TheRPGSite

Here (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=465846) is a link to a thread at RPG.net that I was reading earlier.  The responses greatly dismayed me--the majority of gamers, it seems, encourage player metagaming and will often give out metagame information.

For instance:

QuoteI make it obvious by describing them as 'faceless mooks' or such like. Also by using 2D card miniatures for minions.

It's not fun for my players to blow dailies on mooks.

QuoteI make it reasonably clear, and I let them know if they ask. I know the class, role, etc. of all the PCs, it's unfair to keep them completely in the dark.

QuoteI make it pretty obvious. I use cardboard counters laid flat for minions, and I use 3d miniatures or counters in stands for non-minions. A glance at the game map tells the players the minions from the non-minions.

Like Pete, I quickly discovered that players were annoyed when they blew dailies on minions. Where's the fun in that?

QuoteWhen I put enemies into a combat situation, I give a brief description of each one, grouping types of monsters together. I might say "these small goblins are all armed with spears and wear tattered leather armor". A player can make an appropriate skill check to learn a monsters keywords and role. Minion is a role. If one of my players asks me what his character knows about the goblins with spears and rolls well enough, I tell him they are minions (or brutes, or soldiers, etc.) along with anything else they have the right to know (defenses, vulnerabilities, etc.)

If no one checks, or no one rolls well enough (for simplicity, I only let each monster be examined once) then they can find out the goblins are minions by hitting them with an attack.

QuoteIf asked, I routinely point out what role a monster has.

QuoteIn my games, I haven't gone out of my way to tell them, but they're usually easy to identify.

First, there's more than 5 of the same mini, usually a cheap plastic mini, commanded or augmented by a handful of well-painted expensive metal minis.

They usually see that and deploy anti-minion tactics ("Wizard coming on line!")

add: Oh, and Mike Mearls said in the D&D Podcast that he does make minions pretty easily identifiable as such, if not saying "they're minions", right away.

QuoteWhether a monster is a minion or not should never be in doubt. There's nothing that tricking someone into wasting a cool power on a monster with no hp adds to the game.

...Minions exist to fulfill an out-of-character dramatic convention, and players need to know it to be able to respond appropriately.

Again, there is literally one situation that arises in a game in which players don't know what is or isn't a minion that does not arise in a game in which players do, and that situation is a shitty childish "gotcha!" that is not worth anyone's time.

QuoteI generally announce who's a minion and who isn't. I'd have angry players on my hands if they dropped a daily (especially a single-target daily) on a minion.

(Emphasis added.)

And this was only up to page three.

Honestly, this, to me, feels exactly like the "tyranny of fun" that one wise poster wrote about so long ago.  (His name eludes me.)  It's not "fun" to waste a daily on minions, so you are encouraged (or, as the last quote points out, coerced) to give metagame knowledge to the players, and they are expected to act on this metagame knowledge.  In short, you're supposed to shoot immersion to hell for the sake of "fun."

For me, this is mildly nauseating, in that non-literal-hyperbole-for-the-sake-of-hyperbole kind of way.  If I were to run a 4e game, the players would never know which of the enemies were minions.  The only time I would distinguish a difference in power level between NPCs is when it would make sense from an in-game perspective.  The orc chieftain, for instance, might have hide armor decorated with human skulls because it is a status symbol.  Not because he's tougher than the other orcs (even though he might be), but because that's the orc equivalent of war medals.  Orcish minions, however, would look like normal orcs because "minions" don't exist outside of combat.

If a player blew a daily on a minion, I'd describe the effect as if he had used a daily on the orc chieftain or orc warrior (except that he'd kill the minion in one hit, of course), and if the player asked if that orc were a minion, I wouldn't tell him.

So, to get back to the original topic...

Tell me: is this an example of the tyranny of fun, or am I misunderstanding the concept?

Not sure if it's an example of the Tyranny of Fun. What it is, is an example of what a huge crowd of babies 90% of D&D players these days appear to be.

This is my favourite:

QuoteI generally announce who's a minion and who isn't. I'd have angry players on my hands if they dropped a daily (especially a single-target daily) on a minion.

I mean, I suppose this would be true if your players were seven fucking years old. For the rest of us the idea that this is a concern is (or should be) simply mind-boggling.

Quote from: B.T.;318124If I were to run a 4e game, the players would never know which of the enemies were minions.  The only time I would distinguish a difference in power level between NPCs is when it would make sense from an in-game perspective.  The orc chieftain, for instance, might have hide armor decorated with human skulls because it is a status symbol.  Not because he's tougher than the other orcs (even though he might be), but because that's the orc equivalent of war medals.  Orcish minions, however, would look like normal orcs because "minions" don't exist outside of combat.

If a player blew a daily on a minion, I'd describe the effect as if he had used a daily on the orc chieftain or orc warrior (except that he'd kill the minion in one hit, of course), and if the player asked if that orc were a minion, I wouldn't tell him.

I don't pay much attention to the "tyranny of fun" stuff, so I can't answer the question you posed, but what I've quoted is exactly how I feel about the identification of minions.

The series of D&D podcasts in which the Penny Arcade guys, the guy from PvP, and (later on) Wil Wheaton played 4e were generally very entertaining and showed the game to good effect except for the way the DMs scrupulously identified minions all the time. Now, I get that they would explain what minions were at first, to explain to both the players and listeners about this nifty new DM tool (which I like a lot). Makes perfect sense. But to continue to do it after the game is well underway grated on me. I mean, doesn't it defeat the purpose of minions to blatantly identify them? I wonder how much this element of the podcasts have colored potential (and eventual) 4e players? Something meant to shed light on a new element of the game may well have set an unintended precedent. Or was it unintended? I wish someone like mearls, who actually posted here for a while, would show up and give us the story straight from the horse's mouth. If any of the 4e designers have given a definitive answer about this, I didn't see it, and would appreciate a link or quote.

If I were GMing 4e, I wouldn't identify minions. If I were playing 4e with a GM who didn't identify minions, I'd (obviously) save my dailies until I ran into an opponent who was demonstrably strong enough to be worth it. If this meant that I lost a turn whilst "probing" for the really tough nut, so what? It's just part of the challenge.

Quote from: B.T.;318124Tell me: is this an example of the tyranny of fun, or am I misunderstanding the concept?

Don't know; it's not "my" catchphrase. However, I'm surely glad I skipped the current edition of D&D.

Because, apart from the rules themselves - which I find distasteful - it also (apparently) encourages a rather repugnant attitude to the RPG experience. That, or it was there all along and I was blissfully unaware.

My players threaten to beat me severely when I start giving them metagame knowledge.

They don't see the fun in me holding their hands through the game.

Not impressed, but then, I'm not surprised either.

It's pretty easy to figure out who's a minion.  If the players have any brains at all they'll know what's what by the end of the first round, so it doesn't really matter if the dm tells them up front or not.

An adventurer, in a game where power is rigidly tiered (like, you know, D&D), should be able to easily recognize opponents where are inferior, weaker, on the same level, stronger, and overpowering.

Also, bullshit monsters like the nilbog need to go fuck themselves.

My six year old daughter doesn't demand to know who is what and so on when we play OD&D.

Shit, to most of those people that's probably child abuse on my part.

Quote from: paris80;318130Don't know; it's not "my" catchphrase. However, I'm surely glad I skipped the current edition of D&D.

Because, apart from the rules themselves - which I find distasteful - it also (apparently) encourages a rather repugnant attitude to the RPG experience. That, or it was there all along and I was blissfully unaware.

I don't see how game rules can be distasteful, unless we're talking F.A.T.A.L or some-such. The 4e rules are fun in play and remind me of old school D&D (minions, by the way, remind me a lot of 0 level NPCs and goblins with 1d6-1 hit points as well as kobolds with 1d4 - all of which could be mowed down pretty quick). I also don't think it's anything about the game itself that encourages the attitude towards minions in discussion here. It's the way the designers presented those rules, most notably in the podcasts I mentioned above.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;318128The series of D&D podcasts in which the Penny Arcade guys, the guy from PvP, and (later on) Wil Wheaton played 4e were generally very entertaining and showed the game to good effect except for the way the DMs scrupulously identified minions all the time.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I have to wonder if a deal was or was not struck between WoTC and these guys to act as a "public face" of 4E.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;318145I don't see how game rules can be distasteful, unless we're talking F.A.T.A.L or some-such.

FATAL is totally fucking batshit insane. Fourth edition D&D is distasteful... to me. BIG difference.

QuoteThe 4e rules are fun in play and remind me of old school D&D (minions, by the way, remind me a lot of 0 level NPCs and goblins with 1d6-1 hit points as well as kobolds with 1d4 - all of which could be mowed down pretty quick).

0-level NPCs, goblins and kobolds are _low-level monsters_. Minions in fourth edition needn't be, if my understanding of those rules is correct (to a sufficient extent at least). So, you could have a demon minion, an ogre minion, a dragon minion(?) and whatever else, correct? Again, BIG difference.

QuoteI also don't think it's anything about the game itself that encourages the attitude towards minions in discussion here. It's the way the designers presented those rules, most notably in the podcasts I mentioned above.

You might well be right. As I said, for all I know, it might have been an issue (or non-issue for some) for any amount of time before 4e's release.

I generally identify minions.  Seriously, I think of them as movie ninjas and random mooks, only in D&D instead of in some other game.  They're a cinematic tool - not a simulation tool - and I prefer to treat them cinematically as a result.  It's just like if I were running M&M, any Cinematic Unisystem game, etc.  They don't simulate a damn thing, and I'm not going to pretend they have some objective existence as free-roaming minions out in the world.  If I treat them as anything other than a game construct designed for cinematic fights, I'd be acting ridiculous.

Besides, if I lay out a map and there's a few big guys and then a bunch of unnumbered identical minis, they figure it out anyway.  I don't even need to get to minis.  "There's a huge troll, a hobgoblin with a staff, two mean-looking goblins sneering at you with wickedly-sharp knives, and eight poorly-equipped kobold rabble wearing rags and wielding daggers."  The math is not hard to figure out, and frankly pretending otherwise bores me.

It's honestly damn close to my recent 1e Temple of Elemental Evil games.  If we have Lareth, three lieutenants wearing gold chains of office, several sergeants with badges and good equipment, and then a bunch of guys with spears and crossbows...  Well, the only reason they're not obvious minions is because there are no minions in 1e.  (Instead, they're "0-level Humans")

Also, there have been whiny players in every edition.  Usually these are younger gamers, many of whom are playing 4e right now because it's what's new.  I know it's in vogue to blame it on 4e itself, but seriously.  My players wouldn't whine, they wouldn't bitch.  They'd laugh about it and say, "Aw, shit.  Oh well."

-O

Quote from: paris80;3181510-level NPCs, goblins and kobolds are _low-level monsters_. Minions in fourth edition needn't be, if my understanding of those rules is correct (to a sufficient extent at least). So, you could have a demon minion, an ogre minion, a dragon minion(?) and whatever else, correct? Again, BIG difference.

No, that's 100% true.  I'd argue that a kobold, goblin, or human minion is functionally identical to a sub-1-HD creature in 1e.  Higher-level minions are new and different - they've never been in D&D before.  They exist to allow for more cinematic fights, and if you don't want that, you shouldn't use them.

Which is fine.  Frankly, you could run 4e up through immortality and never use a minion, and the game would still work just fine.

The way higher-level minions tend to work is something like this....

We have an Ogre.  He's a Level 8 brute, which means five of him is a good match for a Level 8 party.  We also have tougher ogres and weaker ogres, but he's the regular old ogre you might expect.

By the time you hit 16th level, you have the Ogre Bludgeoneer.  He's a minion, but fundamentally he's the same kind of guy as the other ogre.  Only, by the time adventurers are 16th level, those lower-level ogres make for a shitty fight because of the way 4e's math scales.  The ogre bludgeoneer is basically that other ogre, but tougher to hit, with a better attack bonus, and, critically, only 1 HP.  So by the time you get a few more levels under your belt, those ogres you faced before are no longer any big deal; they're pretty much wusses.  As a tradeoff for having no HPs, they get better attack bonuses and defenses.  It's hardly a fair trade, though - they're still basically wusses.

Now, I can see how folks might hate that.  I love it, but I can't fault people for disliking it.

-O

Quote from: obryn;318152They don't simulate a damn thing, and I'm not going to pretend they have some objective existence as free-roaming minions out in the world. If I treat them as anything other than a game construct designed for cinematic fights, I'd be acting ridiculous.

Can the one-true-wayism.

You like minions and the cinematic style that they enable; fine. Doing so does not require you to shit on the ideals of those who enjoy some sense of simulation in their games.

QuoteBesides, if I lay out a map and there's a few big guys and then a bunch of unnumbered identical minis, they figure it out anyway. I don't even need to get to minis. ... The math is not hard to figure out, and frankly pretending otherwise bores me.

The approach to such an encounter becomes vastly different. Minions are not respectable opponents; there is no danger there, unless you do not have the appropriate tools for dealing with them (and I have difficulty envisioning an experienced 4e group not having a means to do so).

The players - and the characters - should not be able to readily put themselves into such a metagame mindset. Judging opponents by their gear and general appearance is one thing; but demons and devils being minions?

All I know is that the "cinematic" approach bothers the hell out of me. Creatures like demons and devils should never be given a quick glance and responded to with "they're just minions." The players should not be told outright that something they're facing will die to a single hit; they should be approaching each encounter with caution, with the understanding that any creature they encounter may not put up that much of a fight or may end the entire party without breaking a sweat.

Quote from: GnomeWorksCan the one-true-wayism... Doing so does not require you to shit on the ideals of those who enjoy some sense of simulation in their games.

Yeah, there was none of that going on in this thread before obryn showed up!

Quote from: obryn;318154Now, I can see how folks might hate that.  I love it, but I can't fault people for disliking it.

That, sir, is entirely reasonable of you.

The rules for minions in fourth edition just don't "gel", for me. I could try and make them work as DM, along with the many other things that bother me, but to what end? [<- rhetorical] There are already RPGs out there that do what I want them to, or are so much closer to it.

Players expecting to see "minion t-shirts" would be the last straw, I'm fairly sure. :) I'm not usually prone to violence or coming apart at the seams, but...

Quote from: jeff37923;318147I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I have to wonder if a deal was or was not struck between WoTC and these guys to act as a "public face" of 4E.

I tend not to think that at all. They're all pretty smart, and, most importantly, have established themselves as anti-establishment, and the risk that they'd sell-out like that has to have occurred to them. Mike/Gabe of Penny Arcade went from an avowed disdainer of tabletop RPGs to now DMing a 4e campaign after those podcasts, and I'm just not seeing any insincerity in his various campaign updates - look for his August 4th update here (http://www.penny-arcade.com/). I get the feeling that WotC was actually confident enough in 4e to let them have a go at it - I mean, really, it's a good game, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Were they compensated for their time in doing the podcasts? I'd guess they were, but enough to make them completely sell out? I doubt it.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318157Can the one-true-wayism.

You like minions and the cinematic style that they enable; fine. Doing so does not require you to shit on the ideals of those who enjoy some sense of simulation in their games.

WTF?  Where did I say anything even remotely like that?  Can the knee-jerk reactions and reply to something I actually said.

Or did the way I describe how I treat minions in my own game offend you deeply?

QuoteThe approach to such an encounter becomes vastly different. Minions are not respectable opponents; there is no danger there, unless you do not have the appropriate tools for dealing with them (and I have difficulty envisioning an experienced 4e group not having a means to do so).

They are dramatically overvalued under the 4e rules so far, past level 2 or 3.  Frankly, they are not worth 1/4 a creature.  So no, they are not a threat by RAW.  In my own games, I either halve their XP value; or give them damage resistance + a bloodied state.  I love minions, but I don't think they were implemented perfectly.

QuoteThe players - and the characters - should not be able to readily put themselves into such a metagame mindset. Judging opponents by their gear and general appearance is one thing; but demons and devils being minions?

All I know is that the "cinematic" approach bothers the hell out of me. Creatures like demons and devils should never be given a quick glance and responded to with "they're just minions." The players should not be told outright that something they're facing will die to a single hit; they should be approaching each encounter with caution, with the understanding that any creature they encounter may not put up that much of a fight or may end the entire party without breaking a sweat.

Whatever floats your boat - seriously.  Like I've said over and over again, and like you seem to have missed, I can understand how people might not like minions.  They are cinematic, and if you don't like cinematic combat, you should not use them.  By the same token, if you want simulation in your game, you should probably not use them, because they make zero simulation sense.

-O

Quote from: paris80;318161That, sir, is entirely reasonable of you.

The rules for minions in fourth edition just don't "gel", for me. I could try and make them work as DM, along with the many other things that bother me, but to what end? [<- rhetorical] There are already RPGs out there that do what I want them to, or are so much closer to it.

