great doses, because to be frank, as great fun as it can be occasionally to see them make light of such terrible films, at the end of the day, you're still watching a really awful movie. I've started to prefer Rifftrax, because at least there they're usually working with much better base material, something you might actually watch on it's own.
Yes, I can't watch an MST3K marathon, either. After a while, it just gets draining to see all that bad movie making in one sitting.
QuoteBut more to the point, it's a great thing to point and laugh at that sort of awfulness now and again, but it's another thing to actually confuse it for something worth a damn, to start believing the bad really is good and overextending it's welcome past the point of any humor or entertainment into the just plain sad.
This isn't about borrowing from other works, it's about a culture that has devolved to the point where it relies solely on ironic cliche because they've lost the ability to acknowledge anything genuinely decent. That relies on constant, uninterrupted streams of pop-culture references and cliches that were hoary and silly 20 years ago, and at this point have just become inane.
No one can do anything genuine, anything with substance, just spout lame "memes" that weren't that funny the first time, and get progressively less so with age.
It's pathetic.
Wholly agree.
Quote from: StormBringer;388612I have got to get some more Rifftrax.
Yes, I can't watch an MST3K marathon, either. After a while, it just gets draining to see all that bad movie making in one sitting.
Rifftrax are great, highly recommended, and the movies are far more watchable.
That said, I really miss "Turkey Day" from the Comedy Central days.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388572JA also mentioned this, you're using/mixing terminology without understanding it.
Look above where I write, "the part I'm talking about is not subjective, since there is an absolute, black-and-white litmus test."
What I am talking about here is the terms "associative" and "dissociative", which are defined 'as mechanics that require the player to think as the player and not the character, mechanics that depend on on metagame logic to operate'.
You can argue, if you wish, that you don't believe that dissociative mechanics don't reduce immersion in every game, or something like that. But what defines that as associative and dissociative is very black and white.
I think the definitions are bad from the get go. I've been explaining that I don't think these are properties that adhere to mechanics at all, which undercuts the definition. Definitions need to be sound, and I don't think those are - for the reason, as I've said a couple of times now, that I don't think mechanics play a particularly important role in whether immersion happens or not.
QuoteI can see in your emails, you are using the term loosely. It looks like you are using associative to mean, 'promoting immersion', whereas that meaning is subjective, as opposed to the actual meaning, above. JA and I may believe that a dissociative mechanic reduces immersion, but that is not the definition.
I haven't sent any emails or used the term "associative". In my posts I've used "immersion" and "dissociative".
QuoteAnd as I said, it was a good story and a bit of GMing. I personally don't care where it came from; whether it was houseruled or 4e directly. I guess someone might get cranky if they felt you were using it as a description of a game that it is not from, but I felt you were just trying to use an example of a rule you thought was a good example of something, whether it really was or not.
Thanks.
Quote from: StormBringer;388606This thread has been a fun read the last few days.
How is that whole 'engaging with bullshit arguments like they are legitimate' thing going for everyone? I predict at least another dozen or two posts where 'rules as written' needs to be carefully explained over and over, as well as the reason it is the only way to discuss matters related to the rules.
It is for this very reason that weapon speed and weapon penetration rules and their important impact on combat in earlier editions of D&D must be accounted for in any "real" discussion of how the game plays. Never mind that most people didn't use them, they were RAW!
Similarly, any discussion of mechanics for stabbing a non-helpless hostage in the throat in 3.x is impossible, because the RAW is totally silent.
:rolleyes:
This is simply a double standard.
Quote from: jibbajibba;388568Sorry to appear simple so then can we reduce a skill-challenge to anything where you roll one or more skill checks? I think that's fine and few people would argue that it doesn't work but its not exactly a new mechanic.
I don't think it is a particularly new mechanic, in the sense of some radical break with the past. That said, I do think a skill challenge is slightly more than just a series of skill checks.
Here's what I'd say is the bare framework of a skill challenge:
A skill challenge is one encounter long.
A skill challenge involves every PC who is in the encounter.
A skill challenge involves multiple skill tests using at least two or more skills and doesn't allow sequential repetition of those skills by different PCs.
A skill challenge has a penalty for failure.
A skill challenge requires initiative.
Everything else is dependent on the circumstances. It's actually a pretty flexible framework.
QuoteAs Frank points out simple checks, multiple checks with a target number of checks to complete a complex task and opposed checks have all be in use for years by everyone.
What does a Skill-challenge bring to the game if its just this sort of stuff?
I mean it is sited as a whole new aspect to D&D but it seems like its just codifying something that people have been doing since forever (3 climb rolls to get up this wall Bob, right you are squire...)
I don't think it is particularly new, and I've never really cited it as such, so I don't know who has, other than marketing droids at WotC.
Quote from: StormBringer;388606This thread has been a fun read the last few days.
How is that whole 'engaging with bullshit arguments like they are legitimate' thing going for everyone? I predict at least another dozen or two posts where 'rules as written' needs to be carefully explained over and over, as well as the reason it is the only way to discuss matters related to the rules.
Swimmingly, my friend.
I am partial to introducing or helping introducing a term, defining a term, explaining the term, and then having to redefine it to every single person who does not feel like reading the back posts.
On the truly positive side, I am building a full cut-and-paste library of answers through this thread.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;388550Good stuff...
Well, here's an actual chase skill challenge using the actual skill challenge rules. DMG, page 78.
There's more there if you want, but you can see how this goes. One character makes 12 Athletics check with their huge athletics bonus, the rest of the characters stand there scratching themselves and either saying "Pass" or Rolling Perception checks to give Athleto a +2 bonus. After the equivalent of 12 rounds of running, the skill challenge is passed, the PCs catch the bad guys, and combat begins between all the PCs and the Bad Guys, who they just caught...notwithstanding that using Common Sense (TM) most of the party should be 500+ feet away.
This type of thing is called "an example". It demonstrates a possible instantiation of the rules.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388617I am partial to introducing or helping introducing a term, defining a term, explaining the term, and then having to redefine it to every single person who does not feel like reading the back posts.
tldr
What is this thread about, anyway?
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388548When? Can you name a time that I did that on this thread, or at all for that matter, for you to have done it back to me? This is my sixth post on this entire multihundred post flame fest, so I'm certain you can find an example. You know, if it exists and you aren't just a lying sack of shit.
Here's a simple one from the "4e is verbose" thread, since you just wanted one at all:
"4e D&D has gotten so long winded that even its
proponents present the case for literary triage so severe that they don't know what the options for playable characters even are. Maybe the Swordmage or the Seeker is a really good fit for what they want to do, but they
don't know because there is such a daunting wall of text that have not and
will not actually read those character options."
You quoted me, Abyssal Maw and Seanchai despite none of us saying that and it being untrue. You asked for an example, there it is.
The rest of your post is just RAWBAW. I know you don't want to accept that skill challenges are a highly flexible framework because then you would have to have actual play experiences in order to be able to discuss them in detail, instead of just RAWBAW.
Once again, I'll point out that it's the people who don't play 4e who insist on the skill challenge rules being an inflexible, rigid set of rules, and the people who actually play the game who treat it as a much more flexible framework.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388616Here's what I'd say is the bare framework of a skill challenge:
A skill challenge is one encounter long.
A skill challenge involves every PC who is in the encounter.
A skill challenge involves multiple skill tests using at least two or more skills and doesn't allow sequential repetition of those skills by different PCs.
A skill challenge has a penalty for failure.
A skill challenge requires initiative.
Everything else is dependent on the circumstances. It's actually a pretty flexible framework.
The bolded ones are ones that apparently came directly out of your ass. For example, let's take the "Closing the Portal" sample skill challenge from the DMG2. One character makes 4 Arcana tests in a row. That doesn't involve all the PCs, heck even if all the PCs have Arcana and participate,
it will be over before all the PCs have been involved. There is no requirement for characters to use different skills. And skill challenge initiative was removed in an errata almost two years ago.
So from your entire list, the only ones that are "true" is that Skill Challenges last one encounter (although even that is sketchy, because "Closing the Portal" can be extended beyond the literal combat encounter it is introduced in if you want); and that there is a consequence for failure. And I'll just give you that one, because even though some actually
don't have anything special happen on a failure, you could say that failing to get the benefit of a success counted as a consequence for failure.
Here is the
actual framework:
- Players who take actions towards completing the skill challenge do so by making simple tests against skill or attribute modifiers with set DCs that may vary depending upon the skill or attribute modifier chosen.
- A success counts against the tally of team successes, a failure counts against the tally of team failures.
- The challenge continues until the team gets a specific total of successes (and succeeds) or failures (and fails), and thus there are a finite number of tests that will be made by all team members collectively.
That is the framework.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388621Here is the actual framework:
- Players who take actions towards completing the skill challenge do so by making simple tests against skill or attribute modifiers with set DCs that may vary depending upon the skill or attribute modifier chosen.
- A success counts against the tally of team successes, a failure counts against the tally of team failures.
- The challenge continues until the team gets a specific total of successes (and succeeds) or failures (and fails), and thus there are a finite number of tests that will be made by all team members collectively.
That is the framework.
-Frank
So uhm.. that's still pretty flexible right there. It's even more flexible!
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388622So uhm.. that's still pretty flexible right there. It's even more flexible!
Sure. It's very flexible. My complaint has never been that Skill Challenges weren't flexible enough. My complaints are twofold:
- Pseudoephedrine doesn't have clue one about what he is talking about.
and
- That the specific guideline of individual actions counting against a group action limit by contributing to the group failure count on individual failure results is a bad part of the framework because it is a tactical incentive for boring play (such as: one player making 4 Arcana tests in a row).
That's it. I'll defend those two points with fire and sword if need be, because I think both have been pretty effectively demonstrated.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388621The bolded ones are ones that apparently came directly out of your ass. For example, let's take the "Closing the Portal" sample skill challenge from the DMG2. One character makes 4 Arcana tests in a row. That doesn't involve all the PCs, heck even if all the PCs have Arcana and participate, it will be over before all the PCs have been involved. There is no requirement for characters to use different skills. And skill challenge initiative was removed in an errata almost two years ago.
So from your entire list, the only ones that are "true" is that Skill Challenges last one encounter (although even that is sketchy, because "Closing the Portal" can be extended beyond the literal combat encounter it is introduced in if you want); and that there is a consequence for failure. And I'll just give you that one, because even though some actually don't have anything special happen on a failure, you could say that failing to get the benefit of a success counted as a consequence for failure.
Here is the actual framework:
- Players who take actions towards completing the skill challenge do so by making simple tests against skill or attribute modifiers with set DCs that may vary depending upon the skill or attribute modifier chosen.
- A success counts against the tally of team successes, a failure counts against the tally of team failures.
- The challenge continues until the team gets a specific total of successes (and succeeds) or failures (and fails), and thus there are a finite number of tests that will be made by all team members collectively.
That is the framework.
-Frank
Are you now agreeing that it's a highly flexible framework? Because you appear to be. If so, I'm not wed to any particular instantiation of that framework. I'm more interested in the experience created at the table by the particular skill challenges than in checking off boxes on some imaginary list.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388623Sure. It's very flexible. My complaint has never been that Skill Challenges weren't flexible enough. My complaints are twofold:
- Pseudoephedrine doesn't have clue one about what he is talking about.
and
- That the specific guideline of individual actions counting against a group action limit by contributing to the group failure count on individual failure results is a bad part of the framework because it is a tactical incentive for boring play (such as: one player making 4 Arcana tests in a row).
That's it. I'll defend those two points with fire and sword if need be, because I think both have been pretty effectively demonstrated.
-Frank
I love you in all your autistic, RAWBAW glory, Frankie!
Quote from: CRKrueger;388559And now, for something completely different. (http://users.wolfcrews.com/toys/vikings/)
Good music is alive.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388623Sure. It's very flexible. My complaint has never been that Skill Challenges weren't flexible enough. My complaints are twofold:
- Pseudoephedrine doesn't have clue one about what he is talking about.
and
- That the specific guideline of individual actions counting against a group action limit by contributing to the group failure count on individual failure results is a bad part of the framework because it is a tactical incentive for boring play (such as: one player making 4 Arcana tests in a row).
That's it. I'll defend those two points with fire and sword if need be, because I think both have been pretty effectively demonstrated.
-Frank
Well, I guess this probably chalks up to technique. The only rolls that actually affect the skill challenge are determined by the DM. So you can't just "make 4 arcana checks in a row" if the challenge involves a combination of other stuff, and the DM switches to a new scene where something else is called for. Also, I don't assume the burden is going to be spread out amongst players, and there should be room for solo adventures too.
For example, a skill challenge involving casting a particularly dangerous ritual:
The DM might start with a library scene in which one (or more) players try to use
History to research the ritual, then once they get the info they need, they discover that they'll have to use a very rare reagent.
So then they use
Streetwise (and a whole roleplaying scene associated with it) to track down whatever reagents there are, and hopefully buy them (
Diplomacy), steal them (
Thievery) or use trickery to procure them (
Bluff). More roleplaying.
Finally you get to actual the ritual, which is long and complicated, and even dangerous, because during the casting, it summons tendrils of elemental sparks, and the ritual caster has to maintain his concentration. You can give the players a choice of using
Athletics (for non-casters who happen to be watching the ritual) to pull them away from the caster) or
Endurance (for the caster himself to maintain his concentration through the pain..)
And THEN you get to the actual
Arcana check, and whether it's failed or successful, you keep adding details of what happens.
That's how skill challenges work. 4 Arcana checks in a row (without a way to make that interesting) is just bad DMing.
Quote from: J Arcane;388604It's the same retarded demographic that gets all hopped up on Steampunk and Zombies and "pirates vs. ninjas" and raptor Jesus and the rest of the inane, mostly in-joke based modern Internet geek culture.
If you can't see this shit around you, well, I envy you, but it's there, and it's getting goddamn obnoxious, especially when it starts undermining genuine expression.
Post-modernist decadence.
Quote from: Werekoala;388613Rifftrax are great, highly recommended, and the movies are far more watchable.
That said, I really miss "Turkey Day" from the Comedy Central days.
Some friends had a tape of one of those, I don't remember which one. Penn Jillete was hosting, if he didn't do more than one. Good stuff, but I think they went through and picked out the best episodes for that. Some of the episodes were just stinkers, mostly because the movies were just so bad as to be virtually unusable.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388630Well, I guess this probably chalks up to technique. The only rolls that actually affect the skill challenge are determined by the DM. So you can't just "make 4 arcana checks in a row" if the challenge involves a combination of other stuff, and the DM switches to a new scene where something else is called for. Also, I don't assume the burden is going to be spread out amongst players, and there should be room for solo adventures too.
Sure. But the point is that this is a bad rule, and all the work you're doing is working around the reality of a bad rule. If you invert the system so that players are capped by a number of rounds instead of a maximum number of failures amongst all the team members, then the incentives run to every player trying to figure out some way to help.
The rules should get the PCs working
with the DM rather than against the DM. Under the framework of Skill Challenges, the incentives are for the PCs to figure out one thing that works and then have one player do that until the DM makes them stop and then figure out something else for someone to do. If you had a limit of like "2 rounds" instead of "4 successes or 3 failures", then the
incentives would be for the players to each do something on each round. And then if someone did the same thing two rounds in a row, you wouldn't even care because it would be be broken up by four other players doing stuff.
QuoteThat's how skill challenges work. 4 Arcana checks in a row (without a way to make that interesting) is just bad DMing.
The 4 Arcana Checks in a row challenge isn't some sort of bullshit edge case hater example, it's literally the first example in the latest official writeup of the Skill Challenge concept in the DMG2.
There are optional rules you can invoke to punish players for responding to it like that, but the game shouldn't be encouraging that sort of behavior if you don't like it.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388610But unlike you, I can see the continuity between 4chan and the past. And I find people grieving over how "over the top" things have gotten with warforged and zombie pirates to be hilarious in the context of the Serious Business that was Expedition to the Barrier Peaks. So when I say that I understand where Raptor Jesus, what I should really be saying is:
I love Expedition to the Barrier Peaks!
I'm not helping, am I?
Quote from: pseudoephedrineQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegJA also mentioned this, you're using/mixing terminology without understanding it.
Look above where I write, "the part I'm talking about is not subjective, since there is an absolute, black-and-white litmus test."
What I am talking about here is the terms "associative" and "dissociative", which are defined 'as mechanics that require the player to think as the player and not the character, mechanics that depend on on metagame logic to operate'.
You can argue, if you wish, that you don't believe that dissociative mechanics don't reduce immersion in every game, or something like that. But what defines that as associative and dissociative is very black and white.
I think the definitions are bad from the get go. I've been explaining that I don't think these are properties that adhere to mechanics at all, which undercuts the definition. Definitions need to be sound, and I don't think those are - for the reason, as I've said a couple of times now, that I don't think mechanics play a particularly important role in whether immersion happens or not.
Ok, so maybe it was me, or a communication issue.
To back up a step...
Would you agree that there are mechanics that require metagaming or that depend on metagame logic?
Quote from: StormBringer;388637I love Expedition to the Barrier Peaks!
I'm not helping, am I?
you're helping me enjoy this. that's enough.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388615It is for this very reason that weapon speed and weapon penetration rules and their important impact on combat in earlier editions of D&D must be accounted for in any "real" discussion of how the game plays. Never mind that most people didn't use them, they were RAW!
Similarly, any discussion of mechanics for stabbing a non-helpless hostage in the throat in 3.x is impossible, because the RAW is totally silent.
:rolleyes:
This is simply a double standard.
I think you are talking to the wrong guy about that. I am quite adamant in my support of weapon vs AC if the Fighter is to be utilized at all properly. In fact, I had quite a number of rants on a thread Benoist started about using those very rules before complaining that AD&D Fighters have no options besides 'swing, hit, swing miss'.
Quote from: Benoist;388631Post-modernist decadence.
I was getting my morning wake-up from the coffee shop this morning after reading J Arcane's post when it hit me: the 90s are to blame.
They were playing ELO's "Mr. Blue Sky". According to Wikipedia:
"Jeff Lynne, who hid himself away to write enough material for a double album, wrote the track in Switzerland. After a two week period of writers block dampened by the inclement weather outside, Lynne was suddenly inspired to write "Mr. Blue Sky" following a break in the weather when the entire area was bathed in sunshine..."
It wasn't ironic. It wasn't a sarcastic 'thanks for the sunshine, asshole'. It was an earnest, heartfelt song about a nice day. And it went to #6 in the UK.
Post modern decadence indeed.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388639you're helping me enjoy this. that's enough.
Then I have contributed more than my usual. :)
Quote from: LordVreeg;388638Ok, so maybe it was me, or a communication issue.
To back up a step...
Would you agree that there are mechanics that require metagaming or that depend on metagame logic?
I'm not sure what "metagame" means in your statement there.
I do think that there are mechanics that are not intended to mimic some feature of the world's physics and that offer incentives to players to react to them without requiring them to think about things from an in-character perspective. i.e. level drain, conflict resolution systems, etc. Is this what you're talking about?
Quote from: StormBringer;388646I was getting my morning wake-up from the coffee shop this morning after reading J Arcane's post when it hit me: the 90s are to blame.
Actually, yes, but through them, what's really to blame IMO is the end of the 60s onward. Discussed about this yesterday evening on the net, and then extensively with my wife. We were trying to figure out what exactly changed so radically with the 90s, and it's actually my wife who gasped and said "the parents. The age braket. These are the children of people active in the late 60s".
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388648I'm not sure what "metagame" means in your statement there.
I do think that there are mechanics that are not intended to mimic some feature of the world's physics and that offer incentives to players to react to them without requiring them to think about things from an in-character perspective. i.e. level drain, conflict resolution systems, etc. Is this what you're talking about?
To some degree. We're not that far off.
At it's most basic and most simple, metagaming is defined as, "
In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.""In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon."Level drain is something a character might now about, and a PC can react honestly enough to it. Conflict resolutions are the physics of combat in a world, so not necessarily.
An example would be Fate/Action Points, as described before. They can be a fun and interesting game mechanic, deciding to have something happen, or not happen, or to have another shot at something. Makes the game more cinematic.
But they force metagaming by their use. "Should I make time go backward and have that spearthrust not hit me?", is not ever an in-character thought (well, for most games). The PLayer has to decide to use expend a resource that the Player has, that the character does not have and that is not part of the in-game world. it's not a character skill or spell or item, So this is an example of a rule that forces out-of character use.
Or so I see it. Am I onto something, or do you think I am merely on something?
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388627I love you in all your autistic, RAWBAW glory, Frankie!
Frank autistic? Autism isn't the first thing which stands out in Frank's posts.
First thing I would have thought is hypergraphia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergraphia
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388614... as I've said a couple of times now, that I don't think mechanics play a particularly important role in whether immersion happens or not...
I'm curious, then, about cases in which the same group plays two different games, and finds one game to be more 'immersive' (conducive towards immersive experiences, or whatever) than the other. The only variable seems to be the game mechanics in question, since everything else (players, even the campaign setting in some cases) is constant.
I've had this experience, and a friend of mine in LA noticed this when his group switched systems (in his case to 4e).
Quote from: Benoist;388655Actually, yes, but through them, what's really to blame IMO is the end of the 60s onward. Discussed about this yesterday evening on the net, and then extensively with my wife. We were trying to figure out what exactly changed so radically with the 90s, and it's actually my wife who gasped and said "the parents. The age braket. These are the children of people active in the late 60s".
*sigh*
And who let them be this way? Blame the survivors of WW2, who went through hell.
But that's becasue you can always find a parent to child cause and effect going back to the beginning of time. I'm more of a 'speed of data transfer/infection' believer.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388670*sigh*
And who let them be this way? Blame the survivors of WW2, who went through hell.
I shouldn't have emphasized the blame in my post. I didn't mean to claim the problem is simpler than it really is, or even that it has a definite, quantifiable answer.
Quote from: Akrasia;388666I'm curious, then, about cases in which the same group plays two different games, and finds one game to be more 'immersive' (conducive towards immersive experiences, or whatever) than the other. The only variable seems to be the game mechanics in question, since everything else (players, even the campaign setting in some cases) is constant.
I've had this experience, and a friend of mine in LA noticed this when his group switched systems (in his case to 4e).
I experienced this myself first hand as well when my group switched from 3.5 to 4e DnD.
Quote from: Benoist;388671I shouldn't have emphasized the blame in my post. I didn't mean to claim the problem is simpler than it really is, or even that it has a definite, quantifiable answer.
Have you considered the possibility that irony is:
and
Because seriously, we had the entire Cynics movement - people who ironically stopped bathing or wearing clothes - back in Ancient Greece. Also, extreme sarcasm is awesome. And by awesome, I mean totally sweet.
So why do you think that irony is new or problematic? Have you considered that perhaps you have allowed nostalgia to cloud your judgement, causing you to lambaste "kids these days" in a manner which is not only unfair, but laughably so?
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388674Have you considered that perhaps you have allowed nostalgia to cloud your judgement, causing you to lambaste "kids these days" in a manner which is not only unfair, but laughably so?
-Frank
I have considered it yes, and ultimately rejected it. Many a time, actually. Just because you want to make a "kids these days" simplified reading of my post doesn't mean that's what my post meant. But by all means, joke away.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388674Have you considered the possibility that irony is:
and
Because seriously, we had the entire Cynics movement - people who ironically stopped bathing or wearing clothes - back in Ancient Greece. Also, extreme sarcasm is awesome. And by awesome, I mean totally sweet.
So why do you think that irony is new or problematic? Have you considered that perhaps you have allowed nostalgia to cloud your judgement, causing you to lambaste "kids these days" in a manner which is not only unfair, but laughably so?
-Frank
There is a cycle, which was my first point.
My second point is that the level of information transfer is unprecedented and increasing, which throws a spanner into the works of the cycle being the answer.
Irony is not new. The level that it transfers, the age in which it is learned, the mediums it moves through, and the ubiquity...this is new.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388682There is a cycle, which was my first point.
My second point is that the level of information transfer is unprecedented and increasing, which throws a spanner into the works of the cycle being the answer.
Irony is not new. The level that it transfers, the age in which it is learned, the mediums it moves through, and the ubiquity...this is new.
That I can agree with. We are, after all, Running Out of Past (http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-dept-of-retro-warns-we-may-be-running-out-of-pa,873/).
-Frank
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388541Yes, it certainly doesn't, because as I've said several times, I don't think there are such things as dissociated mechanics, merely dissociated experiences.
So when you say "dissociated mechanic" you actually mean "dissociated experience". And when you say "dissociated mechanics" you mean "something that breaks immersion" instead of "mechanics which have no association with the game world; mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations" (which is the definition everybody else in the thread is using).
Well, OK. I can see why you're having difficulty participating in this discussion.
In the future, I recommend not attempting to use radically different definitions of terminology without telling anybody that you're doing it. In fact, I'd recommend against radically redefining terminology just the heck of it in general.
If you mean "something that breaks immersion", just say that. Or make up a new term for it if you feel it's critically important. Trying to redefine another term
in the same discussion which means something
completely different is just needlessly disruptive and counter-productive.
QuoteAudiences do have immersive experiences as well as actors.
And here you're doing it again. The term "immersion" when applied to roleplaying games has had a rather specific definition for more than a decade now. The experience being described (specifically immersion in the role being played) cannot be experienced by the audience. By definition.
This sort of "I'm deliberately miscommunicating" tactic you're employing combined with your fake-quoting and blatant strawmanning makes you look like a troll.
But I'm going to assume that's accidental. Which means in the future I'm going to assume that when you use a term with a pre-existing definition that you are, in fact, using it according to its defined meaning. If it turns out you are still deliberately trolling the thread by attempting to re-define common terminology, I'm afraid you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Quote from: CRKrueger;388584The problem is, where don't you read one of these great skill challenges? In the rulebooks, where they appear highly dissociative. People can change them, sure, but the 4e crowd want their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to defend the system by showing how they've altered the RAW, and yet claim that the RAW isn't dissociative because it can be changed into one of their great examples. :huhsign:
I'll be honest: I have absolutely no idea what the current rules for skill challenges are. I know that within just a few weeks of 4th Edition being released they had been errata'd to create a radically different set of mechanics. I have been led to believe that they have received even more errata since then. I also know that skill challenges as they appeared in the core rulebooks; in the errata; in H1; and in H2 were all radically different from each other.
So for all I know, the current rules for skill challenges require you to head down to the local red light district and buy a prostitute for your DM before the skill challenge can be successfully climaxed.
My general criticism of skill challenges is limited to the version found in the core rulebooks,
Keep on the Shadowfell, and the first round of errata.
Insofar as there may or may not be a wider understanding of "skill challenge" to mean "anything we want that term to mean today", my criticism doesn't apply to it. It only applies to the specific mechanics I've looked at (and particularly those mechanics published in the core rulebooks of 4th Edition).
Quote from: StormBringer;388606How is that whole 'engaging with bullshit arguments like they are legitimate' thing going for everyone? I predict at least another dozen or two posts where 'rules as written' needs to be carefully explained over and over, as well as the reason it is the only way to discuss matters related to the rules.
It's actually been fairly productive for me. In particular, it's helped me to develop some of my ideas regarding roleplaying games vs. storytelling games.
I am, however, beginning to wonder why I'm
still participating, however. It seems to be trending back towards cesspool.
Quote from: Akrasia;388666I'm curious, then, about cases in which the same group plays two different games, and finds one game to be more 'immersive' (conducive towards immersive experiences, or whatever) than the other. The only variable seems to be the game mechanics in question, since everything else (players, even the campaign setting in some cases) is constant.
I've had this experience, and a friend of mine in LA noticed this when his group switched systems (in his case to 4e).
Being unfamiliar with a system is a big obstacle to immersion, especially if you're trying to get everything "correct" from the start. IME, there's usually a period after you switch systems where people are still drawing from the expectations they had for the way things worked in the last system and still need to look things up all the time, etc. I find in a lot of cases, people simply abandon the system rather than develop the familiarity with the new system that they had with the old system.
Frex, my group just jumped from 4e to nWoD about a month and a half ago, and we're still having moments where we're pulled out of whatever we're doing trying to figure out how something works (degeneration rolls remain a point of confusion). It was like that when we started 4e, when we started Shadowrun 4e, when started Iron Heroes, and when we started 3.5 and 3.0. You've just got to spend some time getting used to it, and relax about making "mistakes".
As well, even familiarity doesn't guarantee you'll like a system. And not liking a system can be an important factor in immersion as well. I don't like Shadowrun 4e (too many dice, cover doesn't matter for shit, magic is nuts, etc.), even though I played it a bunch. I certainly found it difficult to immerse myself in a scene because of my distaste for the mechanics. But I don't think that's some inherent property of Shadowrun 4e's system. It derives from my tastes and preferences.
Quote from: J Arcane;388609No one can do anything genuine, anything with substance, just spout lame "memes" that weren't that funny the first time, and get progressively less so with age.
It's pathetic.
I'm aware of internet-based meme culture and irony. It's just that both stopped being relevant to mainstream culture around the time that Snakes on a Plane and "I'm the Juggernaut" happened.
PS. Disco is still dead. Even irony couldn't bring it back.
Quote from: BenoistActually, yes, but through them, what's really to blame IMO is the end of the 60s onward. Discussed about this yesterday evening on the net, and then extensively with my wife. We were trying to figure out what exactly changed so radically with the 90s, and it's actually my wife who gasped and said "the parents. The age braket. These are the children of people active in the late 60s".
Is there anything we can't blame the baby boomers for? But every generation is responsible for everything in their world by the time they hit 40, if not because they changed it, then because they failed to do so.
A big part of the problem with this whole discussion is that "immersion" is so big and slippery. You want to say that "associative" mechanics are those which map directly to events or effects in the described imagined world, fine, and "dissociative" mechanics are those that don't, or are mechanics that affect the game-world in ways that are impossible for the inhabitants of the game-world to see or understand, okay, also fine. If you want to build a chain of reasoning using those definitions, I can go with that.
