Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308756These are actions that can be taken by people, not by books. Since this kind of way of talking about 4e (and RPGs in general) serves (at least in the case of Hairfoot and Stormbringer) as the basis for fairly wild claims, it's important to hack it out root and branch.

I'm right there with you. The game is incapable of expecting or pushing anything. The people who play it are, however.

Seanchai

You're really convinced of that, Pseudo and Seanchai, aren't you?

I'm perplexed. Suppose Starbucks switched to serving one kind of tea and one kind of coffee only.

P&S: No one at Starbucks can force me to drink tea or coffee!
Sigstorm: Sure, you don't need to frequent Starbucks at all.
P&S: No, I meant, even when I do, Starbucks isn't forcing me to choose.
Sigstorm: Sure they aren't. They don't look over your shoulder and say 'Drink tea!' or 'Drink coffee!'. But they've taken all the alternatives from you, and thus are forcing you to drink tea or coffee.

And that's it, really. If a game designer removes a spade of options from a game, he isn't thereby forcing you to pick one option rather than another. But he's constricting your choices considerably, to the point of removing alternatives that you otherwise might have considered desirable, and then forcing you to pick an option he (the designer) considered desirable. And pick an option you have to do; most games run in turns, and when it's your turn, you select from a menu of prefabricated options. It's either tea or coffee, really.

And for some, 4E does just that, on many accounts. Chief among them there's the complaint of deluding player by giving them spades of vacuous choices. Not only are some powers mathematically equivalent (give or take a line or two of insignificant flavour window dressing), also most of them are of the same base variety - do [W]+X damage, optionally inflict condition Y on foe (save ends).

It's harder to mount this claim for the non-combat side of things (see my earlier posts where I've tried to defend your position as much as I can), but I can't take this general "no designer is telling me how to play his game!" attitude seriously. Sorry.

Quote from: Sigmund;308782I agree, it would be clearer to state it that way. I disagree that the designer's expectations are unimportant because the designer's opinions and expectations influence all the choices they make concerning what rules to include or discard, how the rules will accomplish their goals, and the overall feel of the game. I do agree that those choices don't force anyone to play a certain way though, and players can and do "own" games. So from where I sit designer's choices aren't unimportant, but they're not immutable laws either. They can make or break a game when it comes to an individual's needs and tastes though. 4e is right on the fence for me because of that, for example, as you know

I'm willing to say that they're important (designer intentions) in a subsidiary or secondary way. I think even that is the result of players of the game caring what the designers intend and trying to live up to those expectations rather than due to any effort on the designer's part. I think is due to the social context of the game rather than anything more profound though - the Forge's cult of the designer, Gary & Dave's recent deaths, etc. have contributed to a climate of respect for how designers want their games to be played that really wasn't evident when I started roleplaying, nor throughout the first decade or so of my roleplaying (the 90's).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308800I'm willing to say that they're important (designer intentions) in a subsidiary or secondary way. I think even that is the result of players of the game caring what the designers intend and trying to live up to those expectations rather than due to any effort on the designer's part. I think is due to the social context of the game rather than anything more profound though - the Forge's cult of the designer, Gary & Dave's recent deaths, etc. have contributed to a climate of respect for how designers want their games to be played that really wasn't evident when I started roleplaying, nor throughout the first decade or so of my roleplaying (the 90's).

I would agree they are secondary to a point, but you seem to be missing what I'm saying. The designer's thoughts and expectations (sometimes among other things) influence how they design the game. For example, in 4e the designers made the decision to alter the previous version's inclusion of Vancian magic in favor of their at-will/encounter/daily powers system. For some people that was a horrible decision, for others it was a design choice that should have been made a decade or more ago. Other examples are 4e's design team's choices in what to include and what not to include in monster descriptions and stat-blocks. Another of the choices they made was to change the way rust monsters work. These all affect how the game is played, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly. Different people are going to react to these choices differently. For some, the game is unplayable due to the choices the designers made. This is why there's so many different games

I would agree though, that once the design choices are made, the influence of the designer ends for most of us, and we then take those tools they included and make our own games with them.

I get the feeling that Psudoephepdrine is of the "Rules don't matter" school of thought.