Players expecting to see "minion t-shirts" would be the last straw, I'm fairly sure. :) I'm not usually prone to violence or coming apart at the seams, but...

Oh, absolutely!

FWIW, I have yet to find any RPG which scratches all my gaming itches.  I don't think one can exist.  I'm running a 1e game for that oldschool flavor, a d20 Call of Cthulhu game for immersive roleplaying and great horror, and a 4e game for some awesome dungeon crawling and monster bashing.  All of them fit into what I want out of gaming, but do different things both better and worse than each other.

I absolutely don't think anyone should waste time running a game they don't like.  Now, I do think everyone should give new and different games a shot before dismissing them out of hand, but simply put, 4e isn't a good fit for everyone.  I'm glad it works for my groups; we're having fun with it.  But this idea that anyone expects anyone else to have only the same kind of fun as they themselves are having ... well, it wearies me.

-O

Quote from: paris80;318151FATAL is totally fucking batshit insane. Fourth edition D&D is distasteful... to me. BIG difference.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by "distasteful," then. I mean, to me, 4e is still D&D, and builds upon various game elements I've seen since the late 70s/early 80s. Some stuff is new, sure, though a lot of it is derived from other RPGs (such as minions themselves) and making non-spell abilities into spell-like powers mechanically is a big change, but I can't quite see how all that could be distasteful. Different, sure. I guess if you mean "not to my taste," then I can get that. It's just that phrase and "distasteful" carry different connotations.

Quote from: paris80;3181510-level NPCs, goblins and kobolds are _low-level monsters_. Minions in fourth edition needn't be, if my understanding of those rules is correct (to a sufficient extent at least). So, you could have a demon minion, an ogre minion, a dragon minion(?) and whatever else, correct? Again, BIG difference.

Hmmm. While I see the difference you're pointing out, I have to admit that I don't see it as all that big, and I don't see it as veering far from the spirit of D&D from earlier eras. I distinctly recall high enough level PCs with proper equipment taking out fire giants in one or two swipes in 1e. Certainly ogres went down like that when we hit 8th level and up. At such high levels, critters like that are often "eggs with hammers" anyway, and making them into one-hit monsters (with high ACs, by the way, making them durable enough to cause real damage) doesn't seem too outlandish to me, even in the context of earlier versions of D&D. It just saves a bit of paperwork for the DM.

Quote from: paris80;318151You might well be right. As I said, for all I know, it might have been an issue (or non-issue for some) for any amount of time before 4e's release.

4e can play like whatever era of D&D wants. I know, because it felt like classic D&D to me when I ran it. So it's more how the designers have gone about showcasing elements of the game, rather than those elements themselves. Personally, I think they've done their game a disservice in doing so.

this is the same sort of visual cue a player in a MMORPG is used to.  

The monster should clearly be identified, with the name/type/rarity floating over it, color-coding to identify the threat level, and a health bar.  

these are the expectations you're dealing with now.

Quote from: obryn;318164WTF?  Where did I say anything even remotely like that?  Can the knee-jerk reactions and reply to something I actually said.

Eh. I considered modifying my post, as your other posts sounded like you were more reasonable than the post I quoted was indicating.

You may not be as big of a dick as my response would seem to take you for. If so, my apologies.

QuoteOr did the way I describe how I treat minions in my own game offend you deeply?

Yes, actually, it did irk me.

Also, you double-space between sentences. That's also irking me, but unrelated to why I went off on you.

QuoteThey are dramatically overvalued under the 4e rules so far, past level 2 or 3. Frankly, they are not worth 1/4 a creature.

I figured the powers that did automatic damage would lead to that kind of problem.

QuoteSo no, they are not a threat by RAW. In my own games, I either halve their XP value; or give them damage resistance + a bloodied state. I love minions, but I don't think they were implemented perfectly.

What do you mean, give them DR + "a bloodied state"?

Unless you're giving them sufficient DR to ignore the majority of the auto-damage powers... though there are a large number of them, and some of them are capable of crazy damage.

QuoteWhatever floats your boat - seriously.  Like I've said over and over again, and like you seem to have missed, I can understand how people might not like minions.  They are cinematic, and if you don't like cinematic combat, you should not use them.  By the same token, if you want simulation in your game, you should probably not use them, because they make zero simulation sense.

This is a sensible thing you have said...

Hmm... alright, a reread of your post that I quoted does indicate that there is a reading that is more favorable for you than how I initially read it. My apologies. I will admit that I am ridiculously defensive when it comes to simulation-style gaming, particularly because that viewpoint gets a lot of crap from folks.

This has nothing to do with MMORPGs and everything to do with denying players knowledge that thier characters would have or details that thier characters would immediately perceive. Seriously, if at 9th level, a character cannot tell if a kobold is just a kobold or a genuine bad-ass; either the kobold is a really great actor or the GM is deciding to throw his players a nilbog and that is CRAP.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;318178This has nothing to do with MMORPGs and everything to do with denying players knowledge that thier characters would have or details that thier characters would immediately perceive.

How is a metagame concept - like how many hit points a creature has - something that a character would perceive?

I'll give you that lower-level critters, like goblins or kobolds, may give away their minion status by virtue of their equipment. But ogres? Demons or devils?

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;318170I guess I don't understand what you mean by "distasteful," then.

Don't ignore the "to me" part, please.

For example, this:

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI mean, to me, 4e is still D&D, and builds upon various game elements I've seen since the late 70s/early 80s.

... is perfectly fine, yes? Well, of course it is - you wrote it! :) You see what I mean, though.

I began with "I find" [4e distasteful, or whatever] the first time, and the second time, followed a similar statement with "to me". This is because I am not sufficiently delusional to see my distaste as universal, and neither do I believe my overall perspective to be objective.

So, when I (or yourself) states that such and such is so, "to me", everything is right in the [my] world. Whereas, when you said that "[4e] is a good game (...)" (i.e., objectively so), followed by something to do with whining and gnashing of teeth (or thereabouts), there is a distinctly different tone at play. Wouldn't you say?

Quote from: obryn;318154No, that's 100% true.  I'd argue that a kobold, goblin, or human minion is functionally identical to a sub-1-HD creature in 1e.  Higher-level minions are new and different - they've never been in D&D before.  They exist to allow for more cinematic fights, and if you don't want that, you shouldn't use them.

Which is fine.  Frankly, you could run 4e up through immortality and never use a minion, and the game would still work just fine.

The way higher-level minions tend to work is something like this....

We have an Ogre.  He's a Level 8 brute, which means five of him is a good match for a Level 8 party.  We also have tougher ogres and weaker ogres, but he's the regular old ogre you might expect.

By the time you hit 16th level, you have the Ogre Bludgeoneer.  He's a minion, but fundamentally he's the same kind of guy as the other ogre.  Only, by the time adventurers are 16th level, those lower-level ogres make for a shitty fight because of the way 4e's math scales.  The ogre bludgeoneer is basically that other ogre, but tougher to hit, with a better attack bonus, and, critically, only 1 HP.  So by the time you get a few more levels under your belt, those ogres you faced before are no longer any big deal; they're pretty much wusses.  As a tradeoff for having no HPs, they get better attack bonuses and defenses.  It's hardly a fair trade, though - they're still basically wusses.

Now, I can see how folks might hate that.  I love it, but I can't fault people for disliking it.

-O

Exactly. As I was trying to explain above, though, minions like that aren't terribly different from their earlier edition ancestors. I mean, ogres in 1e were 4+1 hit dice (believe me, I had their stats memorized for a long time, being a DM of 1e for a long time), and they weren't too much of a threat (individually) to a couple of well-equipped 1st level characters. By the time the PCs were 3rd or 4th level, ogres were only effective only in numbers, and there really was no way to scale them up with the 1e rules as written - they went down with one hit to all but the wussiest PC. Well, you could equip them better, but that seems much like what you illustrated with your explanation of ogre minions. And thus, I don't see much of a difference in minions and their 1e counterparts - it's just that the game designers were being frank about the situation: they saw no reason to go through the pretense of giving them all different hit points, when any suitably equipped PCs are gonna take them out with one hit, anyway.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318175You may not be as big of a dick as my response would seem to take you for. If so, my apologies.

Brace yourself for disappointment. Obryn's schtick is stalking people across the internet to hurl abuse at them, completely unrelated to gaming.  Then he'll run to CM so a few fatbeards who never moved on from high school can pat him on the head for his cleverness.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: paris80;318182Don't ignore the "to me" part, please.

For example, this: ... is perfectly fine, yes? Well, of course it is - you wrote it! :) You see what I mean, though.

I began with "I find" [4e distasteful, or whatever] the first time, and the second time, followed a similar statement with "to me". This is because I am not sufficiently delusional to see my distaste as universal, and neither do I believe my overall perspective to be objective.

So, when I (or yourself) states that such and such is so, "to me", everything is right in the [my] world. Whereas, when you said that "[4e] is a good game (...)" (i.e., objectively so), followed by something to do with whining and gnashing of teeth (or thereabouts), there is a distinctly different tone at play. Wouldn't you say?

See, I think you don't quite see what I'm getting at. Please don't leave out this bit of what I was saying above, which I feel is most relevant: I guess if you mean "not to my taste," then I can get that. It's just that phrase and "distasteful" carry different connotations. All I need to know is if you use those terms interchangeably, and then I have my answer, and there is no argument.

Quote from: Hairfoot;318186Brace yourself for disappointment. Obryn's schtick is stalking people across the internet to hurl abuse at them, completely unrelated to gaming. Then he'll run to CM so a few fatbeards who never moved on from high school can pat him on the head for his cleverness.

My own past experiences with Obryn would tend to agree with this analysis; however, I have also witnessed Obryn being a reasonable person. At this point, I'm on the fence, and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And even if he is a total douche, and is secretly mocking us while engaging in vaguely civil conversation, running off to CM to engage in said mockery... so? So long as he's being a reasonable person here, then I really don't care what he does elsewhere.

Quote from: noisms;318125Not sure if it's an example of the Tyranny of Fun. What it is, is an example of what a huge crowd of babies 90% of D&D players these days appear to be.

This is my favourite:
Not sure if it's an example of the Tyranny of Fun. What it is, is an example of what a huge crowd of babies 90% of D&D players these days appear to be.

This is my favourite:

QuoteI generally announce who's a minion and who isn't. I'd have angry players on my hands if they dropped a daily (especially a single-target daily) on a minion.  

I mean, I suppose this would be true if your players were seven fucking years old. For the rest of us the idea that this is a concern is (or should be) simply mind-boggling.

Please do not insult seven year olds this way, ;) I've two at this age, and I can tell you my son can take a bit of uncertainty without whining about it being unfair, let alone getting angry.  Albeit we are just doing wargames (Axis & Allies) where it is all about misdirection.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318189I'm on the fence, and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Cool.  Just as long as you're not being lulled into thinking he's reasonable.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;318187See, I think you don't quite see what I'm getting at. Please don't leave out this bit of what I was saying above, which I feel is most relevant: I guess if you mean "not to my taste," then I can get that. It's just that phrase and "distasteful" carry different connotations. All I need to know is if you use those terms interchangeably, and then I have my answer, and there is no argument.

Wrong. You just (intentionally, it would have to be) ignored the entire post you just quoted. Why quote it, or indeed read it in the first place, if you intend to act as if it was never said? Very strange.

When someone simply says that "this thing is distasteful", that's one thing. If they instead say "I find this thing distasteful" or "this thing is distasteful to me", that is another. BIG difference.

Do you understand now?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318175Unless you're giving them sufficient DR to ignore the majority of the auto-damage powers... though there are a large number of them, and some of them are capable of crazy damage.

That's more or less the idea.  Auto-damage, by and large, is relatively low; it's usually unmodified, and usually minimal for the PCs' level.  While giving them DR doesn't completely negate the issue, auto-damage is IMO the biggest problem with minions.  It's a patch for something that doesn't quite work as-written.

QuoteHmm... alright, a reread of your post that I quoted does indicate that there is a reading that is more favorable for you than how I initially read it. My apologies. I will admit that I am ridiculously defensive when it comes to simulation-style gaming, particularly because that viewpoint gets a lot of crap from folks.

I have no problem with simulation-style gaming at all.  It doesn't float my boat, but it's not ridiculous.  I was saying it'd be ridiculous to use minions if you want to run a simulationist game - something which I assume you'd agree with.

Quote from: Hairfoot;318186Brace yourself for disappointment. Obryn's schtick is stalking people across the internet to hurl abuse at them, completely unrelated to gaming.  Then he'll run to CM so a few fatbeards who never moved on from high school can pat him on the head for his cleverness.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Yes, clearly replying to a post that interested me on a board I've visited regularly since its inception, and mentioning offhand that you are a dick, is stalking you.  Cry about it some more while googling for more of my 12-year-old Amazon reviews.

-O

Quote from: Xanther;318192Albeit we are just doing wargames (Axis & Allies) where it is all about misdirection.

Which I think is the most important point.  Misdirecting and confusing players is one of the joys of DMing and great fun for players.  Full-scale metagaming that gives players the internal mechanics of their foes in preference to a description is like using a cheat guide.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318180How is a metagame concept - like how many hit points a creature has - something that a character would perceive?

I'll give you that lower-level critters, like goblins or kobolds, may give away their minion status by virtue of their equipment. But ogres? Demons or devils?

Like:

"You can gut this foe pretty easily."

Ogres:

"Despite its powerful appearance, there is a fatal weakness in this ogre's defenses that you readily perceive."

Demons/Devils:

"The metaphysical cohesion of this seemingly mighty demon seems unstable. As if it could harmlessly pop with a single strike."

Quote from: paris80;318195Wrong. You just (intentionally, it would have to be) ignored the entire post you just quoted. Why quote it, or indeed read it in the first place, if you intend to act as if it was never said? Very strange.

When someone simply says that "this thing is distasteful", that's one thing. If they instead say "I find this thing distasteful" or "this thing is distasteful to me", that is another. BIG difference.

Do you understand now?

No, I didn't ignore anything. I don't understand your use of the word "distasteful" in this context. I'm not sure why you're becoming accusatory. Would you refer to a new car model you didn't like as being distasteful? A new gaming console? Even if you say "I find that car distasteful" (and I have never heard anyone use it like that) what does that mean? Distasteful has a different connotation than "not to my taste" - "I find their vulgar language distasteful," "Her wearing of a stripper dress in church was distasteful," "that joke he made about how that guy died was distasteful" - those carry the connotation of something that is socially or morally wrong (though in a relatively mild way). I'm am genuinely asking how you see 4e as distasteful using that connotation. I just can't see how game rules, besides something like F.A.T.A.L., the example of which should have been an indication of what I was getting at, can be distasteful, given the common connotation of that word.

Seriously, I'm not just being argumentative. If you mean the 4e rules are distasteful, in the sense they offended your morals, I'm genuinely curious as to why? I'm not trying to be a dick, I promise you! The usual connotation of distasteful is usually synonymous with offensive. Do you see what I mean? If you find 4e offensive, then why? There are plenty of games I don't like, but they don't offend me, and I would never refer to them as distasteful (except the one I mentioned). We're simply having a disconnect in communication here.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318189My own past experiences with Obryn would tend to agree with this analysis; however, I have also witnessed Obryn being a reasonable person. At this point, I'm on the fence, and willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And even if he is a total douche, and is secretly mocking us while engaging in vaguely civil conversation, running off to CM to engage in said mockery... so? So long as he's being a reasonable person here, then I really don't care what he does elsewhere.

Yeah, we've had slapfights before, but I'm honestly not trying to be a douche here. :)  I'm completely happy to have reasonable conversations about games.  I get torqued off when people spend all their time bitching about shit they don't like, or when they go about pissing on the fun other people are having.  One-true-wayism pisses me the fuck off.  None of that is happening here.

EDIT: Frankly, I don't even remember what the fuck we were arguing about before, so I'm happy to start fresh if you are.

Quote from: Hairfoot;318193Cool.  Just as long as you're not being lulled into thinking he's reasonable.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Look, if you want to discuss all the ways in which I've wronged you, can you PM me or start a new thread about how I should eat a bag of dicks or something?  Really, stalking me into a game-related thread and shitting it up is kind of poor.

-O

Quote from: GnomeWorksAlso, you double-space between sentences.

There is no smiley that can adequately express my rage at this statement.

Aside from that, I too despise minions.  Their purpose is entirely metagame (waste the players' actions; do piddly damage to the players each round), and they make no sense whatsoever.  I do not care one whit if they represent "mooks," as "mook" is also a metagame concept.  Minions do not represent anything that positively contributes to the game.  Oh, certainly they allow the players to feel big in the pants (or perhaps heroic) because they're wading through a horde of lesser enemies, but I can formulate three objections for this.