But then you go on to say that dissociative mechanics inherently break immersion, and there I have a problem. It may be true for a definition for immersion that has been provided, "the player making decisions as if the player were an inhabitant of the game-world," but I think that definition sucks. Pseudoephedrine has pointed out that an audience immerses with the characters in a stage play, and he got slapped down for it, but he's right; audiences of fiction do feel immersion with fiction, it's just not immersion by the provided definition. CRKrueger has likened immersion to what an actor feels with a character, but hey--actors don't make any decisions about what their character says or does, unless they are improvising. By the provided definition, actors can not experience immersion (again, unless they are imrprovising.
So "dissociative" mechanics may break a very narrow aspect of immersion, but there's a lot more to immersion than that.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388660To some degree. We're not that far off.
At it's most basic and most simple, metagaming is defined as, "In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions."
"In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon."
Level drain is something a character might now about, and a PC can react honestly enough to it. Conflict resolutions are the physics of combat in a world, so not necessarily.
An example would be Fate/Action Points, as described before. They can be a fun and interesting game mechanic, deciding to have something happen, or not happen, or to have another shot at something. Makes the game more cinematic.
But they force metagaming by their use. "Should I make time go backward and have that spearthrust not hit me?", is not ever an in-character thought (well, for most games). The PLayer has to decide to use expend a resource that the Player has, that the character does not have and that is not part of the in-game world. it's not a character skill or spell or item, So this is an example of a rule that forces out-of character use.
Or so I see it. Am I onto something, or do you think I am merely on something?
I think it's too broad. Basically, any decision made about the mechanics of the game becomes metagaming under the definition laid out above. It also means that important out-of-character knowledge becomes metagaming instead of serving to enrich and inform the characters and the world itself.
My main concern would be in genre emulation games, especially ones that do feature Drama / Fate points. Genre emulation games presuppose an out-of-character knowledge of the tropes of the genre by the players, tropes that the characters themselves don't reflect on (unless it's a comedy game).
What drama points do though, is offer players incentives to follow along with the tropes of pulp games by insulating them from some of the consequences of their actions that would follow from their behaviour in a common sense way, but are inappropriate to the genre being emulated.
For example, it would always be more sensible to plan extensively before approaching a dangerous situation, but in the pulp genre, few heroes do more than mention they have a plan before immediately executing it. Drama points allow players to mimic that, and therefore even though they involve a mechanical resource, they bring player and character expectations about how the world works closer together, rather than pushing them apart. It strikes me that shouldn't be part of a definition of "metagaming" (especially in light of the relatively pejorative use of the term "metagaming").
I'd propose a stricter definition of "metagaming", if we even must use the term, as "the prioritisation of mechanical considerations over the expectations of the players about how the in-character logic of the campaign will operate".
I think prioritisation is an important point because of what I said about drama points above. Prioritisation means that there's some disconnect between our expectations about how the world will work and what the games says to do, and we place the game above the world's logic, which I think strikes closer to both how the term is widely used, and even what your earlier proposed definition is aiming towards.
Extensively edited quote to facilitate dot-connection:
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388692So when you say "dissociated mechanic" you actually mean "dissociated experience". And when you say "dissociated mechanics" you mean "something that breaks immersion" instead of "mechanics which have no association with the game world; mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations" (which is the definition everybody else in the thread is using).
Well, OK. I can see why you're having difficulty participating in this discussion.
In the future, I recommend not attempting to use radically different definitions of terminology without telling anybody that you're doing it. In fact, I'd recommend against radically redefining terminology just the heck of it in general.
...
And here you're doing it again. The term "immersion" when applied to roleplaying games has had a rather specific definition for more than a decade now. The experience being described (specifically immersion in the role being played) cannot be experienced by the audience. By definition.
...
Insofar as there may or may not be a wider understanding of "skill challenge" to mean "anything we want that term to mean today".
You're dancing around the core design of 4e: "Words mean whatever we want them to mean, and that meaning changes when we mean it to". All of 4e rules are littered with the use of words, that, if they were taken at what they would mean anywhere else, would lead to incredible confusion. Examples are legion, such as "Sand in the Eyes" which doesn't actually involve sand or eyes, or, heck, even the D&D name on the cover of the books, which has confused many a player of 4e.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388692So when you say "dissociated mechanic" you actually mean "dissociated experience". And when you say "dissociated mechanics" you mean "something that breaks immersion" instead of "mechanics which have no association with the game world; mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations" (which is the definition everybody else in the thread is using).
I don't say "dissociated mechanic" and mean "dissociated experience". I say "dissociated mechanic" in the context of demonstrating why there is no such thing and otherwise don't use it. I do talk about "dissociated experiences" as experiences at the table that break immersion, yes.
QuoteIn the future, I recommend not attempting to use radically different definitions of terminology without telling anybody that you're doing it. In fact, I'd recommend against radically redefining terminology just the heck of it in general.
I did state repeatedly what I was doing. Once again, you would have to read my posts rather than merely pretending to in order to know that.
Here, let me restate my position on "dissociated mechanics" once again, since you still have not read the multiple previous statements of it, many of which occurred on this thread's first incarnation, which you also appear not to have read:
Mechanics do not inherently possess qualities like being "dissociated", as the term is being thrown around. They only attain that sort of property based on their actual use during actual play by actual people. This means that the proper scope for discussing "dissociation" is not the rules of the game considered in a vacuum, but their use at the table, during actual play.
QuoteIf you mean "something that breaks immersion", just say that. Or make up a new term for it if you feel it's critically important. Trying to redefine another term in the same discussion which means something completely different is just needlessly disruptive and counter-productive.
Your arbitrary terminology is not sacrosanct, I regret to inform you. Especially since it is so damned defective.
QuoteAnd here you're doing it again. The term "immersion" when applied to roleplaying games has had a rather specific definition for more than a decade now. The experience being described (specifically immersion in the role being played) cannot be experienced by the audience. By definition.
Oh gosh, "by definition"! That would almost count for something had I not repeatedly and explicitly stated that the definitions were defective and did not represent actual play and needed to be corrected to account for what actually happens at the table.
I'm amazed I even need to explain why including a line like "the audience can't experience immersion" is incomprehensible in a roleplaying game, but let me give you the short version:
Players are both actors and audience at the same time in a game. If the audience can't be immersed, that it is unclear how anyone can ever be immersed except at the exact moment they are speaking in the first person. That would be an absurd conclusion, but it is entailed by "the audience can't be immersed" since the players are simultaneously audience and actors.
It is the absolutely absurd and silly conclusions that come about from the current terminology regarding immersion that cause me to regard it as defective and state that it does not describe what actually happens at the table.
QuoteThis sort of "I'm deliberately miscommunicating" tactic you're employing combined with your fake-quoting and blatant strawmanning makes you look like a troll.
Oh, I'm definitely being nasty to Trollman, but I'm not "deliberately miscommunicating". I've repeatedly stated on this thread what I'm doing and why. Should you read my posts, as opposed to whatever you are doing to them now, you would know that.
QuoteBut I'm going to assume that's accidental. Which means in the future I'm going to assume that when you use a term with a pre-existing definition that you are, in fact, using it according to its defined meaning. If it turns out you are still deliberately trolling the thread by attempting to re-define common terminology, I'm afraid you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
"Common terminology" is a stretch. An arbitrary redefinition by a small group of people does not constitute a widespread consensus. This is especially important since, let me repeat once more, since you have ignored the multiple mentions of it in this thread:
The terminology you are using is defective because it does not describe actual play adequately. The terminology ought to be corrected.
I repeat, the terminology you are using is defective because it does not describe actual play adequately. The terminology ought to be corrected.
Quote from: two_fishes;388714A big part of the problem with this whole discussion is that "immersion" is so big and slippery. You want to say that "associative" mechanics are those which map directly to events or effects in the described imagined world, fine, and "dissociative" mechanics are those that don't, or are mechanics that affect the game-world in ways that are impossible for the inhabitants of the game-world to see or understand, okay, also fine. If you want to build a chain of reasoning using those definitions, I can go with that.
But then you go on to say that dissociative mechanics inherently break immersion, and there I have a problem. It may be true for a definition for immersion that has been provided, "the player making decisions as if the player were an inhabitant of the game-world," but I think that definition sucks. Pseudoephedrine has pointed out that an audience immerses with the characters in a stage play, and he got slapped down for it, but he's right; audiences of fiction do feel immersion with fiction, it's just not immersion by the provided definition. CRKrueger has likened immersion to what an actor feels with a character, but hey--actors don't make any decisions about what their character says or does, unless they are improvising. By the provided definition, actors can not experience immersion (again, unless they are imrprovising.
So "dissociative" mechanics may break a very narrow aspect of immersion, but there's a lot more to immersion than that.
All good points.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388730Players are both actors and audience at the same time in a game.
This statement does not make sense to me. How are players an audience?
Quote from: GnomeWorks;388732This statement does not make sense to me. How are players an audience?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/audience
I'm using the word in a plain-language kind of way to refer to anyone who is paying attention to a performance.
Audience participation in performances is fairly common these days, so the idea that someone can be both a performer or participant and part of the audience for the performance isn't an uncommon one. I'm not innovating new terminology here.
Pundit should offer a prize for post number 1000.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388705Being unfamiliar with a system is a big obstacle to immersion, especially if you're trying to get everything "correct" from the start. IME, there's usually a period after you switch systems where people are still drawing from the expectations they had for the way things worked in the last system and still need to look things up all the time, etc. I find in a lot of cases, people simply abandon the system rather than develop the familiarity with the new system that they had with the old system.
Frex, my group just jumped from 4e to nWoD about a month and a half ago, and we're still having moments where we're pulled out of whatever we're doing trying to figure out how something works (degeneration rolls remain a point of confusion). It was like that when we started 4e, when we started Shadowrun 4e, when started Iron Heroes, and when we started 3.5 and 3.0. You've just got to spend some time getting used to it, and relax about making "mistakes".
As well, even familiarity doesn't guarantee you'll like a system. And not liking a system can be an important factor in immersion as well. I don't like Shadowrun 4e (too many dice, cover doesn't matter for shit, magic is nuts, etc.), even though I played it a bunch. I certainly found it difficult to immerse myself in a scene because of my distaste for the mechanics. But I don't think that's some inherent property of Shadowrun 4e's system. It derives from my tastes and preferences.
Again, though, I can control for variables like 'familiarity' and 'like/dislike'.
I've run different systems with which I was (more or less equally) familiar, and found that the system did indeed have an impact on facilitating/impeding immersion during the game. Similarly, simply because a game has many 'disassociative mechanics' does not mean that I will dislike it (or, conversely, my liking a game does not mean that I will not find that game's mechanics a barrier to immersion).
Obviously the nature of the players in a game, their familiarity/unfamiliarity with the game, the like/dislike that the players have towards the game's mechanics, the skills of the GM, the verisimilitude of the setting and adventures, etc., are all important variables in determining how immersive one's experiences are when playing that game. But it seems that a game's mechanics are also an important variable.
Quote from: Akrasia;388740Again, though, I can control for variables like 'familiarity' and 'like/dislike'.
How are you "controlling" these variables, exactly? That part remains extremely unclear so far. Combined with the paucity of information about what went on with the group during play, it's difficult to argue with what you've said because there's simply no information to analyse to determine whether you are correct or not.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388741How are you "controlling" these variables, exactly?
In the sense that I've used different systems with the same group of players in which familiarity/unfamiliarity with the systems in question was not an issue (everyone was adequately familiar with both systems) and in which we liked both systems. Yet, nonetheless, the mechanics of the systems played a role in the degree of immersion enjoyed by the participants. That suggests to me that these experiences cannot be entirely 'explained away' by non-mechanics factors, as you seem to be suggesting.
My choice of words was somewhat infelicitous, as "controlling variables" suggests a degree of rigour in contrasting these experiences that obviously was not present.
Nonetheless, it strikes me as simply obvious that mechanics plays a role in facilitating/impeding 'immersion', and that this simply cannot be reduced to factors such as liking/disliking the game systems in question. LordVreeg's example of 'fate points' does a good job in illustrating this. For some games I think that a mechanic of this sort is an excellent idea. But it seems obvious that it is a disassociative mechanic. Characters in the world do not stop and ask themselves: "Now that I've just had my arm chopped off, perhaps I should go back in time and force that goblin to swing his scimitar again?"
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388741.. as I've said a couple of times now, that I don't think mechanics play a particularly important role in whether immersion happens or not...
If your position is in fact that mechanics do not "play a particularly important role" as opposed to "no role at all", then I suspect that our disagreement is simply over the importance of the role played by mechanics. I think that they play an important role, but other factors are important as well. (I'm not sure on what the precise weightings would be.)
Quote from: PseudoeephedrineQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegTo some degree. We're not that far off.
At it's most basic and most simple, metagaming is defined as, "In simple terms, using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions."
"In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon."
Level drain is something a character might now about, and a PC can react honestly enough to it. Conflict resolutions are the physics of combat in a world, so not necessarily.
An example would be Fate/Action Points, as described before. They can be a fun and interesting game mechanic, deciding to have something happen, or not happen, or to have another shot at something. Makes the game more cinematic.
But they force metagaming by their use. "Should I make time go backward and have that spearthrust not hit me?", is not ever an in-character thought (well, for most games). The PLayer has to decide to use expend a resource that the Player has, that the character does not have and that is not part of the in-game world. it's not a character skill or spell or item, So this is an example of a rule that forces out-of character use.
Or so I see it. Am I onto something, or do you think I am merely on something?
I think it's too broad. Basically, any decision made about the mechanics of the game becomes metagaming under the definition laid out above. It also means that important out-of-character knowledge becomes metagaming instead of serving to enrich and inform the characters and the world itself.
My main concern would be in genre emulation games, especially ones that do feature Drama / Fate points. Genre emulation games presuppose an out-of-character knowledge of the tropes of the genre by the players, tropes that the characters themselves don't reflect on (unless it's a comedy game).
What drama points do though, is offer players incentives to follow along with the tropes of pulp games by insulating them from some of the consequences of their actions that would follow from their behaviour in a common sense way, but are inappropriate to the genre being emulated.
For example, it would always be more sensible to plan extensively before approaching a dangerous situation, but in the pulp genre, few heroes do more than mention they have a plan before immediately executing it. Drama points allow players to mimic that, and therefore even though they involve a mechanical resource, they bring player and character expectations about how the world works closer together, rather than pushing them apart. It strikes me that shouldn't be part of a definition of "metagaming" (especially in light of the relatively pejorative use of the term "metagaming").
I'd propose a stricter definition of "metagaming", if we even must use the term, as "the prioritisation of mechanical considerations over the expectations of the players about how the in-character logic of the campaign will operate".
I think prioritisation is an important point because of what I said about drama points above. Prioritisation means that there's some disconnect between our expectations about how the world will work and what the games says to do, and we place the game above the world's logic, which I think strikes closer to both how the term is widely used, and even what your earlier proposed definition is aiming towards.
Too Broad?
Well, I did not make those up. It's not my proposed definition. Those were from Wikipedia, and the online dictionary. I use the term because it has a previously defined meaning, and I don't want to be accused of creating a whole logical fallacy because I am basing a supposition on my own definitions.
And when you say, "It also means that important out-of-character knowledge becomes metagaming instead of serving to enrich and inform the characters and the world itself.", well, yes this is certainly metagaming by definition.
However, I also agree with your use of the term about prioritisation, as there are all sorts of rules, especially in encounter and adventure design, that place the mechanical constrcution as a higher priority than in-game/setting logic.
The piece on genre emulation is well written and certainly raises a valid point. It is a metagaming mechanic. No way around that. But if a mechanic aids genre emulation but is metagaming, do these two facts cancel in terms of the immersive quality? Maybe they do. AS 2-Fishes mentions, and rightly, and as I have also said, there are more ingredients than just the rules in creating immersion.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388692It's actually been fairly productive for me. In particular, it's helped me to develop some of my ideas regarding roleplaying games vs. storytelling games.
Well, I do hope you continue to find some nuggets worth considering here and there.
QuoteI am, however, beginning to wonder why I'm still participating, however. It seems to be trending back towards cesspool.
It always seems to.
Quote from: two_fishes;388714A big part of the problem with this whole discussion is that "immersion" is so big and slippery. You want to say that "associative" mechanics are those which map directly to events or effects in the described imagined world, fine, and "dissociative" mechanics are those that don't, or are mechanics that affect the game-world in ways that are impossible for the inhabitants of the game-world to see or understand, okay, also fine. If you want to build a chain of reasoning using those definitions, I can go with that.
But then you go on to say that dissociative mechanics inherently break immersion, and there I have a problem. It may be true for a definition for immersion that has been provided, "the player making decisions as if the player were an inhabitant of the game-world," but I think that definition sucks. Pseudoephedrine has pointed out that an audience immerses with the characters in a stage play, and he got slapped down for it, but he's right; audiences of fiction do feel immersion with fiction, it's just not immersion by the provided definition. CRKrueger has likened immersion to what an actor feels with a character, but hey--actors don't make any decisions about what their character says or does, unless they are improvising. By the provided definition, actors can not experience immersion (again, unless they are imrprovising.
So "dissociative" mechanics may break a very narrow aspect of immersion, but there's a lot more to immersion than that.
Well written, 2-F.
And as I said before, there is more to immersion, than merely the rules. Its just one of the easiest controls to adjust. And most of what has been proposed (at least by me) is the above mentioned chain of reasoning. I don't feel like we've started to really work with the amount of immersion created/reduced.
However, above, I think the problem is use of the term immersion. In an RPG, it is used as shorthand for, 'character immersion' or 'first-person immersion', whereas other perfectly legitimate uses of the term outside the industry would include 'immersing' (being submerged) in the setting of a play or a book.
Quote from: StormBringer;388753Well, I do hope you continue to find some nuggets worth considering here and there.
It always seems to.
Is that why my forhead is bleeding?
Quote from: LordVreeg;388757Is that why my forhead is bleeding?
"
Do you have the stones?"
Come on guys, two pages to go.
This thread is starting to lack enough 4e hate.
(http://www.dreadgazebo.com/geekcats/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/kitten4ewonder.thumbnail.jpg)
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388536Skill challenges use, you know, the skill challenge mechanics.
What "skill challenge mechanics" would those be?
Seanchai
Quote from: Werekoala;388586So in one session, we did it both ways. Were we wrong?
Basically, a Skill Challenge is, to my mind, a way of doing two things: creating an interesting "mini-game" and/or awarding XP for things beyond fighting and story/roleplaying/quests.
Seanchai
Quote from: Akrasia;388666I'm curious, then, about cases in which the same group plays two different games, and finds one game to be more 'immersive' (conducive towards immersive experiences, or whatever) than the other. The only variable seems to be the game mechanics in question, since everything else (players, even the campaign setting in some cases) is constant.
The same way two people can differ about how "immersive" they find the same mechanic or situation: it's all subjective.
Seanchai
Didn't John Morrow say that the key to deconstruction is to argue away all definitions, then claim that the subject had no meaning to begin with?
Quote from: StormBringer;388787Didn't John Morrow say that the key to deconstruction is to argue away all definitions, then claim that the subject had no meaning to begin with?
Oh, thanks a bunch, Want to hand me some morphine to go along with my cocktail?
Quote from: LordVreeg;388788Oh, thanks a bunch, Want to hand me some morphine to go along with my cocktail?
Just noticing a trend is all, and I wanted to see if anyone else saw it. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;388789Just noticing a trend is all, and I wanted to see if anyone else saw it. :)
Yeah. There's a trend alright.
Quote from: StormBringer;388789Just noticing a trend is all, and I wanted to see if anyone else saw it. :)
Notice???
I was beginning to wonder about the wisdom of this particular zero sum game. Though there ahve been some people who did read previous posts and did understand or already know what the already defined terms meant.
in other notes, Vigna Antica Aglianico 2006 is very ready to drink, with some nice acidic tannins.
posted the new notes on GS disease in the Citadel.
and in due course, some one will redo this whole thread under a (hopefully less abusive) name.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388798posted the new notes on GS disease in the Citadel.
Excellent!
Which reminds me: drop me a line soon-ish, I want to start work on editing that thread for publication, I want to go over what you feel comfortable releasing under a Creative Commons agreement, if anything.
Quote from: StormBringer;388787Didn't John Morrow say that the key to deconstruction is to argue away all definitions, then claim that the subject had no meaning to begin with?
Nihilism? Derrida?
Quote from: ggroy;388802Nihilism? Derrida?
Likely both, but someone around here has the quote in their sig.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;388730I don't say "dissociated mechanic" and mean "dissociated experience". I say "dissociated mechanic" in the context of demonstrating why there is no such thing and otherwise don't use it. I do talk about "dissociated experiences" as experiences at the table that break immersion, yes.
But less than a page before writing this, you wrote: "I do think that there are mechanics that are not intended to mimic some feature of the world's physics and that offer incentives to players to react to them without requiring them to think about things from an in-character perspective."
Which is basically the same definition of "dissociated mechanic" that's been posted multiple times by multiple people in this very thread. So on the one hand you think there are dissociated mechanics; and on the other you claim they don't exist.
QuoteQuoteThis sort of "I'm deliberately miscommunicating" tactic you're employing combined with your fake-quoting and blatant strawmanning makes you look like a troll.
Oh, I'm definitely being nasty to Trollman, but I'm not "deliberately miscommunicating". I've repeatedly stated on this thread what I'm doing and why.
This is true. You are repeatedly stated now that you are deliberately attempting to confuse the conversation by subverting the definitions of terminology which has (in some cases) been used with great success for more than a decade. This, in case we're unclear here, is what I'm defining as "deliberately miscommunicating".
And you've admitted that you're deliberately engaging in troll-like behavior by antagonizing Trollman (and since you're engaging in the same behavior with others, the admission extends beyond Trollman).
And you're simultaneously claiming explicitly contradictory things in alternating messages in order to sow more confusion.
And after being politely asked to stop in this behavior, you have proudly announced that you're going to continue engaging in it.
So you're a demonstrated, self-admitted, and unrepentant troll.
So I'm doing wasting my time with you.
To everybody else: I recommend we all simply ignore Pseudo's trolling. It will probably be mildly entertaining to see how long he continues to post his nonsense if we all refuse to acknowledge it.
To pluck up a topic that got lost under the trolling:
What are people's thoughts on the usefulness of distinguishing between "roleplaying games" (in which associated mechanics specifically require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) and "storytelling games" (in which dissociated mechanics put the players in a more authorial position of controlling the story beyond the boundaries of any particular character)?
And if the two sorts of mechanics are employed in the same game, is it more useful to blur the boundaries between the two? Or create a sharp distinction between the "in character" stuff and the "authorial" stuff?
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388822To pluck up a topic that got lost under the trolling:
What are people's thoughts on the usefulness of distinguishing between "roleplaying games" (in which associated mechanics specifically require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) and "storytelling games" (in which dissociated mechanics put the players in a more authorial position of controlling the story beyond the boundaries of any particular character)?
And if the two sorts of mechanics are employed in the same game, is it more useful to blur the boundaries between the two? Or create a sharp distinction between the "in character" stuff and the "authorial" stuff?
Or where does 4E fit into that? It is set up as a "roleplaying game" in terms of purpose, but generally uses narrative/dissociative justification for its mechanics as opposed to the simulationist/associative justification of mechanics in most games on the "roleplaying games" side of the spectrum you describe.
Hmm storygaming generally gets you shot here.
Sort of kidding.
I'm more intrested, however, in the other immersion creators in a game, and what else adds /subtracts from them.
AS well as the difference between associative/dissociative mechanics in erms of adventure/camapign design mechanics and play mechanics.
How about we discuss how NF is trying to convert people to d20 Scarred Lands and/or Pathfinder RPG?
To me, the most important aspect of 4E in what we are discussing here is its cinematic nature. 4E PCs are action heroes, modeled on video games, anime, and modern action cinema. When you look at it through that lens it works really well. The mechanics might technically be dissociative, but the genres it aims to emulate deemphasize the how of things, and are completely unconcerned with how or why things happen. The little details of the game world, and the inner workings are less important than the action at hand, and this is a conscious stylistic choice. The term "suspension of disbelief" comes into play here. You are playing a hero, and a hero that can perform deeds beyond the ability of ordinary mortals, and for whom violence and special abilities are the go-to options.
When what you want from a game is not cinematic action, 4E isn't that good of a game, particularly because unlike earlier editions of D&D 4E is focused like a laser on what it aims to do. Most criticisms of 4E that I read I put under the category "judging 4E to fit a standard other than what it was specifically designed to be".
When the aim is cinematic action, I can't see any game being able to top 4E from an immersive standpoint. A lot of what people in this thread have described as "immersive" would be out of place and detract from the experience in a game based on cinematic action. Playing earlier editions of D&D and other systems while holding cinematic action as an ideal, I found this to be the case.
Or...we can talk about Pathfinder RPG...
CSI 4E
:p
Quote from: Nightfall;388826How about we discuss how NF is trying to convert people to d20 Scarred Lands and/or Pathfinder RPG?
I wouldn't be caught dead going back to anything resembling 3.5E D&D at this point. If I was to go back to an earlier edition, it would be a medium-heavy houseruled version of 2E based on 1E's heavy metal aesthetic.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388827To me, the most important aspect of 4E in what we are discussing here is its cinematic nature. 4E PCs are action heroes, modeled on video games, anime, and modern action cinema. When you look at it through that lens it works really well. The mechanics might technically be dissociative, but the genres it aims to emulate deemphasize the how of things, and are completely unconcerned with how or why things happen. The little details of the game world, and the inner workings are less important than the action at hand, and this is a conscious stylistic choice. The term "suspension of disbelief" comes into play here. You are playing a hero, and a hero that can perform deeds beyond the ability of ordinary mortals, and for whom violence and special abilities are the go-to options.
When what you want from a game is not cinematic action, 4E isn't that good of a game, particularly because unlike earlier editions of D&D 4E is focused like a laser on what it aims to do. Most criticisms of 4E that I read I put under the category "judging 4E to fit a standard other than what it was specifically designed to be".
When the aim is cinematic action, I can't see any game being able to top 4E from an immersive standpoint. A lot of what people in this thread have described as "immersive" would be out of place and detract from the experience in a game based on cinematic action. Playing earlier editions of D&D and other systems while holding cinematic action as an ideal, I found this to be the case.
I think that's a pretty good description of things. Not only is this not a new argument, I think it's been about a very narrow band view of "realism" all along.
Quote from: ggroy;388829CSI 4E
:p
Anyone playing anything other than d6 NCIS is a pervert and threat to society.
Also on an interesting note:
After the announcement of 4E, I soured on 3.5E and got to the point where it caused me physical pain to run it. I scrapped the campaign, and we started playing the original Dragonlance modules using 2E AD&D. When 4E was launched, we translated the game into 4E, and the level of immersion in the game increased. We transferred the game while in ruined Sylvanesti, and it was the 4E half of that module that people are still traumatized by. 4E did a better job of instilling a feeling of horror than 2E did.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388833After the announcement of 4E, I soured on 3.5E and got to the point where it caused me physical pain to run it.
I was completely burned out playing d20/3.5E by then. My last 3.5E campaign was almost finished anyways, and wrapped up by early 2008.
These days I won't DM 3.5E/Pathfinder. Though I'll still play it, for an evening pickup or a weekend convention game.
Quote from: ggroy;388834I was completely burned out playing d20/3.5E by then. My last 3.5E campaign was almost finished anyways, and wrapped up by early 2008.
These days I won't DM 3.5E/Pathfinder. Though I'll still play it, for an evening pickup or a weekend convention game.
I liked D&D3.5 fine, but that also means I found no need whatsoever to buy the entire game over again out of some strange solidarity ploy. That said, I don't see myself running or playing it again anytime soon.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388835I liked D&D3.5 fine, but that also means I found no need whatsoever to buy the entire game over again out of some strange solidarity ploy. That said, I don't see myself running or playing it again anytime soon.
There are certain things I do like in 3.5E. Psychic Warrior, Book of 9 Swords, and Warlocks for example. The fact that I wouldn't want to play 3.5E without these things would make me more inclined to stick with the existing 3.5E system than trying to mesh them with Pathfinder. Pathfinder just doesn't do enough to justify the conversion of non-OGL 3.5E features. Not in the absence of the desire for solidarity or to play a living game. This is speaking hypothetically, since like you I don't see myself running or playing it again anytime soon.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388835I liked D&D3.5 fine, but that also means I found no need whatsoever to buy the entire game over again out of some strange solidarity ploy. That said, I don't see myself running or playing it again anytime soon.
Same here. Didn't see much point in buying the Pathfinder core rulebooks, which I'll probably never be using.
Only Pathfinder stuff I picked up, were some of the adventure paths and Golarion setting books before the Pathfinder core books were released. It was largely to mine for campaign ideas for the 4E game I was DM'ing at the time. The WotC 4E modules were kinda crappy at the time.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388822To pluck up a topic that got lost under the trolling:
What are people's thoughts on the usefulness of distinguishing between "roleplaying games" (in which associated mechanics specifically require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) and "storytelling games" (in which dissociated mechanics put the players in a more authorial position of controlling the story beyond the boundaries of any particular character)?
And if the two sorts of mechanics are employed in the same game, is it more useful to blur the boundaries between the two? Or create a sharp distinction between the "in character" stuff and the "authorial" stuff?
I think the distinction, when made by the designer, might help in terms of helping identify games that coincide with their interests/preferences, but as for combining the techniques, I think just how blurry it gets is a matter of preference (kind of like how some video games shift rigidly between genre "modes", and others make it so that the elements are all woven together neatly into one whole).
The problem right now is that a lot of games that teeter on the edge still identify themselves as RPGs, and the distinction isn't being used in a useful way so much as a way to distance "things I don't like" from "things I do like."
This thread is now the exposed, frozen core of an atmosphere-stripped ancient gas supergiant orbiting a black dwarf star in a dead galaxy.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;388869This thread is now the exposed, frozen core of an atmosphere-stripped ancient gas supergiant orbiting a black dwarf star in a dead galaxy.