Most of the F*ing yahoos in that crowd are convinced of that to a near religious zealotry. Most of them also don't GM much, and when they do it's a favorite system or two with TONS of house rules. F* 'em, they don't realize that the RAW do F*ing matter, and are too blind to see that their pile-o-houserules proves it.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308772The rules are realised only through the specific actions of players. Your last statement shows that you simply don't understand the position. "No connection"?

The specific actions of players who adhere to the rules being used.  You are attempting to get another one of your obvious statements to be taken as a stroke of genius.  You are trying to make some meta-physical construct about games that is independent of the rules employed.

I really do get your position, despite your Forgite confidence that only the initiated could possibly understand.  It's not as complicated as you desperately wish it were.  It's banal, it's obvious, and it's tautological.  You can talk about how games are played all you want, but the structure of that game is in the rules.  You will never be able to get away from that.  Every time you prattle on about skill challenges - even in your group - you are referring to the rules that are employed.

You are talking about playing a game.  Games are bounded by their rules, whether you like it or not.  Variances in actual play derive from the rules that are employed.  You have staked out a position that is untenable:  namely that actions taken by players are independent of the underlying rules.  It's surprising only to you that no one buys into this theory.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308776I'm trying to get you to admit that you prevaricate, invent quotes, and create strawmen out of other's positions, and that you do all of these things in bad faith rather than say, because you are ignorant of the standards of reasonable discourse.

I don't see any reason why I should admit that your fantasy is somehow connected to reality.  I can certainly see why you would want those to be accurate, as your major argument is wholly devoid of content.  Even if it were to be shown that any of those apply to me, it wouldn't lend any credence to your argument.  Others on this thread have already noted that your statements are utterly without merit on a number of topics.

QuoteI think I've shown that several times on this thread, including when you (baselessly and without evidence) accused me of trying to get you banned, and now again, when you are making up quotes, mischaracterising my positions, refusing to answer questions put straight to you, and just generally arguing in bad faith.

Keep pushing that idea that I was making up quotes.  You are the only one who has failed to understand the literary device I was employing.  Each time you bring that up, you look more foolish; successive complaints indicate that you continually fail to comprehend the post.

Quote from: Werekoala;308731Including social interaction skills =/= making them the primary way of resolving social interactions.

I've played GURPS since 1989 or so. I always put points into social interactions - guess I just like the way "Diplomacy-14" looks on the old resume. I could tell you, probably to within 5, how many times I've actually ROLLED those skills as the primary, or even secondary, method of resolution since 1989. Same with 3e, although I usually DON'T put points into social skills there - because we always roleplay the social interactions. Well, talk through them at least. Anyway, althought those skills are on the list, I'm trying hard to remember when either 3e or GURPS stated that social interactions should be resolved with rolls.

In the context of the letter and spirit of 4e, I think the complaint still has validity.

I don't see the difference, particularly since the expectation of the GURPS rules is that you will roll your Diplomacy skill.

Just because 4e added a new framework for resolving multi-skill roll interactions doesn't mean that it pushes die rolling any more than another system that wants to use a single die roll.  That's just being silly.

Either D&D 3e and 4e and every other RPG with social skills all intend you to actually use the dice OR they all expect you to use role-playing, die rolling, or a combination of the two as your preference allows.  It's one or the other.


Most people prefer to make a die roll as part of it.  How can I be so sure?  Because 30 fucking years worth of RPGs have included social skills.  That's pretty damning evidence.

Am I the only one that remembers how D&D was mocked all throughout the 80s and 90s for lacking a good skill system?  Am I the only one that remembers that the entire genesis for most other RPGs was to have a system with skills and more flexible characters?  Or how 2e kept adding kits and proficiencies and player's options books to try and keep people interested?  Or how a great many people began considering D&D "outdated"?

There's a reason there was a huge group of people who came back to D&D for 3e - a lot of people got tired of the older system's shortcomings.  By and large, most people would rather not play OD&D style.  That's why they stopped selling it 30 years ago.


So, to get back to skill challenges, what WotC did was say, "hey, we know people like to make die rolls for stuff other than combat...  why don't we try and come up with a system for making it a little more structured and interesting?"  Granted, they came up with a system that was a murky mess, but it's pretty clear what they were going for.

Quote from: StormBringerWith your clarifications, it appears that you are saying the die roll is modified by the actions of the characters, ie; if the players hand the guard a fish sandwich, they might get a penalty to the bluff check, but more likely they will simply fail.  In other words, the players' actions before the skill check are a factor in the skill check.