First of all, killing a creature with 1 HP is not an accomplishment.  Second of all, making the players feel as though their genitalia have increased in size is not why people should be playing role-playing games.  (If you're compensating for a lackluster life, playing an RPG is probably unhealthy for your psyche.)  Third of all, heroism isn't defined by how many mooks you kill; it's defined by what you do.  (You're not a hero because you killed a bunch of orcs.  You're a hero because you saved the town they were going to raid from utter destruction.)

Now, someone will undoubtedly say that minions are the best thing ever and that 3e didn't allow the players to feel big in the pants because all low-level enemies weren't a credible threat to the PCs.

Well, that's true.  And you know what?  After a certain point, the king's elite guards shouldn't be a credible threat to the PCs.  As the PCs progress in levels, they're going to outgrow certain challenges.  For instance, after about third level, large walls are no longer an issue (assuming you have someone with fly or UMD).  Is this a bad thing?  I don't think so.  Similarly, those 1 HD orcs no longer become a challenge for the PCs fairly soon.  Why?  Because the PCs have progressed beyond mundane things like orc warriors and the king's guards.

But, you say, you want to have a cinematic battle.  (Allow me to state that the word "cinematic" is rubbish and it has no real meaning outside of "I like how I can imagine this in my head.")  You need guards that are a credible threat to the PCs without overwhelming them.  Whatever will you do?

I have three answers for this.  (Be forewarned, the first is less sound than the other two, as it involves making things up.)  My first suggestion would be to give all the mooks--the 1 HD monsters--a bonus on their attack rolls equal to the leader's CR.  This will allow them to hurt the PCs, and it will allow the PCs to one-hit the mooks (unless you have players that are really, really unoptimized).  This accomplishes the same thing as minions in 4e.

The second suggestion is to ignore minions entirely.  The PCs, not having metagame knowledge, won't be able to tell much of a difference between the guards and the king's ultraknights, since they'll all be wearing similar eqiupment.  (Plate mail leaves much to the imagination.)  If the characters want to get to the king, they're going to have to wade through the guards to get to him.  Even if the guards only hit on a 20, the players will have a good incentive to kill them: they're a nuisance.  You're going to have to cast defensively and tumble around them.  While that's not a big deal in and of itself (especially given the low DCs for those tasks), the PCs will probably become exasperated with having to deal with the guards and just kill them as they fight.  (One of fireball's few uses is killing mooks.)  

Thirdly--and this is the one that I plan on doing--you can write out a generic guard statblock.  Make the guards all level 5 warriors or something.  Give them average stats (elite array) and calculate all their saves and attack bonuses and that junk (ignore skills, since they probably won't ever come up), and you'll have a perfect template to use for when the guards come into play.  Give them masterwork armor and weapons.  An attack bonus of +8 isn't going to hit that frequently, but it's also not going to miss as much as an attack bonus of +4.  Add in flanking for better results.

Now, the problem with this method is that you have to keep track of the mook hit points, which is somewhat painful for the DM.  However, the average level 5 warrior will have 10 + 4d10 (22) + 1(5), or 37 hit points.  At the level you're going to want to use these mooks, I'm pretty sure that the PCs can easily churn out more than 37 damage per hit.  And, if nothing else, just give them minimum hit points.

And so my post is finished.

Quote from: B.T.;318209Aside from that, I too despise minions.  Their purpose is entirely metagame (waste the players' actions; do piddly damage to the players each round), and they make no sense whatsoever.  I do not care one whit if they represent "mooks," as "mook" is also a metagame concept.

I agree 100% that minions are a metagame concept.  They are a completely game-rule-based construct.  They exist to fill a game purpose, and not to fill any kind of ecological niche.

QuoteMinions do not represent anything that positively contributes to the game.  Oh, certainly they allow the players to feel big in the pants (or perhaps heroic) because they're wading through a horde of lesser enemies, but I can formulate three objections for this.

That's not really what my group gets out of minions, I guess.  It's not the killing-in-droves that's the fun part; it's the massive battles without the massive bookkeeping.  It's Conan hewing through ravening hordes, Gord and Gellor blowing up demons by the thousands, Buffy slaying weak vampires with a single stake to the heart, and Jackie Chan taking out movie ninjas with a well-placed hit with a ladder.

There's nothing about compensating for a lackluster life, or pretending to have a huge dick. :)  It's all about wanting fights to work a certain way, and having mechanics to accomplish it.  Nobody yells and screams, "WOOO!  I KILLED A MINION!  I AM GALACTUS, EATER OF WORLDS!!"

QuoteBut, you say, you want to have a cinematic battle.  (Allow me to state that the word "cinematic" is rubbish and it has no real meaning outside of "I like how I can imagine this in my head.")

Why isn't "I like how it would look in a movie" a good definition? :)  What's wrong with wanting to play a game that fits certain characteristics that you value?  Not everyone should value the same things in a game, right?

Like I said, I have no issue with people who don't like minions in their game.  There are abundant reasons not to use them, depending on what you value in your D&D.  But pretending that the only reason to have minions is to let your players feel like their balls are huge, or saying that the only reason someone could like them is because of how miserable their lives are is ... a stretch.

-O

Quote from: B.T.;318209First of all, killing a creature with 1 HP is not an accomplishment.  Second of all, making the players feel as though their genitalia have increased in size is not why people should be playing role-playing games.  (If you're compensating for a lackluster life, playing an RPG is probably unhealthy for your psyche.)  Third of all, heroism isn't defined by how many mooks you kill; it's defined by what you do.  (You're not a hero because you killed a bunch of orcs.  You're a hero because you saved the town they were going to raid from utter destruction.)

Getting serious for a moment, I agree with you absolutely here, though I think the number of "I killed 70,000 orcs today, now I'm going to go home and be an absolute stallion with my wife...except I don't have a wife and I live in my mum's basement, so I suppose I'll just have a wank" players is actually pretty small. There is a definite ego-massaging element to the idea of minions that I don't think is deniable, but it's just a side benefit to most people.

More concerning for me is the latter part. The minion concept is a weird and in my opinion unhealthy conflation of awesomeness and heroism that people shouldn't really be encouraging. Not necessarily because of any moral or ethical concern; more because it simply doesn't make for a long term satisfactory sense of accomplishment. Heroism (at least any heroism worth the name) is about besting insurmountable odds. Not romping to victory and being home in time for tea.

People might point to heroes of legend (Samson, Achilles, Gilgamesh) and say, "Ah, but didn't they kill thousands of 'mooks' every day before breakfast?" The answer is yes, but that such actions are part of the tragedy of their stories, not the heroism.

The majority of people that I have seen supporting the concept of minions have used the "it lets the PCs feel awesome" argument.  I can only imagine that those who need to feel "awesome" with their fictional characters are trying to compensate for their less-than-awesome existence (particularly given that the stereotypical D&D player is overweight, unattractive, and unhygienic).

Re: Cinematic

I have no issue with the word itself, but its overuse causes a deep clenching within my bowels.  The majority of complaints that I have about 4e are the powers not making sense, and there are plenty of folks who brush that off with inane comments like, "Welcome to cinematic role-playing."  "Cinematic" is a meme and buzzword that 4e shoved to the forefront of D&D when people began criticizing it for lacking verisimilitude.  It is hollow, a husk of word that people bandy about instead of making actual arguments.

...I hate the word "cinematic."  I guess I do have an issue with it.

Sounds lamezorz.

If your characters couldn't know, you can't know. If your characters can figure it out in-game, so can you. Aren't we roleplaying?

Tyranny of Fun? Well, it's not hardcoded in the rules, so I'd have to say no.

Lame ass 4th-wall-breaking DMing?

(http://home.metrocast.net/~adkohler/pics/ohhellsyeah.gif)

Quote from: obryn;318196Auto-damage, by and large, is relatively low; it's usually unmodified, and usually minimal for the PCs' level. While giving them DR doesn't completely negate the issue, auto-damage is IMO the biggest problem with minions.

I was playing a fighter, once, who could dish out 2d6+9 or so to anything that started its turn in a square next to him. Daily, but still.

QuoteI have no problem with simulation-style gaming at all.  It doesn't float my boat, but it's not ridiculous.  I was saying it'd be ridiculous to use minions if you want to run a simulationist game - something which I assume you'd agree with.

Which is how I reread it, and is something I totally concur with.

QuoteYeah, we've had slapfights before, but I'm honestly not trying to be a douche here. :) I'm completely happy to have reasonable conversations about games. I get torqued off when people spend all their time bitching about shit they don't like, or when they go about pissing on the fun other people are having. One-true-wayism pisses me the fuck off. None of that is happening here.

Fair enough, on all counts.

QuoteEDIT: Frankly, I don't even remember what the fuck we were arguing about before, so I'm happy to start fresh if you are.

To be completely honest, neither do I.

Sounds fair enough to me.

Quote from: B.T.There is no smiley that can adequately express my rage at this statement.

Oh? Why's that?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318219Sounds lamezorz.

If your characters couldn't know, you can't know. If your characters can figure it out in-game, so can you. Aren't we roleplaying?

That works great as long as everybody agrees on what "roleplaying" means, and whether they want the particular style of play you're describing or not. So as long as everybody at the table is on the same page, that's all that matters.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318219If your characters couldn't know, you can't know. If your characters can figure it out in-game, so can you. Aren't we roleplaying?

We're all roleplaying.  It's just that some people are roleplaying brave and talented adventurers risking perilous journeys into the unknown, while others are roleplaying indestructable superheroes who resolve everything through combat and know the metagame details of their foes before battle even begins.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: B.T.;318214The majority of people that I have seen supporting the concept of minions have used the "it lets the PCs feel awesome" argument.  I can only imagine that those who need to feel "awesome" with their fictional characters are trying to compensate for their less-than-awesome existence (particularly given that the stereotypical D&D player is overweight, unattractive, and unhygienic).

I'm scratching my head, and I can't think of any games where characters are less-capable than the players themselves, unless you're going into comedic beer & pretzels games like Kobolds Ate My Baby.  We're talking about Dungeons and Dragons, where the nerdy kid who reads books can kill things with his brain, and you can pretend to be an elf who's a crack shot with a longbow.  Hell, even BRP Call of Cthulhu assumes your investigator is more educated and skilled than you yourself are.

QuoteRe: Cinematic

I have no issue with the word itself, but its overuse causes a deep clenching within my bowels.  The majority of complaints that I have about 4e are the powers not making sense, and there are plenty of folks who brush that off with inane comments like, "Welcome to cinematic role-playing."  "Cinematic" is a meme and buzzword that 4e shoved to the forefront of D&D when people began criticizing it for lacking verisimilitude.  It is hollow, a husk of word that people bandy about instead of making actual arguments.

...I hate the word "cinematic."  I guess I do have an issue with it.

I don't think it's so hollow.  It means, "I want my game fights to work kind of like fights in action movies."  You can argue whether or not 4e, BtVS, M&M, or anything else succeed at this - but that doesn't make the term meaningless.  It's been used in a gaming context since the nineties, if not earlier; it's not new to 4e.

-O

Quote from: obryn;318152Besides, if I lay out a map and there's a few big guys and then a bunch of unnumbered identical minis, they figure it out anyway.  I don't even need to get to minis.  "There's a huge troll, a hobgoblin with a staff, two mean-looking goblins sneering at you with wickedly-sharp knives, and eight poorly-equipped kobold rabble wearing rags and wielding daggers."  The math is not hard to figure out, and frankly pretending otherwise bores me.

When you say "the math", do you mean because each group of monsters encountered adds up to a certain level of danger, and minions 'cost' less than normal monsters of their type?

Because if so, I think people who dislike identifying minions would probably dislike "the math" as well.

I don't mind the idea of minions. Creatures that die from being hit once are more realistic than ones that won't. But telling players who a minion is, is just too much boardgameyness for me, just like players being able to pick magic items.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318222I was playing a fighter, once, who could dish out 2d6+9 or so to anything that started its turn in a square next to him. Daily, but still.

I know the one you're talking about - the Rain of Steel stance, IIRC - and yeah, that's just about peak for auto-damage.  That one doesn't bother me much, though, being a Daily power.  You're giving up something else pretty awesome to take it.

I have a much bigger problem with dippy little Clouds of Daggers and minor magic item abilities zapping a roomful of minions.  Hence, why I like giving them DR.

I really think the designers dropped the ball when they didn't take into account how many ways there are to deal miniscule - but sufficient - auto-damage to minions.

-O

Quote from: Age of Fable;318228When you say "the math", do you mean because each group of monsters encountered adds up to a certain level of danger, and minions 'cost' less than normal monsters of their type?

I was speaking metaphorically about the math, not about the encounter construction.  I'd get pissy if my players were adding up encounter XP in their heads and then had the poor taste to say something about it.  I'd probably throw in extra monsters out of spite.

I'm just saying they can, in character, look at a group of enemies and figure out with high degrees of accuracy* which ones are badass and which ones lack badassitude.  That's the only "math" I'm talking about.  This has stayed true for as long as I've been gaming.  I'm not saying there have always been minions, just that picking out big threats (wizards) from non-threats (poorly-equipped kobolds) is second-nature to most parties, and not metagaming at all.

-O


* unless the DM is being intentionally tricky, which for the record, I'm fine with and have been plenty of times.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;318205Distasteful has a different connotation than "not to my taste" - "I find their vulgar language distasteful," "Her wearing of a stripper dress in church was distasteful," "that joke he made about how that guy died was distasteful" - those carry the connotation of something that is socially or morally wrong (though in a relatively mild way). I'm am genuinely asking how you see 4e as distasteful using that connotation.

I am well aware of the word's meaning. Well, the ones that I have encountered - most likely the more common ones, I expect. I was not using it inappropriately, ignorantly, or in any other way along either of those lines that might, it seems, have been suspected.

This is hardly the perfect resource to be calling upon, I know, but for lack of anything better online - that I'm currently aware of - it will suffice:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distasteful

Now, here we have a selection of possible interpretations, some of which at least don't entirely comply with your PoV. And they're close enough to exactly what I was saying and meaning, however, that I'm not going to be editing those posts anytime soon.

QuoteSeriously, I'm not just being argumentative. If you mean the 4e rules are distasteful, in the sense they offended your morals, I'm genuinely curious as to why? I'm not trying to be a dick, I promise you! The usual connotation of distasteful is usually synonymous with offensive. Do you see what I mean? If you find 4e offensive, then why? There are plenty of games I don't like, but they don't offend me, and I would never refer to them as distasteful (except the one I mentioned). We're simply having a disconnect in communication here.

As for me finding it offensive... not so much. That comes across as a peculiar stance, to my mind anyway.

See, me mentioning my distaste for a certain game? Okay, so it really doesn't appeal on whatever level(s). Big deal. But if I was expressing my being offended at that game's, what, very existence? Huh, now we're talking cage fight and the whole nine yards.

I just don't care that the game exists. Seriously. Those people who like it? Bully for them. I happen to not like it one bit. I wouldn't play it if a game was being offered. Too much about it would annoy the absolute crap out of me, break my suspension of disbelief, the 4th wall mentioned above, and so on. But this is not because I am offended, or on a fucking CRUSADE about it. Really not. That's not my fight.

If you are STILL stuck on that one word... well, there's doubtless NOTHING else I can say to help with that. _shrug_

Quote from: B.T.;318124Tell me: is this an example of the tyranny of fun, or am I misunderstanding the concept?

I haven't read the thread, but probably. :) A few rhetorical symptoms to look out for:
- "I don't want my game to be work; I have real work, and I just want to relax, right?"
- "Thanks God they fixed this, it was clunky and just. not. fun. I can't imagine going back to the days when the DM could just wave his dick and destroy your characters."
- "Well, of course they know their business, they are game designers."
- "I don't want to be deprotagonised, that's all. I want to meaningfully contribute, and if the DM takes away that, I may just as well go home and play WoW."
- "If someone did that to my characters, I'd get up from the table and find a new group. Life is too short to spend it on a game where you are getting nowhere."

I'd say your examples, and most of the recent 4e discussion threads on RPGNet, tend to hit these notes a whole lot, more than ENWorld does (WotC is of course the worst). Also, the Tyranny of Fun, while 4e really caters to that sentiment, is not universal: there are a whole lot of people to whom it is barely, if at all applicable. Now the hardcore RPGNet squad... yeah, pretty much.

I know the Tyranny of Fun is catchy and all, but it's a made up problem. It assumes a group where people want different experiences out of the game but somehow aren't able to just talk about it like adults, so oh my god someone's oppressed. If that's true then something is bound to fuck the group dynamic anyway.