That's pretty insulting to all the exposed, frozen cores of atmosphere-stripped ancient gas supergiants orbiting black dwarf stars in dead galaxies.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;388869This thread is now the exposed, frozen core of an atmosphere-stripped ancient gas supergiant orbiting a black dwarf star in a dead galaxy.
Quote from: jeff37923;388875That's pretty insulting to all the exposed, frozen cores of atmosphere-stripped ancient gas supergiants orbiting black dwarf stars in dead galaxies.
Of which, there appears to be a metric fuckton (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/15/4512943-an-avalanche-of-alien-planets)
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388822To pluck up a topic that got lost under the trolling:
What are people's thoughts on the usefulness of distinguishing between "roleplaying games" (in which associated mechanics specifically require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) and "storytelling games" (in which dissociated mechanics put the players in a more authorial position of controlling the story beyond the boundaries of any particular character)?
And if the two sorts of mechanics are employed in the same game, is it more useful to blur the boundaries between the two? Or create a sharp distinction between the "in character" stuff and the "authorial" stuff?
Disregarding the self admitted troll is probably a good idea, yeah.
As for the distinction between "roleplaying" and "storytelling" - I think that any role playing game worth its salt is going to include both. In games with GMs, the GM pretty much
has to take on a full authorial hat most of the time. But the players have to do that too, at least during chargen. While there are a couple of lifepath based character generators out there which are played through entirely in the first person - those are rare. And deservedly so in my opinion.
Every player at the table is going to be making some declarations about the world from an authorial standpoint. At the very least, the declaration that their character (and by extension their family and associates) exist. And honestly I don't think that making a few more authorial declarations would be an impediment to immersive roleplaying. Quite the opposite in fact. Having some authorial control of the world allows you to act as you imagine your character acting without being pulled out of the action to ask someone else to make up details about the world so that you can try to resculpt your character in light of the new information.
With some authorial power you as the player can just
keep going, and when it comes time for you to hit a blank spot of your character's history or the area around them, you can just
fill that in and then, here's the important part,
keep going. Immersing yourself in a character role benefits enormously from a noticeable amount of authorial control. Roleplaying and Storytelling elements are not in conflict, they support one another.
-Frank
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388822What are people's thoughts on the usefulness of distinguishing between "roleplaying games" (in which associated mechanics specifically require the players to make decisions as if they were their characters) and "storytelling games" (in which dissociated mechanics put the players in a more authorial position of controlling the story beyond the boundaries of any particular character)?`
They are not useful to me, and I have only seen them used in imaginary Internet wars.
See, I think that both games can include both kind of mechanics (Hero Points in James Bond 007 would be an sterling example), and the immersion in character is something that I have experienced in both kind of games.
QuoteAnd if the two sorts of mechanics are employed in the same game, is it more useful to blur the boundaries between the two? Or create a sharp distinction between the "in character" stuff and the "authorial" stuff?
I'd blur it.
Totally agree with Imperator, the distinction being drawn here between roleplaying games and storytelling games doesn't really do anything for me.
Both are approaches are pushing in the same direction, the creation of interesting, well rounded characters. The two can co-exist happily, and I strongly suspect lot of players can to swap between modes freely within the same session without a second thought. It's gets blurred, as he says.
Look at it this way, there are method actors and there are technical actors. But as long as on screen the actor nails the character, it doesn't really matter how they got there and the two schools of actiong work together all the time.
Also the terminology being used here is not helpful; it is almost provactive. By calling one of the approaches "roleplaying", which is in essence the name of the hobby as a whole their is an implicit criticism that the other approach isn't as pure or central. Particularly as the term "storytelling" on this specific forum has a negative baggage. I mean if we are prepared to call an old school D&D dungeon crawl "roleplaying" - the kind of game in which if your guy "Sir Robin" died due to a trap you just rolled "Sir Robin 2" and were expected to use the ooc knowledge to avoid the same trap and carry on as if nothing happened - it seems odd to draw a line in the sand at Fate points.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388827When what you want from a game is not cinematic action, 4E isn't that good of a game, particularly because unlike earlier editions of D&D 4E is focused like a laser on what it aims to do. Most criticisms of 4E that I read I put under the category "judging 4E to fit a standard other than what it was specifically designed to be".
When the game is called "Dungeons & Dragons", the designers have to expect people familiar with the previous 30 years of the game to compare it to that. One of the problem with 4e is that it's "focus like a laser" is so narrow that it cut away many styles of play that people have come to associate with D&D over its history.
The designers basically pulled a "New Coke." "New Coke" was so different that "Old Coke" that it turned off many long-time drinkers of Coke. What most people forget was that "New Coke" did strongly appeal to one segment of the soft drink market -- far better than old coke did. Where WOTC really went wrong was trying forcing their "New D&D" down everyone's throat by pulling all sales of previous versions (even the PDFs which cost them next to nothing to keep on sale) and dissing old versions (and by implication those who like them) in their run up to the 4e release. Coke had better sense than to knock their old coke (just advertising new coke as better) and dropped the idea of only selling new coke really fast, WOTC should have learned lessons from this.
Quote from: RandallS;388941When the game is called "Dungeons & Dragons", the designers have to expect people familiar with the previous 30 years of the game to compare it to that. One of the problem with 4e is that it's "focus like a laser" is so narrow that it cut away many styles of play that people have come to associate with D&D over its history.
The designers basically pulled a "New Coke." "New Coke" was so different that "Old Coke" that it turned off many long-time drinkers of Coke. What most people forget was that "New Coke" did strongly appeal to one segment of the soft drink market -- far better than old coke did. Where WOTC really went wrong was trying forcing their "New D&D" down everyone's throat by pulling all sales of previous versions (even the PDFs which cost them next to nothing to keep on sale) and dissing old versions (and by implication those who like them) in their run up to the 4e release. Coke had better sense than to knock their old coke (just advertising new coke as better) and dropped the idea of only selling new coke really fast, WOTC should have learned lessons from this.
First of all, I don't think old versions were "dissed" and certainly not their fans. They mentioned that there was probably a better way to handle battles that specifically involved complicated 3rd edition maneuvers like grappling... but the only way that's offensive is for people who really were looking for an excuse to be offended.
I personally think that portion of the old audience that was so willing to have emotional problems over the edition change.. was absolutely worth getting rid of. And all indications are that it seems to have been a good decision all around.
Quote from: RandallS;388941The designers basically pulled a "New Coke." "New Coke" was so different that "Old Coke" that it turned off many long-time drinkers of Coke. What most people forget was that "New Coke" did strongly appeal to one segment of the soft drink market -- far better than old coke did. Where WOTC really went wrong was trying forcing their "New D&D" down everyone's throat by pulling all sales of previous versions (even the PDFs which cost them next to nothing to keep on sale) and dissing old versions (and by implication those who like them) in their run up to the 4e release. Coke had better sense than to knock their old coke (just advertising new coke as better) and dropped the idea of only selling new coke really fast, WOTC should have learned lessons from this.
In hindsight, this may very well be the case.
But at the time when 4E was being developed and playtested, it's possible it may not have even crossed their minds. It's easy for marketing people to believe their own bullshit, and fall into an internal groupthink mindset where dissent isn't tolerated.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388943I personally think that portion of the old audience that was so willing to have emotional problems over the edition change.. was absolutely worth getting rid of. And all indications are that it seems to have been a good decision all around.
If they think this audience is more trouble than they are worth and is small enough, it may very well be worth the risk to do so.
Though the question is how big is this audience, and how much revenue will be lost by eliminating such an audience.
Quote from: RandallS;388941When the game is called "Dungeons & Dragons", the designers have to expect people familiar with the previous 30 years of the game to compare it to that. One of the problem with 4e is that it's "focus like a laser" is so narrow that it cut away many styles of play that people have come to associate with D&D over its history.
The designers basically pulled a "New Coke." "New Coke" was so different that "Old Coke" that it turned off many long-time drinkers of Coke. What most people forget was that "New Coke" did strongly appeal to one segment of the soft drink market -- far better than old coke did. Where WOTC really went wrong was trying forcing their "New D&D" down everyone's throat by pulling all sales of previous versions (even the PDFs which cost them next to nothing to keep on sale) and dissing old versions (and by implication those who like them) in their run up to the 4e release. Coke had better sense than to knock their old coke (just advertising new coke as better) and dropped the idea of only selling new coke really fast, WOTC should have learned lessons from this.
3E had already shit all over D&D's history and tradition. It was such a confusing mess though that people didn't realize it and there were enough vestiges of the old in it that people could delude themselves that "old D&D" was still alive.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388943First of all, I don't think old versions were "dissed" and certainly not their fans. They mentioned that there was probably a better way to handle battles that specifically involved complicated 3rd edition maneuvers like grappling... but the only way that's offensive is for people who really were looking for an excuse to be offended.
I personally think that portion of the old audience that was so willing to have emotional problems over the edition change.. was absolutely worth getting rid of. And all indications are that it seems to have been a good decision all around.
This
Quote from: ggroy;388945If they think this audience is more trouble than they are worth and is small enough, it may very well be worth the risk to do so.
Though the question is how big is this audience, and how much revenue will be lost by eliminating such an audience.
The audience is loud, but small, and the game is better off without them.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388954The audience is loud, but small, and the game is better off without them.
No, you just want people who don't agree with you to shut up and begone because they're SPOILING YOUR FUN MAAAAAAAAN.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;388957No, you just want people who don't agree with you to shut up and begone because they're SPOILING YOUR FUN MAAAAAAAAN.
Spoiling what fun? I don't game with those people. I only know one of them in real life, and I'm glad he's gone. Only place I see this is people whining on the internet, which I enjoy the same as I enjoy watching Jerry Springer or Jersey Shore.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388954The audience is loud, but small, and the game is better off without them.
Actually, in terms of any demographic marketting, repeat purchasers, especially historical multiple repeat purchasers that are passionate (read as loud) about the quality of a brand (any brand), are the gold standard in terms of retention/acquisition.
The reacquisition of this demographic should be first priority in any future marketting.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388983Actually, in terms of any demographic marketting, repeat purchasers, especially historical multiple repeat purchasers that are passionate (read as loud) about the quality of a brand (any brand), are the gold standard in terms of retention/acquisition.
In the rpg world, the question is whether "loud" necessarily equates with repeat purchasing.
For example, are the extremely loud critics of 4E D&D the same people buying new WotC 4E splatbooks every month?
Quote from: ggroy;388989In the rpg world, the question is whether "loud" necessarily equates with repeat purchasing.
For example, are the extremely loud critics of 4E D&D the same people buying new WotC 4E splatbooks every month?
hell of a question.
I left the game at AD&D, so I don't count. I buy very little in terms of gaming.
In terms of marketting, the people most upset about 'new coke' were the diehard coke drinkers. It became too much like pepsi, to them. The problem, you see, is these were NOT the people who would buy limecoke and cherry coke and fudgecoke...
However, the people who are the loudest critics of 4e are buying other brands, not 4e books, i think.
Attrition is a huge issue in marketting in terms of changing a brand. How do you think the various editions did in terms of % of people who were lost during an edition switch?
Quote from: ggroy;388989For example, are the extremely loud critics of 4E D&D the same people buying new WotC 4E splatbooks every month?
Of course not, as they don't like 4e. However, many of them bought every 3.x item WOTC published. And some have just about every D&D item TSR or WOTC published prior to 4e. Some like me, do have the first three 4e books, but did not buy any more.
WOTC decided that the money of everyone who did like find the narrow focus of 4e to their taste wasn't any good. That's their decision, but considering the cost of continuing to make older edition material available as PDFs was very low and that terminating the D20 trademark license to allow 3rd party publishers to easily continue to support 3.x did not save them a penny, the business sense of their decision is highly questionable.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388992Attrition is a huge issue in marketting in terms of changing a brand. How do you think the various editions did in terms of % of people who were lost during an edition switch?
Good question.
From what I recall of the 1E -> 2E AD&D transition anecdotally, there were several classes of attrition I was aware of locally at the time.
1 - Several hardcore 1E AD&D grognards I personally knew of, absolutely refuse to acknowledge the existence of 2E AD&D. To their word, they never bought any D&D/AD&D products beyond 1988/1989. (These people were far and few in between).
2 - Some less hardcore 1E AD&D grognards I knew of, didn't bother buying any of the 2E AD&D rulesbooks. But they did continue buying modules and supplement books for stuff like Greyhawk, Dragonlance, etc ...
3 - Some bought the 2E AD&D core books, but never played the game. They continued playing 1E AD&D instead.
I suspect during that time period (ie. early-mid 1990's), White Wolf was also eating into 2E AD&D's market which caused another significant source of attrition.
By that time, TSR was already dropping quite a few of its settings (ie. Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Oriental Adventures, etc ...). In the case of Spelljammer, Al-Qadim, Oriental Adventures, etc... they were probably niche settings at best, and didn't have a large enough audience to sustain it much further.
In the case of Greyhawk and Dragonlance, I suspect the well ran dry with not enough grognards buying new Greyhawk and Dragonlance modules. I know some of my Greyhawk grognard friends thought the "Greyhawk Wars" were a complete abomination of the setting. A few of them don't even consider the "Greyhawk Wars" to be legitimate Greyhawk canon.
Quote from: RandallS;388993Of course not, as they don't like 4e. However, many of them bought every 3.x item WOTC published. And some have just about every D&D item TSR or WOTC published prior to 4e. Some like me, do have the first three 4e books, but did not buy any more.
WOTC decided that the money of everyone who did like find the narrow focus of 4e to their taste wasn't any good. That's their decision, but considering the cost of continuing to make older edition material available as PDFs was very low and that terminating the D20 trademark license to allow 3rd party publishers to easily continue to support 3.x did not save them a penny, the business sense of their decision is highly questionable.
Bullshit. You guys were unhappy before they pulled the PDFs. You guys were unhappy that 4E wasn't going to be OGL. I don't think old PDFs and the d20 STL were going to make it any better. You guys would still be pissed.
If you guys were going to be pissed regardless, why should WotC try to please you?
Quote from: RandallS;388993Of course not, as they don't like 4e. However, many of them bought every 3.x item WOTC published. And some have just about every D&D item TSR or WOTC published prior to 4e. Some like me, do have the first three 4e books, but did not buy any more.
WOTC decided that the money of everyone who did like find the narrow focus of 4e to their taste wasn't any good. That's their decision, but considering the cost of continuing to make older edition material available as PDFs was very low and that terminating the D20 trademark license to allow 3rd party publishers to easily continue to support 3.x did not save them a penny, the business sense of their decision is highly questionable.
I don't know about the business sense of this succession of marketing decisions. If they had a clear goal that has been fulfilled in excess of their own expectations, it isn't clear to me.
What I do know is that I fit your profile of the first paragraph.
Quote from: Akrasia;388750In the sense that I've used different systems with the same group of players in which familiarity/unfamiliarity with the systems in question was not an issue (everyone was adequately familiar with both systems) and in which we liked both systems. Yet, nonetheless, the mechanics of the systems played a role in the degree of immersion enjoyed by the participants. That suggests to me that these experiences cannot be entirely 'explained away' by non-mechanics factors, as you seem to be suggesting.
Once again, there's nothing here for me to analyse and examine. If you think that, you are welcome to, but simply saying "I know all relevant factors and it was this one" without providing adequate information for others to decide if you are correct makes it extremely hard for other people to engage with your ideas in any serious way.
I, you may notice, try not to do that, and tell longer anecdotes about my play experiences because I try to give people a fair account of all relevant factors. I answer questions about them as well when people request further information. I find this makes my examples much more useful, both to myself and others.
QuoteNonetheless, it strikes me as simply obvious that mechanics plays a role in facilitating/impeding 'immersion', and that this simply cannot be reduced to factors such as liking/disliking the game systems in question. LordVreeg's example of 'fate points' does a good job in illustrating this. For some games I think that a mechanic of this sort is an excellent idea. But it seems obvious that it is a disassociative mechanic. Characters in the world do not stop and ask themselves: "Now that I've just had my arm chopped off, perhaps I should go back in time and force that goblin to swing his scimitar again?"
See my comments on genre-emulation to LVR.
QuoteIf your position is in fact that mechanics do not "play a particularly important role" as opposed to "no role at all", then I suspect that our disagreement is simply over the importance of the role played by mechanics. I think that they play an important role, but other factors are important as well. (I'm not sure on what the precise weightings would be.)
I think they do not play a particularly important role. I think that the role they play in causing or prevent immersion is not in any case intrinsic to them, but has to do with their application and use by individuals at the table. Since the rules don't exist in the game except in their application and use I don't see any discussion that tries to get away from discussing how they are applied and used in specific contexts as useful or particularly sound.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388821But less than a page before writing this, you wrote: "I do think that there are mechanics that are not intended to mimic some feature of the world's physics and that offer incentives to players to react to them without requiring them to think about things from an in-character perspective."
Which is basically the same definition of "dissociated mechanic" that's been posted multiple times by multiple people in this very thread. So on the one hand you think there are dissociated mechanics; and on the other you claim they don't exist.
I don't think the mechanics I mentioned are properly called "dissociated mechanics" because I don't think they bear on immersion at all. I also think calling them "dissociated mechanics" falsely ascribes some sort of essential quality or property to them that they do not have. It is a semantic trick on your part, as most of your arguments surrounding definitions have been so far.
I would be happy to explain what kinds of mechanics I was referring to if anyone else is curious.
QuoteThis is true. You are repeatedly stated now that you are deliberately attempting to confuse the conversation by subverting the definitions of terminology which has (in some cases) been used with great success for more than a decade. This, in case we're unclear here, is what I'm defining as "deliberately miscommunicating".
You appear to love arbitrarily defining things. Since you don't appear to understand this, let me state it quite bluntly:
Arbitrary definitions by dickheads like yourself on the internet are worth nothing, even if you've managed to convince a handful of other dickheads that you're clever. A definition has to be shown to be sound when questioned, and you have not done that.
Instead, you've whined about how mean I'm being, you've complained that your e-buddies like your terms so they must be OK, and you've failed to answer any of the challenges to the definitions that I've raised.
QuoteAnd you've admitted that you're deliberately engaging in troll-like behavior by antagonizing Trollman (and since you're engaging in the same behavior with others, the admission extends beyond Trollman).
Congratulations, you have discovered this board allows personal attacks and acrimonious debate and it only took you three years of membership to do so.
Frankly, this argument has been going on for years now, and I don't deny that I don't take some of the more troglodytic intellects of this board all that seriously. You are now part of that august company, congratulations!
QuoteAnd you're simultaneously claiming explicitly contradictory things in alternating messages in order to sow more confusion.
I am rejecting your made-up, unsound terminology entirely and attempting to replace it with plain language statements about actual play and tentative suggestions for terminology which I will happily discuss and defend should they be challenged.
QuoteAnd after being politely asked to stop in this behavior, you have proudly announced that you're going to continue engaging in it.
So you're a demonstrated, self-admitted, and unrepentant troll.
So I'm doing wasting my time with you.
To everybody else: I recommend we all simply ignore Pseudo's trolling. It will probably be mildly entertaining to see how long he continues to post his nonsense if we all refuse to acknowledge it.
What a pretentious whiner!
If you can't defend your ideas when they are challenged, and must instead complain that the person challenging them is mean, you are simply intellectually bankrupt.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388751Too Broad?
Well, I did not make those up. It's not my proposed definition. Those were from Wikipedia, and the online dictionary. I use the term because it has a previously defined meaning, and I don't want to be accused of creating a whole logical fallacy because I am basing a supposition on my own definitions.
Wikipedia is not a good source for definitions (though I don't mind it for facts). "Metagaming" as it currently stands isn't in most dictionaries, and I'd argue that it's actually an extremely vague neologism pretending to a level of precision that it lacks, especially since it's mainly used in a pejorative, not descriptive sense.
Semantic imprecision is actually pretty common for pejorative terms, so "metagaming" as a term isn't unusual in having that property. The point of using a pejorative term, after all, is to insult and express disapproval of, not to accurately describe.
QuoteAnd when you say, "It also means that important out-of-character knowledge becomes metagaming instead of serving to enrich and inform the characters and the world itself.", well, yes this is certainly metagaming by definition.
I'm extremely troubled by the idea that knowing how the world works is "metagaming". We aren't even talking mechanically here, we're talking genre emulation. It strikes me that if simply knowing how the world works is metagaming, then there is nothing that is not metagaming, since it's unclear how the character's expectations of how the world works wouldn't also qualify as metagaming somehow.
After all, if the player's expectations and the character's expectations are identical or at least extremely similar, it strikes me that it would be more accurate to describe the situation as one of immersion, rather than the reinforcing of a distinction between the two (which so far is the minimal condition all definitions of metagaming proposed on this thread have agreed on).
QuoteHowever, I also agree with your use of the term about prioritisation, as there are all sorts of rules, especially in encounter and adventure design, that place the mechanical constrcution as a higher priority than in-game/setting logic.
Experience systems also tend to be more mechanically driven than motivated by in-setting logic, IMHO. That's not a hard and fast rule, of course.
In general, I find the systems that are least accounted for in the world tend to be ones that are not done at the table during a session, or at least not during the part of the session where the characters are being performed by players. Adventure design, leveling up, etc. all happen on their own, outside of performing the characters, and I don't think of them as directly bearing on immersion (though they may have secondary effects which do).
QuoteThe piece on genre emulation is well written and certainly raises a valid point. It is a metagaming mechanic. No way around that. But if a mechanic aids genre emulation but is metagaming, do these two facts cancel in terms of the immersive quality? Maybe they do. AS 2-Fishes mentions, and rightly, and as I have also said, there are more ingredients than just the rules in creating immersion.
I think this is just the pretzel logic of some of these terms tangling itself up here. I think we can get out of this not by trying to arrange the terms correctly, but by throwing out a lot of them and rejigging the few that are left.
In this case, I wouldn't want to describe mechanics or OOC knowledge that aid one in portraying one's character in the world as "metagaming". I think the use of that term just confuses the issue by importing ideas attached to the term that are not in the things themselves.
I had no idea 'troglodytic intellect' referred to such prodigious eloquence and extraordinarily coherent thought!
Off to the Alexandrian to see if there's a page on how cave dwelling can help me achieve this level.
Quote from: Doom;389078I had no idea 'troglodytic intellect' referred to such prodigious eloquence and extraordinarily coherent thought!
Off to the Alexandrian to see if there's a page on how cave dwelling can help me achieve this level.
If you find discussions of RPG theory as it currently stands "extraordinarily coherent", you oughta be arrested by for abusing the language.
The vast majority of it, of which this thread is no exception, begins by arbitrarily defining terms, finding two to four people who agree with you on what the term means, and then pretending that this is a widespread consensus.
The second step involves pointing to the definitions and demanding all debate take place within the space they demarcate, with no discussion of foundational issues (Is this a good term? Does it accurately describe things? Does it lead to absurd conclusions?).
The third is to whine and complain when others challenge you and to speak only to the echo chamber.
That was what the Forge did, it's what happened with storygaming, the OSR, and now the Immersion people. I have had the same argument with each group in turn, and I'm sure I will have the same argument with whatever proselytic mongoloid horde comes riding over the horizon tomorrow.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388823Or where does 4E fit into that? It is set up as a "roleplaying game" in terms of purpose, but generally uses narrative/dissociative justification for its mechanics as opposed to the simulationist/associative justification of mechanics in most games on the "roleplaying games" side of the spectrum you describe.
I think it's a mistake to equate narrative mechanics with dissociated mechanics. The former are always the latter, but the latter are not always the former.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;388827When what you want from a game is not cinematic action, 4E isn't that good of a game, particularly because unlike earlier editions of D&D 4E is focused like a laser on what it aims to do.
Also an interesting topic: The 4th Edition designers picked a "sweet spot" and consistently aimed the game to hit that sweet spot over and over and over again. It pretty much goes without saying that if their "sweet spot" was also your sweet spot, then 4th Edition is going to be awesome for you. And it's equally obvious that if it wasn't your sweet spot -- or if you actually liked the variety to be found in previous editions -- then 4th Edition was going to be less appealing to you.
But here's where the question becomes interesting: Was it a good thing for the industry's gateway game to abandon broad appeal in order to increase its appeal to a narrower demographic?
I would argue no. I think it's bad for the industry.
I'm just going to ignore your misuse of the term "immersion" under my new policy of ignoring that sort of thing.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;388884As for the distinction between "roleplaying" and "storytelling" - I think that any role playing game worth its salt is going to include both. In games with GMs, the GM pretty much has to take on a full authorial hat most of the time. But the players have to do that too, at least during chargen. While there are a couple of lifepath based character generators out there which are played through entirely in the first person - those are rare. And deservedly so in my opinion.
Good point regarding the inherent dissociation of most character generation mechanics. A few interesting thoughts:
(1) Not all associated mechanics are necessarily roleplaying mechanics (which clarifies an error in my previous thinking). For example, character generation mechanics in which you roll 3d6 in order for ability scores are arguably associated mechanics -- they model the completely random generation of any person's natural talents.
(2) Although most character generation mechanics are dissociated, it's comparatively rarer (at least in traditional RPGs) to see actual narrative mechanics. There are exceptions, of course. (HeroQuest, for example.) But robust narrative-based character generation systems are more typically found in narrative-based games.
Which is perhaps unsurprising, but it might be interesting to see what happens if you created a strongly narrative-based character generation system and wedded it to a strongly roleplaying-based game system.
(3) OTOH, some character generation systems have succeeded in incorporating associated roleplaying mechanics. For example, the enlistment system in
Traveller: In choosing which service your character will enlist in, the mechanics are requiring you to make a choice as if you were your character.
Quote from: Imperator;388886They are not useful to me, and I have only seen them used in imaginary Internet wars.
It's the imaginary Internet wars that are the worst. I still have vivid hallucinations about the Pelican vs. Unicorn World War of 1997.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;389087It's the imaginary Internet wars that are the worst. I still have vivid hallucinations about the Pelican vs. Unicorn World War of 1997.
:D:D
Quote from: RandallSOf course not, as they don't like 4e. However, many of them bought every 3.x item WOTC published. And some have just about every D&D item TSR or WOTC published prior to 4e. Some like me, do have the first three 4e books, but did not buy any more.
This. I was a long-time purchaser of 3x products, and at the same time was looking for something new in games like Iron Heroes and such. If the game had been different I would have bought pretty much all of it just like last time... or at least all the stuff I thought was any good (I skipped the completes after the fourth one, as they repeated themselves in their topics and lacked core classes... just an example).
So... yeah... they made a game I wasn't particularly interested in, I picked up the corebooks and found that out, and off to the used bookstore they went, hopefully to be bought by someone who would get some use out of 'em.
If I criticize 4e, it's not because I'm looking for something to hate. There is no sinister ulterior motive. It's just because the material is not to my taste.
If I say 4e is losing a customer with me, they're losing a customer with me. And a relevant one. It's kind of silly to dismiss every customer lost because they didn't like the game as irrelevant because they don't like the game. That's like saying people who like the game are irrelevant to it's success because they like it.
This forum was pretty pro-D20 before the announcement, or at the very least 3x didn't generate the same hate 4e does. So it might make sense to consider that there's actually something different about 4e (even if it's just advertising or politics).
Quote from: Peregrin;388501You mean like how Arneson used to do with lots of games before he applied the concept to Chainmail?
Call me when someone invents Chess the RPG. :D
I wish i knew how to multiquote to put your comment in context.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine Quote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegToo Broad?
Well, I did not make those up. It's not my proposed definition. Those were from Wikipedia, and the online dictionary. I use the term because it has a previously defined meaning, and I don't want to be accused of creating a whole logical fallacy because I am basing a supposition on my own definitions.
Wikipedia is not a good source for definitions (though I don't mind it for facts). "Metagaming" as it currently stands isn't in most dictionaries, and I'd argue that it's actually an extremely vague neologism pretending to a level of precision that it lacks, especially since it's mainly used in a pejorative, not descriptive sense.
Semantic imprecision is actually pretty common for pejorative terms, so "metagaming" as a term isn't unusual in having that property. The point of using a pejorative term, after all, is to insult and express disapproval of, not to accurately describe.
*sigh* Now this is a stupid circle to have to walk in.
Pseudoephedrine, I'd really do a little more research before assuming that those of us using the term 'Metagaming' are all in the wrong, and accusing us of semantic imprecision. I'm frankly frustrated as hell trying to move into a real debate and having 80% of your position being, " I don't agree with a very basic and well documented term, and I don't really want to so I'm just going to stonewall on it."
You could always just admit you don't know what you are talking about, or ask the other posters what they think, instead of telling me (and everyone who has used the term in this way, which is a boatload of us) that I don't know what I am talking about.
Well, not that this is worth the time or anything, but I can see that you certainly haven't done the work, by your last couple posts. It is far too easy to claim 'terminology', and 'pretzel logic', and far too hard to go check around and see what a fucking term means. Here is a very quick cut and paste from the search, "metagame RPG"
Metagame
Technically, any game-related concerns that are not part of the game itself, such as out-of-character or rules discussion, but more often used in reference to a player who uses knowledge not possessed by their PC to their advantage (in which case it has a negative connotation).
http://www.gnomestew.com/tools-for-gms/gnomenclature-a-diminutive-rpg-glossary#m
metagaming act of using outside or previously gained knowledge within a gaming universe for personal gain or advantage
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metagaming
Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.
http://dictionary.babylon.com/metagame/
Let me start my argument with a good, solid definition of metagaming. In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge and character knowledge which the player acts upon.
http://chalybsanimus.wordpress.com/2010/02/17/why-metagaming-is-bad-or-and-just-how-does-your-character-know-that-pal/
Metagaming, in this context at any rate, refers to one of two things. First, as referred to in Shelly's book, it can refer to anachronisms and otherwise out of place statements and actions. Second (and generally more commonly) it is used to refer to allowing the math of the rules, or knowledge that the character could not possibly have, to impact actions the character takes in game.
http://lordsoftyr.com/node/880
Metagame by definition is a that you play a game and have an advantage in it because of information from external sources;
definition of meta-gaming – meta-gaming often refers to having a character act on knowledge that only the player has access to
http://www.roleplaygateway.com/the-nightingale-ooc-modern-murder-mystery-t36664.html
Our definition of "meta-gaming" is: The use of information your character has no feasible way of knowing.
http://www.ultiaris.com/rules.html
What Is Metagaming?