More or less, though I don't necessarily place the roll before or after the action (I suppose after's a good way to describe it, as you don't roll until I know what you're trying.)

QuoteIt seems that you are referring to the characters' interaction with the rules, which is also a valid topic.  I was referring to the characters' interactions with each other or NPCs in referring to that as free-form.  Much like a random encounter table, I can see the benefit to some random determination of NPC reactions, I just prefer not to unless absolutely necessary.

That's cool. To each his own. As I've said, I've got a little bit of randomness heavily weighted by circumstances and a little bit of sure success / sure failure.

QuoteCommon sense + dice rolls = win.

That it does.

QuoteI didn't mean to imply they are eliminated, my apologies if it came out that way.  In my experience, the options tend to be reduced or limited, however.  I understand that may not be a problem for everyone, in either the implementation or execution.  So, some groups may have the standard response list for a skill check, "I look at the walls, the floor, the ceiling, etc." then roll for Check Traps.  If the session isn't a Tomb of Horrors style where finding the danger is the point, poring over every square inch of a wall would be a session drag.

Definitely. Passive perception are one of the more frequent houserules I've seen in games not all about the dungeon. If I were going straight dungeon crawling (and not the combat dungeon, but the one full of traps, puzzles, and hidden doors) I might really really prefer a uh... "vintage" take on things.

QuoteRegarding vintage games, they are generally written to as not to even attempt to cover every situation.  If that was the intent, I would have no choice but to agree; they are wholly unsuited for the task.  The design intent is to provide overarching guidelines and let the individual groups fill in the gaps.  I realize that doesn't work for everyone, and has been pointed out in regards to the latest edition, it absolutely sucks for convention or 'sanctioned' play.  Hence, the rules have been evolving towards a more standardized design, which necessitates filling in most of those gaps.

See.. the way you explain the old school games is more or less how I've seen skills utilised in play. It's not hard to pick a skill and bullshit a DC when in doubt, even though they don't cover every scenario, same as how it wasn't hard to just roll under your ability score (or whatever) in older editions.

QuoteNaturally, more rules = more rulebooks = more cash, too.  

Ah, but new supplements are all about the character options rather than covering new situations in exhaustive detail. Not a situation I'm happy with, really. Older editions had gaps waiting to be filled by supplements. So one could say that fewer rules = more rulebooks too. But people tend to find more to say about whatever makes them money. Just ask Frank Herbert, Isaac Asimov, George Lucas, etc.

QuoteBut that is still an arbitrary decision, right?  What sounds absurd to you may be perfectly reasonable to a couple of sleepy guards in the middle of the night who are rather irritated they pulled the shit detail.  In real terms, setting the DC to 35,000 is no different than simply deciding the guards are on high alert for whatever reason.

All this talk of guards and I forget to mention they get caught by the owner of the library and the book they were trying to steal. And that the book was stolen before they got there. Ah, good times.

QuoteFor myself, a skill check is a way to gauge how the character is better than the player at a particular skill.  The player might have some goofball story about taking donations for the church, but what the character says might be more along the lines of "The Church sent us over to inspect the library to insure there aren't any improper materials stored here.  Of course, if the proper fee for owning such materials were to be paid..." or something to that effect.  Perhaps the guards wander off to get these 'funds' or to check with the Captain of the Guard.  I don't see that attempt as an automatic failure, but I also don't want to tell you how to run your games.  

So you can get a license to blaspheme from the Church? That... sounds like an interesting idea.

QuoteIn general, I have found skill systems more useful to players that are not confident in amateur play acting, for example, or simply don't have the real-world skillset to emulate something within the game.  Rope Use, for example:  I can tie just about three different kinds of knots, but if I am playing a Rogue that has a high skill rank in Rope Use, I would expect to simply describe the kind of effect I am going for, or simply to set the DC of the escape attempt.  Of course, it would be beneficial for the game if I were to hit a couple of Boy Scout or sailing links and get a list together of common knots and what they are used for.  Not strictly required, however, as the skill check for tying the knot simulates my Rogue's knowledge of ropes and such.

Skill systems are good for representing character rather than player competencies, though ability scores have been doing that for a while too, I think. And I'm still not sure how nonweapon proficiencies work yet.