You guys are just describing people having different opinions about how a game's run, and the side of the argument you don't agree with is a bunch of powergamers who don't respect your knowledge of how the game ought to be played. Shit, you could hear that old tune probably since the first time two people had a rules disagreement.



For what it's worth, I don't prefer identifying which NPCs are minions because it make the game easier or give the players a power fantasy trip, I prefer it because I think they're useful more for providing group/formation tactics that would lead to a fight being overlong if they had full HP. And having to guess if they're minions might "add" HP to them, basically, because overkill damage is wasted.

I think of a group of minions as fulfilling the same sort of role as a terrain feature or hazard -- they complicate movement and positioning. Knowing they're minions doesn't preclude you still having to deal with them, it just eliminates overkill. And again, if you prefer minions not being labeled, I see why you might feel that way. I just personally think it's a little obfuscated by the guessing-game element. That's cool, tastes differ.)

Quote from: Sweeney;318267I know the Tyranny of Fun is catchy and all, but it's a made up problem.

No, it refers accurately to a cheat-mode culture of player expectations that's crept into RPGs.
Posted in Mobile Mode

As in, "I want to play a game that is like an action movie".  The action movie that is nearly always in mind is something like Die Hard, or some obscure wuxia flick.  I don't think I have ever heard anyone say, "I want to play a game where I can be like Jet Li in Hero!"  

In other words, it's always a western-culture action movie where the good guy wins.

Quote from: Hairfoot;318272No, it refers accurately to a cheat-mode culture of player expectations that's crept into RPGs.
Posted in Mobile Mode

You're wrong about what you're perceiving.

Quote from: Sweeney;318267I know the Tyranny of Fun is catchy and all, but it's a made up problem.

No, it is the identification of a rhetorical trend in gaming and game design. :)

Quote from: DeadUematsu;318277You're wrong about what you're perceiving.

We've gone over this in other threads.  I've got nothing against god modes, per se.  It's just that I enjoy them in FPSs rather than RPGs, where I like to be challenged and invest some intelligence in the game, rather than take glee in being an all-powerful conqueror that the game world revolves around.
Posted in Mobile Mode

It's funny how we hate the idea of minions in 4e but we gleefully accept extras/cannon fodder etc in James Bond, SW or numerous other games.

I think its just a mind set thing. In D&D you have levels as you advance in levels the creatures you fight also advance in levels this combat even and balanced.

In the other games you don't have levels. An entry level agent in a Spy game doesn't have less hit points than James Bond and his Walther  PPK doesn't do 4 tiems as much damage. He just hits more often and gets hit less.

I don't think the problem is with 'the kolbolds in tatty armour with spears' or the 'city guard armed with pikes' a 10th level D&D character could always plow through those and let's be honest tracking a goblin that had 5 hp and was hit for 3 is a bit tedious in a toe to toe fight where there are 50 goblins. The problem is with the Orge Blugeoner who in theory should have 234 HP but now has 1...

So I think the idea of a minion is alien to D&D because the structure of the game is built in such as way that they are logically inconsistent. If you want the Demon to have 1 hp underlings give him a tribe of goblins as followers, but in D&D terms a goblis in unable to harm a 15th level hero because he can't hit him and for some reason a 3 foot spear weilded by a goblin only does 1/10 of the damamge of the same spear if weilded by a Goblin blugeoneeer (or whatever).

Obviously the solution is to remove levels, hp and increasing damage super powers from D&D and add dodge and parry instead :)

Me, if i did run a 4e game (soooo unlikely) I would like to have a group of 10th level characters and kill all of them with a tribe of 1st level goblins minions... that would teach them not to take goblins seriously :)

Quote from: jeff37923;318147I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I have to wonder if a deal was or was not struck between WoTC and these guys to act as a "public face" of 4E.

I'm pretty sure money changed hands.  They've done podcasts.  They've had D&D developers personally teaching them how to play.  This is a marketing campaign.

Quote from: jibbajibba;318293Obviously the solution is to remove levels, hp and increasing damage super powers from D&D and add dodge and parry instead

Ugh.  If choreographed, micro-managed combat was fun, we'd all be playing Palladium games!
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: Hairfoot;318295Ugh.  If choreographed, micro-managed combat was fun, we'd all be playing Palladium games!
Posted in Mobile Mode

Palladium's actually fairly abstracted... Declare target, roll to strike, targets gets to dodge, parry, or roll with it, mark damage. And the Hit on 5+ was pretty brutal last I ran it (ca 2000).

If you want wargamey combat, GURPS, HeroSystem, AD&D 2E PO C&T...

Quote from: mhensley;318294I'm pretty sure money changed hands.  They've done podcasts.  They've had D&D developers personally teaching them how to play.  This is a marketing campaign.

As an aside, I listened to that podcast and they managed to both make the game seem really boring and make themselves seem really annoying. If money did change hands, and if I was WotC, I'd want it back.

Quote from: aramis;318296targets gets to dodge, parry, or roll with it

My point exactly. Any system which allows the combatant to leisurely choose whether to dodge, parry, or roll screams, "game designer has watched lots of movies but has absolutely no idea what combat is".
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: Hairfoot;318300My point exactly. Any system which allows the combatant to leisurely choose whether to dodge, parry, or roll screams, "game designer has watched lots of movies but has absolutely no idea what combat is".
Posted in Mobile Mode

As oppossed to a system where they get to say so its a trebuchet it only does 3d10 and I have 80 hp who gives a shit :)

Quote from: Hairfoot;318300My point exactly. Any system which allows the combatant to leisurely choose whether to dodge, parry, or roll screams, "game designer has watched lots of movies but has absolutely no idea what combat is".
Posted in Mobile Mode

If you thing Palladium's micro-managed... the you have a very skewed view and/or limited exposure...

Movement is loosely covered; left mostly to the GM. No detailed facing rules. No hit locatuins rules for people.

Check out GURPS 3R with full rules in force. Or anything by Tri-Tac, Leading Edge, or ICE. Or Chaosium. Or Mekton (any edition).

Heck, even the rather generally considered as light WFRP 1E is 10x more managed than PFRPG, TMNT, or Robotech.

Quote from: jibbajibba;318301As oppossed to a system where they get to say so its a trebuchet it only does 3d10 and I have 80 hp who gives a shit :)

Indeed!  But you'll have to concede that melee combat is far more frequent than trebuchet vs super-PC combat.

Quote from: aramis;318302If you thing Palladium's micro-managed... the you have a very skewed view and/or limited exposure...

Did I say Palladium was the most or the only  micro-managed system?
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: Hairfoot;318305Indeed!  But you'll have to concede that melee combat is far more frequent than trebuchet vs super-PC combat.

But every self respecting 4th level D&D character has 80 hp these days. One of the main drivers for me to hosuerule 2e hit points was a scene where a PC was caught cold by a couple of city guard armed with crossbows.
The PC knew the worst the crossbows could do was scratch him, I knew  and I knew he knew, he still played it like there was a risk and all credit to him for that but I thought to myself ... after 15 years of this I am just going to fix it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;318306But every self respecting 4th level D&D character has 80 hp these days.

It makes sense when trebuchets are level-appropriate encounters of minions interspersed with trebuchet controllers.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: Hairfoot;318309It makes sense when trebuchets are level-appropriate encounters of minions interspersed with trebuchet controllers.
Posted in Mobile Mode

OOh I wonder if you can get minion trbuchets.... might work in a LotR: TRotK uber cgi battle scene with rodeo riding elves and really fucking big elephants

wiktionary's got it all

Minion From Middle French mignon (“‘lover, royal favourite, darling’”).

and I may add that more recently mignon means cute. You guys can make fun of furverts... WotC turned your damn game into Sims Bondage/SM !

Quote from: Sweeney;318267I know the Tyranny of Fun is catchy and all, but it's a made up problem. It assumes a group where people want different experiences out of the game but somehow aren't able to just talk about it like adults, so oh my god someone's oppressed. If that's true then something is bound to fuck the group dynamic anyway.

I have to agree with this. If you're not having fun in your group, regardless of the reason, you should discuss it with your group. No one's forcing you to play a game in a way you don't like.

Back to the OP, I never identify minions to my players. They're often able to figure it out after a few rounds, based on how easily they go down, and their behaviour, but by then the fight's mostly over anway.

Quote from: jibbajibba;318310OOh I wonder if you can get minion trbuchets.... might work in a LotR: TRotK uber cgi battle scene with rodeo riding elves and really fucking big elephants

Don't forget the dwarven morris dancers and hobbit barber-squads.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318222Oh? Why's that?

Because it is proper to space twice after sentences.  The single-space rule was invented by newspapers to save space in their columns.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;318221Tyranny of Fun? Well, it's not hardcoded in the rules, so I'd have to say no.

Lame ass 4th-wall-breaking DMing?

Hmm.  Since it's not built into the rules, I guess you could say it's more de facto tyranny.

Quote from: obryn;318152Also, there have been whiny players in every edition.

Isn't that what RPGA was founded upon?  People who want fake challenges within narrow parameters with guaranteed rewards.

I've only glanced at 4e but don't the minion rules just formalize something that most DMs eventually figure out anyway?  You don't track hp of the small fry.  (With the definition of small fry varying with level.)  4e states it so that new DMs start that way.  

 D&D and most games occasionally uses hordes of low level monsters - militia, rats, skeletons, untrained gang members, etc. I remember a thread from a few years ago before 4e was out (CM or Nutkinland?) discussing techniques for mooks and similar large masses of opponents.  No one kept detailed hp records.  Some people either had them fail all saves or used a base save number without bothering to calculate save bonuses.  

In way, this leads to better simulaion.  Something that highly detailed games fail to cover is that a critical part of combat is the quickness with which things can happen.  If it takes an hour to resolve 30 seconds of action, players lose the feel for combat.  Things that speed up play and minimalize bookkeeping keep the action flowing.

I guess my group is a bunch of sandy vaginas then, because they went through the whining of wasting encounter and daily powers on minions when we first started.  We use MapTool, so minion tokens now don't have a health bar to be easily identified.  So, going into every combat all the player immediately know which token is a minion or not.  Personally, I don't like it but I'd rather not deal with the sandy shit storm that would spew forth from their leaky vaginas if I went back to hiding minions.

Quote from: Nicephorus;318357Isn't that what RPGA was founded upon?  People who want fake challenges within narrow parameters with guaranteed rewards.

I indeed believe the RPGA is a BIG part of the problem, since 1e AD&D actually.

Quote from: Hairfoot;318283We've gone over this in other threads.  I've got nothing against god modes, per se.  It's just that I enjoy them in FPSs rather than RPGs, where I like to be challenged and invest some intelligence in the game, rather than take glee in being an all-powerful conqueror that the game world revolves around.
Posted in Mobile Mode

The fact that you cannot recognize that there is no correlation between using minions in play and playing in god-mode is mind-boggling.

Quote from: jibbajibba;318293I don't think the problem is with 'the kolbolds in tatty armour with spears' or the 'city guard armed with pikes' a 10th level D&D character could always plow through those and let's be honest tracking a goblin that had 5 hp and was hit for 3 is a bit tedious in a toe to toe fight where there are 50 goblins. The problem is with the Orge Blugeoner who in theory should have 234 HP but now has 1...

Or maybe, the minions are the "normal" ogres and the ones touting 234 HP are the heroes of thier race.

Quote from: Benoist;318377I indeed believe the RPGA is a BIG part of the problem, since 1e AD&D actually.

Yea, verily.  The RPGA is of the devil.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;318382The fact that you cannot recognize that there is no correlation between using minions in play and playing in god-mode is mind-boggling.

The fact that you deliberately ignore the connection is equally confusing.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;318383Or maybe, the minions are the "normal" ogres and the ones touting 234 HP are the heroes of thier race.

Or maybe the minions are missing a third dimension, namely 'hit points', and like a Platonic solid, having only two dimensions does not make it a cube.  At best, they are scenery; at worst, a further waste of game time.

I hear them touted as an ease on the bookkeeping, but for even a minimally organized DM, keeping track of hit points in addition to a minion's position, powers, marking, damage, movement, attacks, saves, and a pile of other combat parameters shouldn't be a game breaking additional burden.  In fact, as I review the posts about the evolution of D&D, what I seem to hear most is that combats have taken progressively longer with each new edition.

Perhaps, then, the problem isn't going to be solved by giving them one pseudo-hit point, but rather in not giving an excuse to throw a dozen or  more additional opponents into a melee that has already become bogged down under its own 'tactical options' and 'balance uber alles' in the name of warm fuzzies for the players.

In the modern editions of D&D, there's no such thing as metagaming, any more than there's metagaming in chess or Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Today's D&D is simply a tactical boardgame with a thicker layer of thematic gloss tham most. So of course players will be angry if the DM hides the identity of minions from them. How are you supposed to maximise your tactical efficiency if the DM keeps important data from you?

There are things that, at any level of a warriors career, can be easily dispatched.  Untrained diplomats and sniveling goblins for 1st level characters, up to demons of insufficient rank for 30th level demigods.  It should be pretty obvious who these folks are, starting at first level, and then later in your career it should be entirely obvious because you have years of adventuring and enemy judging under your belt.  I find the inclusion and identification of minions to be more realistic, frankly.

Plus it opens up great options like using a bluff check to pretend to be a minion.

And of course, like so many parts of 4e, like magic items and skill challenges, it can be ignored without having any effect on the rest of the system.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318219If your characters couldn't know, you can't know. If your characters can figure it out in-game, so can you. Aren't we roleplaying?

It seems that, no, modern D&D doesn't involve roleplaying in the traditional sense.

Quote from: Haffrung;318423It seems that, no, modern D&D doesn't involve roleplaying in the traditional sense.

My many sessions of 4e run without any combat at all say you can shove this stupid argument.

Quote from: StormBringer;318394Perhaps, then, the problem isn't going to be solved by giving them one pseudo-hit point, but rather in not giving an excuse to throw a dozen or  more additional opponents into a melee that has already become bogged down under its own 'tactical options' and 'balance uber alles' in the name of warm fuzzies for the players.

This. Instead of 20 opponents, 15 of which are minions, how about 5 opponents of slightler tougher fiber?

Quote from: counterspin;318424My many sessions of 4e run without any combat at all say you can shove this stupid argument.

I agree.

I myself have often played checkers with roleplaying included.  :rolleyes:

Well Jeff, when the characters were working together to write a play, what were the players doing then?  There was no dice rolling.  Everyone was in character.  Isn't there a word for that?  Yeah, there is, the word is roleplaying.  Anyone who advances the "4e isn't roleplaying" argument is full of shit.

Quote from: counterspin;318430Well Jeff, when the characters were working together to write a play, what were the players doing then?

Wondering where their Craft, Profession, and Perform skills had disappeared to in 4E.

Quote from: counterspin;318430There was no dice rolling.  

Only because the skills that required dice rolling to complete the rules mechanic were missing.

Quote from: counterspin;318430Everyone was in character.  Isn't there a word for that?  Yeah, there is, the word is roleplaying.

Which is why they could have been playing checkers for all the roleplaying support they had with the rules of 4E.

Quote from: counterspin;318430Anyone who advances the "4e isn't roleplaying argument" is full of shit.

That's OK. I'm advancing the "4E does not support roleplaying to my satisfaction" arguement.

So roleplaying only counts if it is backed up by skills?  Thank god we can make up new definitions for English words whenever we want.  It makes arguing so much easier!

All my players have played other systems, no one missed the skills.

Quote from: Werekoala;318427This. Instead of 20 opponents, 15 of which are minions, how about 5 opponents of slightler tougher fiber?

Yes, you can certainly do this. But maybe you don't always want to do this. Minions give you options. If you like'em, use'em. If you don't like'em, don't use'em. And stop whining about them.

It's not so much the whining as the repetition.

Quote from: counterspin;318437So roleplaying only counts if it is backed up by skills?  Thank god we can make up new definitions for English words whenever we want.  It makes arguing so much easier!

All my players have played other systems, no one missed the skills.

Then why are you playing D&D and not out enjoying your role-playing with a Community Theatre Group?

Quote from: Werekoala;318427This. Instead of 20 opponents, 15 of which are minions, how about 5 opponents of slightler tougher fiber?

Because people like variety.  Sometimes there's 1 opponent, sometimes 50.  

Rules for simplified opponents makes big battles possible, but not necessary.  4e isn't the only game to do this.  Savage Worlds handles large battles well.

It isn't a fundamental problem with mook rules that is the failure of minions in 4E, it is how mook rules were taken to an illogical extreme. Having one-hit, one-kill monsters can make sense at lower levels but it becomes harder to justify in a level based game when the levels of the characters increase. When skeletons, kobolds, goblins, and orcs pop like balloons when they are hit, it doesn't strain the credibility/internal consistancy of the game. When you have minion Vampires or Liches, it does strain to snapping people's belief suspenders.