Metagaming is a pretty generic term, but applied to role playing games it refers to having your character act on knowledge they do not have.
http://www.therpgsite.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=389143
Metagaming is when you use OOC information to benefit your IC position
http://www.therpgsite.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=389143
Metagaming is when you use any sort of information that was gained OOC (Out of Character) to use IC (In Character)
http://secondliferoleplay.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/metagaming/
Metagaming
In simple terms, it is using out-of-game information, or resources, to affect one's in-game decisions.
http://www.exaria.net/wiki/index.php?title=Rules_of_Conduct
Metagaming: A Definition taking Out of Context information for your own gain,
http://sbep.wikia.com/wiki/SBEP-Roleplay
Metagame
Meta-game mechanics are actions by the players which do not represent a corresponding action by the PC -- such as drama points spending.
http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/systemdesign/glossary.html
Metagame
To calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the ‘character’ knows.
http://rpg.geekdo.com/wiki/page/RPG_Glossary
Metagamer
A roleplaying personality type.
A gamer who uses outside knowledge or rules knowledge to game advantage.
http://www.rpg.net/larp/papers/glossary.html
Metagame
Technically, any game-related concerns that are not part of the game itself, such as out-of-character or rules discussion, but more often used in reference to a player who uses knowledge not possessed by their PC to their advantage
http://willforshire.forumakers.com/general-dnd-discussion-f3/rpg-glossary-t40.htm
Metagaming: Bringing OOC knowledge into an IC situation
http://www.roleplaygateway.com/rpg-terms-glossary-t4220.html
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine In this case, I wouldn't want to describe mechanics or OOC knowledge that aid one in portraying one's character in the world as "metagaming".
Sorry you feel that way. But using OOC knowledge in playing your character is metagaming. period. we can talk about what that means or what it affects, but that is the RPG definition of the word.
Quote from: beejazz;389159It's kind of silly to dismiss every customer lost because they didn't like the game as irrelevant because they don't like the game. That's like saying people who like the game are irrelevant to it's success because they like it.
Especially when every dm you lose as a customer means that you probably lose an entire group of 5-6 people as customers as well.
D&D isn't like other games or media products. It technically has a genre, but not really, and by right of it's position in the market kind of has the position of having to be "all things to all people", or at least have enough to offer everyone that the can find their own fun with it.
With a horror game, for instance, you don't do much thinking about people who don't like horror most of the time (unless that's your goal, the "for the rest of us" approach). You just make a horror game, and hopefully it's one horror fans will like. Same with a SF game or a generic game, or whatever. They have particular kinds of fans, that's who you mainly shoot for.
D&D is different. It's the big boy on the block. Everyone plays D&D, and that brings with it a host of expectations, and while you certainly can't meet all of them, if you want to maintain that universality, you need to make a game flexible enough and diverse enough to keep the big tent big.
But 4e didn't do that. 4e said, "This is how the game is supposed to be played, this is the style, if you don't like it, fuck off."
It should not be any surprise to anyone that some people responded poorly, and either walked on the game, or felt betrayed by a game that had previously been pretty accepting.
What's your point here, LVR?
Some of those definitions are radically different from one another in meaning. Some of them are extremely close to my own definition, for that matter, while others are not.
If you're trying to show how there's a consensus on what the term means out there, I would like to know how "anachronisms" are the same thing as "having your character act on knowledge they do not have" is the same thing as "to calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the 'character' knows.".
Those strike me as three very different things, at least if I take them at face value. The latter two are similar, but not the same, because one is too broad and vague, while the other is usefully precise.
My own position is closest to (though not identical to) the RPGGeek definition because neither my version nor its confuse things like knowledge of genre conventions or the preunderstanding required to participate in the game at all with "metagaming". I think the more broad and vague versions offered previously on this thread, and in some of the links you posted, are in fact pernicious because they entail absurdities if taken seriously and applied rigorously.
I'll restate my concerns, since they have not yet been addressed and I mean them seriously:
The understanding of "metagaming" as just any influence of OOC knowledge on IC behaviour leads to absurd conclusions if we take that statement seriously. It includes trivial and irrelevant elements like knowing the other players are there which I don't think counts as metagaming, and I don't even think most people who use the current definition intend to be meant by it.
It includes using any of the rules. I think it's absurd to say that merely using the rules counts as metagaming, but the rules are certainly not something that characters know, so they, and the decisions they adjudicate the outcomes of, are certainly OOC information that is affecting character behaviour. They would therefore certainly fall under the overly broad definition.
It also includes things that I don't think ought to be considered metagaming because they help to harmonise character behaviour with the world. This includes elements like a knowledge of genre conventions or of the historical period the game takes place in.
However, I am led to believe that many people, myself included, who use the term metagaming use it specifically to knowledge and actions that drive the character's behaviour and the in-game expectations about what is appropriate further apart.
I think that using the same word for two kinds of knowledge-driven behaviour that do opposite things is confusing and unnecessary. I think we should use the term "metagaming" to refer to knowledge and actions that delink the mechanical substrate of the game from the imaginative world, and that we should either get some other term or just speak in plain language about what is going on.
So let me throw the ball back to you, LVR:
Why is it useful to lump player knowledge and actions that harmonises a character's actions with the imaginative world (harmonisation that wouldn't happen without that knowledge) together with player knowledge and actions that destroy the link between the character's behaviour and the imaginative world?
If you think it is useful to distinguish them, then why insist that they be referred to collectively with a single term?
If everything OOC is "metagaming", then what is "gaming" or "playing the game" that metagaming sits above or in reference to? Is it merely describing actions and receiving counter descriptions from other players? If so, why is this "gaming" but using or referring to the mechanics is not?
These are not rhetorical questions. I would like answers to them from one of the Immersion people.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389181Some of those definitions are radically different from one another in meaning. Some of them are extremely close to my own definition, for that matter, while others are not.
If you're trying to show how there's a consensus on what the term means out there, I would like to know how "anachronisms" are the same thing as "having your character act on knowledge they do not have" is the same thing as "to calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the 'character' knows.".
Those strike me as three very different things, at least if I take them at face value. The latter two are similar, but not the same, because one is too broad and vague, while the other is usefully precise.
In context, the "anachronisms" term refers to "Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress" and as quoted on the blog refers to those behaviours of the author that trigger calls of "metagaming" from a disruptive player. Inappropriately.
The second version "Having your character act on knowledge they don't have" is by implication using player knowledge...using information obtained by other characters that the character doesn't know.
The third version "to calculate success/failure" is again using player knowledge as characters aren't aware of the dice rolling going on above.
I have seen these two forms differentiated as "player knowledge" and "metagaming" (from memory, the 3rd Edition DMG considers metagaming only to be the latter - player actions in character based on the player's knowledge that its a game). In general usage, I've very frequently seen "metagaming" applied to either.
Quote from: StormBringer;388879Of which, there appears to be a metric fuckton (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/15/4512943-an-avalanche-of-alien-planets)
I have often wondered if "rocky super-earths" (which, lets face it, sounds like the title of Sly Stallone's 1976 smash hit translated into chinese then back into english) are just that - the cores of gas supergiants exposed after their parent star goes red giant.
There's some Hot Jupiters not that far away that leave me wondering if they'll be "rocky super-earths" in a few hundred million years or so.
Quote from: JasperAK;389164Call me when someone invents Chess the RPG. :D
I wish i knew how to multiquote to put your comment in context.
Well, he used to play a lot of other games, and then would try to turn it into a diplomatic affair, playing appropriate roles to try to convince other players to work in his favor. Not quite an RPG, but it led to him experimenting with individual "characters" when using Chainmail.
The origins of the hobby are pretty fuzzy, especially since it exploded before it was "refined" by Gygax. I've heard a lot of weird stories about play variations, and even Arneson's own game had quirks that would make it seem more in-line with what we associate with "indie" games.
(Oh, and for multiquote, just click on the little pieces of paper next to the quote on each post you want to include)
Quote from: Peregrin;389197Well, he used to play a lot of other games, and then would try to turn it into a diplomatic affair, playing appropriate roles to try to convince other players to work in his favor. Not quite an RPG, but it led to him experimenting with individual "characters" when using Chainmail.
The origins of the hobby are pretty fuzzy, especially since it exploded before it was "refined" by Gygax. I've heard a lot of weird stories about play variations, and even Arneson's own game had quirks that would make it seem more in-line with what we associate with "indie" games.
(Oh, and for multiquote, just click on the little pieces of paper next to the quote on each post you want to include)
Ahem. An even earlier prototype (http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Braunstein) with which Mr Arneson was involved (http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/104/braunstein-the-roots-of-roleplaying-games/).
;)
Quote from: Peregrin;389197Well, he used to play a lot of other games, and then would try to turn it into a diplomatic affair, playing appropriate roles to try to convince other players to work in his favor. Not quite an RPG, but it led to him experimenting with individual "characters" when using Chainmail.
The origins of the hobby are pretty fuzzy, especially since it exploded before it was "refined" by Gygax. I've heard a lot of weird stories about play variations, and even Arneson's own game had quirks that would make it seem more in-line with what we associate with "indie" games.
I think I remember reading somewhere that MAR Barker's favoured method of roleplaying was, in a given situation requiring a resolution, to simply have the DM and player each role a d6. Whoever had the highest score was the one whose "version of reality" turned out to be correct. If the scores were equal the parties would negotiate what happened.
It does sound very story-gamish.
Quote from: noisms;389247I think I remember reading somewhere that MAR Barker's favoured method of roleplaying was, in a given situation requiring a resolution, to simply have the DM and player each role a d6. Whoever had the highest score was the one whose "version of reality" turned out to be correct. If the scores were equal the parties would negotiate what happened.
It does sound very story-gamish.
To a degree, but this was also a time when 'story-game' had no meaning, and in fact, RPGs themselves were very nebulous concepts with no real defining or unifying foundation.
On the other hand, Prof Barker is one crazy motherfucker. :)
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389066I don't think the mechanics I mentioned are properly called "dissociated mechanics" because I don't think they bear on immersion at all. I also think calling them "dissociated mechanics" falsely ascribes some sort of essential quality or property to them that they do not have. It is a semantic trick on your part, as most of your arguments surrounding definitions have been so far.
I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the elegance of what the troll is doing here:
(1) He creates yet another completely new definition of "dissociated mechanics", allowing him to continue his attempts to sow confusion through the use of deliberate miscommunication.
(2) But he's also simultaneously creating a strawman by ascribing this definition of "dissociated mechanisc", which he just created out of thin air, to me (despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing in common with the definition I've posted in this thread or elsewhere).
(3) To tie the whole thing together, he attacks the strawman as a "semantic trick", which is brilliant because he's the one actually engaged in making the discussion about semantics (by constantly trying to redefine the basic terminology). By anticipating the criticism and pre-emptively hurling the first stone he attempts to deflect it from himself.
I mean, this is really nice stuff. Very well done. He's clearly got a lot of experience doing it and I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the master working in our midst.
But seriously, folks: Stop feeding the troll.
Just wait two or three months until the dust settles and watch how he will refer back to his "victory" over you here, or on other boards. :)
Guy's pretty adept at obfuscation, and needs to be called out over it.
Quote from: Melan;389265Just wait two or three months until the dust settles and watch how he will refer back to his "victory" over you here, or on other boards. :)
Guy's pretty adept at obfuscation, and needs to be called out over it.
Why wait? He was already writing fake posts supposedly by me, then arguing with his own sock puppet, then declaring victory over them
on this thread.
-Frank
Quote from: Justin Alexander;389264But seriously, folks: Stop feeding the troll.
I agree. There can't be much more in life that is more unedifying than arguing over definitions on the internet.
Quote from: StormBringer;389250To a degree, but this was also a time when 'story-game' had no meaning, and in fact, RPGs themselves were very nebulous concepts with no real defining or unifying foundation.
On the other hand, Prof Barker is one crazy motherfucker. :)
Sure, I just find it more than a little ironic that the real Old School probably weren't doing anything all
that much different to what the people at story-games.com are doing right now and pretending is hip and new.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;389264I mean, this is really nice stuff. Very well done. He's clearly got a lot of experience doing it and I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the master working in our midst.
But seriously, folks: Stop feeding the troll.
He's providing you with serious debate and all you can do is flee the argument, calling him a troll?
Listen. You have stupid, self-glorifying, amateur theories and you can't defend them. You have a few guys who will come by and validate you, but be aware these same dudes will agree with anyone they think is anti-4E, for any reason whatsoever. If someone were to show up here to tomorrow and prove 4th Edition D&D is somehow bad or wrong by a completely opposing theory, they'd agree with that too.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389181What's your point here, LVR?
Some of those definitions are radically different from one another in meaning. Some of them are extremely close to my own definition, for that matter, while others are not.
If you're trying to show how there's a consensus on what the term means out there, I would like to know how "anachronisms" are the same thing as "having your character act on knowledge they do not have" is the same thing as "to calculate success/failure of an action by reviewing character stats and game mechanics, as opposed to acting based on character personality and what the 'character' knows.".
you know as well as anyone, just because most words have more than one definition in a dictionary does not negate the other definitions. You are trying to base part of a position on one definition that was specifically applied to a certain book as spelled out clearly in the text as not being the primary, and ignoring the rest. In other words, you are taking a pair of synonyms that have more than one definition, finding the definitions that are not synonymous, and declaring them not synonyms.
And in this case, you take that one which it says is specific, and don't just throw out one other definition, you throw out 20 if you add the online dictionary and wikipedia's that I first quoted.
The clear point of agreement and consensus, which you either are not capable of seeing or have decided to avoid, is that one agreed upon defintion of metagaming can be boiled down to, "Using OOC knowledge to make IC decisions."
(I apologize for the term, "..have decided to avoid", but when three different conversations on the same thread boil down to you trying to change or twist the definitions as your only real position, one cannot help but to see a pattern).
QuoteThose strike me as three very different things, at least if I take them at face value. The latter two are similar, but not the same, because one is too broad and vague, while the other is usefully precise.
My own position is closest to (though not identical to) the RPGGeek definition because neither my version nor its confuse things like knowledge of genre conventions or the preunderstanding required to participate in the game at all with "metagaming". I think the more broad and vague versions offered previously on this thread, and in some of the links you posted, are in fact pernicious because they entail absurdities if taken seriously and applied rigorously.
they most certainly do not entail absurdities.
QuoteI'll restate my concerns, since they have not yet been addressed and I mean them seriously:
The understanding of "metagaming" as just any influence of OOC knowledge on IC behaviour leads to absurd conclusions if we take that statement seriously. It includes trivial and irrelevant elements like knowing the other players are there which I don't think counts as metagaming, and I don't even think most people who use the current definition intend to be meant by it.
I'm looking for the absurdities still.
"Knowing the other Players are there"? Do you mean treating otherpeople's characters as if they are the other players at the table, this is probably a good example of metagaming. Treating a newly met comrade as if he is the player you have gamed with for 10 years is a bit of an obvious IC/OOC disconnect.
QuoteIt includes using any of the rules. I think it's absurd to say that merely using the rules counts as metagaming, but the rules are certainly not something that characters know, so they, and the decisions they adjudicate the outcomes of, are certainly OOC information that is affecting character behaviour. They would therefore certainly fall under the overly broad definition.
Using game mechanics is NOT necessarily metagaming. That is a false assumption. Yes, the amount of HP as a number that a character has at that time is not something the character knows. But the character knows how healthy they feel, so this is still IC knowledge. The character does not know the damage dice of a fireball spell or the way the GM will calculate the blast effect, but the character knows the effects of the spell and how it works in the game world. These rules/mechanics are actually modelling IC knowledge, so of course they are not metagaming.
QuoteIt also includes things that I don't think ought to be considered metagaming because they help to harmonise character behaviour with the world. This includes elements like a knowledge of genre conventions or of the historical period the game takes place in.
Please define some examples. It sounds like you are mereley talking about IC information about the physics/background of a setting, which is of course mainly IC info.
QuoteHowever, I am led to believe that many people, myself included, who use the term metagaming use it specifically to knowledge and actions that drive the character's behaviour and the in-game expectations about what is appropriate further apart.
Please try that paragraph again. We all type quickly and make mistakes, but I cannot make heads or tails of this.
QuoteI think that using the same word for two kinds of knowledge-driven behaviour that do opposite things is confusing and unnecessary. I think we should use the term "metagaming" to refer to knowledge and actions that delink the mechanical substrate of the game from the imaginative world, and that we should either get some other term or just speak in plain language about what is going on.
So let me throw the ball back to you, LVR:
Why is it useful to lump player knowledge and actions that harmonises a character's actions with the imaginative world (harmonisation that wouldn't happen without that knowledge) together with player knowledge and actions that destroy the link between the character's behaviour and the imaginative world?
If you think it is useful to distinguish them, then why insist that they be referred to collectively with a single term?
If everything OOC is "metagaming", then what is "gaming" or "playing the game" that metagaming sits above or in reference to? Is it merely describing actions and receiving counter descriptions from other players? If so, why is this "gaming" but using or referring to the mechanics is not?
These are not rhetorical questions. I would like answers to them from one of the Immersion people.
I don't know if they are rhetorical or even legitimate questions.
But I'll try to answer as best I can.
I don't believe that any OOC information 'harmonizes' the character's actions with the setting. So I don't believe there is a dichotomy. There is stuff that creeps in, we are all playing a game, but I'll still define it as metagaming.
Many rules, mechanics and pieces of data are actually specificall modelling IC information. this should provide the harmonization you are speaking of.
Other than a junkyard, does anyone know of a good parts source (online would be fine) for little accessories for car interiors? The clamp-down bracket for the sun visor on my honda is broken (and has been for years now) and the spring-loaded door for the "accessory plug" in the wife's saturn vue (the one in the middle console on the back - kids kicked it off GRRRR) need replacing.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389271He's providing you with serious debate and all you can do is flee the argument, calling him a troll?
Listen. You have stupid, self-glorifying, amateur theories and you can't defend them. You have a few guys who will come by and validate you, but be aware these same dudes will agree with anyone they think is anti-4E, for any reason whatsoever. If someone were to show up here to tomorrow and prove 4th Edition D&D is somehow bad or wrong by a completely opposing theory, they'd agree with that too.
One person puts up a crap theory, 5 or so people decide the crap theory is truth and then they spend 50+ pages telling everybody that they are trolls for disagreeing with it. Didn't people flee rpgnet and ENWorld to get away from that sort of crap?
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389318One person puts up a crap theory, 5 or so people decide the crap theory is truth and then they spend 50+ pages telling everybody that they are trolls for disagreeing with it. Didn't people flee rpgnet and ENWorld to get away from that sort of crap?
Well, that is one viewpoint.
Maybe the 'crap theory' was something that other people were already using, or linked other well proven and well used ideas together.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389322Well, that is one viewpoint.
Maybe the 'crap theory' was something that other people were already using, or linked other well proven and well used ideas together.
Or maybe it was simply an opinion, no better or worse than any other opinion, shared by a small group of people who start ramming it down everyone's throat as truth.
The above statement is the sort of thing people ridicule RPGnet for here.
Quote from: thecasualoblivionOr maybe it was simply an opinion, no better or worse than any other opinion, shared by a small group of people who start ramming it down everyone's throat as truth.
The above statement is the sort of thing people ridicule RPGnet for here.
Have you considered the possibility that some opinions are actually better or worse than other opinions? For example, if I opined that nuking Australia into oblivion would be the coolest thing ever, you don't see how that would be a worse opinion than say opining that rape is more or less always bad? I'm using extreme examples, but all opinions aren't equal.
And have you considered that the actual difference between here and RPGnet is that if you disagree with the wrong people on a moderated forum, moderators do something about it, whereas here people are free to do and say as they like (most of the time). And that people didn't come crying over here because people disagreed with them... they were kicked out.
Quote from: beejazz;389324Have you considered the possibility that some opinions are actually better or worse than other opinions? For example, if I opined that nuking Australia into oblivion would be the coolest thing ever, you don't see how that would be a worse opinion than say opining that rape is more or less always bad? I'm using extreme examples, but all opinions aren't equal.
And have you considered that the actual difference between here and RPGnet is that if you disagree with the wrong people on a moderated forum, moderators do something about it, whereas here people are free to do and say as they like (most of the time). And that people didn't come crying over here because people disagreed with them... they were kicked out.
People in this case aren't arguing opinions. They are arguing that what they say is truth, and that the other side is deluded and not even participating in the discussion.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389325People in this case aren't arguing opinions. They are arguing that what they say is truth, and that the other side is deluded and not even participating in the discussion.
Firstly, how many of your opinions do you believe are false? And oh no, people are accusing people of things on the internet! Never mind whether the accusations have any merit, people shouldn't be allowed to be mean to other people, especially you or people who agree with you.
Quote from: beejazz;389326Firstly, how many of your opinions do you believe are false? And oh no, people are accusing people of things on the internet! Never mind whether the accusations have any merit, people shouldn't be allowed to be mean to other people, especially you or people who agree with you.
I believe my opinions are opinions, and I treat them as such.
Don't forget, folks: TCO is just here to troll. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568)
Wear some protection, and have a good day! :)
Quote from: Benoist;389329Don't forget, folks: TCO is just here to troll. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568)
Wear some protection, and have a good day! :)
Being here to troll and being here to argue are two separate things. I try to have a point, and to make points. Some lazy people prefer to call people names as opposed to actually discussing things.
Quote from: noisms;389269Sure, I just find it more than a little ironic that the real Old School probably weren't doing anything all that much different to what the people at story-games.com are doing right now and pretending is hip and new.
Hmmm... Fascinating. We will have to explore this theme at some point in the future. I have no particular opinion about the story-games folks, other than Andy K is good people, and I don't much care about the OSR. I would like to hear where you think they coincide in the modern gaming era.
In all fairness, this whole "dissociative mechanics" thread is a load of pseudo-intellectual bollocks.
It's just that the whole "Immersion doesn't exist/is a sign of insanity/etc." thing is ALSO a load of bollocks.
No one's coming up smelling of roses here.
Quote from: J Arcane;389332In all fairness, this whole "dissociative mechanics" thread is a load of pseudo-intellectual bollocks.
It's just that the whole "Immersion doesn't exist/is a sign of insanity/etc." thing is ALSO a load of bollocks.
No one's coming up smelling of roses here.
I agree on both counts. I would say that dissociative mechanics as put forward by those discussing it is a veiled attempt at labeling as badwrongfun that which people disapprove of. Immersion doesn't exist is similarly bullshit, though I would argue that immersion isn't as black and white as its proponents try to make it out to be.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389327I believe my opinions are opinions, and I treat them as such.
Opinions can have more or less merit than other opinions, and there still isn't a damn thing wrong with contradicting people on an unmoderated forum. At least the other people on this thread are arguing actual points (though on the 4e side of things that's mostly just Pseudo all by himself right now), instead of just whining that people are arguing.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;389316Other than a junkyard, does anyone know of a good parts source (online would be fine) for little accessories for car interiors? The clamp-down bracket for the sun visor on my honda is broken (and has been for years now) and the spring-loaded door for the "accessory plug" in the wife's saturn vue (the one in the middle console on the back - kids kicked it off GRRRR) need replacing.
Seriously? You have never heard of JC Whitney (http://www.jcwhitney.com/)? Dude! They had honest-to-God woodcarving style illustrations until the last catalog I saw of theirs several years ago. There is nothing quite like the frisson of cognitive dissonance brought on by seeing some electrical part or doo-dad illustrated in a style popular hundreds of years prior.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389318Didn't people flee rpgnet and ENWorld to get away from that sort of crap?
No, mostly we were trying to get away from your passive agressive bullshit, like the junior high ideas about 'opinions' you hold. It's douchebags like you that made a bee-line to the moderators when called on being passive aggressive douchebags.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389330Being here to troll and being here to argue are two separate things. I try to have a point, and to make points. Some lazy people prefer to call people names as opposed to actually discussing things.
Devil's Advocates are worse than trolls, douchebag.
Quote from: beejazz;389337Opinions can have more or less merit than other opinions, and there still isn't a damn thing wrong with contradicting people on an unmoderated forum. At least the other people on this thread are arguing actual points (though on the 4e side of things that's mostly just Pseudo all by himself right now), instead of just whining that people are arguing.
A lot of people have the "opinion" that homeopathy actually works. It's a load of bollocks with no basis in scientific fact, but hey, it's just like, their opinion, man, so of course that means the BBC has to give them equal coverage.
Maybe TCO is just used to BBC journalism.
Quote from: noisms;389268There can't be much more in life that is more unedifying than arguing over definitions on the internet.
Especially definitions of terms people made up themselves.
Seanchai
Quote from: StormBringer;389338Seriously? You have never heard of JC Whitney (http://www.jcwhitney.com/)? Dude! They had honest-to-God woodcarving style illustrations until the last catalog I saw of theirs several years ago. There is nothing quite like the frisson of cognitive dissonance brought on by seeing some electrical part or doo-dad illustrated in a style popular hundreds of years prior.
My god, I didn't even know they were still in business; I used to have a few of their print catalogs lying around my room as a kid.
I'll check it out. Now if I only had a car a/c bleed kit and the five years or so of training to properly use it :P
Quote from: StormBringer;389342No, mostly we were trying to get away from your passive agressive bullshit, like the junior high ideas about 'opinions' you hold. It's douchebags like you that made a bee-line to the moderators when called on being passive aggressive douchebags.
I was actually banned from RPG.net for my argumentative trolling style (or firing back at being dog-piled by passove-aggressive douchbags, your choice). Clearly, I haven't learned my lesson since I'm such a horrible person on this board.
I came here not of my own free will - it was forced upon me as nobody else would have me.... *sniff*
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389325They are arguing that what they say is truth, and that the other side is deluded and not even participating in the discussion.
No, it's worse than that. They're also arguing that others aren't playing an actual roleplaying game. It's not defending a truth, it's about
the truth. Being gatekeepers. It's about acquiring a special, superior feeling to replace the one they lost when they realized the majority of gamers are going to keep playing a game they don't like...
Seanchai
Quote from: Werekoala;389353I was actually banned from RPG.net for my argumentative trolling style (or firing back at being dog-piled by passove-aggressive douchbags, your choice). Clearly, I haven't learned my lesson since I'm such a horrible person on this board.
I came here not of my own free will - it was forced upon me as nobody else would have me.... *sniff*
There, there, sweetheart... we all like you here.
This will cheer you up: Eurovision 2010 winner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QSgNM9yNjo)
If not, ELO always works: Mr Blue Sky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98P-gu_vMRc)
(Fun trivia: The heavily vocoded part at the very end says "Please turn me over", not "Mr Blue Sky-yyy")
Quote from: thedungeondelver;389347My god, I didn't even know they were still in business; I used to have a few of their print catalogs lying around my room as a kid.
I'll check it out. Now if I only had a car a/c bleed kit and the five years or so of training to properly use it :P
Those catalogs were awesome. I swear you could build a whole car from them.
Quote from: StormBringer;389343Devil's Advocates are worse than trolls, douchebag.
That's stupid. Provided a devil's advocate is actually willing to concede points and amend their arguments in response to offered responses, there is nothing wrong with attempting to present a counterargument, especially if there are none/few willing to take up that side.
Quote from: SeanchaiNo, it's worse than that.
Until these threads move past the psychobabble bullshit you're pulling (and others, too, so I'm not trying to necessarily single you out), there's almost no point in even posting here. We go through the same circles all the time, getting nowhere, each side constantly ascribing bullshit motives to the other.
It's getting tiresome.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;389359That's stupid. Provided a devil's advocate is actually willing to concede points and amend their arguments in response to offered responses, there is nothing wrong with attempting to present a counterargument, especially if there are none/few willing to take up that side.
Sadly, no one actually does that. It almost always ends up being another douchebag advocate thinking they are clever.
Quote from: StormBringer;389362Sadly, no one actually does that. It almost always ends up being another douchebag advocate thinking they are clever.
I think that part of the problem is that the two camps are so freaking hostile to each other that everyone assumes that anyone who opposes them has ridiculously stupid nonsensical motives (per Seanchai's post, above).
Until we get past this hostility, we're not going to get anywhere.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;389359Until these threads move past the psychobabble bullshit you're pulling (and others, too, so I'm not trying to necessarily single you out), there's almost no point in even posting here. We go through the same circles all the time, getting nowhere, each side constantly ascribing bullshit motives to the other.
It's getting tiresome.
It's the nature of the beast. When the discussions are unmoderated, you will have all sorts of BS cropping up in discussions. I'm not claiming any high ground here, because the medium basically allows us to have cat fights if we want to, and I appreciate that.
We are lucky in that we all are basically a bunch of folks who can have interesting discussions when we are willing to have them. It's not like Something Awful or other boards where you're left wondering what the fuck is going on.
So the best way to deal with it is to use critical thinking. Just have the discussions you want to have, the arguments you want to have, and discriminate between posts, threads, users, whatever, what you want to get from this board. After a while, the noise will fade in the background, most of the time.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;389366I think that part of the problem is that the two camps are so freaking hostile to each other that everyone assumes that anyone who opposes them has ridiculously stupid nonsensical motives (per Seanchai's post, above).
Until we get past this hostility, we're not going to get anywhere.
That would require people upset at the success of 4E and other games having the ability to move on.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389369That would require people upset at the success of 4E and other games having the ability to move on.
...see, shit like that. What does that even mean? To me it sounds like you are just trying to be aggravating and not actually contributing anything useful to the conversation.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;389372...see, shit like that. What does that even mean? To me it sounds like you are just trying to be aggravating and not actually contributing anything useful to the conversation.
As Benoist has pointed out, that is what he does.
Quote from: StormBringer;389373As Benoist has pointed out, that is what he does.