QuoteWe will just have to disagree on this for the moment, then.  I don't recall the DMG providing specific advice on what constitutes a penalty or bonus.  I do recall a paragraph stating that bonuses should be given out in increments of one or two due to balance issues, however.  But it doesn't really state this situation or that circumstance would be a +2 or a -1.

In 3.x it's in the chapter on skills in the PHB. I'm not sure about 4e, but again, it wouldn't be difficult to scale the DC based on the action in game.

QuoteWell, there you go, then.  Sounds like it works out well for your group.  Happy gaming!

Back at ya.

Quote from: Windjammer;308793You're really convinced of that, Pseudo and Seanchai, aren't you?

I'm perplexed. Suppose Starbucks switched to serving one kind of tea and one kind of coffee only.

...

And for some, 4E does just that, on many accounts. Chief among them there's the complaint of deluding player by giving them spades of vacuous choices. Not only are some powers mathematically equivalent (give or take a line or two of insignificant flavour window dressing), also most of them are of the same base variety - do [W]+X damage, optionally inflict condition Y on foe (save ends).

I don't agree that the analogy is accurate in this case. Why do "some" powers being "mathematically equivalent" (in the same class at the same level, do you mean?) mean that there are "spades of vacuous choices"?

I do agree that all the attack powers are meant to be used to attack enemies and are similar in that respect, and that attack powers form the bulk of the powers a character typically has, but the role and style of the class mean that they differ in how those attacks work. Which powers one wants to use to attack can also vary widely depending on the situation - the conditions, damage types, defenses targeted, synergies with one's feats and class abilities, enemy status, the conditions of the battlefield, etc. are criteria for selecting which of one's powers is most useful in the situation.

I really don't see how this makes the choices "vacuous". I'd even compare it favourably to 3.x, where with the exception of a few trick builds, the optimal strategy of every weapon wielding class (with the late exception of Scout) was to move adjacent to the enemy and then stand still launching as many full attack actions as one could.

Don't forget utility powers, either. These differ across classes and provide a great deal of variety and character. Fighters don't have a power to turn invisible, but wizards do. Shamans can summon spirit companions and talk to them, while rogues can jump higher than anyone else. Utilities end up forming almost half of a character's power complement.

Finally, there's also page 42, which provides specific rules for adjudicating attacks outside the basics and the powers.

Quote from: aramis;308811I get the feeling that Psudoephepdrine is of the "Rules don't matter" school of thought.

Most of the F*ing yahoos in that crowd are convinced of that to a near religious zealotry. Most of them also don't GM much, and when they do it's a favorite system or two with TONS of house rules. F* 'em, they don't realize that the RAW do F*ing matter, and are too blind to see that their pile-o-houserules proves it.

You are entirely incorrect. I in fact mentioned earlier in this thread, and elsewhere on this forum, that I tried a campaign of 4e without any houserules and a RPGA-style delve as well as my current style. I think that the interpretation of the rules and the judgement used in applying them by actual players are more important than "designer intent" and other bugaboos.

Quote from: Sigmund;308808I would agree they are secondary to a point, but you seem to be missing what I'm saying. The designer's thoughts and expectations (sometimes among other things) influence how they design the game. For example, in 4e the designers made the decision to alter the previous version's inclusion of Vancian magic in favor of their at-will/encounter/daily powers system. For some people that was a horrible decision, for others it was a design choice that should have been made a decade or more ago. Other examples are 4e's design team's choices in what to include and what not to include in monster descriptions and stat-blocks. Another of the choices they made was to change the way rust monsters work. These all affect how the game is played, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly. Different people are going to react to these choices differently. For some, the game is unplayable due to the choices the designers made. This is why there's so many different games

I would agree though, that once the design choices are made, the influence of the designer ends for most of us, and we then take those tools they included and make our own games with them.

I'm fine with the idea that designers design rulesets and that in the process they intend for us to play the game a certain way. I just don't think it's very important, because the actual games we play are the important part (they're why we're in this hobby after all, and they're what distinguishes it from say, light fiction writing). In an actual game, the designer has no way of forcing us to follow his intentions. He can't even encourage or discourage us in any way (except if we are in personal contact with him or something).

Because of that, it strikes me as ludicrous to spend all this time agonising over what the designers want or don't want, intend or don't intend, since it goes out the window when we actually start playing. It therefore strikes me as more useful and insightful to talk about the game as it is played when we discuss what the game is like. It's more difficult admittedly, because it involves discussing actual events instead of speculating wildly about how a certain rule must or must not be used by everyone who plays. But certainly more useful.