If being a minion in 4E meant that the creature would have a number of hit points equal to the encounter level, some kind of sliding scale, it might work better.

The problem is that 4E already has a system for equating party level to encounter level, and the Minions are an exception to that system that feels like an add-on. I think it is a clumsy add-on that does not scale well to higher level encounters (the aforementioned minion Vampires and Liches), but if you like that - more power to you.

Quote from: Fifth Element;318440Yes, you can certainly do this. But maybe you don't always want to do this. Minions give you options. If you like'em, use'em. If you don't like'em, don't use'em. And stop whining about them.

Hey, hey, calm down Francis. I've played some 4e and read the core books, and I don't really have a huge problem with mooks, I'm just wondering why they were added if not to add a "Yearrghh, lookit me!"-ness that wasn't there before. If I wanted a mass battle in my adventures, the 1/4 and 1/2 HD critters in 3e usually did just fine. BUT - having 10 of them against a 1st level party in 3e is sure slaughter. Having 10 of them against a 1st level party in 4e is a cakewalk. Just sayin'.

Quote from: jeff37923;318433I'm advancing the "4E does not support roleplaying to my satisfaction" arguement.

Out of curiosity, which games do support it to your satisfaction?

Quote from: StormBringer;318394The fact that you deliberately ignore the connection is equally confusing.

Because there's no connection. I could always play D&D in god mode. The inclusion of actual minion rules doesn't change that fact. I mean, just how old is the term munchkin anyway?

These arguments are so ridiculous. I can't believe anyone is actually wasting time on the back and forth with this stuff.

I'm finding it quite entertaining actually. Its always a riot seeing the members of the orthodox church of 4e getting their knickers in a knot when someone points out their game of choice is far from perfect regardless of how much they might worship at its altar.

Quote from: Werekoala;318427This. Instead of 20 opponents, 15 of which are minions, how about 5 opponents of slightler tougher fiber?

Exactly.  I don't think we even knew what a 'minion' was back in the day.  Once we got to a certain level, goblins and orcs were no longer a concern.  We simply didn't encounter them as small raiding parties any more, only as whole tribes or clans, and no matter how high your level, the law of averages would eventually bring you down with 200+ orcs.

I agree that minions feel like an add-on and not really like a part of the level system. Also I suggest that minions get a Saving Throw against auto damage.

Still minions have an important role in the game. They make you appreciate wizards. At least they make my current character really appreciate that preposterous halfling sorcerer. Sure, my character can take out any heavy hitter of his level and outdamages any other character in the party. He just can't do so with a bunch of minions around. Those things are dangerous for him.

Quote from: counterspin;318437So roleplaying only counts if it is backed up by skills?  Thank god we can make up new definitions for English words whenever we want.

A system can be said to support roleplaying if the ruleset actually contains information for such. A system lacking support for roleplaying, either by providing a framework or making it as mechanically complicated as combats, cannot be said to be supportive of roleplaying.

Not being supportive of RP is different from the idea that the system is incapable of allowing RP. In theory, roleplaying can be overlaid onto any system, even those that were not intended to handle it; hence why Monopoly, chess, or checkers get brought up in this argument. These are games that were not designed with roleplaying in mind, and the rulesets have nothing to support the roleplay, but you can still roleplay while playing the game.

The argument is that this is what is going on with 4e. It is not that one cannot roleplay; it is that, when you do, you are doing so outside the system, because the framework it provides is sufficient only for combat and dungeon-crawling scenarios.

Quote from: Werekoala;318453Hey, hey, calm down Francis. I've played some 4e and read the core books, and I don't really have a huge problem with mooks

Not directed at you personally, Chuck. There's been a lot of whining about minions going on in this thread, and countless others over the past year.

Don't like minions? Great, don't use them. No one's forcing you to use them. But compare these two statements:

A. "I don't like minions, so I don't use them."

B. "I don't like minions, and anyone who does like them is a pampered child."

As an aside to the whole minions are "good/bad" you are an "arse/I am going to sulk" arguments don't experienced 4e parties just have stuff ready to deal with minions.  
I assume there are still low level large area of affect damage spells/powers (like buring hands or similar) or filling a sling with loads of buckshot, or making some greek fire molotov cocktails or filling some wine bottles with a mildy poisionos gas (1-6 damage save for 1/2 minimum 1 point) or some device that can spray acid (like a mediveal super-soaker). Surely if the minions are flagged as such they are all dead after round 2 and therefore all they have really done is give the bad guys 2 rounds to get ready and wasted 20-30 minutes while the DM works out how many ogres can be hit by an exploding bottle of Merlot.

Quote from: Werekoala;318427This. Instead of 20 opponents, 15 of which are minions, how about 5 opponents of slightler tougher fiber?

Well, if you don't like minions, yeah, that's pretty much how it works by RAW. It's not like the DM's required to make encounters with minions in them. From what I understand, the option's there because a fight with a bunch of minions is going to offer the 'real' enemies more chances to flank, they can run interference for the tougher guys, etc.

Quote from: Fifth Element;318484Not directed at you personally, Chuck. There's been a lot of whining about minions going on in this thread, and countless others over the past year.

Don't like minions? Great, don't use them. No one's forcing you to use them. But compare these two statements:

A. "I don't like minions, so I don't use them."

B. "I don't like minions, and anyone who does like them is a pampered child."

Your last option is a bit of a mis-representation:

B. "I don't like minions, and anyone who goes on endlessly about how the system was utterly broken before the advent of minions because they claim it makes them feel like a total badass while pretending to be an elf princess who butchers imaginary single hit point opponents by the score and furiously defends the very concept as though it is a core principle to their very existance is like unto a pampered child."

So, as I have mentioned elsewhere:  You like minions?  Great.  You want to prattle on about how cool it is to dispatch crowds of them at a time? Great, but you would see me rolling my eyes if you were on this side of my screen.  You want to carry on endlessly about how horrible D&D was before your personal deity delivered the game into your hands and anyone who doesn't like minions is a fatbeard that 'just doesn't get it'?  Ok, but I am going to have to have something to say about that.  It gets worse if said party wants to make some kind of argument about objective improvements to the ruleset, or how it makes it more 'cinematic' (as though this is also an obvious good) without really looking at the extremely narrow definition of 'cinematic' they are employing.

Quote from: Enlightened;318463Out of curiosity, which games do support it to your satisfaction?

D&D 3E and 3.5E to start with. Paizo's Pathfinder also does a wonderful job of supporting role-playing (based upon the playtest version which I've been running).

Quote from: Sweeney;318267I know the Tyranny of Fun is catchy and all, but it's a made up problem.

No, it's really not.

QuoteIt assumes a group where people want different experiences out of the game but somehow aren't able to just talk about it like adults, so oh my god someone's oppressed.

You're almost describing how the problem originates.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;318503No, it's really not.

You're almost describing how the problem originates.

Yeah, that's pretty much my point, I'm making fun of people for fetishizing and labeling a particular narrow case of not being able to talk to each other and instead blaming it on a rules system that they, I would assume, chose themselves if they're sitting at the table playing it. I mean, obviously nobody has so much free time on their hands that they're going to care this much about a game they're not interested in playing, right? :)

The actual people at the actual table could jointly make up their minds what the power level is for the game, the kinds of challenges, all that shit. So they were, like, playing a game that collectively they wanted to play. Just like when people get together to play golf they decide whether they want to shoot the shit and hit some balls around, or play each hole for money. And if they can't figure out whether they're doing one or the other, they'll just fucking decide, or go play in two separate groups.

Or they could use cutsey labels and disparage other people for having different preferences and go fucking whine about it to people they weren't even playing with. And the folks who play $20 a hole could look down on the ones who finish a beer a hole, call them shitty cowardly players for not putting their money where their mouth is, too. But the beer a hole guys probably wouldn't give a shit, and might even be amused at the extent the REAL SERIOUS GOLF players have a stick up their ass.

Quote from: jeff37923;318433Wondering where their Craft, Profession, and Perform skills had disappeared to in 4E.

:rotfl:

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318479A system can be said to support roleplaying if the ruleset actually contains information for such. A system lacking support for roleplaying, either by providing a framework or making it as mechanically complicated as combats, cannot be said to be supportive of roleplaying.

Not being supportive of RP is different from the idea that the system is incapable of allowing RP. In theory, roleplaying can be overlaid onto any system, even those that were not intended to handle it; hence why Monopoly, chess, or checkers get brought up in this argument. These are games that were not designed with roleplaying in mind, and the rulesets have nothing to support the roleplay, but you can still roleplay while playing the game.

The argument is that this is what is going on with 4e. It is not that one cannot roleplay; it is that, when you do, you are doing so outside the system, because the framework it provides is sufficient only for combat and dungeon-crawling scenarios.

Soooooo . . . OD&D . . . not a roleplaying game . . . ?

Quote from: jibbajibba;318485As an aside to the whole minions are "good/bad" you are an "arse/I am going to sulk" arguments don't experienced 4e parties just have stuff ready to deal with minions.  
I assume there are still low level large area of affect damage spells/powers (like buring hands or similar) or filling a sling with loads of buckshot, or making some greek fire molotov cocktails or filling some wine bottles with a mildy poisionos gas (1-6 damage save for 1/2 minimum 1 point) or some device that can spray acid (like a mediveal super-soaker). Surely if the minions are flagged as such they are all dead after round 2 and therefore all they have really done is give the bad guys 2 rounds to get ready and wasted 20-30 minutes while the DM works out how many ogres can be hit by an exploding bottle of Merlot.

There are low level area of effect spells and they do get used for that, yes.  As for the other, you'd be surprised and disappointed.  4E players like their powers cards.  The ruleset actually discourages trying anything not written out with a damage total in the book, at least past 1st level:  hit point totals and power damage ranges are such that you're going to want to use your powers in preference to something the DM might only assign 1d6 damage to after rolling his eyes.

Quote from: The Shaman;318515Soooooo . . . OD&D . . . not a roleplaying game . . . ?

OD&D is a role-playing game. 4e is a role-playing game.
The former happens to rock a lot more than the latter, though... :p

Quote from: The Shaman;318515Soooooo . . . OD&D . . . not a roleplaying game . . . ?

Please bear in mind that I know little of OD&D.

But if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

However, were there not rules for such things as morale, reaction rolls, and similar? I believe these were in 1e; were they not in earlier editions? As ridiculously minimal as reaction rolls are, they are at least something.

It is also possible that my definition is too narrow. I just know that 4e feels like WoW, and I scoff when folks call WoW an RPG, thus I scoff when 4e is called an RPG. What, precisely, the essence of RPG-ness is, though, is not something that I can readily say.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318520Bear in mind that I know little of OD&D.

But if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

However, were there not rules for such things as morale, reaction rolls, and similar? I believe these were in 1e; were they not in earlier editions? As ridiculously minimal as reaction rolls are, they are at least something.

Yes, but can't a save in 4e fulfill the same role as a morale check in OD&D? What about Bluff and Diplomacy skills? Insight? I don't know, I just disagree with the notion that mechanical elements of the rulebook have to define and/or support role-playing at the table for the game to be considered a "RPG". Rules aren't the be-all end-all of RPGs, IMO.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318520Please bear in mind that I know little of OD&D.

But if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

A lot of roleplaying gamers would be very surprised to hear that.

I mean, we'd have to come up with a whole new history of roleplaying games. Instead of Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson as the fathers of the hobby, they're relegated to the crazy uncles of roleplaying games.

Quote from: GnomeWorksHowever, were there not rules for such things as morale, reaction rolls, and similar? I believe these were in 1e; were they not in earlier editions? As ridiculously minimal as reaction rolls are, they are at least something.

Well, that moves the limbo stick a smidge higher, then. I honestly don't remember off the top of my head if those are in there or not; I only played OD&D a couple of times myself, and then moved on to blue box and AD&D literally the same month, and AD&D definitely includes this.

Quote from: GnomeWorksIt is also possible that my definition is too narrow.

Perhaps a bit.

I tend to think the act of creating and playing a character is really the necessary element of roleplaying, and the actual mechanics for that can be as simple as, "Okay, you're the Cecile the French nurse and torchsinger, and I'm the German flying ace Baron von Grossewurst, shot down behind enemy lines."

I find mechanics more complex than that tend to become more of a hindrance than a help.

But to each their own. :)

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318520But if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

Then your definition is wrong.

I am not a grognard, by the way. I like third edition, and a number of other games besides. Right, with that out of the way...

I'm currently running some "white box" Swords & Wizardry (an OD&D retro-clone) and the roleplaying (or, more accurately, the interplay of characters, sometimes with other beings altogether) has been excellent! Exciting, fun, at times highly amusing, and - very rarely - even moving, or (briefly!) thought-provoking. Lesser or greater than in the last campaign I ran, using a system replete with skill mechanics (including social skills)...? I don't know. Maybe about equal. Whatever. This tells me that "roleplaying mechanics" are not a prerequisite for the occurrence of "roleplaying" during a campaign.

QuoteIt is also possible that my definition is too narrow. I just know that 4e feels like WoW, and I scoff when folks call WoW an RPG, thus I scoff when 4e is called an RPG. What, precisely, the essence of RPG-ness is, though, is not something that I can readily say.

Oh fercrissake. Fourth edition D&D is a RPG. If you don't like it, fine. I don't either, I'll just mention in passing. But to deny that it is what it in fact is... that's just silly.

[edit] ... and besides, 4e even has social mechanics - why then deny it entry into your RPG club? [/edit]

The key issue here isn't whether minions are a good thing or a bad thing. The issue is whether players should base their decisions on metagame knowledge. Should they be told right away which of their opponents are 'minions' in game terms, and which are tougher opponents, when the PCs themselves have no way of immediately knowing, or even recognizing the difference between minions and more serious foes.

If you're playing D&D primarily as a tactical wargame, then it's only fair to tell the players what they're up against so they can make the best analytical game decisions. If you're playing D&D as an immersive roleplaying game, then the players should only know what their PCs know, and act accordingly.

QuoteBut if it utterly lacks mechanical backing, or even a semblance of a framework, for roleplaying, then yes, it is - by my definition and in my opinion - not an RPG.

That's only valid if the game is defined by its mechanics. However, early D&D assumed that anything involving PCs relating with NPCs and other non-combat situations should be governed not by rules, but by a player explaining exactly what his PC says and does, and the DM adjudicating the response of the NPCs or the environment to those actions. In other words, the assumption is that an intelligent person at the table is a better judge of the success or failure of social situations involving roleplaying than any hard mechanics.

You want to talk your way into the city gates after dark? Okay, start talking. I (the DM) will decide if you're persuasive or not. That's roleplaying.

Man, teh st00pid just keeps on comin'.

Both OD&D and D&D4e are rpgs. However, both of them have been played with the absolute minimum of roleplaying by the participants. Sometimes players are stupid and boring, and prefer to treat it as a pure tactical game.

Quote from: Haffrung;318527The key issue here isn't whether minions are a good thing or a bad thing. The issue is whether players should base their decisions on metagame knowledge. Should they be told right away which of their opponents are 'minions' in game terms, and which are tougher opponents, when the PCs themselves have no way of immediately knowing, or even recognizing the difference between minions and more serious foes.

Except the quoted text in the OP, the DM explicitly describes them as "faceless mooks". In other words, the player characters had perceived them as inferior opponents. Metagame knowledge didn't enter the picture at all.

Also, the PCs we're discussing are adventurers aka people likely to be trained in martial and monstrous lore. While it makes no sense for Bob the Lawyer to discern who's a threat and who's not a threat, it's entirely reasonable for Bob the Fighting Man to know who's his superior, who's his equal, and who's his inferior. Bob the Fighting Man fights people for livelihood and, unless his opponents are all masters at disguising thier level of competence (and that would stretch believability), he should be able to pick up on these things because not being able to do so could cost him his life.

QuoteIf you're playing D&D primarily as a tactical wargame, then it's only fair to tell the players what they're up against so they can make the best analytical game decisions. If you're playing D&D as an immersive roleplaying game, then the players should only know what their PCs know, and act accordingly.

No, it's also fair to be able to perceive this if I'm an adventurer and I stab people for a living and a million other reasons which do not touch on analytical game decisions at all.

QuoteThat's only valid if the game is defined by its mechanics. However, early D&D assumed that anything involving PCs relating with NPCs and other non-combat situations should be governed not by rules, but by a player explaining exactly what his PC says and does, and the DM adjudicating the response of the NPCs or the environment to those actions. In other words, the assumption is that an intelligent person at the table is a better judge of the success or failure of social situations involving roleplaying than any hard mechanics.