I do vaguely recall something about how all TCO does here is troll. But I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389065Once again, there's nothing here for me to analyse and examine. If you think that, you are welcome to, but simply saying "I know all relevant factors and it was this one" without providing adequate information for others to decide if you are correct makes it extremely hard for other people to engage with your ideas in any serious way.
It's not clear to me what exactly you're demanding here. Do you want detailed campaign summaries with full game mechanical explanations of what happened in order to help you evaluate whether my group's judgement that one game system facilitated immersion more successfully than another system is sound or not? That sounds like an inherently flawed endeavour. I could describe what happened when we played game x in setting z, and then what happened when we played game y in setting z, and why we reasonably concluded that the difference in our experiences with games x and y were because we were, um, playing different games. Nonetheless, I'm sure that you could come up with some explanation that we somehow were misjudging our own experiences of applying the mechanics of game x and y in order to support your hypothesis that game mechanics play no 'intrinsic' role in facilitating/impeding immersion.
Frankly, that kind of endeavour sounds like a real waste of time.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389065I think they do not play a particularly important role. I think that the role they play in causing or prevent immersion is not in any case intrinsic to them, but has to do with their application and use by individuals at the table. Since the rules don't exist in the game except in their application and use I don't see any discussion that tries to get away from discussing how they are applied and used in specific contexts as useful or particularly sound.
Of course "the rules don't exist in the game except in their application." But presumably the rules determine, at least in part, "their application." We read 100+ page RPG manuals for a reason, viz., to help to determine what to do (at least in part) when we actually play the game! So obviously different rules will result in different experiences at the table. (Unless we simply choose to ignore the rules.)
(a) Rules of the game + (b) Players (including their knowledge of the rules, personalities, tastes, etc.) = (c) 'Actual game experience' (Players applying the Rules in their Games).
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389271He's providing you with serious debate and all you can do is flee the argument, calling him a troll?
Listen. You have stupid, self-glorifying, amateur theories and you can't defend them. You have a few guys who will come by and validate you, but be aware these same dudes will agree with anyone they think is anti-4E, for any reason whatsoever. If someone were to show up here to tomorrow and prove 4th Edition D&D is somehow bad or wrong by a completely opposing theory, they'd agree with that too.
I am completely indifferent to 4e. I don't play it, but I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I do plan to purchase the upcoming 4e 'Basic Set' to give it a whirl. Perhaps I'll like it.
You seem to think that this is mainly a pro-4e versus anti-4e argument. I don't see it that way. I see it as an argument over whether a game's mechanics plays some role in determining how immersive that game ends up being for players. It has always seemed obvious to me that a game's mechanics
do play some significant role, so I'm kind of surprised to see people trying to argue that they don't. But whatever. My point is that any perceived pro/anti-4e theme seems secondary to the main issue under debate.
This...
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389369That would require people upset at the success of 4E and other games having the ability to move on.
...was a direct, if politically insensitive response to this...
Quote from: GnomeWorks;389366I think that part of the problem is that the two camps are so freaking hostile to each other that everyone assumes that anyone who opposes them has ridiculously stupid nonsensical motives (per Seanchai's post, above).
Until we get past this hostility, we're not going to get anywhere.
Now, to answer this...
Quote from: GnomeWorks;389372...see, shit like that. What does that even mean? To me it sounds like you are just trying to be aggravating and not actually contributing anything useful to the conversation.
There is a lot of hostility. For better or for worse, 4E D&D has produced a pronounced split in the community that people feel very strongly about. If you want the hostility to cease, the only option I see is for people upset by 4E to get over it and move on, to stop fighting for the soul of D&D in public forums. 4E is now established, and it isn't likely to go anywhere at this point. I can feel your pain if this isn't to your liking, but fighting back the tide two years later isn't going to accomplish anything besides hostility. I don't think 4E people are blameless, but I don't think its possible for us to accommodate you or to give you what you want. No matter how nice we are, we are still 4E players and still supporting what you hate as the flagship brand of the hobby.
I'm not saying people need to accept or even approve of 4E. The RPG community outside of D&D has looked down on D&D players for 30 years. What makes this particular situation different are the continuing attacks, and the aggressive as opposed to passive hostility.
Quote from: Akrasia;389387You seem to think that this is mainly a pro-4e versus anti-4e argument. I don't see it that way.
[looks up at title of thread]
Seanchai
Quote from: GnomeWorks;389372What does that even mean?
I would imagine it means things like this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17581), where people who don't like 4e, don't play 4e, and don't have an interest in ever playing 4e continue to start thread after thread of inflammatory bullshit about it.
Seanchai
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389185The second version "Having your character act on knowledge they don't have" is by implication using player knowledge...using information obtained by other characters that the character doesn't know.
The third version "to calculate success/failure" is again using player knowledge as characters aren't aware of the dice rolling going on above.
I have seen these two forms differentiated as "player knowledge" and "metagaming" (from memory, the 3rd Edition DMG considers metagaming only to be the latter - player actions in character based on the player's knowledge that its a game). In general usage, I've very frequently seen "metagaming" applied to either.
I agree they should be differentiated, and I agree that "metagaming" is casually used to refer to both them, as well as a bunch of other behaviours.
That's why I think "metagaming" is a vague term - it's mainly used a pejorative outside of Internet RPG Theorists and so it's applied to a bunch of at best loosely related behaviours as a way of saying "Don't do that".
Quote from: Justin Alexander;389264I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the elegance of what the troll is doing here:
(1) He creates yet another completely new definition of "dissociated mechanics", allowing him to continue his attempts to sow confusion through the use of deliberate miscommunication.
(2) But he's also simultaneously creating a strawman by ascribing this definition of "dissociated mechanisc", which he just created out of thin air, to me (despite the fact that it has absolutely nothing in common with the definition I've posted in this thread or elsewhere).
(3) To tie the whole thing together, he attacks the strawman as a "semantic trick", which is brilliant because he's the one actually engaged in making the discussion about semantics (by constantly trying to redefine the basic terminology). By anticipating the criticism and pre-emptively hurling the first stone he attempts to deflect it from himself.
I mean, this is really nice stuff. Very well done. He's clearly got a lot of experience doing it and I think we should all take a moment to appreciate the master working in our midst.
But seriously, folks: Stop feeding the troll.
Aren't you supposed to be pretending to ignore me to make yourself feel important?
I certainly don't deny that I am better at thinking through semantics than you are. That is because I care what words mean, a concern you do not seem to share.
Frankly, the only part of this that I am offended by is the claim that I would draw on the conceptual cesspool you wade around in.
Your arguments continue to boil down to "But I defined a term!" when my reply is, and has been throughout this most recent recurrence of this thread, "Your definitions are bad".
That you don't understand how your claims answer mine is really odd, and not suggestive of any sort of careful thought.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389271He's providing you with serious debate and all you can do is flee the argument, calling him a troll?
Listen. You have stupid, self-glorifying, amateur theories and you can't defend them.
Let's be honest here:
(1) Taking trolls seriously is not productive.
(2) Pseudoephedrine has already admitted that what we refer to as "dissociated mechanics" exist. So my "theory" doesn't really need to be defended. He's already admitted its validity. He just wants to call it something else. While simultaneously using "dissociated mechanics" to mean something completely different. (Or, apparently, several different things since he keeps offering up different "definitions".)
Now, even if he was actually interested in just arguing that it should be called, I dunno, "purple polka dot mechanics", I still wouldn't be all that interested in the discussion: The terminology has been accepted and used over dozens of forums for more than two years. Insisting that mechanics which aren't associated with the game world should be called something other than "dissociated mechanics" just isn't going to be productive. It's not like there's somebody who "owns" the terminology and can send out a software patch. And using "dissociated mechanics" to mean "mechanics which are not associated [with the game world]" is pretty straight-forward and self-evident terminology.
But that's not the reason he's a troll. You can tell he's a troll because of his mutually self-contradictory positions; his deliberate attempts to undermine valuable conversation (the tactics of which he admits he's doing); and his strawmanning (which he admits he's doing).
Communication breakdown: there's no conversation to be had if you don't agree on its premise (and thus, definitions) first.
It's a controversy that is oft willfully undertaken to shut down debate.
Quote from: Melan;389265Just wait two or three months until the dust settles and watch how he will refer back to his "victory" over you here, or on other boards. :)
Guy's pretty adept at obfuscation, and needs to be called out over it.
Still carrying a grudge, Melan?
Quote from: J Arcane;389332In all fairness, this whole "dissociative mechanics" thread is a load of pseudo-intellectual bollocks.
It's just that the whole "Immersion doesn't exist/is a sign of insanity/etc." thing is ALSO a load of bollocks.
No one's coming up smelling of roses here.
Really?
I am sorry to know that is your opinion, and that you don't see the utility.
I disagree, as it is a useful descriptor for me.
But since I think you are trying to be fair, I will also.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389335Quote from: Justin Alexander;387990At this point, I'd like to head off a couple of likely responses at the pass:
(1) "You're saying that dissociated mechanics are bad!" No, I'm not. I'm saying they're inimical to playing a role. That's not the same thing. There's all kinds of things that dissociated mechanics can be useful for. When playing an RPG, most of us have agendas beyond simply "playing a role". (Telling a good story, for example. Or emulating a particular genre trope.) And dissociated mechanics have been put to all sorts of good use in accomplishing those goals.
I would say that dissociative mechanics as put forward by those discussing it is a veiled attempt at labeling as badwrongfun that which people disapprove of.
Oh, c'mon.
Quote from: Seanchai;389354Quote from: Justin Alexander;387990(2) "You're saying that 4th Edition isn't a roleplaying game!" No, I'm not. Large swaths of 4th Edition's mechanics are still clearly associative and I feel perfectly comfortable in describing the result as an RPG.
No, it's worse than that. They're also arguing that others aren't playing an actual roleplaying game.
So you guys are both posting from Bizarro World, huh? What's the weather like there?
Quote from: Benoist;389416Communication breakdown: there's no conversation to be had if you don't agree on its premise (and thus, definitions) first.
It's a controversy that is oft willfully undertaken to shut down debate.
I could just go back to drinking; it got more accomplished than trying to shine a flashlight down a a few blackenned holes that find it more usefull to remain stygian.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389323Or maybe it was simply an opinion, no better or worse than any other opinion, shared by a small group of people who start ramming it down everyone's throat as truth.
The above statement is the sort of thing people ridicule RPGnet for here.
There are people who post here, sometimes on this very thread, who being riduculed by is one of the highest intellectual affirmations I can think of on this site.
Seriously.
Quote from: Akrasia;389386It's not clear to me what exactly you're demanding here. Do you want detailed campaign summaries with full game mechanical explanations of what happened in order to help you evaluate whether my group's judgement that one game system facilitated immersion more successfully than another system is sound or not? That sounds like an inherently flawed endeavour. I could describe what happened when we played game x in setting z, and then what happened when we played game y in setting z, and why we reasonably concluded that the difference in our experiences with games x and y were because we were, um, playing different games. Nonetheless, I'm sure that you could come up with some explanation that we somehow were misjudging our own experiences of applying the mechanics of game x and y in order to support your hypothesis that game mechanics play no 'intrinsic' role in facilitating/impeding immersion.
Frankly, that kind of endeavour sounds like a real waste of time.
It is clear you don't want to debate the idea, merely declare it and have it accepted by others as true. Simply put: I don't do that shit.
For record yes, I have had fairly detailed write-ups of campaigns I've been in here appear (Iron Heroes for Bad People and the Dessinger Campaign, both of which are partial but fairly extensive). And I encourage fairly free commentary on them. I talk extensively about actual play experiences, I design worlds on here so people can see how I do it, and I invite comments and analysis on them.
So I don't think it's somehow unfair of me to insist that people who are going to say things like "I believe X because of Y experience" actually tell me in detail about Y experience so I can evaluate whether I think their judgment is correct or not.
QuoteOf course "the rules don't exist in the game except in their application." But presumably the rules determine, at least in part, "their application." We read 100+ page RPG manuals for a reason, viz., to help to determine what to do (at least in part) when we actually play the game! So obviously different rules will result in different experiences at the table. (Unless we simply choose to ignore the rules.)
Sure, rules contribute somewhat to the experience at the table. I don't deny that. But I think the soft factors surrounding the rules are more important. Like I've said earlier, familiarity, taste, willingness to adhere to or depart from RAW are at least as important as "The ordinary human range for stats goes from 3 to 18" or "Roll under the percentile score of your skill to succeed on this task".
Quote(a) Rules of the game + (b) Players (including their knowledge of the rules, personalities, tastes, etc.) = (c) 'Actual game experience' (Players applying the Rules in their Games).
1+ 10 = 11. Sure.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389419Really?
I am sorry to know that is your opinion, and that you don't see the utility.
I disagree, as it is a useful descriptor for me.
But since I think you are trying to be fair, I will also.
It amounts to giving far more hot air than is needed to a simple concept to make it appear to possess some form of academic rigor or intelligence.
"If I'm thinking about the mechanics at the moment, I might not be thinking in character" is a simple fucking concept that really doesn't need 30,000 words written on it.
If Einstein can write the Theory of Relativity in less words than it takes you to explain a far simpler concept, you need to consider that maybe you just don't know how to write clearly.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389389This...
There is a lot of hostility. For better or for worse, 4E D&D has produced a pronounced split in the community that people feel very strongly about. If you want the hostility to cease, the only option I see is for people upset by 4E to get over it and move on, to stop fighting for the soul of D&D in public forums.
There is AT LEAST one other option, 4e fans could simply admit that it is a very different game from all previous versions of D&D (especially the TSR versions that started it all) and that those gamers who don't think it really is D&D in anything but brand name have a position just as valid as the theirs. :rolleyes:
I suspect with a small amount of effort I could come up with more options.
Quote from: Benoist;389416Communication breakdown: there's no conversation to be had if you don't agree on its premise (and thus, definitions) first.
It's a controversy that is oft willfully undertaken to shut down debate.
I'm not trying to shut down debate at all. One of the reasons I propose counter-definitions and such is to help show people what kinds of definitions and terminology I find acceptable.
For that matter, you may notice that I am perfectly fine when people are using terms casually without pretending that they have anything beyond the an ordinary common-sense meaning.
It is specifically the pseudo-intellectual jargon that I target.
The problem, from my perspective, is that people make up bad definitions, use terms carelessly, and then are committed and unwilling to give up those bad definitions and that careless use of terminology.
I will happily talk directly about immersion on either of two conditions:
1) No one tries to make retard claims like Justin Alexander. "No, I defined a term! The definition means that can't happen!" We simply speak plainly in ordinary language and rely on common sense for what our words mean.
2) We coin an appropriately specific terminology, of sufficient rigour, clarity and coherency, and then use that terminology while making it clear that we are doing so.
I have been making the same point now for something like four years on this site, and every couple of months, a new bunch of intellectual faddist come rolling in with a new set of jargon and they throw a new set of hissy fits when you challenge them to justify the existence and uses of their jargon. I am not sympathetic to this latest batch, anymore than I was to their idiotic forebearers.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389369That would require people upset at the success of 4E and other games having the ability to move on.
Do you really think there are that many people who are upset at the success of 4e?
I have said on numerious occasions, and will reiterate, I wish financial success and continued growth for every RPG designer and manufacturer, whether I like their game or not. This industry is too small and too fragile, I wish success and growth for all, no matter my critical opinons.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;389415Let's be honest here:
(1) Taking trolls seriously is not productive.
(2) Pseudoephedrine has already admitted that what we refer to as "dissociated mechanics" exist. So my "theory" doesn't really need to be defended. He's already admitted its validity. He just wants to call it something else. While simultaneously using "dissociated mechanics" to mean something completely different. (Or, apparently, several different things since he keeps offering up different "definitions".)
Nope! I've explained my position a couple of times. You don't appear willing to actually read it, so it's no wonder you don't understand it.
Also, aren't you still pretending to ignore me?
Christ, each time it's not only the same stupid shit, but the same whiny crap.
QuoteNow, even if he was actually interested in just arguing that it should be called, I dunno, "purple polka dot mechanics", I still wouldn't be all that interested in the discussion: The terminology has been accepted and used over dozens of forums for more than two years.
Dozens of unnamed forums for some period that's possibly an hour more than two years! I had no idea that such august authorities and traditions from time immemorial had given the august halo of truth to your made up words!
QuoteInsisting that mechanics which aren't associated with the game world should be called something other than "dissociated mechanics" just isn't going to be productive. It's not like there's somebody who "owns" the terminology and can send out a software patch. And using "dissociated mechanics" to mean "mechanics which are not associated [with the game world]" is pretty straight-forward and self-evident terminology.
The word "associated" in all those definitions is a weasel word.
QuoteBut that's not the reason he's a troll. You can tell he's a troll because of his mutually self-contradictory positions; his deliberate attempts to undermine valuable conversation (the tactics of which he admits he's doing); and his strawmanning (which he admits he's doing).
I've never "admitted" to "undermin[ing] valuable conversation". I've admitted that I think your vocabulary is bad, that it leads nowhere intellectually productive, and that I see little to no value in it.
I also have never "admitted" to "strawmanning". What on earth are you talking about now, you wretched liar and pretentious intellectual fraud?
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389433I'm not trying to shut down debate at all. One of the reasons I propose counter-definitions and such is to help show people what kinds of definitions and terminology I find acceptable.
For that matter, you may notice that I am perfectly fine when people are using terms casually without pretending that they have anything beyond the an ordinary common-sense meaning.
It is specifically the pseudo-intellectual jargon that I target.
But you are doing the exact same thing by consistently turning arguments into rhetorical and lexical catfights. You know it PE. I know it. We're not the only ones.
Quote from: RandallS;389432There is AT LEAST one other option, 4e fans could simply admit that it is a very different game from all previous versions of D&D (especially the TSR versions that started it all) and that those gamers who don't think it really is D&D in anything but brand name have a position just as valid as the theirs. :rolleyes:
I suspect with a small amount of effort I could come up with more options.
I could say those things. In fact I agree withem them as stated, with the caveat that there is a profound difference between holding the opinion that 4e isn't D&D and pursuing a political campaign trying to ram that opinion down everyone's throats on public forums. I can respect opinions while taking exception to what people do with those opinions.
But really, does me saying that you have the right to your opinion really change anything for you?
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389425It is clear you don't want to debate the idea, merely declare it and have it accepted by others as true. Simply put: I don't do that shit.
Then, please, 'don't do that shit', or whatever.
I've simply summarized my own experiences and drawn what I take to be the most plausible explanation for them.
In any case,
you've already accepted my essential claim as true (see below).
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389425For record yes, I have had fairly detailed write-ups of campaigns I've been in here appear
Gosh – good for you! Obviously you have considerably more spare time than I do. I'm envious.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389425I design worlds on here so people can see how I do it, and I invite comments and analysis on them.
I've looked at some of those threads in the past, and generally found them to be quite interesting. Again: good for you!
But simply because you're happy to spend hours writing these things here, though, does not make it reasonable for you to expect others to do likewise.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389425Sure, rules contribute somewhat to the experience at the table. I don't deny that. But I think the soft factors surrounding the rules are more important. Like I've said earlier, familiarity, taste, willingness to adhere to or depart from RAW are at least as important as "The ordinary human range for stats goes from 3 to 18" or "Roll under the percentile score of your skill to succeed on this task".
Sure, I agree with the claim that "soft factors surrounding the rules are more important" than the mechanics alone.
But the mechanics
do make a difference in the experience. That has been my basic claim in this thread.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;3894251+ 10 = 11. Sure.
Okay. But a factor that determines 9.09 percent of the final experience is
pretty significant!
I suspect that the role played by mechanics is greater than 9.09 percent, but that's just a suspicion, and not one that I am that interested in debating at length (debating "9 percent versus 18 percent versus 27 percent" seems both pointless and epistemically dubious).
Even a mere 9.09 percent role for mechanics would be sufficient for it to be taken seriously as a variable that determines people's actual experiences.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389422There are people who post here, sometimes on this very thread, who being riduculed by is one of the highest intellectual affirmations I can think of on this site.
Seriously.
For better or worse, this isn't theCBG. It's been interesting seeing the stupidity of this place wear you out. I'm sure you'll feel a bit better when you realize you've got no obligation to educate or inform here, and that people won't always tip you off that they're being willfully ignorant by openly insulting you.
I'd say Pseudo's being a bit of a jerk by disputing "metagame." Seriously, it's got a pretty clear meaning. And while "associated" and "dissociated" don't have a hell of a lot of use outside of this particular discussion or something very very like it (hence the reactions you're getting), you did define your terms and point to examples in real life, and there was no pre-existing word that suited the concept better. New concepts get new words and language evolves. Even jargon and slang that are subculture specific. I don't see any nits worth picking with that. I should note that there was a reaction against the forge and RPG theory that partly had to do with their jargon, which had no connection with anything in real life or ran counter to gamers' real-life experience (and whose only purpose was to promote a specific style of play), so part of the reaction you're getting is simply on the basis of using gaming specific words.
And after defining the terms, you went on to say something about them that more or less made sense. You said something to the effect that whenever mechanics are used that do not correlate to something in the gameworld, players can't be making decisions as their characters would. Pretty obvious, right? Like "water is wet." But you say it using a series of terms that promote one style of play and sort of damn a bunch of mechanics. So you're making an uncontroversial point with inflammatory language, even if phrases like "metagame" carry no connotation good or bad for you (which we all know isn't true based on what you've told us about your gaming preferences).
The reaction people are having is, for the most part, unwarranted. But do realize you can say something obviously true and still spark controversy on some other basis.
Seanchi, AM, and TCO: Seriously, quit spouting bullshit. Every time someone agrees with someone else you cry groupthink and every time someone disagrees with one of you (doesn't even have to be you personally) you cry persecution. I seem to recall AM saying something about people agreeing with each other over contradicting reasons why they don't like 4e. That's stupid. Different people can like or dislike different things about the same game. Take Trollman. Most people here don't think that balance is an okay goal for a game. Trollman is one of the few people here who think balance is a pretty cool idea, and instead he picks at the math of the game most of the time. So people will agree with him that... say... skill challenges suck FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. Here's a secret: Group opinions are usually internally inconsistent because different people think different things. And "people who aren't particularly fond of 4e" aren't even a group. It's just one quality many people who don't identify with each other happen to share.
Quote from: Akrasia;389450In any case, you've already accepted my essential claim as true (see below).
Yes, I don't deny the mechanics make some difference. But I don't think that leads anywhere as it currently stands. We have to investigate what kind of difference and why, and in what context they do. That strikes me as much more productive and interesting.
QuoteSure, I agree with the claim that "soft factors surrounding the rules are more important" than the mechanics alone.
But the mechanics do make a difference in the experience. That has been my basic claim in this thread.
If that's all you want to say, that's fine.
Quote from: BeejFor better or worse, this isn't theCBG. It's been interesting seeing the stupidity of this place wear you out. I'm sure you'll feel a bit better when you realize you've got no obligation to educate or inform here, and that people won't always tip you off that they're being willfully ignorant by openly insulting you.
I'll feel better after a glass of wine tonight. Wear me out? Perhaps made me incredulous at a level of willful ignorance, but I can't say you are totally wrong. We have online session #41 tomorrow night for the Steel Isle group. SHould be good stuff.
Did I tell you I like your headings for success, failure, and crit failure on your spell descriptions?
Quote from: Benoist;389446But you are doing the exact same thing by consistently turning arguments into rhetorical and lexical catfights. You know it PE. I know it. We're not the only ones.
I don't deny I am willing to keep on insisting on the same questions over and over again until they are answered. I'm perfectly happy with discussion not going forward until they are, because I consider the value of the discussion to come from its foundation in true or at least useful statements.
You folks should see me play Nomic, if you think you're getting the rough end of the stick here.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389462I don't deny I am willing to keep on insisting on the same questions over and over again until they are answered. I'm perfectly happy with discussion not going forward until they are, because I consider the value of the discussion to come from its foundation in true or at least useful statements.
I don't think you are honestly interested in any form of discussion, aka exchanges.
You're in it to win, rhetorically speaking. The subject matter seems completely secondary to your MO.
Quote from: GnomeWorks;389384I do vaguely recall something about how all TCO does here is troll. But I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt.
For which you are a better man than I. I found myself getting too many headaches doing that, so I hope it works out better for you.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389461I'll feel better after a glass of wine tonight. Wear me out? Perhaps made me incredulous at a level of willful ignorance, but I can't say you are totally wrong. We have online session #41 tomorrow night for the Steel Isle group. SHould be good stuff.
It's a big bunch on this site. On the one hand you have anonymity and freedom from consequence, and on the other, a constantly shifting bunch of users and a fast paced discussion no one can read all of. So it's not surprising when someone scratches a sore spot by accident and the old guard gets up in arms over vendettas only a few members know or care about.
Have fun with your game.
Did I tell you I like your headings for success, failure, and crit failure on your spell descriptions?[/QUOTE]
Nah, but thanks. I've been working on the framework of my system for over a year now. I figured it was time to put some meat on its bones. What's great is that I can reuse the formula when I get to skills.
Quote from: Seanchai;389407I would imagine it means things like this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17581), where people who don't like 4e, don't play 4e, and don't have an interest in ever playing 4e continue to start thread after thread of inflammatory bullshit about it.
Seanchai
I was curious about people's experiences with the Encounters sessions. That is inflammatory? Seriously?
No, in fact, you have just revealed your true colours. Anything that is not a glowing, utterly enthusiastic promotional piece about 4e is 'hating' from 'griefers'. You have no interest whatsoever in discussion. I don't think two months spent quote-mining the last five years of your posting history could have possibly illuminated this more clearly than what you posted here.
Quote from: PseudoephedrineQuote from: BenoistBut you are doing the exact same thing by consistently turning arguments into rhetorical and lexical catfights. You know it PE. I know it. We're not the only ones.
I don't deny I am willing to keep on insisting on the same questions over and over again until they are answered. I'm perfectly happy with discussion not going forward until they are, because I consider the value of the discussion to come from its foundation in true or at least useful statements.
Or until long after they are answered, substantiated, proven again, and reproven.
or at least that's my take.
it's your turn again.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389462I don't deny I am willing to keep on insisting on the same questions over and over again until they are answered. I'm perfectly happy with discussion not going forward until they are, because I consider the value of the discussion to come from its foundation in true or at least useful statements.
You are not the center of this discussion. If your questions are not being answered to your satisfaction,
tough shit. Re-phrase the question, move to a simpler question and work your way back up, try a different line of inquiry... There are stacks of methods to move forward without stamping your feet and demanding your questions be addressed. The very act of demanding thus repeatedly should be an indicator that the questions are not necessarily interesting to people, in the manner that 'ROLLplaying vs ROLEplaying' isn't really discussed much anymore.
You may not like the definitions, but they are pretty much settled at this point. For example, I could start arguing with my Physics instructor that
c is not 300,000km/s, but instead should be defined as 56,248.773 gorgle-quatloos per reftar, because I think that is a better definition.
I can guarantee I would fail that class.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389474Or until long after they are answered, substantiated, proven again, and reproven.
or at least that's my take.
it's your turn again.
But you didn't prove anything. At one point the other dude literally linked to his own website as support, as if to settle the matter. I get that you guys have your own preferences and seem to agree on things like realism,
but that doesn't mean anything whatsoever. Here's an (unproven, I admit) theory of my own: I bet there will be a high correlation between the people who believe in the "Dissasociated mechanics" swinery and people who prioritize "low magic" and "gritty" campaigns. Because what they are really talking about all along is just a preference for a "supposed to be like this" realism.
These people often don't
get cinematicism, (which is fine- it's a matter of personal preference), but that also means they aren't the authority on it either.
Quote from: Benoist;389468You're in it to win, rhetorically speaking.
Most folks are. Consider, for example, this thread title and original subject matter.
Seanchai
Quote from: RandallS;389432There is AT LEAST one other option, 4e fans could simply admit that it is a very different game from all previous versions of D&D (especially the TSR versions that started it all)and that those gamers who don't think it really is D&D in anything but brand name have a position just as valid as the theirs.
If those things were true, perhaps they would. It's certainly a different game than previous editions, but then so were AD&D and 3e. And it has many similarities to older edition as well.
As to folks believing that 4e is D&D in name only, shrug. They're welcome to their opinion.
Seanchai
I swear the last fifteen pages of this thread has just been people arguing about the arguing. Anyone got a scorecard of who disagrees with what at this point?
Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?
Quote from: Benoist;389468I don't think you are honestly interested in any form of discussion, aka exchanges.
You're in it to win, rhetorically speaking. The subject matter seems completely secondary to your MO.
Still sore about me saying that you said something in "bafflegab"? Grudges are silly.
I'm perfectly happy to have exchanges and discussions with people if they want to have them. I talk about my own personal gaming more than most other people on this site do.
However, very few people on this site want to have discussions involving honest debate and criticism of ideas they put forward, and very few of them discuss actually playing games. Instead, we have gotten repeated waves of adherents to intellectual fads coming into the forums, proselytising, and pretentiously dismissing contrary opinions or ideas until they get slapped down.
I have little patience or intellectual respect for these people unless they can show that their ideas have merit. Almost none have. You may take this for some desire to "win" over them "rhetorically" if you so please. Should they cease their behaviour and start acting like reasonable persons, I'm fine dealing with them on that basis instead.
Quote from: beejazz;389451Seanchi, AM, and TCO: Seriously, quit spouting bullshit.
Here's what you're missing: We're not spouting bullshit. You are. Piles and piles of it.
Quote from: beejazz;389451Every time someone agrees with someone else you cry groupthink
Where?
Quote from: beejazz;389451...and every time someone disagrees with one of you (doesn't even have to be you personally) you cry persecution.
Where?
Seanchai
Quote from: StormBringer;389478You are not the center of this discussion. If your questions are not being answered to your satisfaction, tough shit. Re-phrase the question, move to a simpler question and work your way back up, try a different line of inquiry... There are stacks of methods to move forward without stamping your feet and demanding your questions be addressed. The very act of demanding thus repeatedly should be an indicator that the questions are not necessarily interesting to people, in the manner that 'ROLLplaying vs ROLEplaying' isn't really discussed much anymore.
I do all of those things. They lead nowhere with these kinds of intellectual fads.