Quote from: StormBringer;308850The specific actions of players who adhere to the rules being used.  You are attempting to get another one of your obvious statements to be taken as a stroke of genius.  You are trying to make some meta-physical construct about games that is independent of the rules employed.

My statements are obvious because they happen to be true. You may wish to try it sometime.

Your addition "adhere to the rules being used" is vacuous. Players choose when to apply the rules and how. To talk about how the rules function outside of that context is to be talking about nothing at all.

QuoteI really do get your position, despite your Forgite confidence that only the initiated could possibly understand.  It's not as complicated as you desperately wish it were.  It's banal, it's obvious, and it's tautological.  You can talk about how games are played all you want, but the structure of that game is in the rules.  You will never be able to get away from that.  Every time you prattle on about skill challenges - even in your group - you are referring to the rules that are employed.

I certainly agree I'm talking about the rules. You don't seem to understand that rules require interpretation and application, and that these are the only way by which they come to exist in a roleplaying game.

QuoteYou are talking about playing a game.  Games are bounded by their rules, whether you like it or not.  Variances in actual play derive from the rules that are employed.  You have staked out a position that is untenable:  namely that actions taken by players are independent of the underlying rules.  It's surprising only to you that no one buys into this theory.

Who said that players are "independent" of the rules? I certainly didn't. I do think players are in a position of mastery or dominance over the rules. They decide which rules to use, how to interpret them, and how to apply them. Rules might refer to other rules, and they might tell you how to use another rule, but unless someone decides to apply them, they are ghostly and ineffectual.

I agree that this is obvious, btw. It is unclear then, why you complain so much about it and try to ignore it whenever you talk about roleplaying games.

QuoteI don't see any reason why I should admit that your fantasy is somehow connected to reality.  I can certainly see why you would want those to be accurate, as your major argument is wholly devoid of content.  Even if it were to be shown that any of those apply to me, it wouldn't lend any credence to your argument.  Others on this thread have already noted that your statements are utterly without merit on a number of topics.

Why are you still talking as if it is not obvious that you are a prevaricator and unscrupulous sophist?

QuoteKeep pushing that idea that I was making up quotes.  You are the only one who has failed to understand the literary device I was employing.  Each time you bring that up, you look more foolish; successive complaints indicate that you continually fail to comprehend the post.

Ah, now it's a "literary device". I'm still waiting for a description of which one it was then. You made up a quote to be able to pretend that it was an actual position taken by someone. You did so dishonestly, in order to be able to argue against a strawman rather than engage with anyone's actual position.

Pseudo: you're exhibiting sophistry about your view of rules. In post #611, you point out that you feel the designer's intent is unimportant.

Quote from: aramis;308906Pseudo: you're exhibiting sophistry about your view of rules. In post #611, you point out that you feel the designer's intent is unimportant.

I do indeed. Where have I contradicted that?

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;308902I'm fine with the idea that designers design rulesets and that in the process they intend for us to play the game a certain way. I just don't think it's very important, because the actual games we play are the important part (they're why we're in this hobby after all, and they're what distinguishes it from say, light fiction writing). In an actual game, the designer has no way of forcing us to follow his intentions. He can't even encourage or discourage us in any way (except if we are in personal contact with him or something).

I agree with this.

QuoteBecause of that, it strikes me as ludicrous to spend all this time agonising over what the designers want or don't want, intend or don't intend, since it goes out the window when we actually start playing. It therefore strikes me as more useful and insightful to talk about the game as it is played when we discuss what the game is like. It's more difficult admittedly, because it involves discussing actual events instead of speculating wildly about how a certain rule must or must not be used by everyone who plays. But certainly more useful.

Well, spending "all this time agonizing" would be a little much, but this is a discussion board, so discussing things like this is what some of us do here (not trying to be sarcastic, just pointing this out). Also, for someone in my position, where the game is borderline, discussing it is a way to determine whether the game is salvageable, or whether I might be better off just working on playing other games and leave this particular one alone... especially when the game in question is the most popular one. In this respect, talking about the rules themselves is the same as talking about the designer's intent, because the rules in a game are how the designer has expressed that intent. Hopefully, that intent and my intent when I use the game are closer than not, because that will affect how useful the game is for my purposes more often than not.