You want to talk your way into the city gates after dark? Okay, start talking. I (the DM) will decide if you're persuasive or not. That's roleplaying.

What you're harping is "ROLEplay, not ROLLplay" and that's bad advice given that even intelligent people are not immune to make stupid judgement calls (no matter how much competence they put behind them) and sometimes rules are better arbiters of what occurs in a given situation.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;318535Except the quoted text in the OP, the DM explicitly describes them as "faceless mooks". In other words, the player characters had perceived them as inferior opponents. Metagame knowledge didn't enter the picture at all.

How do you perceive a foe as an inferior opponent before you've started fighting? I mean, do they literally not have faces? Are there other visual cues that guarantee to the PCs that they're weaklings? Aren't there master swordsmen who look mundane, or flamboyant enemies who act fearsome but are all bluster?

QuoteWhat you're harping is "ROLEplay, not ROLLplay" and that's bad advice given that even intelligent people are not immune to make stupid judgement calls (no matter how much competence they put behind them) and sometimes rules are better arbiters of what occurs in a given situation.

Sometimes. But with a good DM, not often enough to outweight the pleasure of matching your own wits against a sound and flexible mind, instead of rolling some dice.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;318535. . . [T]hat's bad advice given that even intelligent people are not immune to make stupid judgement calls (no matter how much competence they put behind them) and sometimes rules are better arbiters of what occurs in a given situation.

And rules can make no sense whatsoever in the context of a given situation, requiring the exercise of actual human judgement.

And around and around the carousel spins . . .

Quote from: BenoistYes, but can't a save in 4e fulfill the same role as a morale check in OD&D?

Generic mechanic being used to fill a gap that was once filled by a specific mechanic back in the day... I know that sounds like I'm splitting hairs, but that's significant.

Alternatively, I could argue that this usage of a save for morale purposes is not in the RAW, and thus should not be included in any reasonable discussion - once we start talking about ways we could modify a game, we're no longer really talking about the game itself.

QuoteWhat about Bluff and Diplomacy skills? Insight?

Well, now we're getting into another thing, and that's 4e's skill system. Personally I find the ever-increasing skill bonuses to be ridiculous; an example of the "tyranny of fun," to bring this conversation back to the thread's original topic.

Because of the ever-increasing skill bonuses, anything about who your character is or what he has done (aside from killing things to gain levels) is irrelevant, because you will auto-win at skill checks against "normal" folk eventually at any task, even something which the character should - by all rights - completely suck at. That isn't really roleplaying, I don't think.

QuoteI don't know, I just disagree with the notion that mechanical elements of the rulebook have to define and/or support role-playing at the table for the game to be considered a "RPG". Rules aren't the be-all end-all of RPGs, IMO.

Then what is?

Take a look at the video game world, and what is considered an RPG therein. Is Final Fantasy an RPG, in the sense that you understand it? Is it not? Why is that?

I would argue that FF is not an RPG. It lacks sufficient player interaction for anything other than combat (or perhaps seldom-used narrative devices that enable multiple story paths; but those are unusual in the RPG world, even today).

However, if you broaden the definition of what an RPG is, you wind up with strange results. Is Metroid Prime an RPG, by what you would define one as?

Quote from: The ShamanA lot of roleplaying gamers would be very surprised to hear that.

I'm a bit surprised by my willingness to come out and argue that point, and to try to make it sound reasonable. So fair enough.

QuoteI tend to think the act of creating and playing a character is really the necessary element of roleplaying, and the actual mechanics for that can be as simple as...

I think what we'd need to do is examine this idea from the opposite end - take a game or activity or similar, normally completely devoid of RP, and see where it stops being whatever type of game it is and becomes an RPG.

QuoteI find mechanics more complex than that tend to become more of a hindrance than a help.

Well, I enjoy my crunch. But level of mechanical detail shouldn't be much of a factor, hence why I am insisting that if there is at least a framework of some kind in place, then it could reasonably be called an RPG.

Quote from: paris80Then your definition is wrong.

If it is, then it will require more than simple statements such as this to convince me of such. I am willing to admit that it might be, but you will have to show me how with reasonable argumentation.

QuoteThis tells me that "roleplaying mechanics" are not a prerequisite for the occurrence of "roleplaying" during a campaign.

That is not the point, though. The point is that, without the framework in place, there is no reason for you to RP, as per the RAW. You are adding the roleplaying as an overlay to the system. It is not intrinsically a part of it.

You could do the same thing with chess.

QuoteOh fercrissake. Fourth edition D&D is a RPG. If you don't like it, fine. I don't either, I'll just mention in passing. But to deny that it is what it in fact is... that's just silly.

No, I don't think it's silly. My personal feelings for it aside, I am not entirely certain that it is appropriate to call it an RPG. This view is stemming from how I define an RPG, and 4e failing to fall into those parameters.

QuoteAnd besides, 4e even has social mechanics - why then deny it entry into your RPG club?

See earlier in this post; someone else mentioned that, and I believe I addressed that sufficiently to explain why.

Quote from: HaffrungThat's only valid if the game is defined by its mechanics.

Which is a stance I agree with.

QuoteIn other words, the assumption is that an intelligent person at the table is a better judge of the success or failure of social situations involving roleplaying than any hard mechanics.

I would find that to be in error. Fiat DMing is not good for the game, in any situation, ever (IMO, etc).

QuoteYou want to talk your way into the city gates after dark? Okay, start talking. I (the DM) will decide if you're persuasive or not. That's roleplaying.

I would actually argue that this is the direct antithesis of roleplaying. This is fiat DMing, which is just as bad for social encounters as it is for combat.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318529Man, teh st00pid just keeps on comin'.

Eh, take the ad hominem and shove off. You might have something useful to contribute. Please do so in a reasonable and charitable manner, rather than assuming I'm an imbecile.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318543Eh, take the ad hominem and shove off. You might have something useful to contribute. Please do so in a reasonable and charitable manner, rather than assuming I'm an imbecile.

If you think that OD&D and/or D&D4e are not rpgs, then you are an imbecile. Or as I prefer to put it, a cocksmock.

My useful contribution was noting that in both games as in most others, people can if they wish do the absolute minimum of roleplaying and treat it as a pure tactical wargame, but that those people are boring to game with, and generally stupid and unimaginative.

That is simply my old observation about a roleplaying game session that the most important determinant of its success or failure is the effort of its participants. People matter more than rules or setting.

And if you think people don't matter, then you're a cocksmock.

Quote from: Haffrung;318539How do you perceive a foe as an inferior opponent before you've started fighting? I mean, do they literally not have faces? Are there other visual cues that guarantee to the PCs that they're weaklings? Aren't there master swordsmen who look mundane, or flamboyant enemies who act fearsome but are all bluster?

First, let's not coy about the words the DM chose. It's obvious shorthand. Not everyone wants to be verbose. Second, there are many in-game explantations of how adventurers could perceive this. They could learn how to analyze thier opponents through practice and study. They could have a sensitized gut instinct. Maybe culturally people of X power wear color Y and wearing color X when you're Y power causes you to lose face or, during a fight, maybe everyone emits energy corresponding to their strength, etc. etc. and master swordsmen who look mundane and flamboyant enemies who act fearsome should obviously be exceptions. Otherwise, strategy becomes an impossibility and no one pays to go to military school (which pretty much devolves to "hit things hard and be able to take a hard hit" academy).

QuoteSometimes. But with a good DM, not often enough to outweight the pleasure of matching your own wits against a sound and flexible mind, instead of rolling some dice.

Matching wits, you say? That sounds dangerously like a situation with involved analytical decision-making. Almost as if you were describing a game. Ah yes, Chess. No dice rolling guaranteed! :)

Quote from: Haffrung;318527You want to talk your way into the city gates after dark? Okay, start talking. I (the DM) will decide if you're persuasive or not. That's roleplaying.

Here's the problem for me. Let's say this gaurd is an established NPC. They have a chance to learn that he was a weakness for redheads and, due to his brothers legal problems, is short on cash. Okay, so now both players and Gm have something they can work with and roleplay about.

But more likely than not, this guard isn't an established NPC. He probably doesn't even have a name and just uses generic stats. Sure as hell he has no background the players can leverage. So with nothing to work what  "being persuasive" actually means is entertianing the GM.

You end up with a situation in which what on the surface is called roleplaying is not about interacting with a simulated world it is really just player giving the GM what he wants (insert generic smooth talk) to get a cookie at the end. As a player you just learn what the GM likes and perform it on demand to succeed.

This is horribly destructive. And worse of all I think a lot of GMs, who perhaps don't spend enough time as regualr players, don't even notice.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318544That is simply my old observation about a roleplaying game session that the most important determinant of its success or failure is the effort of its participants. People matter more than rules or setting.

This and only this. It goes for the "what is an RPG" argument as well as the minion argument. It's all about the people.

You could define "RPG" narrowly enough to exclude OD&D and 4E, but most people don't use the term that way, so you're just going to be confusing. Most people play OD&D and 4E as RPGs. My 4E sessions involve a lot of role-playing.

Quote from: Soylent Green;318555But more likely than not, this guard isn't an established NPC. He probably doesn't even have a name and just uses generic stats. Sure as hell he has no background the players can leverage. So with nothing to work what  "being persuasive" actually means is entertianing the GM.

Sure. But is this what you're saying: "If you don't roleplay every situation in the game, it's not roleplaying?" That's what I'm inferring. Is that right?

There's nothing stopping the DM from having many important NPCs, including a city guard. Any interaction with them can be pure roleplay. But the game system also provides a way to resolve situations without roleplaying them fully. Just because you don't roleplay every conversation in character, doesn't mean you're not roleplaying.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Quote from: StormBringer;318492So, as I have mentioned elsewhere:  You like minions?  Great.  You want to prattle on about how cool it is to dispatch crowds of them at a time? Great, but you would see me rolling my eyes if you were on this side of my screen.  You want to carry on endlessly about how horrible D&D was before your personal deity delivered the game into your hands and anyone who doesn't like minions is a fatbeard that 'just doesn't get it'?  Ok, but I am going to have to have something to say about that.  It gets worse if said party wants to make some kind of argument about objective improvements to the ruleset, or how it makes it more 'cinematic' (as though this is also an obvious good) without really looking at the extremely narrow definition of 'cinematic' they are employing.

You seem a bit defensive here. More than a bit, really. D&D was awesome before 4E. It remains awesome.

Minions are not objectively better than non-minions. (I might argue that having the option to use minions is objectively better than lacking that option, since you can use them if they improve your game, and ignore them if they don't without hurting your game).

Your repeated comments similar to "I would like minions...if I were still a whimpering child" (paraphrasing) don't help your case any. You may not get moderated for ad hominem attacks on boards like this, but you'll still lead people to believe you're a dick. And if people think you're a dick, they're not going to listen to any cogent argument you might set forth.

Quote from: Fifth Element;318572D&D was awesome before 4E. It remains awesome.

Truer words have seldom been spoken. D&D was indeed awesome and remains so to this this day.

It a shame however that 4E doesn't have even a fraction of the awesomeness of D&D.

Quote from: Edsan;318580Truer words have seldom been spoken. D&D was indeed awesome and remains so to this this day.

It a shame however that 4E doesn't have even a fraction of the awesomeness of D&D.

If you consider 1/1 a fraction, I'll have to disagree with you.

All editions of D&D are awesome!

Quote from: Fifth Element;318572Your repeated comments similar to "I would like minions...if I were still a whimpering child" (paraphrasing) don't help your case any. You may not get moderated for ad hominem attacks on boards like this, but you'll still lead people to believe you're a dick. And if people think you're a dick, they're not going to listen to any cogent argument you might set forth.

You aren't quite getting the gist of what I am saying.  I am saying that if you like minions, great; if you like to talk about minions, ok, but not my cuppa; if you want to talk about how great minions are and how much better the game is now because of them (among other things) because you don't have to start out as a weakling and can cut through dozens of minions like a real 'badass' like John McClane and that is how you want to play...

Well, that's fine too, but expect some counter-points.

My response to the original post, if that is what you are looking for is:  Meh, could be.  I think minions could be a facet, but not as strong of an effect as the relentless character balancing and rigorous encounter balancing.

So, I'm not particularly defensive about it.  Look to the folks who are pulling out all the stops to demonstrate the minions are the best 'improvement' to combat since the advent of ten sided dice if you are looking for defensive.

Quote from: Fifth Element;318583If you consider 1/1 a fraction, I'll have to disagree with you.

All editions of D&D are awesome!

Oh wonderful, slogans from other boards.

Quote from: The Worid;318594Oh wonderful, slogans from other boards.

Since I originated that slogan on ENWorld, you could say it's my personal slogan if that makes you feel better.

Quote from: Soylent Green;318555Here's the problem for me. Let's say this gaurd is an established NPC. They have a chance to learn that he was a weakness for redheads and, due to his brothers legal problems, is short on cash. Okay, so now both players and Gm have something they can work with and roleplay about.

But more likely than not, this guard isn't an established NPC. He probably doesn't even have a name and just uses generic stats. Sure as hell he has no background the players can leverage. So with nothing to work what  "being persuasive" actually means is entertianing the GM.

You end up with a situation in which what on the surface is called roleplaying is not about interacting with a simulated world it is really just player giving the GM what he wants (insert generic smooth talk) to get a cookie at the end. As a player you just learn what the GM likes and perform it on demand to succeed.

This is horribly destructive. And worse of all I think a lot of GMs, who perhaps don't spend enough time as regualr players, don't even notice.

No, that's actually a very destructive way of looking at the issue, since it supposes a GM-player relationship built on dickery instead of mutual trust and a collective commintment to be entertaining. "You are saying you smooth-talk them? Go ahead, prove it." is legitimate because doing that bit of negotiation is a common component of the social fun people have at the table. Maybe it is just an opportunity to talk in silly voices and engage in some banter. Maybe it is a challenge with stakes and win and loss conditions. Maybe it is interaction for its own sake. But once you measure it from the perspective of who is screwing whom out of his "rightful share" of entertainment, you are already on the wrong track, and if it becomes a problem, the question you should be asking is "should I be playing with these people?" or even better, "am I looking at roleplaying games the right way?".

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318544That is simply my old observation about a roleplaying game session that the most important determinant of its success or failure is the effort of its participants. People matter more than rules or setting.

I agree with you to a point, but my experience disagrees with you for the most part. While I agree that a group I don't gel with can make a session of even my favorite game an unpleasant experience, a game I don't gel with in a group I do like can do the same. I played 3.5 with the same group for years, and yet when we started 4e I ended up hating it. We had all the same playes, the same snacks, the same seating order around the table, the same miniatures, the same battle mat, and the same night at the same time. Yet for me 4e sucks ass, especially when the minions show up on the mat. So, the system can obviously have an effect.

Quote from: StormBringer;318590You aren't quite getting the gist of what I am saying.  I am saying that if you like minions, great; if you like to talk about minions, ok, but not my cuppa; if you want to talk about how great minions are and how much better the game is now because of them (among other things) because you don't have to start out as a weakling and can cut through dozens of minions like a real 'badass' like John McClane and that is how you want to play...

As far as I can see, no one has made such an argument in this thread.

On the other hand, the very first response in the thread contained the phrase "if your players were seven fucking years old".

But on yet another hand, you did not write that post, and I should not be singling you out for that behaviour here. My apologies.

Quote from: Soylent Green;318555Here's the problem for me. Let's say this gaurd is an established NPC. They have a chance to learn that he was a weakness for redheads and, due to his brothers legal problems, is short on cash. Okay, so now both players and Gm have something they can work with and roleplay about.

But more likely than not, this guard isn't an established NPC. He probably doesn't even have a name and just uses generic stats. Sure as hell he has no background the players can leverage. So with nothing to work what  "being persuasive" actually means is entertianing the GM.

IMO and IME a good DM could and would easily take your scenario and roll with it if even a hint of it was brought up by a player whether that had been previously planned or not.

QuoteYou end up with a situation in which what on the surface is called roleplaying is not about interacting with a simulated world it is really just player giving the GM what he wants (insert generic smooth talk) to get a cookie at the end. As a player you just learn what the GM likes and perform it on demand to succeed.

My experience compels me to strongly disagree with you. 99% of the "fiat DMing" that I've encountered in my RPGing life has been very entertaining and satisfactory, so your characterization of it does't match the games I've participated in.

QuoteThis is horribly destructive. And worse of all I think a lot of GMs, who perhaps don't spend enough time as regualr players, don't even notice.

I also strenuously disagree with this, I think it's vastly superior to having loads of needless rules to cover situations that play out more organically and satisfactorily without them.