QuoteYou may not like the definitions, but they are pretty much settled at this point. For example, I could start arguing with my Physics instructor that c is not 300,000km/s, but instead should be defined as 56,248.773 gorgle-quatloos per reftar, because I think that is a better definition.
I can guarantee I would fail that class.
Actually, as has been shown on this very thread, they aren't settled. LVR's many definitions of metagaming, for example, had some very important differences amongst them. Peregrin pointed out in Shaman's thread about Immersion that there are different kinds of immersion.
Quote from: Grymbok;389484I swear the last fifteen pages of this thread has just been people arguing about the arguing. Anyone got a scorecard of who disagrees with what at this point?
Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?
Yeah, I don't think even think "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" is always true. Sure, there's probably some occasions when it's true, but there's a large number of occasions when it's not.
Spellcasting's a good example of the latter. When my wizard decides to cast fireball, it's at least partially based on my knowledge of how the spell works, since there's no other information to go on - it's not like there are fireball spells IRL that we can transfer to our imagination.
Quote from: Grymbok;389484I swear the last fifteen pages of this thread has just been people arguing about the arguing. Anyone got a scorecard of who disagrees with what at this point?
Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?
Why do you think I've been using this thread for just general chit-chat?
BTW, are you a mac or PC guy?
Quote from: thedungeondelver;389492Why do you think I've been using this thread for just general chit-chat?
BTW, are you a mac or PC guy?
Yeah, you could probably embed an entire second discussion in here by this point without anyone noticing.
I'm a Mac guy, as it happens. Tapping away on my iPad tonight actually :)
Quote from: Grymbok;389484I swear the last fifteen pages of this thread has just been people arguing about the arguing. Anyone got a scorecard of who disagrees with what at this point?
Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?
Go back and make note of the principles in starting the meta-arguing.
Quote from: Abyssal MawBut you didn't prove anything. At one point the other dude literally linked to his own website as support, as if to settle the matter. I get that you guys have your own preferences and seem to agree on things like realism, but that doesn't mean anything whatsoever.
Justin Alexander is not Lord Vreeg. You're doing your paranoia and guilt by association shtick again. People who happen to disagree with each other about something you disagree with are not automatically on a "side" with each other. Holding Vreeg accountable for the way Justin A. shills his blog (or appeals to his own authority, as you tend to spin things a little more sinister than they probably are) is kind of silly, isn't it?
QuoteHere's an (unproven, I admit) theory of my own: I bet there will be a high correlation between the people who believe in the "Dissasociated mechanics" swinery and people who prioritize "low magic" and "gritty" campaigns. Because what they are really talking about all along is just a preference for a "supposed to be like this" realism.
I don't know if I'd call Vreeg's approach to magic "low." He just has a setting where professional killers aren't the only spellcasters.
Personally, I'd say I'm a fan of higher magic than 4e, in that I think players should be capable of accomplishing a greater variety of tasks. And even that's a mixed bag, as a lot of what I liked was simply moved sideways into rituals (which I prefer over Vance magic). So 4e does some things better than prior editions.
As for grittiness, I'm pretty sure JA advocated on his blog often enough for taking the CRs of monsters down and the numbers up, knowing this made fights faster and easier and PCs more badass.
So... Yeah... people who think that mechanics that don't reference anything in the gameworld encourage thinking of/from/about outside the gameworld? A diverse bunch. Kind of like people who think water's wet.
QuoteThese people often don't get cinematicism, (which is fine- it's a matter of personal preference), but that also means they aren't the authority on it either.
Cinematicism? Really? I sympathize with the position that the terms used are defined in ways that have positive/negative connotations, and that there are clearer ways the statement could have been made, but... at least when they used words they gave them clear definitions and ascribed those definitions to real world phenomena. Cinematicism is intentionally vague and positive. So you're basically just throwing out there that "you just don't get [vague thing with positive connotations]." If using immersion as a buzzword is wrong that makes you a hypocrite.
Quote from: GrymbokI swear the last fifteen pages of this thread has just been people arguing about the arguing. Anyone got a scorecard of who disagrees with what at this point?
Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?
It's mostly about the buzzword for Pseudo, it's about accusing people of intentional ignorance all around for the rest of us. I'm somewhat guilty of the latter myself, though I think there's less intention behind it than a lot of people believe.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389485Still sore about me saying that you said something in "bafflegab"? Grudges are silly.
Nope. If I was, I wouldn't have told you what I think of your Moragne effort, which I think is pretty cool.
Do not make the mistake of translating disagreement for grudge, here. What I'm saying is that your rhetorical tactics suck. Not only for the conversations themselves, which are obliterated in the process, but for your own goals as well, since these are more transparent than you think they are. You are consistently dishonest intellectually, and focus on form rather than substance, and yet, you point the finger at other people for doing the very thing you yourself should correct. Quit the act, man.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389490Yeah, I don't think even think "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" is always true. Sure, there's probably some occasions when it's true, but there's a large number of occasions when it's not.
Spellcasting's a good example of the latter. When my wizard decides to cast fireball, it's at least partially based on my knowledge of how the spell works, since there's no other information to go on - it's not like there are fireball spells IRL that we can transfer to our imagination.
Well I was quoting someone else from a page or two back as a proxy for thinking since I'm rather tired tonight. You're right of course though that there's a big side order of "it depends" when things are phrased as loosely as that.
I think that, like a lot of things, it's a continuum. At the one end you have rules which are purely in service to in-character decisions and motivation ("I attack the goblin with my sword" "ok, roll to hit"). Somewhere in the middle you have things like your Fireball example, where the mechanics contain elements that don't really exist in character, and so there's a degree of out-of-character thinking going on in your actions decisions, but probably not enough to break kayfabe. I've seen people try to patch around that with odd setting justifications ("the power of a fireball is determined by the circle of mastery to which its caster has ascended"), but that's something that never worked for me (although I did like the idea of the NPC shopkeeper in Ptolus who could tell a sword's plus by swinging it around a bit).
Then a bit further on you have things where the mechanics can be at odds with in-character motivations. Daily Martial powers in 4e go here. Also the whole thing in 3e and 4e where various combat manoeuvres can only be accomplished if you have a certain feat. Basically anything where an action seems reasonable in-character based on the shared understanding of the setting, but is not acceptable or optional because of the mechanics.
What lies beyond there on the continuum I have no idea, since that point is already well past my preference point!
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389488I do all of those things. They lead nowhere with these kinds of intellectual fads.
Honestly, you don't. As far as intellectual 'fads' go, you are guilty of trying to start several.
QuoteActually, as has been shown on this very thread, they aren't settled.
...
for you. That isn't the same as not being settled. For example, I don't think the definition of the speed of light is 'settled'. Not really relevant to a discussion of physics, however, and I would still fail the class.
QuoteLVR's many definitions of metagaming, for example, had some very important differences amongst them. Peregrin pointed out in Shaman's thread about Immersion that there are different kinds of immersion.
Then you will need to point out those differences, and don't assume that everyone will just take your word they are there. I know this is the kind of dialogue you are looking for, but it doesn't happen.
"These are all the same!"
"No, they aren't."
"Holy shit! You are right! They have nothing to do with each other!"
Positive or negative assertions are good for a start, but if they are not followed with examples, they are useless.
Quote from: AMQuote from: Originally Posted by LordVreegOr until long after they are answered, substantiated, proven again, and reproven.
or at least that's my take.
it's your turn again.
But you didn't prove anything. At one point the other dude literally linked to his own website as support, as if to settle the matter. I get that you guys have your own preferences and seem to agree on things like realism, but that doesn't mean anything whatsoever.
Here's an (unproven, I admit) theory of my own: I bet there will be a high correlation between the people who believe in the "Dissasociated mechanics" swinery and people who prioritize "low magic" and "gritty" campaigns. Because what they are really talking about all along is just a preference for a "supposed to be like this" realism.
These people often don't get cinematicism, (which is fine- it's a matter of personal preference), but that also means they aren't the authority on it either.
Ok, What's your opinion on the definition given for metagaming as, "Using OOC information to affect character IC actions?"
Or linking 18+2 other websites with similar definitions, almost all from RPG glossary-type sites? I will agree that there is nothing that makes any one of these the be-all or end all authority.
But what's your take on that?
BTW, I wonder about your theory (though the term Swinery is making me laughin the context you are using it.). I'm sure there are other correllative factors, but there are some things about low-power, low-magic, gritty that make you prioritize things differently.
Quote from: Seanchai;389486Here's what you're missing: We're not spouting bullshit. You are. Piles and piles of it.
Seanchai
Looking back on it, the specific accusations are usually AM and TCO things. You have your own unique way of being insanely frustrating for no reason.
Mainly multiquotes filled with one line assertions followed by pages and pages of repeating yourself with similar brevity when people contradict you. Usually combined with a healthy dose of interpreting everything literally, ignoring things that don't suit your argument, and did I mention obsessively multiquoting and responding with one liners that contribute nothing that you haven't already said?
I think it's more productive all around if I just apologize for lumping you in with the other two (you're not paranoid, just obstinate) and we leave it at that.
Quote from: beejazz;389497Personally, I'd say I'm a fan of higher magic than 4e, in that I think players should be capable of accomplishing a greater variety of tasks. And even that's a mixed bag, as a lot of what I liked was simply moved sideways into rituals (which I prefer over Vance magic). So 4e does some things better than prior editions.
Just a minor nit: you know 'rituals' is just a fancy term for 'scrolls (anyone can use)' and a minor tweak or two to balance availability, right?
I mean, I am glad you find them useful and enjoyable, but rituals aren't Vancian magic, they are scrolls by another name.
Quote from: Grymbok;389493Yeah, you could probably embed an entire second discussion in here by this point without anyone noticing.
I'm a Mac guy, as it happens. Tapping away on my iPad tonight actually :)
Excellent. The Apple price point was always a big turn off for me. Anyway, I'm looking for some info on a good PVR card to get for my HTPC.
Anyone else?
Quote from: StormBringer;389505Just a minor nit: you know 'rituals' is just a fancy term for 'scrolls (anyone can use)' and a minor tweak or two to balance availability, right?
I mean, I am glad you find them useful and enjoyable, but rituals aren't Vancian magic, they are scrolls by another name.
Um... I was saying they aren't Vancian magic. So... I'm pretty sure we agree with each other.
Also I thought scrolls were a caster only bit, and finite in availability (rather than balanced out by long casting times). At least in 3.x, where a better analogue might be... potions maybe?
I'm just saying at-will casting for minor-ish stuff is pretty cool really.
EDIT: Ah, shit... they are more like scrolls (in that they're caster-only... ish) in that they require a feat IIRC.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389502Ok, What's your opinion on the definition given for metagaming as, "Using OOC information to affect character IC actions?"
Or linking 18+2 other websites with similar definitions, almost all from RPG glossary-type sites? I will agree that there is nothing that makes any one of these the be-all or end all authority.
But what's your take on that?
BTW, I wonder about your theory (though the term Swinery is making me laughin the context you are using it.). I'm sure there are other correllative factors, but there are some things about low-power, low-magic, gritty that make you prioritize things differently.
Rest assured, it is swinery.
I don't know if using OOC information to affect IC actions is necessarily "metagaming". Or if it is , then I don't know if that's "proven to be" against immersion.
I mean, as an example, disease mechanics. A player could use his OOC knowledge of the mechanics of how a disease affects his character to create a more interesting roleplaying scene. For example, if it merely says he's -2 to hit when in sunlight, because he's suddenly light sensitive as the opening stage of vampirism or something, well that doesn't sound too immersive, but a player who knows that fact can really play that up, and use that OOC knowledge to make something even more immersive.
Quote from: beejazz;389508Um... I was saying they aren't Vancian magic. So... I'm pretty sure we agree with each other.
I apologize, I must have correlated where there was not one intended.
QuoteAlso I thought scrolls were a caster only bit, and finite in availability (rather than balanced out by long casting times). At least in 3.x, where a better analogue might be... potions maybe?
That would also be a reasonable analogue. I was considering scrolls because of the 'form-factor' of rituals is essentially a scroll.
EDIT: I may not have been clear earlier with the parenthetical part. I meant that rituals are literally 'scrolls anyone can use'. More in line with your potion analogy, but in scroll form.
QuoteI'm just saying at-will casting for minor-ish stuff is pretty cool really.
No argument there.
QuoteEDIT: Ah, shit... they are more like scrolls (in that they're caster-only... ish) in that they require a feat IIRC.
I also forgot this detail. I don't think the feat is limited by rules to only casters. I am not sure the strategic wisdom of a non-caster taking such a feat, however. Even in older editions, CharOp stuff is just not something I can wrap my head around(starting with the question "Why would I want to?" ;) )
Quote from: thedungeondelver;389506Excellent. The Apple price point was always a big turn off for me. Anyway, I'm looking for some info on a good PVR card to get for my HTPC.
Anyone else?
Inexpensive Dell or HP laptop, then install Linux.
:)
Quote from: StormBringer;389519Inexpensive Dell or HP laptop, then install Linux.
:)
Sorry, I'd like to spend more time watching recorded shows and films than fucking around with the OS! :P Also I have the box ready to go, just looking for a good card. People speak well of Happauge or however you spell it.
Quote from: StormBringerI also forgot this detail. I don't think the feat is limited by rules to only casters. I am not sure the strategic wisdom of a non-caster taking such a feat, however. Even in older editions, CharOp stuff is just not something I can wrap my head around(starting with the question "Why would I want to?" ;) )
I don't know, mechanical representation for somebody that just dabbles has always been kind of spotty for me. So even if it's not optimal, it's still pretty cool, and the sort of thing I might run with.
Though maybe CharOp matters sometimes... if Track had been a skill instead of a feat, I think more non-rangers would have used it (to give an example). But skill based magic in D&D is probably too much to ask, and about as "not D&D" as anything 4e did.
EDIT: Ah, and now I get the parenthetical note.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;389521Sorry, I'd like to spend more time watching recorded shows and films than fucking around with the OS! :P Also I have the box ready to go, just looking for a good card. People speak well of Happauge or however you spell it.
Oh, man, you aren't still seriously buying into that bullshit are you? :)
I have had exactly zero problems watching whatever the hell I want to watch on the Monster here. A new codec for the video player, but that is no different than Windows, really, you just don't see it happen. Other than that, Ubuntu alerts me when it needs upgrades, and I decide which ones I want, and it takes care of itself.
You should give it a second look.
Quote from: beejazz;389524I don't know, mechanical representation for somebody that just dabbles has always been kind of spotty for me. So even if it's not optimal, it's still pretty cool, and the sort of thing I might run with.
No kidding. I am trying to puzzle out some houserules that use some kind of 2e 'kit' theme with maybe an additional 10% or whatever xp requirement. It's not easy. :)
QuoteThough maybe CharOp matters sometimes... if Track had been a skill instead of a feat, I think more non-rangers would have used it (to give an example). But skill based magic in D&D is probably too much to ask, and about as "not D&D" as anything 4e did.
Sure, it does have its place, just not something I can really get into. I don't think placing 'track' as a skill instead of a feat is really optimizing, though. That is more 'proper design' in my book. :)
The problem you will have with a home made HVR, is that many cable companies now scramble their signal, and you will be unable to use it with a HVR card unless your cable company at least has the decency to offer their own card that can decrypt the signal.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;389506Excellent. The Apple price point was always a big turn off for me. Anyway, I'm looking for some info on a good PVR card to get for my HTPC.
Anyone else?
I've got a hand-me down hp that sounds like a lawnmower. Operating system got eaten by viruses so I'm running Ubuntu studio on it. Too much of a PITA to get my Wacom working on it.
Then I've got this new Dell I'm typing on. Windows 7. Not that bad.
Bring Linux tech bullshit, and see how the thread goes on a tangent in no time! :D
Quote from: StormBringer;389525Oh, man, you aren't still seriously buying into that bullshit are you? :)
I have had exactly zero problems watching whatever the hell I want to watch on the Monster here. A new codec for the video player, but that is no different than Windows, really, you just don't see it happen. Other than that, Ubuntu alerts me when it needs upgrades, and I decide which ones I want, and it takes care of itself.
You should give it a second look.
Dude, about two or three years back I looked at mythTV and got as far as YOU MUST HAVE A SQL OR MYSQL SERVER RUNNING TO and I fell asleep at that point. Again, I've got the stuff (Win7, all the HW) just need a card :)
Quote from: beejazz;389531I've got a hand-me down hp that sounds like a lawnmower. Operating system got eaten by viruses so I'm running Ubuntu studio on it. Too much of a PITA to get my Wacom working on it.
Then I've got this new Dell I'm typing on. Windows 7. Not that bad.
I
do like 7. 7+ MSE = JOOOOOY
Hell the Win7 beta I ran on a VM configured as a 1ghz machine with a half gig of RAM ran just fine...!
(Although now happily using it on a dual core athlon box with 4gb RAM)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;389535Dude, about two or three years back I looked at mythTV and got as far as YOU MUST HAVE A SQL OR MYSQL SERVER RUNNING TO and I fell asleep at that point. Again, I've got the stuff (Win7, all the HW) just need a card :)
I swear to God, this is not an exaggeration. Three clicks, maximum, and you will have a MySQL server set up in Ubuntu. I am not fucking kidding about that. It is actually a bit more complex to set up
without an admin account and password, but you can do that if you want, too. Otherwise, three clicks and a password, done.
Quote from: StormBringerNo kidding. I am trying to puzzle out some houserules that use some kind of 2e 'kit' theme with maybe an additional 10% or whatever xp requirement. It's not easy. :)
I tried figuring out how to revamp some of the 2e concepts for personal use once. It didn't go well. I think it's just having started with 3x, certain things just didn't click like they probably should have. It's funny... i keep finding old books at church sales for like 2$, and I can neither pass them up nor find anything to do with them. Still no 1e DMG.
QuoteSure, it does have its place, just not something I can really get into. I don't think placing 'track' as a skill instead of a feat is really optimizing, though. That is more 'proper design' in my book. :)
Yeah... feat status and being packaged with a class made it pretty unattractive to most players. I wouldn't know if 4e player culture is all that into charop, but I can at least see dabbling in magic having a higher style factor than tracking. So I'm sure I'm not the only fan. Even the bard got some love in 3x, after all.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389513Rest assured, it is swinery.
I don't know if using OOC information to affect IC actions is necessarily "metagaming". Or if it is , then I don't know if that's "proven to be" against immersion.
I mean, as an example, disease mechanics. A player could use his OOC knowledge of the mechanics of how a disease affects his character to create a more interesting roleplaying scene. For example, if it merely says he's -2 to hit when in sunlight, because he's suddenly light sensitive as the opening stage of vampirism or something, well that doesn't sound too immersive, but a player who knows that fact can really play that up, and use that OOC knowledge to make something even more immersive.
define swinery, then, since we don't have enough definitions issues yet. Really. More, please.
I think it is the definition of metagaming, but I don't know if it can be proven to be against immersion, either. I think that its a good conversation.
BTW, the above example with diease? Sounds to me more like the mechanics modelling IC info. I may not know the mechanics of getting a cold or the flu or Mono, but I sure know the exist and what they can do.
Quote from: Benoist;389533Bring Linux tech bullshit, and see how the thread goes on a tangent in no time! :D
Well, its all good. Really.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389550Well, its all good. Really.
It's not like there's much to salvage at this point.
Quote from: Benoist;389554It's not like there's much to salvage at this point.
Like Water Polo, no winners, only survivors?
Quote from: LordVreeg;389556Like Water Polo, no winners, only survivors?
Isn't that the case with most water sports?
:jaw-dropping:
Quote from: StormBringer;389541I swear to God, this is not an exaggeration. Three clicks, maximum, and you will have a MySQL server set up in Ubuntu. I am not fucking kidding about that. It is actually a bit more complex to set up without an admin account and password, but you can do that if you want, too. Otherwise, three clicks and a password, done.
Okay...is this on? Can I get a level check? One-two-two-two-one-check-check. Okay. We're good. Ahem:
WHYYYYYYYY SHOULD I HAAAAAAAAAAVE TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??????????????????????????????????????????????I swear! It's always the same thing: "Oh man recompiling your kernel is Soooo easy, it takes like two mintues..." WHY DO I HAVE TO???
Note the implied humor here, but
come on!
Quote from: Benoist;389554It's not like there's much to salvage at this point.
THis thread is like loading up an old GTA:SA savegame and taxiing the fighter jet up and down the freeway blowing up civilians at this point.
Grand Theft Auto is shit.
Quote from: Peregrin;389576Grand Theft Auto is shit.
Fuck you! That...thing...you like is...also shit!
There, got you.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;389573Okay...is this on? Can I get a level check? One-two-two-two-one-check-check. Okay. We're good. Ahem:
WHYYYYYYYY SHOULD I HAAAAAAAAAAVE TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??????????????????????????????????????????????
I swear! It's always the same thing: "Oh man recompiling your kernel is Soooo easy, it takes like two mintues..." WHY DO I HAVE TO???
Note the implied humor here, but come on!
Honestly, how much time do you spend tweaking Windows, downloading updates, waiting for security patches, installing new software, praying the latest patch doesn't blow up your system, etc.?
I'll admit, mythTV should probably have at least the utility to install MySQL for you. But it's a security issue; you don't want software running around that has essentially root access to stuff, even if it is only itself.
Quote from: LVQuote from: PseudoephedrineQuote from: Originally Posted by Benoist But you are doing the exact same thing by consistently turning arguments into rhetorical and lexical catfights. You know it PE. I know it. We're not the only ones.
I don't deny I am willing to keep on insisting on the same questions over and over again until they are answered. I'm perfectly happy with discussion not going forward until they are, because I consider the value of the discussion to come from its foundation in true or at least useful statements.
Or until long after they are answered, substantiated, proven again, and reproven.
or at least that's my take.
it's your turn again.
So much for that.
Tune in next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel (but different bat-thread...)
Quote from: LordVreeg;389580So much for that.
Tune in next week, same bat-time, same bat-channel (but different bat-thread...)
Uh, pardon me, but we're trying to have a discussion about Linux here? Could you guys move the RPG stuff to another thread? Thanks.
:D
I find Windows far more immersive than Linux. Dealing with the command line all the time just to get my system the way I want it? I need to run a program just to install apps?
That shit just pulls me out of the experience.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389546define swinery, then, since we don't have enough definitions issues yet. Really. More, please.
I think it is the definition of metagaming, but I don't know if it can be proven to be against immersion, either. I think that its a good conversation.
BTW, the above example with diease? Sounds to me more like the mechanics modelling IC info. I may not know the mechanics of getting a cold or the flu or Mono, but I sure know the exist and what they can do.
The point is, (and stop thinking about realism for a second, this isn't about mono or the flu, it's more about vamprisim or filth fever): your character can catch diseases in the game, but you won't know how to roleplay them until you have the OOC affects explained.
You know what the difference is? The order things happen. Because your entire concept of metagaming seems to suggest that the players are playing along and the mechanics come along after the roleplaying part as applied by yon snowy-bearded GM to "model the simulative reality". The thing you seem to have a problem with is that players
might take advantage of OOC info.
In my version of events, it's quite often the mechanical things happen first as part of the rules, and you find the roleplaying hook therein. So yes, the PC absolutely gets to "take advantage" of the OOC info that the mechanics provide- and that creates immersive opportunities, depending on how good or talented the players are. So if a monster has an attack that causes a player to "take 6 damage and be slowed", that gives the player the chance to say "I twisted my ankle!" or the Dm to make something up, or any combination.
It requires a willingness to creatively and vividly interpret and translate mechanics and conditions into descriptive detail on the part of the players and the DM, and also the cognizance on everyone's part to realize that games can be descriptive and imaginative experiences
without being strictly realistic simulative models, psychotherapy sessions, misery exploration, or improv theater.
Quote from: Peregrin;389586I find Windows far more immersive than Linux. Dealing with the command line all the time just to get my system the way I want it? I need to run a program just to install apps?
That shit just pulls me out of the experience.
Jesus, you don't need to use the command line all the time, and even if you were, it is just as immersive as the GUI. I am constantly typing stuff in the shell, and I feel every bit as immersed in the experience as the GUI.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389590The point is, (and stop thinking about realism for a second, this isn't about mono or the flu, it's more about vamprisim or filth fever): your character can catch diseases in the game, but you won't know how to roleplay them until you have the OOC affects explained.
You know what the difference is? The order things happen. Because your entire concept of metagaming seems to suggest that the players are playing along and the mechanics come along after the roleplaying part as applied by yon snowy-bearded GM to "model the simulative reality". The thing you seem to have a problem with is that players might take advantage of OOC info.
In my version of events, it's quite often the mechanical things happen first as part of the rules, and you find the roleplaying hook therein. So yes, the PC absolutely gets to "take advantage" of the OOC info that the mechanics provide- and that creates immersive opportunities, depending on how good or talented the players are. So if a monster has an attack that causes a player to "take 6 damage and be slowed", that gives the player the chance to say "I twisted my ankle!" or the Dm to make something up, or any combination.
It requires a willingness to creatively and vividly interpret and translate mechanics and conditions into descriptive detail on the part of the players and the DM, and also the cognizance on everyone's part to realize that games can be descriptive and imaginative experiences without being strictly realistic simulative models, psychotherapy sessions, misery exploration, or improv theater.
This is an excellent post.
I do believe that dissociation is not an on/off switch, by which I mean (not which witch is which, no, but instead) that it is a matter of degrees of dissociation, not whether a mechanic is dissociated or not. The question then becomes what the degree of dissociation of a particular mechanic is, and not whether it helps conduct immersion or not, but how many players find it conducive of immersion or not, to which extent, and the degree of suspension of disbelief it requires to do so.
It seems to me that the more associated the mechanic, the less people will have problems finding interpretations for them in the game world and immerse themselves in said world. Conversely, the more dissociated the mechanic, the more people will have problem coming up with interpretations of what it means in the game world, and thus immerse themselves in the game world. There will still be players able to jump the obstacle, but the obstacle will be taller nonetheless.
Quote from: Peregrin;389586I find Windows far more immersive than Linux. Dealing with the command line all the time just to get my system the way I want it? I need to run a program just to install apps?
That shit just pulls me out of the experience.
It's all subjective, Windows can't be more Immersive then Linux, operating systems aren't by themselves immersive they only become immersive or not once operated by an actual user. You're just feeling inferior and need an excuse to not like Linux.
Or else you're insane.
:)
Quote from: Benoist;389609It seems to me that the more associated the mechanic, the less people will have problems finding interpretations for them in the game world and immerse themselves in said world. Conversely, the more dissociated the mechanic, the more people will have problem coming up with interpretations of what it means in the game world, and thus immerse themselves in the game world. There will still be players able to jump the obstacle, but the obstacle will be taller nonetheless.
Exactamundo, the dissociation itself isn't subjective, it's whether or not someone can have fun roleplaying a character at that reduced level of immersion or not.
The level of immersion we need to have fun roleplaying is what is subjective. Some people can have fun roleplaying at the level of immersion 4e's high degree of dissociation allows. Others need a higher level of immersion to get into that roleplaying headspace.
And no, before anyone posts, there's no fucking value judgment attached.
Quote from: Benoist;389609This is an excellent post.
I do believe that dissociation is not an on/off switch, by which I mean (not which witch is which, no, but instead) that it is a matter of degrees of dissociation, not whether a mechanic is dissociated or not. The question then becomes what the degree of dissociation of a particular mechanic is, and not whether it helps conduct immersion or not, but how many players find it conducive of immersion or not, to which extent, and the degree of suspension of disbelief it requires to do so.
It seems to me that the more associated the mechanic, the less people will have problems finding interpretations for them in the game world and immerse themselves in said world. Conversely, the more dissociated the mechanic, the more people will have problem coming up with interpretations of what it means in the game world, and thus immerse themselves in the game world. There will still be players able to jump the obstacle, but the obstacle will be taller nonetheless.
I'm going to ask a question here. When it comes to immersion and association, association to what?
When it comes to the game world, what is the game world and what are its rules? Must how and why be strictly defined, or is simply what results more important?
To me, there isn't just one way to define these things. Some people talk about game world physics, I would ask why must the game be grounded in physics? What if a round isn't six seconds, but an indeterminate amount of time defined as the time it takes everyone to act. There is a lot more freedom in the second definition.
I'll give my take on two 4E aspects I've heard people complain about, Martial powers usable once per day and Action Points:
Martial Daily Powers--These are really spectacular techniques that are very difficult to pull off, and take an extraordinary application of will and opportunity to execute. A real life example would be the Haymaker in boxing, something that takes talent and an opening to execute, and something you can't just do at will. The game translates this into something usable once per day, and puts it in the players hands(in the form of narrative control) when this combination of will and opportunity will occur.
Action Points--To me Action Points are simple. They are the ability to go the extra mile when you really need to, to do a little extra in a dramatic moment, and like daily powers giving the player control over when the dramatic moment occurs.
Quote from: CRKrueger;389614Exactamundo, the dissociation itself isn't subjective, it's whether or not someone can have fun roleplaying a character at that reduced level of immersion or not.
The level of immersion we need to have fun roleplaying is what is subjective. Some people can have fun roleplaying at the level of immersion 4e's high degree of dissociation allows. Others need a higher level of immersion to get into that roleplaying headspace.
And no, before anyone posts, there's no fucking value judgment attached.
Remove immersion, and insert simulation of game world defined physics.
I prefer to be immersed from a dramatic standpoint, as opposed to one defined by how the world works.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389621I'm going to ask a question here.
I don't care about your questions. I know you're arguing just for the sake of arguing (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568), and I'm not interested in a pissing match with you. Go find targets for your trolling somewhere else. Thank you.
Quote from: Benoist;389626I don't care about your questions. I know you're arguing just for the sake of arguing (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568), and I'm not interested in a pissing match with you. Go find targets for your trolling somewhere else. Thank you.
You always seem to go back to this when you have nothing to say.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389627You always seem to go back to this when you have nothing to say.
While you
always post just for the sake of the argument.
Now I've been polite. Please. Go troll someone else. Thanks.