Quote from: Melan;318604. . . [ I ]t supposes a GM-player relationship built on dickery instead of mutual trust and a collective commintment to be entertaining. "You are saying you smooth-talk them? Go ahead, prove it." is legitimate because doing that bit of negotiation is a common component of the social fun people have at the table. Maybe it is just an opportunity to talk in silly voices and engage in some banter. Maybe it is a challenge with stakes and win and loss conditions. Maybe it is interaction for its own sake. But once you measure it from the perspective of who is screwing whom out of his "rightful share" of entertainment, you are already on the wrong track . . .

I heartily endorse this product or service!

Quote from: Soylent Green;318555Let's say this gaurd is an established NPC.

Okay, the guard is an established NPC.

Quote from: Soylent GreenThey have a chance to learn that he was a weakness for redheads and, due to his brothers legal problems, is short on cash. Okay, so now both players and Gm have something they can work with and roleplay about.

All right, I'm with you so far, with the caveat that just because the guard has pressure points doesn't necessarily translate to the adventurers getting their way. Trotting out an auburn-tressed harlot, or slipping him a sackful of shekels, may be enticing, but it's also possible that he's conscientious about his responsibiities and diligent in the performance of his duties as well.

Sometimes good plans don't work, or more precisely what seems like a good plan may not work.

Anyway, let's continue.

Quote from: Soylent GreenBut more likely than not, this guard isn't an established NPC.

More likley than not.

Quote from: Soylent GreenHe probably doesn't even have a name and just uses generic stats. Sure as hell he has no background the players can leverage. So with nothing to work what  "being persuasive" actually means is entertianing the GM.

*bzzzt!* And here's the disconnect.

Referees make up personalities on the spot pretty much every game session. A guard, a clerk in a registrar's office, a shopkeeper selling glassware, or a college professor - all the people the adventurers encounter because of the choices they make, and for which the referee must respond on the fly.

For me that's one of the most enjoyable aspects of sitting at the head of the table. On a moment's notice I may need to think as that guard, or that clerk, or that shopkeeper, or that professor. I need to imbue them with a history and a personality by flexing the ripped and bulging guns of my imagination right now.

Speaking as a player, this is for me one of the attributes that separates good referees from the merely passable. If every guard is steadfast and incorruptible, or if every guard is readily suborned, then I suspect that the referee has some room to improve her skills.

I conjecture that some players who prefer to let the dice do their talking really want to take the roleplaying off the table in encounters with a guard or clerk or the other 'non-established' NPCs: "I'll use Diplomacy to convince him to be our friend!" or, "I'll Intimidate him to get the information!" It becomes a short cut that creates a game-world in which one can pump up one's skills and thereby avoid encountering a guard or a clerk who isn't easily bribed or bamboozled at the throw of a die.

Quote from: Fifth Element;318609As far as I can see, no one has made such an argument in this thread.

On the other hand, the very first response in the thread contained the phrase "if your players were seven fucking years old".

But on yet another hand, you did not write that post, and I should not be singling you out for that behaviour here. My apologies.

Not a problem, as the point I was about to make was that not all posts in a given thread are required to reference only that thread or only the post you are replying to.  Understandably, you may have heard a particular statement dozens of times on as many other threads, and it becomes tedious after a time.

Individual playstyles are not my business, and I don't make them so.  Posting about it on a discussion forum, however, makes them fair game.

Remember when you laughed about me, when I predicted EXACTLY that two years ago?

Sometimes it feels real good to be me.

Quote from: Settembrini;318634Remember when you laughed about me, when I predicted EXACTLY that two years ago?

No.  No one remembers that.

Mostly because no one knows what you are talking about.

Quote from: Fifth Element;318583All editions of D&D are awesome!

Its good to see you agree with me. All editions of D&D are indeed awesome. Too bad TSR became a pile of crud and released the last one in 1989. What if there had been a 3rd edition? or 4th? or even a 5th? I'm sure if there where such things they would be pretty awesome too.

Quote from: Edsan;318636Its good to see you agree with me. All editions of D&D are indeed awesome. Too bad TSR became a pile of crud and released the last one in 1989. What if there had been a 3rd edition? or 4th? or even a 5th? I'm sure if there where such things they would be pretty awesome too.

My sides are splitting, really they are. I mean, I haven't heard that one in what, a couple of hours now?

Stormbringer you dumbfuck, you weren´t even on this board during that time. So OBVIOUSLY you don´t remember...

Quote from: Settembrini;318652Stormbringer you dumbfuck, you weren´t even on this board during that time. So OBVIOUSLY you don´t remember...

I was on here two years ago.

I DO remember you talking A LOT.

Some of it made sense - but that was 2 years ago.

 Even a guy with a partial photographic memory forgets some things posted by a guy that quit the forum 2 or 3 times. (One memory: Your avatar was sort of a steampunk Dalek for a while)

- Ed C.

Quote from: Settembrini;318652Stormbringer you dumbfuck, you weren´t even on this board during that time. So OBVIOUSLY you don´t remember...

Settembrini, you dumbfuck, you weren't relevant then either, and likely spouting the same poorly formed bullshit, so OBVIOUSLY you think it matters.

Righty right!

I was just remembering the glory days when I was predicting that minions would lead to widespread adoption of utterly retarded metagaming.
I think it´s now scientifically proven that this is now the case.

And for the forum quitting, your partial [sic] photographic memory seems to have not kept the reason for the quits. They were protests for freedom of speech, an aim I can now further much more efficiently and sensibly the way I do now.

Quote from: Settembrini;318659Righty right!

I was just remembering the glory days when I was predicting that minions would lead to widespread adoption of utterly retarded metagaming.
I think it´s now scientifically proven that this is now the case.

And for the forum quitting, your partial [sic] photographic memory seems to have not kept the reason for the quits. They were protests for freedom of speech, an aim I can now further much more efficiently and sensibly the way I do now.

Got a link to the relevant posts? I wasn't around for them, and I'm curious.

Sorry, the search function really does not work for me.

I tried, but I only found a thread from 2007 were I already claim I called it first...the irony!

Quote from: Sigmund;318606Yet for me 4e sucks ass, especially when the minions show up on the mat. So, the system can obviously have an effect.

You have to read me literally, not through the filter of Net-Tard that reduces everything to absurd extremes.

"I'm against capital punishment."
"What?! So we should just let them all go?!"
"I'm in favour of capital punishment."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?"

When I said that "people matter more than rules or setting" I did not say "so rules and setting don't matter at all and have no effect." Just that the people matter more than the rules or the setting. The body of your foot matters more than the toes in helping you walk; but that does not mean that if I take a little hammer and smash all your toes you'll be able to sprint down the track faster than Usain Bolt.

Saying that some things are more important than others is not saying that the others don't matter at all.

I'd say that if your definition of "roleplaying game" is sufficiently narrow that it doesn't allow OD&D to be a roleplaying game, you're probably using a crappy definition.

I mean, shouldn't that be one of the tests?  "Is the first roleplaying game a roleplaying game?"  I'd say if you have to answer "No," then you've gone off track somewhere.

-O

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318806You have to read me literally, not through the filter of Net-Tard that reduces everything to absurd extremes.

"I'm against capital punishment."
"What?! So we should just let them all go?!"
"I'm in favour of capital punishment."
"What?! So we should execute people for jaywalking?"

When I said that "people matter more than rules or setting" I did not say "so rules and setting don't matter at all and have no effect." Just that the people matter more than the rules or the setting. The body of your foot matters more than the toes in helping you walk; but that does not mean that if I take a little hammer and smash all your toes you'll be able to sprint down the track faster than Usain Bolt.

Saying that some things are more important than others is not saying that the others don't matter at all.

I don't care.

If you don't care, then don't post.

Quote from: obryn;318810I'd say that if your definition of "roleplaying game" is sufficiently narrow that it doesn't allow OD&D to be a roleplaying game, you're probably using a crappy definition.

That is possible, yes.

QuoteI mean, shouldn't that be one of the tests?  "Is the first roleplaying game a roleplaying game?"  I'd say if you have to answer "No," then you've gone off track somewhere.

I think that's making an awful big assumption. Yes, OD&D is called an RPG; but I could call a duck a giraffe, yet that does not make it so.

Is OD&D an RPG, or is it a game that - for whatever reason - lends itself well to having roleplaying overlaid onto it?

I think that I would argue that the presence of roleplaying is a necessary component to something that would be called an RPG. If a game can be stripped of all roleplaying - and OD&D can, can it not? - then I am not certain that it could or even should be called an RPG.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318852If a game can be stripped of all roleplaying - and OD&D can, can it not? - then I am not certain that it could or even should be called an RPG.

Every game can be stripped of roleplaying, provided its players and GM are all boring and stupid. It can be reduced to interactions of sets of game mechanics, with no personality of player or character involved. This applies whether it's OD&D, D&D4e, Changeling, FATE, Sorcerer, A Man and His Pet Flea Spot, HeroQuest, whatever.

Therefore by your definition there are no rpgs.

In which case, bye-bye, I don't expect to see you posting here again. Since rpgs don't exist, you can have nothing to say about them.

Or you could just admit that what you said was a load of old bollocks.

Quote from: Kyle AaronTherefore by your definition there are no rpgs.

If you roleplay during a game of Monopoly, does that make it an RPG? I don't think that anyone would say yes to that question. Monopoly is not an RPG, no matter how much roleplaying is present while it is being played.

Let me try a different approach. You want to claim that OD&D - which I'll use just for argument's sake - is an RPG. You admit that it is possible to remove all roleplaying from an RPG, thus reducing it to its mechanical elements, a state that puts it roughly on par with Monopoly. If you RP in Monopoly, that does not make Monopoly an RPG. So why does roleplaying in OD&D make it an RPG?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318923You want to claim that OD&D - which I'll use just for argument's sake - is an RPG.

Nuh-uh.  original D&D has almost 36 years of history and millions of people who call it the first role playing game.  You seem to think that some mechanics - which came later, not before - the creation of role playing games (in the context we're referring to, vis dice, pencil, paper etc.) means original D&D isn't an RPG.

What's your thesis?  You disprove, not the other way around.  You're sitting there kinda like the moon conspiracy theorists going "We never went, prove we did"...no, the evidence is that we did, prove we didn't.

The evidence is that original D&D is an RPG.  You mentioning that it doesn't have the rules you like doesn't not make it an RPG.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318923You want to claim that OD&D - which I'll use just for argument's sake - is an RPG. You admit that it is possible to remove all roleplaying from an RPG, thus reducing it to its mechanical elements, a state that puts it roughly on par with Monopoly. If you RP in Monopoly, that does not make Monopoly an RPG. So why does roleplaying in OD&D make it an RPG?

The pieces and the players in Monopoly are not expected to interact with one another or the game environment in the same way that the characters and players are in OD&D.

Interaction between players in Monopoly is limited to auctions and paying or receiving money from the Banker, and interaction with the environment is limited to following the spaces and purchasing property cards and structure pieces.

In OD&D, interaction between the players and the referee through their characters is expected and required in order for both players and characters to interact with the game environment, an environment which is effectively unbounded.

On a tangent, so-called 'roleplaying mechanics' don't necessarily result in actual roleplaying. In some cases they function more like tactical miniatures rules: "If your roll to Intimidate succeeds, the figure will not attack." Is that really what you consider roleplaying?

Quote from: The Shaman;318929In OD&D, interaction between the players and the referee through their characters is expected and required in order for both players and characters to interact with the game environment, an environment which is effectively unbounded.

I don't think that this is necessarily roleplaying.

You could easily play OD&D in an entirely meta sense. Yes, players have to have the back-and-forth with the DM to gain an understanding of the environment, but that does not have to be done in-character.

QuoteOn a tangent, so-called 'roleplaying mechanics' don't necessarily result in actual roleplaying. In some cases they function more like tactical miniatures rules: "If your roll to Intimidate succeeds, the figure will not attack." Is that really what you consider roleplaying?

Hmm. I don't think so.

Some folk are missing a very simple truth.

A lot of players don't find that metagaming breaks their fun. A not insignificant number find that a small dash actually adds to it.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;318925Nuh-uh.  original D&D has almost 36 years of history and millions of people who call it the first role playing game.  You seem to think that some mechanics - which came later, not before - the creation of role playing games (in the context we're referring to, vis dice, pencil, paper etc.) means original D&D isn't an RPG.

What's your thesis?  You disprove, not the other way around.  You're sitting there kinda like the moon conspiracy theorists going "We never went, prove we did"...no, the evidence is that we did, prove we didn't.

The evidence is that original D&D is an RPG.  You mentioning that it doesn't have the rules you like doesn't not make it an RPG.

Well, I think I can see where GnomeWorks is coming from.  What puts the 'role playing' into a role playing game?  Talking in a funny voice?  Writing a backstory for your avatar?  Whatever that thing is, if it isn't defined or supported by the rules themselves, what prevents one from applying that to any kind of game and calling that a 'role playing game'?

It's a tricky question, but I think insuring a definition that definitely applies to OD&D is circular reasoning.  Such and such defines role-playing, so it has to apply to OD&D, because OD&D was a role-playing game.

I am not certain, for myself, what exactly would define the 'role-playing' part precisely, and there may not be a way to precisely define it anyway.  Either way, I don't think the question itself is invalid, especially if the only reason to avoid it is because the eventual discovery might exclude one of the original games, OD&D in this case.

Quote from: StormBringer;318936It's a tricky question, but I think insuring a definition that definitely applies to OD&D is circular reasoning.  Such and such defines role-playing, so it has to apply to OD&D, because OD&D was a role-playing game.

It would be the same thing as a definition of cola that excluded Coca-Cola: potentially entertaining but practically worthless.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318934You could easily play OD&D in an entirely meta sense. Yes, players have to have the back-and-forth with the DM to gain an understanding of the environment, but that does not have to be done in-character.

Gaining an understanding of the environment is not the same thing as interacting with it.

I'm not talking about asking the referee to describe a room. I'm talking about characters interacting with other characters, both player and non-. I'm talking about making decisions as a group. I'm talking about setting and achieving, or failing to achieve, goals, based on the events of the game.

Have you ever heard of En Garde!? (Yes, the exclamation point is part of the title.) It was set of fencing rules developed by GDW. As they played it around the office and at home, the players discovered that most of the fun came from interacting with one another through their characters, so they added rules that fleshed out the characters, giving them careers to follow, mistresses to be courted, and so on. I consider it to be a good example of the transitional state between a minis game and a roleplaying game: players make choices about what they want their "playing pieces" to do, but the resolution is entirely handled by the dice, whereas a roleplaying game gives the players greater latitude in how they plan and implement what they want their characters to do.

Before you argue, "Well, that's not necessarily roleplaying," consider why they added those rules to En Garde in the first place: it was the natural outgrowth of playing the game. I can pretty well imagine how it began: win a duel against another player, a smattering of trash-talk follows, now a rivalry develops and factions form, duplicity sets in, questions about what characters do when they're not fighting in the streets arise, now we have careers and clubs and mistresses . . . . Roleplaying developed as an extension of the game.

Tell me, have you had that same experience playing Monopoly? Or Jenga? Or Heigh-ho Cherry-O?

OD&D begins with the assumption that the experiences that flowed from the experience of playing En Garde! are inherent to the game. It's not something that simply happens without reference to the rules, and playing the game without those interactions is not playing the game as it was designed or intended.

Quote from: Melan;318947It would be the same thing as a definition of cola that excluded Coca-Cola: potentially entertaining but practically worthless.

Not really the same thing.  Cola is well defined; there is no real controversy over what constitutes 'cola'.

Presumably, then, you have a solid definition:  What is it about OD&D that makes it a 'role playing' game for you?

Quote from: The Shaman;318948I'm not talking about asking the referee to describe a room. I'm talking about characters interacting with other characters, both player and non-. I'm talking about making decisions as a group. I'm talking about setting and achieving, or failing to achieve, goals, based on the events of the game.

Arkham Horror, Outbreak, any number of similar Eurogames or pseudo-Eurogames.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318923Let me try a different approach. You want to claim that OD&D - which I'll use just for argument's sake - is an RPG. You admit that it is possible to remove all roleplaying from an RPG, thus reducing it to its mechanical elements, a state that puts it roughly on par with Monopoly. If you RP in Monopoly, that does not make Monopoly an RPG. So why does roleplaying in OD&D make it an RPG?

Can you give us some examples of what you do consider to be an RPG? Is there such a thing?

Quote from: StormBringer;318963Not really the same thing.  Cola is well defined; there is no real controversy over what constitutes 'cola'.

I'm sure there are some cola afficionados out there who would say Diet Coke isn't really cola. Because they use their very own narrow definition of cola. So it is quite similar to this situation.

Quote from: Fifth Element;318972I'm sure there are some cola afficionados out there who would say Diet Coke isn't really cola. Because they use their very own narrow definition of cola. So it is quite similar to this situation.