Quote from: Benoist;389629While you always post just for the sake of the argument.
Now I've been polite. Please. Go troll someone else. Thanks.
The fact that I post for the sake of the argument does not mean I don't have one. Either reply or ignore me, this name calling just makes you look like you have nothing to say.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389590The point is, (and stop thinking about realism for a second, this isn't about mono or the flu, it's more about vamprisim or filth fever): your character can catch diseases in the game, but you won't know how to roleplay them until you have the OOC affects explained.
You know what the difference is? The order things happen. Because your entire concept of metagaming seems to suggest that the players are playing along and the mechanics come along after the roleplaying part as applied by yon snowy-bearded GM to "model the simulative reality". The thing you seem to have a problem with is that players might take advantage of OOC info.
In my version of events, it's quite often the mechanical things happen first as part of the rules, and you find the roleplaying hook therein. So yes, the PC absolutely gets to "take advantage" of the OOC info that the mechanics provide- and that creates immersive opportunities, depending on how good or talented the players are. So if a monster has an attack that causes a player to "take 6 damage and be slowed", that gives the player the chance to say "I twisted my ankle!" or the Dm to make something up, or any combination.
It requires a willingness to creatively and vividly interpret and translate mechanics and conditions into descriptive detail on the part of the players and the DM, and also the cognizance on everyone's part to realize that games can be descriptive and imaginative experiences without being strictly realistic simulative models, psychotherapy sessions, misery exploration, or improv theater.
I appreciate the post, but it
is about Mono and the flu, as those are extant in my setting, just as Vampirism and filthfever are in the other setting.
It's not OOC. It is information the character would have. So it is not OOC. If the GM is telling me how to play them because my character knows how it feels, it is IC, not OOC. Understand?
They are not OOC affects if my character would feel them, as that is knowledge the character would have.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389632The fact that I post for the sake of the argument does not mean I don't have one. Either reply or ignore me, this name calling just makes you look like you have nothing to say.
Past behavior is the best indicator of future conduct, Shepherd boy. People get tired of checking for the wolf.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389638Past behavior is the best indicator of future conduct, Shepherd boy. People get tired of checking for the wolf.
And I still say calling people names is a lazy excuse for not having a real reply.
You are perfectly free to ignore what I say. The fact that you feel the need to call me a name tells me that I've actually said something, something that you feel needs to be responded to, and yet you don't have a real reply of your own so you fall back on name calling.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389642And I still say calling people names is a lazy excuse for not having a real reply.
You are perfectly free to ignore what I say. The fact that you feel the need to call me a name tells me that I've actually said something, something that you feel needs to be responded to, and yet you don't have a real reply of your own so you fall back on name calling.
Every post you make here just tells everyone else you're bored and wanted something to argue about. Your attempts to stick needles in Benoist and Lord Vreeg over their ignoring you in order to make them reengage is way too transparent. Go try that on the WotC boards where I'm sure you argue that 4e is less immersive. :rotfl:
Quote from: CRKrueger;389645Every post you make here just tells everyone else you're bored and wanted something to argue about. Your attempts to stick needles in Benoist and Lord Vreeg over their ignoring you in order to make them reengage is way too transparent. Go try that on the WotC boards where I'm sure you argue that 4e is less immersive. :rotfl:
LOL What's hilarious is the ten-year-old psychology he applies to this. "You know you want to answer to my posts. You don't say anything because you have nothing to say! Come on! Prove to me you can say something to rebute my oh-so-insightful post! PLEASE! I need you to be offended for us to go on arguing!!!ONE!" :D
Quote from: Benoist;389609This is an excellent post.
I do believe that dissociation is not an on/off switch, by which I mean (not which witch is which, no, but instead) that it is a matter of degrees of dissociation, not whether a mechanic is dissociated or not. The question then becomes what the degree of dissociation of a particular mechanic is, and not whether it helps conduct immersion or not, but how many players find it conducive of immersion or not, to which extent, and the degree of suspension of disbelief it requires to do so.
It seems to me that the more associated the mechanic, the less people will have problems finding interpretations for them in the game world and immerse themselves in said world. Conversely, the more dissociated the mechanic, the more people will have problem coming up with interpretations of what it means in the game world, and thus immerse themselves in the game world. There will still be players able to jump the obstacle, but the obstacle will be taller nonetheless.
I'm going to ask a question here. When it comes to immersion and association, association to what?
When it comes to the game world, what is the game world and what are its rules? Must how and why be strictly defined, or is simply what results more important?
To me, there isn't just one way to define these things. Some people talk about game world physics, I would ask why must the game be grounded in physics? What if a round isn't six seconds, but an indeterminate amount of time defined as the time it takes everyone to act. There is a lot more freedom in the second definition.
I'll give my take on two 4E aspects I've heard people complain about, Martial powers usable once per day and Action Points:
Martial Daily Powers--These are really spectacular techniques that are very difficult to pull off, and take an extraordinary application of will and opportunity to execute. A real life example would be the Haymaker in boxing, something that takes talent and an opening to execute, and something you can't just do at will. The game translates this into something usable once per day, and puts it in the players hands(in the form of narrative control) when this combination of will and opportunity will occur.
Action Points--To me Action Points are simple. They are the ability to go the extra mile when you really need to, to do a little extra in a dramatic moment, and like daily powers giving the player control over when the dramatic moment occurs.
Quote from: StormBringer;389606Jesus, you don't need to use the command line all the time, and even if you were, it is just as immersive as the GUI. I am constantly typing stuff in the shell, and I feel every bit as immersed in the experience as the GUI.
You see, I'm talking about a different, more personal kind of immersion.
If you like
textual immersion, that's fine, but it's not the same thing. It's a totally different experience -- you may as well not have the GUI.
Maybe the use of a command line doesn't matter to you, but it certainly interrupts my experience.
Quote from: beejazz;389503I think it's more productive all around if I just apologize for lumping you in with the other two (you're not paranoid, just obstinate) and we leave it at that.
No need to apologize, but the point is, specifics aside, that both sides are convinced the other is slinging bullshit. You think I'm "insanely frustrating"? Try having to discuss something simple and obvious with members of your side, yourself included. It's like beating your head against a brick wall.
Seanchai
Quote from: CRKrueger;389645Your attempts to stick needles in Benoist and Lord Vreeg over their ignoring you in order to make them reengage is way too transparent.
They ignored it? I could have sworn I read their responses to him. (Ignoring, FYI, involves not provide a response of any kind...)
Seanchai
Quote from: Peregrin;389660You see, I'm talking about a different, more personal kind of immersion.
If you like textual immersion, that's fine, but it's not the same thing. It's a totally different experience -- you may as well not have the GUI.
Maybe the use of a command line doesn't matter to you, but it certainly interrupts my experience.
Well, then you like have some kind of mental illness, because textual immersion is just the same as graphical immersion.
Reminds me of something EGG talked about:
Quote from: EGGThere is no intimacy; it’s not live. [he said of online games] It’s being translated through a computer, and your imagination is not there the same way it is when you’re actually together with a group of people. It reminds me of one time where I saw some children talking about whether they liked radio or television, and I asked one little boy why he preferred radio, and he said, "Because the pictures are so much better."
Quote from: StormBringer;389578Honestly, how much time do you spend tweaking Windows, downloading updates, waiting for security patches, installing new software, praying the latest patch doesn't blow up your system, etc.?
I'll admit, mythTV should probably have at least the utility to install MySQL for you. But it's a security issue; you don't want software running around that has essentially root access to stuff, even if it is only itself.
Goddamnit. Ignoring the fucker who broke the page formatting doesn't work when you go and quote him!
Quote from: J Arcane;389676Goddamnit. Ignoring the fucker who broke the page formatting doesn't work when you go and quote him!
Ha! Sorry about that. I honestly didn't even notice until I went back and edited my post, only to see a scroll bar across the bottom of the input window.
Quote from: StormBringer;389669Well, then you like have some kind of mental illness, because textual immersion is just the same as graphical immersion.
Your argument is baseless and without merit, because I don't agree with your you assumed but sadly incorrect definition of Graphical Immersion.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389689Your argument is baseless and without merit, because I don't agree with your you assumed but sadly incorrect definition of Graphical Immersion.
Clearly, you are unaware of the common sense usage of the term, which is the only one I will acknowledge.
I read Justin Alexander's essay a couple of years ago and I found it insightful in some ways.
I think that the terms "associative" and "disassociative" mechanics are actually pretty useful descriptors as far as gaming theory goes.
However, I disagree with the assertion that "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."
My problem with this sentiment is that we have yet to see a comprehensive and objective definition of what "roleplaying" actually means. There are a few broad but unanimously agreed upon components, such as "it involves playing a character," however most attempts to define the term further read like value judgments implicitly meant to condemn playstyles that the author might not like.
Case in point, you have two Fighters in an AD&D game, one is named "Sir Davenforth Raime IV, Earl of Stormgarde," and the other is named "Bob the Fighter."
Sir Davenforth might say things like: "Thank thee, good innkeeper for thy fortuitous hospitality during last night's rain"
Whereas Bob the Fighter might have said: "Good innkeeper man give Bob the Fighter foodbeer make Bob the Fighter tummy feel warm, hugsauce."
One might be considered a more shallow effort over the other, but if neither uses metagame logic or breaks character then by many folks' definition they are both roleplaying.
Then again, many would argue that "Bob the Fighter" is not roleplaying...because of certain value judgments placed on the actual term.
Another example would be the tried and true "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Fucktard" characters who make the game miserable for the other players. They might be out to grief the DM and other players, but they ARE playing their characters alignments as they see them. Some consider this to be an example of roleplaying, while others do not.
Some people have serious issues with class/level based games as they apply to roleplay, as these are largely metagame concepts...yet people will argue tooth and nail that their OD&D games are very immersive.
Some people look at Jeepform games and consider them RPG's while others do not.
To some people, roleplaying involves making a character and touring them around an imaginary world having adventures and killing monsters, even if the character in question has largely the same personality as the player.
My point here, is that without an objective and definitive consensus about what it actually means to "roleplay," then concepts like the association of mechanics are really just jargon.
I'd have to agree. The problem with associative/dissociative mechanics as definitions aren't as much the definitions themselves but the value judgements attached to them and the conclusions drawn from them.
There is a needless raising of hackles in response to people talking about things as being "not role playing." It's not a value judgement statement, it's just a fact. We call D&D a "role playing game" because it has role playing in it. It doesn't mean that every single thing in the game is role playing, it just means that something in the game is role playing. Similarly, a game like Risk or Runebound is a board game, because it uses a board. That doesn't mean that everything in the game is a board. You still roll dice and read cards. That doesn't make the game less of a board game, but it does make the dice and cards something other than a board.
A role playing game is called that because it includes role playing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing). There will necessarily be things you are going to do in the progress of he game that are not role playing. That's not a value judgement, that's just an indisputable fact.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;389703There is a needless raising of hackles in response to people talking about things as being "not role playing." It's not a value judgement statement, it's just a fact. We call D&D a "role playing game" because it has role playing in it. It doesn't mean that every single thing in the game is role playing, it just means that something in the game is role playing. Similarly, a game like Risk or Runebound is a board game, because it uses a board. That doesn't mean that everything in the game is a board. You still roll dice and read cards. That doesn't make the game less of a board game, but it does make the dice and cards something other than a board.
A role playing game is called that because it includes role playing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing). There will necessarily be things you are going to do in the progress of he game that are not role playing. That's not a value judgement, that's just an indisputable fact.
-Frank
What about when people label an entire game(for example, 4E) as "not roleplaying"?
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389705What about when people label an entire game(for example, 4E) as "not roleplaying"?
Then you might want to take a few minutes to get the sand out of your vagina in private, and not engage with someone like that.
Or, you could continue to over-identify with a product you had no part in producing and get screwed into the roof over those kinds of discussions.
Either way, it doesn't matter, because you are not here to have any kind of fruitful discussion.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;389481Here's an (unproven, I admit) theory of my own: I bet there will be a high correlation between the people who believe in the "Dissasociated mechanics" swinery and people who prioritize "low magic" and "gritty" campaigns. Because what they are really talking about all along is just a preference for a "supposed to be like this" realism.
Speaking only for myself, one of my complaints about 4th Edition is that they lopped off the high end of the power curve. So your theory isn't holding much water here.
It should also be noted that this complaint, much like the desire for "low magic" and "grittiness", is completely unrelated to the presence or absence of dissociated mechanics.
Arkham Horror, as a boardgame, features almost exclusively dissociated mechanics -- it's also pretty damn gritty. And there plenty of high-powered superhero RPGs with associated mechanics.
Quote from: Grymbok;389484Are we still arguing about the idea that "if you're thinking about the mechanics you're not thinking in character" or is it all just about the fact that Justin decided to attach a buzzword to that idea?
And here we see the effectiveness of Pseudoephedrine's trolling:
(1) That's not what I said. In fact, when it comes to associated mechanics I said almost exactly the opposite: Such mechanics almost always
require roleplaying.
(2) That's not what we've defined "dissociated mechanic" to mean, no matter how many times Pseudoephedrine insists that it is in his effort to create a convenient strawman.
And I think, on that note, I'm done here: The last several pages have made it clear that trolls like Pseudoephedrine, AM, and TCO have succeeded in destroying whatever value the thread had developed by throwing around enough BS and strawmen that, despite repeated and strenuous corrections of their most outrageous lies, nothing but confusion remains possible.
Quote from: Shazbot79;389697I read Justin Alexander's essay a couple of years ago and I found it insightful in some ways.
I think that the terms "associative" and "disassociative" mechanics are actually pretty useful descriptors as far as gaming theory goes.
However, I disagree with the assertion that "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."
My problem with this sentiment is that we have yet to see a comprehensive and objective definition of what "roleplaying" actually means. There are a few broad but unanimously agreed upon components, such as "it involves playing a character," however most attempts to define the term further read like value judgments implicitly meant to condemn playstyles that the author might not like.
Case in point, you have two Fighters in an AD&D game, one is named "Sir Davenforth Raime IV, Earl of Stormgarde," and the other is named "Bob the Fighter."
Sir Davenforth might say things like: "Thank thee, good innkeeper for thy fortuitous hospitality during last night's rain"
Whereas Bob the Fighter might have said: "Good innkeeper man give Bob the Fighter foodbeer make Bob the Fighter tummy feel warm, hugsauce."
One might be considered a more shallow effort over the other, but if neither uses metagame logic or breaks character then by many folks' definition they are both roleplaying.
Then again, many would argue that "Bob the Fighter" is not roleplaying...because of certain value judgments placed on the actual term.
Sure they're both roleplaying, just that Bob the Fighter's player is roleplaying badly.
Where 4e breaks ultimately IMHO isn't just in being "dissociated" - you can roleplay around this to an extent - its when it uses these mechanics to run functions that a character, in game, would be painfully aware of. A character has to know "milestones" exist, in character, since they're aware they can reuse magic items periodically. So your next fight is the BBEG and Daily Magic Item X isn't working? Go find another monster first and it'll recharge.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389418Still carrying a grudge, Melan?
Oh, it's not so much about a grudge on Melan's side as about you setting an instructive precedence of the behaviour you display in this thread.
Once upon a time I respected you highly, appreciated your comments (some of them informed by official playtesting) about FFG RPGs, but I also recall the occasion on which I lost all respect for you. You lost your credentials by deliberately misrepresenting Melan's position and, when being alerted to it, remained in completle denial. In short, you lack intellectual and personal decency. I hadn't realized initially you do, but you're doing your best to escalate that trend in your posting behaviour.
I had steered out of the current discussion of your showdown with Justin Alexander in which you failed to engage in compelling argumentation, because I saw nothing to add. For the record, I think Justin's analysis is a bit dated, but I also think that the way you "challenged" his terminology was rather poor. You should spend less time claiming what you have achieved to establish by argumentation, and cut down on your self-validating claims to semantic expertise, and simply get to the job. It's high time, you've been wasting our time spectacularly.
I'm also a bit disappointed in Abyssal Maw for jumping on your bandwagon just for the sake of it.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389722Sure they're both roleplaying, just that Bob the Fighter's player is roleplaying badly.
Where 4e breaks ultimately IMHO isn't just in being "dissociated" - you can roleplay around this to an extent - its when it uses these mechanics to run functions that a character, in game, would be painfully aware of. A character has to know "milestones" exist, in character, since they're aware they can reuse magic items periodically. So your next fight is the BBEG and Daily Magic Item X isn't working? Go find another monster first and it'll recharge.
That's a good point. I'm willing to accept pretty much any "behind the curtain" resource management system for special combat maneuvers and gymnastic super moves. In character, the experience can always be rationalized by the character waiting for an opening in the dynamic tide of battle. But as soon as you start getting into whether or not a character can press the go button on a magic ring - then you're getting into clearly demonstrable world effects that in my opinion demand in-world answers.
Why does face stabbing an orc (combat encounter) recharge my invisibility ring? Why does stabbing a chicken
not recharge my ring? Why does having an important argument (skill challenge encounter) recharge my invisibility ring? Why does having a similar argument with a team member not do so?
Unlike arbitrary restrictions on when my character can do a leap attack or a radiant sword burst (which I admit freely are easy to handwave), a number of the 4e resource management restrictions appear to have no in-world explanations.
-Frank
Quote from: Shazbot79;389697I read Justin Alexander's essay a couple of years ago and I found it insightful in some ways.
I think that the terms "associative" and "disassociative" mechanics are actually pretty useful descriptors as far as gaming theory goes.
However, I disagree with the assertion that "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."
My problem with this sentiment is that we have yet to see a comprehensive and objective definition of what "roleplaying" actually means. There are a few broad but unanimously agreed upon components, such as "it involves playing a character," however most attempts to define the term further read like value judgments implicitly meant to condemn playstyles that the author might not like.
Case in point, you have two Fighters in an AD&D game, one is named "Sir Davenforth Raime IV, Earl of Stormgarde," and the other is named "Bob the Fighter."
Sir Davenforth might say things like: "Thank thee, good innkeeper for thy fortuitous hospitality during last night's rain"
Whereas Bob the Fighter might have said: "Good innkeeper man give Bob the Fighter foodbeer make Bob the Fighter tummy feel warm, hugsauce."
One might be considered a more shallow effort over the other, but if neither uses metagame logic or breaks character then by many folks' definition they are both roleplaying.
Then again, many would argue that "Bob the Fighter" is not roleplaying...because of certain value judgments placed on the actual term.
Another example would be the tried and true "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Fucktard" characters who make the game miserable for the other players. They might be out to grief the DM and other players, but they ARE playing their characters alignments as they see them. Some consider this to be an example of roleplaying, while others do not.
Some people have serious issues with class/level based games as they apply to roleplay, as these are largely metagame concepts...yet people will argue tooth and nail that their OD&D games are very immersive.
Some people look at Jeepform games and consider them RPG's while others do not.
To some people, roleplaying involves making a character and touring them around an imaginary world having adventures and killing monsters, even if the character in question has largely the same personality as the player.
My point here, is that without an objective and definitive consensus about what it actually means to "roleplay," then concepts like the association of mechanics are really just jargon.
Well, I agree and disagree with some of this.
I've mentioned before that I come to the term, 'Roleplay' from it's psychological background first, and understand how it came into use from that. A lot of people treat the term as if it originated in the gaming milieu, without understanding that the term, 'Roleplaying game' came from the idea of a Game involving the already described term, 'Roleplay'.
Complicating this, different theories and different treatments in psychology use the word to mean different things. However, they almost always place value in getting deeper into character, except in the case of unconsious, context-specific roleplay.
(one of my earlier arguments on this site came from someone insisting that since he was playing an RPG what he was doing was just as much roleplaying as anything else, purely based on the fact it was an RPG...totally backward.)
I also thought the terms 'associative' and 'dissociative' were nice ones as well, since they describe what seems to me to be a very black and white dichotomy.
Quote from: ShazHowever, I disagree with the assertion that "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."
I don't think anyone who liked the terms said this. Roleplaying, like immersion, is not a nominal measurement issue, but a matter of degree. The way I look at it is that a dissociative mechanic is more likely to reduce the immersion, and thus might be an impediment to roleplaying. Not definite, not 100%, but I look at it as a possible tendency. Similarly, I think it makes sense that an associative mechanic, since it keeps the player in an IC mindframe, might increase the immersion, possibly increasing the Roleplay. \
But the operative terms there is *might*.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389722Sure they're both roleplaying, just that Bob the Fighter's player is roleplaying badly.
A lot of people would say so, but if Bob the Fighter's player isn't breaking character then he's doing what is expected of him as a player in a roleplaying game. And it's not like the player is trying to win a Tony or anything.
But that's my point, ultimately. It's not very productive to place value on role-playing when no one knows definitively what actually IS. At least in that no one can come up with an objective definition of the concept.
What we can agree upon is the ultimate goal of roleplaying, which is immersion.
If Justin Alexander and others say they can't immerse themselves in some games because of disassociative mechanics, then I have no reason to believe otherwise.
If Abyssal Maw, TCO, and Pseudoephedra say they are able to immerse themselves fully in a game, despite heavy metagame logic then I have every reason to take them at face value as well.
If a game advertises itself as a role-playing game then I can only assume that is what the designers of the game intended, because otherwise they would market it as something else. Whether or not the designers succeeded in this goal is besides the point...for all intents in purposes it is a role-playing game.
Anything beyond that really just comes down to personal aesthetics.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;389725Why does face stabbing an orc (combat encounter) recharge my invisibility ring? Why does stabbing a chicken not recharge my ring? Why does having an important argument (skill challenge encounter) recharge my invisibility ring? Why does having a similar argument with a team member not do so?
Unlike arbitrary restrictions on when my character can do a leap attack or a radiant sword burst (which I admit freely are easy to handwave), a number of the 4e resource management restrictions appear to have no in-world explanations.
-Frank
Meh. I can think of a couple in-game explanations for these things if really pressed, but ultimately I think that milestones are just a downright bad mechanic.
What really grinds my gears?
Masterwork Armor made from Tarrasque Hide. Listed in the 4E PHB.
There's only supposed to be one Tarrasque in the whole universe! ONE! And since it's in the MM, we can only infer that it's still alive. How the hell are they getting the hide to make the armor?
Did they manage to find it's resting place, wherein they send workers to chisel off pieces of it's hide from which to make armor?
How does the chisel get past it's damage resistance?
Even if it does, the armor regenerates to an indefinite degree. Wouldn't the country in which this happens have the best equipped army in the entire fucking world? And for that matter, wouldn't they just line their castle walls with the stuff?
Furthermore, do they not see any possible negative reprecussions from cutting pieces off of a creature that devours entire countrysides whenever it wakes?
Quote from: LordVreeg;389747I don't think anyone who liked the terms said this. Roleplaying, like immersion, is not a nominal measurement issue, but a matter of degree. The way I look at it is that a dissociative mechanic is more likely to reduce the immersion, and thus might be an impediment to roleplaying. Not definite, not 100%, but I look at it as a possible tendency. Similarly, I think it makes sense that an associative mechanic, since it keeps the player in an IC mindframe, might increase the immersion, possibly increasing the Roleplay. \
But the operative terms there is *might*.
That is an utterly sensible position that I see absolutely no problem with.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389747I don't think anyone who liked the terms said this.
No, at least one person said exactly that.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;389780No, at least one person said exactly that.
Seanchai
I believe it was Justin Alexander who said exactly that. I'd confirm it but trudging through 30+ pages of crap on an iPhone at work isn't a real option.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389722Sure they're both roleplaying, just that Bob the Fighter's player is roleplaying badly.
Where 4e breaks ultimately IMHO isn't just in being "dissociated" - you can roleplay around this to an extent - its when it uses these mechanics to run functions that a character, in game, would be painfully aware of. A character has to know "milestones" exist, in character, since they're aware they can reuse magic items periodically. So your next fight is the BBEG and Daily Magic Item X isn't working? Go find another monster first and it'll recharge.
Just my two cents, but I don't consider "talking in character" as roleplaying.
Roleplaying is making decisions as if you are your character,talking in character can help with the immersion necessary, but is not part of it.
Roleplaying is not talking with a funny voice, roleplaying is, just to make a trite example, when you give the +5 sword you recovered from the dragon's lair to the temple, even if you could keep it for yourself, because that is what your character would have done. That you do it while talking in "ye old English" rather than in l33t-sp34k it is irrelevant.
Quote"If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying."
I think you guys would need to try at reading comprehension harder, IF you were willing to do so in the first place, of course. This is not what Justin is saying. What he is saying is that WHEN you are using a dissociated mechanic, you are de facto NOT role playing. You are metagaming.
How about you guys stop getting upset at shit people do not say, and concentrate instead on what people -do- say?
Quote from: Seanchai;389780No, at least one person said exactly that.
Seanchai
Well, it looks like you are right, to some degree.
I do the back work when I am arguing one way, the least I can do is be fair.
Quote from: JAThis isn't a matter of "handholding" or a lack thereof. Nor is it a matter of opinion. This is a fundamental, factual incompatibility: If you're using dissociated mechanics you are, by definition, not immersed in your character.
Going beyond that, I'm willing to make an even more provocative statement: When you are using dissociated mechanics you are not roleplaying. Which is not to say that you can't roleplay while playing a game featuring dissociated mechanics, but simply to say that in the moment when you are using those mechanics you are not roleplaying.
And this is a place we differ, Justin and I. I am not much of an absolutist. I think his reasoning is very sound and clear, but I still believe that immersion is never 100%
Therefore, it follows that since we never 100% immerse, that partial immersion is the condition we should look at, and this % is where we should be focussed.
It is not a light switch, but an array of sounds, some harmonious, some discordant.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389790Well, it looks like you are right, to some degree.
No, it is NOT right. It is a miscontruction of Justin's post. See my post just above yours.
Quote from: Benoist;389791No, it is NOT right. It is a miscontruction of Justin's post. See my post just above yours.
I posted Justin's comment from his post, My friend. If I have the wrong quote, I apologize, I thought the point of fact was when Justin said, "When you are using dissociated mechanics you are not roleplaying.", which is what I had pasted from Shaz' post that he was disagreeing with. and the one I thought had not been said.
All I'm saying is:
This rephrasing: "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying" interpreted as "if you EVER use dissociated mechanics then you're not role playing AT ALL, BEFORE DURING AND AFTER you used these mechanics" is wrong.
What Justin said what that "WHEN, AT THE PRECISE MOMENT, you are using a dissociated mechanic, THEN, AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT, you are metagaming, and therefore not role playing. AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT".
I think there's an attempt here to reinterpret the thesis to mean the former, which it clearly does not.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;389418Still carrying a grudge, Melan?
Not really; just pointing out a particular brand of intellectual dishonesty you have engaged in before. Otherwise, I am not getting much new out of this thread; what I find more interesting right now is how the same problem has surfaced in computer games in the last few years. Very different scenes, but there are some quite interesting similarities in design trends, game marketing and the rhetorics that support it.
[edit]In particular, check out discussions on "immersive sim" games like Bioshock and the upcoming Deus Ex 3 vs. preceding games such as System Shock 1-2 and the original Deus Ex, or Thief: Deadly Shadows vs. Thief 1-2.
Quote from: Benoist;389794All I'm saying is:
This rephrasing: "If you are using disassociative mechanics, then you are not roleplaying" interpreted as "if you EVER use dissociated mechanics then you're not role playing AT ALL, BEFORE DURING AND AFTER you used these mechanics" is wrong.
What Justin said what that "WHEN, AT THE PRECISE MOMENT, you are using a dissociated mechanic, THEN, AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT, you are metagaming, and therefore not role playing. AT THAT PRECISE MOMENT".
I think there's an attempt here to reinterpret the thesis to mean the former, which it clearly does not.
On this thread, above all other threads, we should use extra posts to make sure we are totally clear.
Especially when defining anything.
Anything.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389792I posted Justin's comment from his post, My friend. If I have the wrong quote, I apologize, I thought the point of fact was when Justin said, "When you are using dissociated mechanics you are not roleplaying.", which is what I had pasted from Shaz' post that he was disagreeing with. and the one I thought had not been said.
You forgot the rest of it:
QuoteWhich is not to say that you can't roleplay while playing a game featuring dissociated mechanics, but simply to say that in the moment when you are using those mechanics you are not roleplaying.
So, when you reach for the 6d6 to figure out your
fireball damage and total them up, that is not role playing; the actual calculation and reporting the amount of damage isn't role playing. On the other hand, deciding to use said
fireball against a frost giant - because it makes sense that fire would be more effective against ice -
is role playing. Even if you are playing an Enchanter (with a
scroll of fireball), deciding that would be more effective is an in-character decision. Conversely, foregoing the fireball for your pet spell
confusion is also an in-character decision. Both are role playing.
And, in fact, the quote was "When you are using
disassociated mechanics..." not 'disassociative mechanics'. In fact, then, no one has said what was claimed. While the difference is somewhat subtle, there is a difference. Shazbot misquoted this part, I will assume by error and not maliciously.
Quote from: Seanchai;389780No, at least one person said exactly that.
Seanchai
This is what you do.
Quote from: Melan;389796what I find more interesting right now is how the same problem has surfaced in computer games in the last few years. Very different scenes, but there are some quite interesting similarities in design trends, game marketing and the rhetorics that support it.
It is interesting, yes. Some of the exact same problems.
Quote from: StormBringer;389799You forgot the rest of it:
So, when you reach for the 6d6 to figure out your fireball damage and total them up, that is not role playing; the actual calculation and reporting the amount of damage isn't role playing. On the other hand, deciding to use said fireball against a frost giant - because it makes sense that fire would be more effective against ice - is role playing. Even if you are playing an Enchanter (with a scroll of fireball), deciding that would be more effective is an in-character decision. Conversely, foregoing the fireball for your pet spell confusion is also an in-character decision. Both are role playing.
And, in fact, the quote was "When you are using disassociated mechanics..." not 'disassociative mechanics'. In fact, then, no one has said what was claimed. While the difference is somewhat subtle, there is a difference. Shazbot misquoted this part, I will assume by error and not maliciously.
All good points, and worth looking at.
Especially the mechanical, post roleplay interpretation of the rolesplay (rolling for damage).
Quote from: Benoist;389789What he is saying is that WHEN you are using a dissociated mechanic, you are de facto NOT role playing. You are metagaming.
Yep. That's exactly how I took it.
Seanchai
Quote from: beejazz;389800This is what you do.
Yeah. When people make claims on an open forum, I pretty much try to hold them to them.
Seanchai
Quote from: LordVreeg;389802All good points, and worth looking at.
Especially the mechanical, post roleplay interpretation of the rolesplay (rolling for damage).
That is where we start getting into the timing of the dice, really. Do you roll and interpret the results, or do you stake out an action, and determine the success?
It gets fairly esoteric past that, and I am sure we would bore the hell out of everyone here by exploring it. I will start a topic over at the Citadel. :)
Quote from: StormBringer;389815That is where we start getting into the timing of the dice, really. Do you roll and interpret the results, or do you stake out an action, and determine the success?
It gets fairly esoteric past that, and I am sure we would bore the hell out of everyone here by exploring it. I will start a topic over at the Citadel. :)
It bears noting, in case anyone was insane enough to be looking over this thread, that a mechanic that is modelling an IC action, such as rolling damage, is still considered an Associated mechanic, the same as rolling to hit or rolling damage for a weapon.
(I'll be posting the New GuildSchool Spells at the Citadel, when Llum finishes uploading them. Should bring us to 583, and some are the setting congruency products of the disease rules posting I made)
Quote from: Seanchai;389814Yeah. When people make claims on an open forum, I pretty much try to hold them to them.
Seanchai
You make assertions without backing them up, and are deliberately non-specific so that others end up having to search for your point. "At least one person."
I like how you're all "I don't do what you say I do" and when I apologize, you immediately go to "sides" and guilt by association. My "side" is frustrating. Please.
Quote from: LordVreeg;389818It bears noting, in case anyone was insane enough to be looking over this thread, that a mechanic that is modelling an IC action, such as rolling damage, is still considered an Associated mechanic, the same as rolling to hit or rolling damage for a weapon.
I will have to think about that for a bit. I would say these are maybe a half-step back from the action, hence, unlikely to disrupt immersion. The handle time is typically low, and as you say, the mechanic directly correlates to the character's action. I would say they are 'mildly disassociative' at worst. This is kind of getting to the level of hair splitting, so it isn't critical to define precisely, but in order to head off future semantics, I wanted to refine that a bit. Otherwise, I would probably agree, rolling damage or to hit is associative enough.
Quote(I'll be posting the New GuildSchool Spells at the Citadel, when Llum finishes uploading them. Should bring us to 583, and some are the setting congruency products of the disease rules posting I made)
Excellent!
Quote from: beejazz;389819You make assertions without backing them up, and are deliberately non-specific so that others end up having to search for your point.
Shrug. I figured folks were paying attention. If they don't believe me or want to know who said it, they can ask. Or, as it's just a couple of pages back in the very thread, they can look for themselves.
I thought the point was clear: yes, someone did say that very thing.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;389828Shrug. I figured folks were paying attention. If they don't believe me or want to know who said it, they can ask. Or, as it's just a couple of pages back in the very thread, they can look for themselves.
I thought the point was clear: yes, someone did say that very thing.
Seanchai
You're doing that other thing you do.
Quote from: Seanchai;389828Shrug. I figured folks were paying attention. If they don't believe me or want to know who said it, they can ask. Or, as it's just a couple of pages back in the very thread, they can look for themselves.
I thought the point was clear: yes, someone did say that very thing.
Seanchai
Except no one said that very thing. Justin said something similar, but there are nuances and a connotation to where they didn't say exactly what you think they said,
and you are basing this on a mis-quote.
'Disingenuous' would be an overly kind interpretation.
Quote from: StormBringer;389822I will have to think about that for a bit. I would say these are maybe a half-step back from the action, hence, unlikely to disrupt immersion. The handle time is typically low, and as you say, the mechanic directly correlates to the character's action. I would say they are 'mildly disassociative' at worst. This is kind of getting to the level of hair splitting, so it isn't critical to define precisely, but in order to head off future semantics, I wanted to refine that a bit. Otherwise, I would probably agree, rolling damage or to hit is associative enough.
Well, this is the crux of it.
Dissociative mechanics may disrupt immersion, mechanical interruptions may disrupt immersion, but not all mechanical interruptions are dissociative.
Dissociatiative mechanics only refer to mechanics that do not model IC behaviors/thoughts/actions.
"When I talk about "dissociated mechanics", I'm talking about mechanics which have no association with the game world. These are mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations"
Here's my problem:
You guys are using vague technical jargon and complicated philosophical theses to say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"
Why not just say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"?
Is it not enough to say that? Does it need to be justified or proven? To whom does it need to be proven or justified to?
Quote from: LordVreeg;389834Well, this is the crux of it.
Dissociative mechanics may disrupt immersion, mechanical interruptions may disrupt immersion, but not all mechanical interruptions are dissociative.
Dissociatiative mechanics only refer to mechanics that do not model IC behaviors/thoughts/actions.
"When I talk about "dissociated mechanics", I'm talking about mechanics which have no association with the game world. These are mechanics for which the characters have no functional explanations"
Yeah, that is probably the best explanation of it.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389841Here's my problem:
You guys are using vague technical jargon and complicated philosophical theses to say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"
Why not just say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"?
Is it not enough to say that? Does it need to be justified or proven? To whom does it need to be proven or justified to?
Here's my problem: a lot of this thread is people talking about gaming in general and contrasting many different kinds of games. It is only the dumbfuck squad of the rabid 4e defenders who think that everything is about them and constantly shit on the thread. No one cares about you, and honestly 4e D&D really isn't that important in this conversation. And even if it
was being roundly and decisively mocked, it
still wouldn't be about you. You didn't write 4e D&D, and people saying bad things about it on the internet doesn't affect you in the slightest.
But the bottom line is that discussion about how in-character or out-of-character the rules for 4e D&D Milestones are is going on right next to and intertwined with the same discussion for Fate Points from Fate3. And the group chase rules from Mind's Eye Theatre. And that's an interesting discussion, and
it's not about you. And it's not about your fucking 4e D&D either. 4e D&D in general, and you in particular, are just not that interesting or important. So for fuck's sake, shut up. If you have anything relevant to discuss in terms of the game mechanics of absolutely any game system, by all means contribute. But it's really obvious that you don't. You're just a thread crapper who thinks everything is about 4e D&D and that for some inexplicable reason it actually matters what you think about it.
-Frank
Quote from: FrankTrollman;389847Here's my problem: a lot of this thread is people talking about gaming in general and contrasting many different kinds of games. It is only the dumbfuck squad of the rabid 4e defenders who think that everything is about them and constantly shit on the thread. No one cares about you, and honestly 4e D&D really isn't that important in this conversation. And even if it was being roundly and decisively mocked, it still wouldn't be about you. You didn't write 4e D&D, and people saying bad things about it on the internet doesn't affect you in the slightest.
But the bottom line is that discussion about how in-character or out-of-character the rules for 4e D&D Milestones are is going on right next to and intertwined with the same discussion for Fate Points from Fate3. And the group chase rules from Mind's Eye Theatre. And that's an interesting discussion, and it's not about you. And it's not about your fucking 4e D&D either. 4e D&D in general, and you in particular, are just not that interesting or important. So for fuck's sake, shut up. If you have anything relevant to discuss in terms of the game mechanics of absolutely any game system, by all means contribute. But it's really obvious that you don't. You're just a thread crapper who thinks everything is about 4e D&D and that for some inexplicable reason it actually matters what you think about it.
-Frank
Excuse me, but isn't the title of this thread [4E sucks] The Tyranny of Fun: status report.
I don't see how it's a stretch to assume what is being discussed in reference to 4E.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389857Excuse me, but isn't the title of this thread [4E sucks] The Tyranny of Fun: status report.
I don't see how it's a stretch to assume what is being discussed in reference to 4E.
There have been over a thousand posts on this fucking thread. The fundamental laws of the internet state that no thread
can stay on any singular original topic for more than 250 posts without moderator intervention. So whatever fucking atrocities were committed against 4e D&D on this thread were committed
one thousand posts ago. Which means that you are so late to this party complaining
now that the party has actually ended, someone started a new party, that party
also ended, and there is yet another party going on. So you bitching about whether or not other people got the decorations right for the original party is so puzzlingly out of context that people just think you're a crazy asshole. It helps that you are crazy, and an asshole.
But remember: even if the conversation
was about taking a giant dump on the chest of 4th edition D&D design goals,
which it is not, that still wouldn't excuse any of your behavior. Because defending 4th edition D&D from its unreasonable attackers isn't your fucking job. No one is
doing that here, but even if they were, you are not 4th edition D&D. An attack on Mike Merles is not an attack on you. You're a different person, and apparently a really pathetic one. Because you have nothing better to do than to harass people you think
might be saying bad things about a product you had no hand in creating.
-Frank
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389841Why not just say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"?
Is it not enough to say that? Does it need to be justified or proven? To whom does it need to be proven or justified to?
Yes. Clearly, it does.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;389864Yes. Clearly, it does.
Seanchai
So, remember folks, the end-all, be-all of any conversation is simply whether or not you like something. There is no need to explore any topic further than that.
Quote from: StormBringer;389815That is where we start getting into the timing of the dice, really. Do you roll and interpret the results, or do you stake out an action, and determine the success?
It gets fairly esoteric past that, and I am sure we would bore the hell out of everyone here by exploring it. I will start a topic over at the Citadel. :)
What about a "fixed damage" system where the fireball always does 15 points of damage, or damage scaled based on your level (for example) so no roll is required. Rolling for damage in some games/instances has always kinda struck me as odd anyway, but it seems to be the norm.
You know I really must say, I wasn't really sure about you, but after those last two posts, I really like you Frank Trollman.
That may be the most thorough takedown I've seen on the Internet in some time.
Bravo, and good points.
Quote from: Benoist;389789I think you guys would need to try at reading comprehension harder, IF you were willing to do so in the first place, of course. This is not what Justin is saying. What he is saying is that WHEN you are using a dissociated mechanic, you are de facto NOT role playing. You are metagaming.
Quote from: StormBringer;389799So, when you reach for the 6d6 to figure out your fireball damage and total them up, that is not role playing; the actual calculation and reporting the amount of damage isn't role playing. On the other hand, deciding to use said fireball against a frost giant - because it makes sense that fire would be more effective against ice - is role playing. Even if you are playing an Enchanter (with a scroll of fireball), deciding that would be more effective is an in-character decision. Conversely, foregoing the fireball for your pet spell confusion is also an in-character decision. Both are role playing.
Oh...well...I've no problem with this.
"Math is hard!"
Barbie, or Ralph Wiggum?
Quote from: J Arcane;389877"Math is hard!"
You haven't seen anything yet...
Quote from: Werekoala;389868What about a "fixed damage" system where the fireball always does 15 points of damage, or damage scaled based on your level (for example) so no roll is required. Rolling for damage in some games/instances has always kinda struck me as odd anyway, but it seems to be the norm.
That would fall under the first category, except that the result is 'pre-determined'. So, the action is taken, but the results aren't random. I don't think 'random' is particularly critical to the timing, really. Any method of determination is suitable. Nobilis is almost strictly non-random, and it has a determination of success after an action is proposed.
I think the Forge had a term for that revolving around 'fortune'. Fortune in the middle, fortune at the end... something like that. I don't like the term 'fortune'; as I mentioned, it doesn't necessarily have to be random.
Fortune, Karma, and Drama (by Forge definitions, random, resource, descriptive/story fiat by GM and/or players).
Nobilis would be an example of a game with a Karma based system. Vancian spellcasting is also Karma.
Edwards "borrowed" the terms from Jonathan Tweet (and misused them in the process, I believe -- at least that's what Tweet's site said).
Quote from: Peregrin;389886Fortune, Karma, and Drama (by Forge definitions, random, resource, descriptive/story fiat by GM and/or players).
Nobilis would be an example of a game with a Karma based system. Vancian spellcasting is also Karma.
Edwards "borrowed" the terms from Jonathan Tweet (and misused them in the process, I believe -- at least that's what Tweet's site said).
Yeah, I thought it was something like that. I don't think the actual method of determination is all that important, just when you do it.
Quote from: thecasualoblivion;389841You guys are using vague technical jargon and complicated philosophical theses to say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"
Why not just say "4E isn't the sort of game I like to play"?
At least in my case because it is broader than just 4e. I don't enjoy games with lots of "dissociated mechanics." D&D 4e may be the most talked about game with this issue, but there are many more of them. It's one of the main problems I have with "story-games", for example.
Quote from: Werekoala;389868What about a "fixed damage" system where the fireball always does 15 points of damage, or damage scaled based on your level (for example) so no roll is required. Rolling for damage in some games/instances has always kinda struck me as odd anyway, but it seems to be the norm.
I've used such a system before (in an attempt to speed up combat). Everything did average damage. It worked fine, but might not be "interesting enough" for some players in a game where combat played a more central role than it did in mine.
Quote from: RandallS;389902I've used such a system before (in an attempt to speed up combat). Everything did average damage. It worked fine, but might not be "interesting enough" for some players in a game where combat played a more central role than it did in mine.
Takes away from the thrill of rolling dice. A thrill which, by the way, might be a metagame element of the play which actually increases immersion since it makes the players anticipate results and emotionally ties them to the outcome of actions in the game (i.e. they get excited about what's going on, and as a result, they are more "into" the game). YMMV.
Quote from: Benoist;389905Takes away from the thrill of rolling dice. A thrill which, by the way, might be a metagame element of the play which actually increases immersion since it makes the players anticipate results and emotionally ties them to the outcome of actions in the game (i.e. they get excited about what's going on, and as a result, they are more "into" the game). YMMV.
Unexpected results add to the "life" of the game, IMO.
'Tis why I like Burning Wheel's combat scripting. For some it's too metagamey, and maybe a portion of it is -- but when you start resolving actions and seeing how everything unfolds in unexpected ways, it's really cool.
Chance also puts a barrier in the way of players who try to "mastermind" mechanical events since a bad roll is like a wrench in the gears.
Quote from: StormBringer;389883That would fall under the first category, except that the result is 'pre-determined'. So, the action is taken, but the results aren't random. I don't think 'random' is particularly critical to the timing, really. Any method of determination is suitable. Nobilis is almost strictly non-random, and it has a determination of success after an action is proposed.
I think the Forge had a term for that revolving around 'fortune'. Fortune in the middle, fortune at the end... something like that. I don't like the term 'fortune'; as I mentioned, it doesn't necessarily have to be random.
In Forge terminology, "Fortune" (i.e. die roll) in the Middle" and "Fortune at the beginning" (I think) is about whether you choose an action and roll to see if it works, or if you roll dice and that defines the action. Compare "I'm going to try to cut his head off, so I roll at -8" and "I get a critical hit, so I cut his head off" - e.g. its whether your choosing an exact action and adjust your roll with bonuses/ penalties, or whether
what you chose to do is determined by the die roll.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;389913In Forge terminology, "Fortune" (i.e. die roll) in the Middle" and "Fortune at the beginning" (I think) is about whether you choose an action and roll to see if it works, or if you roll dice and that defines the action. Compare "I'm going to try to cut his head off, so I roll at -8" and "I get a critical hit, so I cut his head off" - e.g. its whether your choosing an exact action and adjust your roll with bonuses/ penalties, or whether what you chose to do is determined by the die roll.
Yeah, that is pretty much what I was getting at. In strictly mechanical terms, whether that is random or not isn't as relevant to me as to how this affects the 'narrative flow', if you will, in this case. Claiming an action then determining success makes for a very different feel than rolling for success, then determining the action.
Which isn't to say I am trying to avoid a discussion of random vs non-random. But the topic I am thinking about at the moment is in regards to when the determinant mechanic is applied.
This thread is now the longest in the history of the RPGsite, followed by this one (not coincidentally an epic clusterfuck of its own) (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=13269).
Quote from: Pierce Inveraritya) Pathfinder is dead as a doornail;
Such a fun thread.
Also, where did everybody go?
Quote from: beejazz;389960Also, where did everybody go?
Pundit took them to "the basement"...
Quote from: StormBringer;389917Yeah, that is pretty much what I was getting at. In strictly mechanical terms, whether that is random or not isn't as relevant to me as to how this affects the 'narrative flow', if you will, in this case. Claiming an action then determining success makes for a very different feel than rolling for success, then determining the action.
Which isn't to say I am trying to avoid a discussion of random vs non-random. But the topic I am thinking about at the moment is in regards to when the determinant mechanic is applied.
Are you looking at comparing: (a) a degree of difficulty applied to the chance of success and a bianry outcome, fail or succeed vs. (b) a degree of success approach where your chance of succes is fairly fixed and your degree of success is how well you do. Examples (a) I aim for the head -8 to the roll, if I make the roll a hit extra damage if I fail it's a miss versus; (b) I succeed by 8, so the damage I do is extra, narrated by the GM as a hit to the head, but if you succeed by less than 8 you still hit, just not so well. Case (a) typically has seperate damage dice, case (b) may have variable damage dice or damage multipliers based on degree of success.
I don't think that damage rolls or soak rolls (essentially the same thing but with a different person rolling the dice) have a whole lot of bearing on the degree to which you are making choices in-character. I don't think to-hit rolls or even critical threat confirmation rolls do either.
Every attack with your crossbow is one where you are trying to kill your opponent. You are leading the shot and focusing on the target and adjusting for range and wind and everything - and you're trying to get a quarrel to go point first into a vital portion of your target. But that's the extent of the choice you are making. You're trying to get the pointy end into the other man, and then you pull the trigger. Whether it hits and how damaging it ends up being if it does will be a result of all kinds of factors - many of which are totally out of your control.
It's different for something like Diplomancy, where the success or failure of the speech is entirely dependent upon what your character says and how they say it. So I sympathize with people who want to roll their social tests before making their soliloquies or want to abolish social rolls altogether. Those positions make sense to me. But the act of shooting a crossbow is always that you are going to choose to hit the target in as vital a region as is available and then launch your projectile. Always. And then your actual character will then watch the bolt arc through the air to make contact or not and then see the target collapse or not. Rolling to-hit (or dodge) and then rolling damage (or soak) is extremely natural, because essentially that's the actual experience of the crossbowman in the world.
-Frank
I would say that one justification for social rolls is that it isn't always just dependent upon your character, and there are external factors to consider.
If speaking well and saying the "right" thing for the situation was it, then Obama's ratings wouldn't be dropping all the time. The man can speak well, and he says a lot of good things, but the external factors surrounding him add uncertainty to what the audience's response will be to a given speech.
Just like firing a bolt, social ability is based on skill, and you can be an extremely good marksman, but sometimes you're just not able to hit the bullseye. Your ability can also vary day to day with your own moods and emotions.
Good thing crossbowmen don't have an entire cable news network dedicated to their extermination. :D
Couldn't help it.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;389968Rolling to-hit (or dodge) and then rolling damage (or soak) is extremely natural, because essentially that's the actual experience of the crossbowman in the world.
-Frank
Essentially.
In this case, you determine the success, and the narrative flows from that. It would be rather odd to have a whole narrative before the shot, then determine if you hit or not. It would be even more odd to have that narrative assist in determining the bonus or penalty to that shot, as in
Feng Shui.
Of course, that is where context comes in. What works very well in Feng Shui would be a very odd fit for AD&D, although neither of those mechanics is particularly disassociated.
Quote from: Peregrin;389971I would say that one justification for social rolls is that it isn't always just dependent upon your character, and there are external factors to consider.
But you could easily make those external factors into penalties or bonuses, and you would not be breaking immersion; at least not to a large degree if the referee kept those behind the screen and modified the roll secretly.
Quote from: RandallS;389898D&D 4e may be the most talked about game with this issue, but there are many more of them. It's one of the main problems I have with "story-games", for example.
Are there non-"storygame" examples?
Seanchai
Quote from: StormBringer;389983But you could easily make those external factors into penalties or bonuses, and you would not be breaking immersion; at least not to a large degree if the referee kept those behind the screen and modified the roll secretly.
Exactly how it should be done; but Peregrin's point still stands, that as much as some people might not like social rolls or variants on them, the logic is the same. An attempt to use a skill on an external object, and the external's condition/situation adjusts it. Bow skill at dodging person looking for cover with armor, or diplomacy at thinking listener who might have counterskills or pre-existing bias.
I actually give my PC's minor bonuses for RP when they use social skills, which certainly gets them going, and we actually roll in the middle of the skill use...which can be funny when they amp up a success or try to reduce the issue of suckitude...
Very IC.
I think, on last nights online game, one newer character could not roll under a 72% all night. I think he bufu'd his social cc 5 times, his bluff dropdown once, his economics dropdown twice, and his haggling dropdown twice.
Man, he was in flop-sweat RP mode half the night. Despite having a lot of +20% and +15% bonuses.
But I blather.
Quote from: LordVreeg;390019Exactly how it should be done; but Peregrin's point still stands, that as much as some people might not like social rolls or variants on them, the logic is the same. An attempt to use a skill on an external object, and the external's condition/situation adjusts it. Bow skill at dodging person looking for cover with armor, or diplomacy at thinking listener who might have counterskills or pre-existing bias.
I actually give my PC's minor bonuses for RP when they use social skills, which certainly gets them going, and we actually roll in the middle of the skill use...which can be funny when they amp up a success or try to reduce the issue of suckitude...
Very IC.
The way I handle social skills is similar: Players tell me what their character is saying, and I set the DC based on that (and, as you said, external circumstances).
Quote from: beejazz;390028The way I handle social skills is similar: Players tell me what their character is saying, and I set the DC based on that (and, as you said, external circumstances).
That's actually the way I try and handle it as GM, for the most part. It doesn't always survive contact with the players though - in one game I DM, there's what's [more or less] a dwarf with 6 Charisma, and he's normally roleplayed by the player, quite well, as being really abrasive. I wouldn't normally apply extra penalties on his Diplomacy roll for being hostile or contemptuous in casual conversion with NPCs; his -2 for Charisma already assumes this. Not being a jerk is actually out of character for him.
Going the other way though, I play a character in another game with an 8 Cha who is reasonably diplomatic (has actual ranks in diplomacy) and personable but is also really badly scarred. So I'm free to be as eloquent as I like in character (and possibly get situational mods for this), but still get a Charisma penalty on rolls as NPCs are distracted, horrified, or what-have-you.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;390040That's actually the way I try and handle it as GM, for the most part. It doesn't always survive contact with the players though - in one game I DM, there's what's [more or less] a dwarf with 6 Charisma, and he's normally roleplayed by the player, quite well, as being really abrasive. I wouldn't normally apply extra penalties on his Diplomacy roll for being hostile or contemptuous in casual conversion with NPCs; his -2 for Charisma already assumes this. Not being a jerk is actually out of character for him.
I tend to set DCs based on what's being said more than how, assuming that the characters stats are a measure of how personable they are. So a believable lie is still believable when an ugly angry guy tells it (so the DC is determined by that), and the 6 cha takes care of the "ugly angry" part.
On the other hand, if the ugly angry went out of character and started to use flattery to tell his believable lie, I don't think I'd change anything for it. He's an ugly angry suddenly being flattering? It's just as off-putting, if not more so.
Quote from: LordVreeg;390019Exactly how it should be done; but Peregrin's point still stands...
I see what happened, I started my post with a 'but'. It looked like I was contradicting, but I was actually clarifying or extending his point. My bad, sorry about that.
We are in agreement, in other words. :)
Quote from: RandallS;389902I've used such a system before (in an attempt to speed up combat). Everything did average damage. It worked fine, but might not be "interesting enough" for some players in a game where combat played a more central role than it did in mine.
I don't think this exactly falls under the banner of a "rational" observation...
But there's just something satisfying about rolling a handful of damage dice.
Quote from: Shazbot79;390159But there's just something satisfying about rolling a handful of damage dice.
Some of my players then thought so as well, although they didn't really seem to miss it as much as they thought they would. I got far less flack over it that I thought I would. I was surprised.
Quote from: RandallS;390167Some of my players then thought so as well, although they didn't really seem to miss it as much as they thought they would. I got far less flack over it that I thought I would. I was surprised.
I can see the utility of it...it would definitely speed up combat. Though in my experience, gamers tend to develop the ability to add up dice pretty quickly.
Quote from: Shazbot79;390159But there's just something annoying about rolling a handful of damage dice.
Accepted as edited.
Quote from: Shazbot79;390178I can see the utility of it...it would definitely speed up combat. Though in my experience, gamers tend to develop the ability to add up dice pretty quickly.
It was more the time saved from not having to find/grab the right die and throw it (sometimes a couple of times if it landed badly next to a book of the like). The only roll needed was the to-hit roll.
Thanks to Benoist for alerting me to what happened to this thread (by starting another thread on the topic next door).
Quote from: Melan;220040[4e is not for everyone] The Tyranny of Fun: quit obsessing over my 2008 post already - 06-27-2008, 08:42 AM
(...)
Last edited by Melan; 06-26-2010 at 04:57 PM. Reason: Because it wasn't worth the hate I was getting for this
I'm saddened to hear that you saw fit to remove the OP for the reasons you state. The world is poorer for it. That's my honest opinion, and though I'm sad to see that you thought the appreciation of your analysis in the OP could never out balance the negative and (what's worse) personally offensive reactions it drew, I concur completely with your assessment of the situation.
I've thanked you for your intellectual efforts before, so let me renew them on such a sad occasion. There's a very, very, very few posters in the virtual webs out there who've enriched my understanding of D&D as much as you did, and I'm glad the Tyranny of Fun analysis was around while it was. Thank you.
I agree wholeheartedly with WJ. Good post, dude.
Thank you, WJ. But it was really time to move on from this. Here's a bit from something I posted on TheRPGHaven, though (okay, pretty much a recap of this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=8733), but hey):
QuoteWhat I see as good gaming now is about fun that is
- complex (encompassing diverse playstyles and agendas instead of reductionist thinking)
- customised (with a creative character of its own infused by the GM and the way the group interacts with this creative spark and moulds it)
- active (focused on contributing to others' fun and engaging with the game)
- social (manifested in friendship, hospitality and a commitment to shared creativity)
- mature (in the genuine sense; that of taking responsibility and being respectful of your peers)
- DIY (with significant input from you, the participant; on the macro-level, publications strongly based on amateur contributions)
Think I will add this to the OP because why not.
I still have an interest in the development of the Tyranny of Fun thing, where it ends up going and if peoples' dissatisfaction it will give rise to alternatives, but, similar to Benoist (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17643), I am so through with 4e discussion it is not even funny.
On the other hand, the first part of Khosura: City State of the Four Mysteries (http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=fanzine&action=display&thread=4067) has just been published in
Fight On! magazine; go check it out, it's good. .)
Quote from: Melan;391042Thank you, WJ. But it was really time to move on from this. Here's a bit from something I posted on TheRPGHaven, though (okay, pretty much a recap of this (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=8733), but hey)
Consider this stolen for the foundational philosophy of Vintage Gaming. :)
Warning! Personal, un-objective opinions follow!
I don't like 4e, and didn't care much for 3e either. I prefer games with more focus and structure, like AD&D and AD&D 2e. Not a fan of skill-based gaming. That is all.
For that you cast a Threadromancy spell?
Why not? There aren't any bans on thread necromancy around here, you know? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Benoist;408052Why not? There aren't any bans on thread necromancy around here, you know? :rolleyes:
Are there bans on it? Been a long time since I've been here, so if that's case... my apologies.
Quote from: Zalmoxis;408053Are there bans on it? Been a long time since I've been here, so if that's case... my apologies.
No. It's not the case. :)
Quote from: Benoist;408057No. It's not the case. :)
Whew! Last time I ran afoul of the rules, Pundit grabbed a handful of cigars and gave me "the Lewinsky."
And did he swallow?
Yeah, but of all the threads to cast thread necromancy on...did it have to be this one?
Quote from: LordVreeg;408064Yeah, but of all the threads to cast thread necromancy on...did it have to be this one?
Indeed.
Quote from: Zalmoxis;408047Warning! Personal, un-objective opinions follow!
I don't like 4e, and didn't care much for 3e either. I prefer games with more focus and structure, like AD&D and AD&D 2e. Not a fan of skill-based gaming. That is all.
4e and 3e aren't skill-based. They are games with skill systems.
Quote from: ColonelHardisson;4080674e and 3e aren't skill-based. They are games with skill systems.
No U! :D
Quote from: Zalmoxis;408047I don't like 4e, and didn't care much for 3e either. I prefer games with more focus and structure, like AD&D and AD&D 2e. Not a fan of skill-based gaming. That is all.
Quote from: ColonelHardisson;4080674e and 3e aren't skill-based. They are games with skill systems.
He said skill based
gaming, not skill based
system.
Having run into this confusion before (albeit coming from the direction of liking skill driven gaming instead of disliking it), I think I get what he's getting at.
I think it comes from an effort to have a mechanic for everything, a sort of "kitchen sink" approach to character design. That appeals to some folks (obviously) but not to me. But I'm a convert to Grognardism and am one step away from the old folks home...
Some threads never die. :D
Quote from: Benoist;409559Some threads never die. :D
This is the thread that never eeeeends...
It just goes on and on my friends...
Some people started posting it,
not knowing what it was.
And they will continue posting it forever,
Just because...
Quote from: Zalmoxis;408047Warning! Personal, un-objective opinions follow!
I don't like 4e, and didn't care much for 3e either. I prefer games with more focus and structure, like AD&D and AD&D 2e. Not a fan of skill-based gaming. That is all.
Despite 3.0 being my favourite version, I actually liked 2nd ed's NWP/kits system moreso than the 3e/4e skill sets. More flavourful. 3.x forces you to choose between either putting skill points into useful stuff (Spot, Search) or background stuff (Craft, Profession, Perform etc.), while 4e just dumped the wrong half of the skill set IMHO. Pointless if you're basically going to turn every action into a level check anyway.