Yes, exactly, a very narrow definition that absolutely excludes Diet Coke or some other variation.  That doesn't mean it is necessarily an accurate definition.

Cola is typically some citrus oil, cinnamon and vanilla, according to Wikipedia.  So, any one person can say "Well, Diet Coke only has 4% vanilla instead of 4.2% like regular Coke, therefore it isn't a 'cola'", but that person would be seen as unnecessarily splitting hairs.  If you use a certain product as a baseline, that is one thing, but if you are crafting a definition that necessarily includes a certain product, it is circular reasoning.  OD&D, for example, doesn't have a skill system.  Is the exclusion of a skill system indicative of an RPG?  Then there is a metric tonne of games that aren't RPGs.  Is it the addition of role assumption?  Ok; I am Klaarg, Master of Twigs.  Now pick-up-sticks is a role playing game.

If you think the definition of 'role playing game' is self evident, then enlighten me.  I am hearing a lot of "Of course OD&D is a role playing game", what I am not hearing is an explanation as to why that statement is accurate.

There're also folk who think that you're Luc Besson's third best film. Doesn't make them right.

Edit: That was at least 1.015% more funny without Stormbringers post in the way.

Quote from: StormBringer;318963Not really the same thing.  Cola is well defined; there is no real controversy over what constitutes 'cola'.

There is no substantial controversy over what constitutes a "roleplaying game" either, except in nitpicky Internet communities. Sorry.

Quote from: StormBringer;318963Presumably, then, you have a solid definition:  What is it about OD&D that makes it a 'role playing' game for you?

Ugh. A roleplaying game is a game in which participants interact with a referee-created imaginary environment through verbal commands describing the actions of an imagined agent. There may be more comprehensive or well-worded definitions, but this one will have to be generally acceptable. The defining feature of roleplaying games is not characterisation but emergent interaction with a fictious environment.

Quote from: Melan;318980There is no substantial controversy over what constitutes a "roleplaying game" either, except in nitpicky Internet communities. Sorry.

I spend about half an hour each day, at least, pondering how to save causality from destruction at the hands of a British empiricist from the 18th century.

I'm a philosophy major. Worrying about things no one else gives two shits about is what I do.

QuoteThe defining feature of roleplaying games is not characterisation but emergent interaction with a fictious environment.

So you're saying that... the RPG-ness of a game is not found anywhere within the game itself, but is an emergent property upon putting the system into use? I get the feeling that I'm missing what you're saying, a bit.

Quote from: Melan;318980Ugh. A roleplaying game is a game in which participants interact with a referee-created imaginary environment through verbal commands describing the actions of an imagined agent. There may be more comprehensive or well-worded definitions, but this one will have to be generally acceptable. The defining feature of roleplaying games is not characterisation but emergent interaction with a fictious environment.

So, not MUDs or MUSHes if rooms are open for creation to all? Chess, if I describe the board as an otherworldly plane where the battle for survival depends on the army at your command?  No LARPs because the environment isn't fictitious or created by a referee?  What if the imaginary environment emerges from a joint anthology-like storytelling game with no defined referee?

'Emergent interaction with a fictitious environment' opens the door to any game being a 'role playing game'.  The environment of streets in Monopoly, while based on Atlantic City, are certainly fictitious.  Is the standard act of buying a property or bargaining to pay rent when you are out of money an 'emergent interaction'?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318984I spend about half an hour each day, at least, pondering how to save causality from destruction at the hands of a British empiricist from the 18th century.

I will save you that 30mins each day, then:  Quantum physics presents strong evidence that causality is probably an illusion.  ;)

The basic definition of emergence from Wikipedia:

QuoteIn philosophy, systems theory and science, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions.

That describes rather well what roleplaying games "do" - or what makes them special. But what matters more is the
relationship, the way impulses are sent through the referee to affect the environment, and the way the environment's rules and effects are applied back to the agent.

Also, this is turning into sophistry, and I will now go to sleep.

Quote from: StormBringer;318990So, not MUDs or MUSHes if rooms are open for creation to all? Chess, if I describe the board as an otherworldly plane where the battle for survival depends on the army at your command?  No LARPs because the environment isn't fictitious or created by a referee?  What if the imaginary environment emerges from a joint anthology-like storytelling game with no defined referee?

'Emergent interaction with a fictitious environment' opens the door to any game being a 'role playing game'.  The environment of streets in Monopoly, while based on Atlantic City, are certainly fictitious.  Is the standard act of buying a property or bargaining to pay rent when you are out of money an 'emergent interaction'?

Sorry, but I will not engage with your Forge-level obfuscation and anti-communication tactics. Roleplaying games have commonly understandable and commonly accepted features, and they are entirely adequate for their definition, self-explanatorily including OD&D among their ranks. In some obscure cases, you might need addiitonal qualifiers, but really, these cases are as rare as having to say 2+2 is only 4 for certain values of 2 and 4.

Learn the common vocabularity and use it.

Quote from: Melan;318995The basic definition of emergence from Wikipedia:

That describes rather well what roleplaying games "do" - or what makes them special. But what matters more is the

PLAYER ---> AGENT <---> REFEREE <---> ENVIRONMENT

relationship, the way impulses are sent through the referee to affect the environment, and the way the environment's rules and effects are applied back to the agent.

Also, this is turning into sophistry, and I will now go to sleep.

I am familiar with emergence.  There are many things in role-playing games that are not emergent, and many emergent things in other games that don't make them role-play.

And yes, it is a bit of sophistry, but GnomeWorks expressed some doubt as to what unique aspect of play comprises a 'role-playing game', and the responses generally seem to indicate that the answer is self-evident, and obviously applies to OD&D.  When pressed for specifics, however, the replies look like they are generic attributes that can be applied to any game.  The Shaman mentions that one is not expected to role-play in Monopoly, but you aren't prevented from doing so.  Also, we don't know who or what is doing this 'expecting'.

In the description above, is a referee necessary?  That would discount free-form role play found in forums and blogs all over the web.  MUDs and MUSHes don't have a referee to adjudicate every interaction with the environment.

I don't think things are quite so obvious or straightforward as they are assumed to be.

Quote from: Melan;318997Learn the common vocabularity and use it.

Is that like common sense?  A wonderful dismissal, but it doesn't hold up well if you look at it closely?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318923If you roleplay during a game of Monopoly, does that make it an RPG? I don't think that anyone would say yes to that question.

It's a non-rpg that you've added rpg elements to. It becomes in effect an rpg while you're playing that particular session of the game. You can do the same with chess or anything. Yes, those can all be rpgs in effect just for that session.

Look, here's the key thing. I wish I could remember who said it first, it must have been Zach or one of those smart people: if you come to do something in the game, and say, "but my character wouldn't do that," then that's roleplaying.

So if you play Monopoly and refrain from taking rent when someone lands on your property, saying, "but the little thimble wouldn't do that," then yes, it's an rpg. If you just make funny "vroom vroom" noises when you move the car, that's not roleplaying.

Roleplaying is when you're willing to do something that makes you less likely to "win" simply because you're identifying with your character. Rules can help or hinder that, but really it's up to the players.

Monopoly and chess are not really set up for that. The old HeroQuest boardgame wasn't. But D&D in its various editions, Traveller, Vampire, Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, A Man and His Pet Flea Spot, Rifts, Ars Magica, Spycraft, all those games and a thousand more are set up for it.

I think you must be ignorant of the beginnings of our hobby. The first weekend Arneson GMed something like D&D, the combat rules were "roll to hit, if you hit he dies, if you miss he gets a go at you." That's because it came from wargames with a heap of figurines. When people had a couple dozen figurines on the board that was fine, when they had just one it was anticlimactic to say the least.

The players were unhappy because they identified with their figurine, it became a character. So Arneson reached over to his bookshelf to get some more complex combat rules, pulled out Ironclad - thus "hit points" and "armor class". Now it took several dice rolls, some back and forth, hits and misses, heavy hits and light hits, all that to decide the combat.

Now, the thing is that the end result was the same - one figurine was removed from the table, the other stayed on. But it didn't feel the same. One roll then victory or death felt bland and empty; several rolls, hits and misses, heavy and light hits, that felt like a duel with strike and parry and dodge. Players identifying with their figurines could imagine them as real people fighting, they could take the abstract Armor Class and Hit Points and damage rolls and imagine.

So with one small set of rules and charts added on, it went from being a pure wargame to being a roleplaying game. They were already roleplaying before that, the rules just made it more fun to roleplay, gave them more to work with.

A different bunch of players might not have identified with their figurines, and so not asked for different rules. But these guys wanted to play a role, not just roll dice. They roleplayed first, and got rules for it afterwards, or rules that helped it.

Just as we can roleplay without rules for it, so too can we avoid roleplaying even when there are rules for it - or rules that make it easier. It's up to the players. If they're smart and interesting, they'll want to roleplay in a roleplaying game. If they're boring and stupid they won't.

Yes, different sets of rules help or hinder roleplaying. But really it's up to the people involved what the game will be like. You can't blame the rules for boring and stupid people, and you can't give credit to the rules for smart and interesting people. We as human beings are responsible for what we do.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;318923If you roleplay during a game of Monopoly, does that make it an RPG?

Yes.

That particular variant, or game session, in effect becomes an RPG, yes.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319026I think you must be ignorant of the beginnings of our hobby. The first weekend Arneson GMed something like D&D, the combat rules were "roll to hit, if you hit he dies, if you miss he gets a go at you." That's because it came from wargames with a heap of figurines. When people had a couple dozen figurines on the board that was fine, when they had just one it was anticlimactic to say the least.

The players were unhappy because they identified with their figurine, it became a character. So Arneson reached over to his bookshelf to get some more complex combat rules, pulled out Ironclad - thus "hit points" and "armor class". Now it took several dice rolls, some back and forth, hits and misses, heavy hits and light hits, all that to decide the combat.

I didn't know that. That's actually quite insightful for those of us that toy around, making our own homebrew systems.

Quote from: 1989;319042I didn't know that. That's actually quite insightful for those of us that toy around, making our own homebrew systems.

Essentially the key things that turned a wargame into an rpg were having just one character, and having a more detailed combat system that let the players imagine a real fight. So it went from just a stoush to identifying with the character and imagining and caring what happened to them. They had a wargame in which they played a role, and it became a roleplaying game.

If it were impossible to roleplay without rules for it, roleplaying games would not exist. People roleplayed first and made rules supporting it second. Yes, you can roleplay with Monopoly, but if you want to do it more than once you'd need to tack on some rules. No, they don't have to be rules for intimidation or whatever. Just plain old combat rules help in roleplaying.

Arneson talks about it in an interview here (http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/04/dungeons_and_dragons_arneson_t.php). Some more stuff here (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/41430), or here (http://au.gamespy.com/articles/971/971858p1.html). And from the Big List of Links here -

The roots of roleplaying (http://www.acaeum.com/forum/about3888.html), in which David Wesely talks about how he invented polyhedral dice. Basically Wesely used to referee wargames, but he kept having too many players for them all to command armies. "Alright, they can command just one figurine each, then." Scenario was people running around during a coup d'etat, each with their own agenda. It was like Diplomacy but with individuals instead of countries.

See here (http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=73010) what's described as "The Secret History of Roleplaying" (scroll to about the middle of the long page).

After Wesely did that, Arneson ran with it, figurines exploring a wilderness and fighting monsters. They kept wandering off the map so he put them in a dungeon so they'd have to follow a simple path. They used the Chainmail rules for combat.

   "We had to change it almost after the first weekend. Combat in Chainmail is simply rolling two six-sided dice, and you either defeated the monster and killed it … or it killed you. It didn't take too long for players to get attached to their characters, and they wanted something detailed which Chainmail didn't have. The initial Chainmail rules was a matrix. That was okay for a few different kinds of units, but by the second weekend we already had 20 or 30 different monsters, and the matrix was starting to fill up the loft.

"I adopted the rules I'd done earlier for a Civil War game called Ironclads that had hit points and armor class. It meant that players had a chance to live longer and do more. They didn't care that they had hit points to keep track of because they were just keeping track of little detailed records for their character and not trying to do it for an entire army. They didn't care if they could kill a monster in one blow, but they didn't want the monster to kill them in one blow."

My emphasis. That's the thing that makes an rpg what it is - you're attached to your character. I'm not attached to the thimble in Monopoly or the right bishop in chess.

Add to the combat system, get better roleplaying. Whodathunkit? :p

What makes a roleplaying game? It's a game where you're expected to play a role. Sounds circular, but really it's not. You identify with your character, you do things that mean you won't "win" because my character wouldn't do that.

And that ties into the thing you used to always see in introductions to rpgs, this is a game you don't "win", you just play.

It's not really that complicated.

Well said, Kyle.

Quote from: aramis;319051Well said, Kyle.

Indeed. :)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319044That's the thing that makes an rpg what it is - you're attached to your character. I'm not attached to the thimble in Monopoly or the right bishop in chess.

That's why Hasbro is handing Monopoly over to the 4E design team next year.

The Warnopoly core set will have level-appropriate spaces so that players don't ever run out of money, never pay rent, and get $200 every turn.  The board will also be expanded to include "minionnaire mansion" spaces, which cost $1 each to buy and have absolutely no effect on the game beyond making the players feel proud of themselves for owning them.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;318840If you don't care, then don't post.

I think I'll just go ahead and post anyway.

Quote from: aramis;319051Well said, Kyle.

Quote from: Benoist;319054Indeed. :)

Agreed, I think Kyle's explanation is a good deal more of a working definition.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319044What makes a roleplaying game? It's a game where you're expected to play a role.

Yes. Assumptions and expectations; this is the crux of it.

Excellent post. I never knew until now that Ironclad was responsible for HP and AC! Illuminating, indeed.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;319026
Yes, different sets of rules help or hinder roleplaying. But really it's up to the people involved what the game will be like. You can't blame the rules for boring and stupid people, and you can't give credit to the rules for smart and interesting people. We as human beings are responsible for what we do.

The whole time I was catching up with this thread I was thinking the exact same thing. Yes, when you roleplay with Monopoly it's a RPG. RPGs are games you roleplay with, and the ones we like the most are the ones that present the best mesh between the roleplaying style we are looking for and the game's mechanics.

Completely free-form roleplaying sessions are not RPGs because they lack the game, but if even rudimentary rules are thrown in there then yes, it's a RPG. This shit isn't rocket science.

Quote from: StormBringer;319000Is that like common sense?  A wonderful dismissal, but it doesn't hold up well if you look at it closely?

I believe in common sense until someone brings forth Damn Good++ grade
evidence that demonstrates it as false. I also believe it is common wisdom that makes society able to function. Take that as you wish.

I will have to look more carefully at Kyle's posts; I am not sure I agree with him.

Quote from: Sigmund;319086Yes, when you roleplay with Monopoly it's a RPG. RPGs are games you roleplay with, and the ones we like the most are the ones that present the best mesh between the roleplaying style we are looking for and the game's mechanics.

Completely free-form roleplaying sessions are not RPGs because they lack the game, but if even rudimentary rules are thrown in there then yes, it's a RPG. This shit isn't rocket science.

I agree. I don't think you'd call Monopoly an RPG as a general rule, because it's not designed to be played that way (though you can certainly play it that way). If a game is designed to be played as an RPG, then it's pretty much an RPG.

You can play a game designed to be an RPG as something else (a tactical wargame, etc), but that doesn't change the design intent. So yes, OD&D is an RPG, while monopoly is not.

Quote from: Fifth Element;319157I agree. I don't think you'd call Monopoly an RPG as a general rule, because it's not designed to be played that way (though you can certainly play it that way). If a game is designed to be played as an RPG, then it's pretty much an RPG.

You can play a game designed to be an RPG as something else (a tactical wargame, etc), but that doesn't change the design intent. So yes, OD&D is an RPG, while monopoly is not.

I agree.

So LARPing doesn't count?

Quote from: Sigmund;319086The whole time I was catching up with this thread I was thinking the exact same thing. Yes, when you roleplay with Monopoly it's a RPG. RPGs are games you roleplay with, and the ones we like the most are the ones that present the best mesh between the roleplaying style we are looking for and the game's mechanics.

Completely free-form roleplaying sessions are not RPGs because they lack the game, but if even rudimentary rules are thrown in there then yes, it's a RPG. This shit isn't rocket science.

Aside from the 'expectations' and 'intents' parts others have mentioned, I think this is something I can agree with.

Additionally, I think there is a certain aspect to a ruleset that can either support or subvert roleplaying to varying degrees.  There should be no question that Monopoly is a poor role playing game, far surpassed by even something as simple as OD&D.

Quote from: Hairfoot;319182So LARPing doesn't count?

Of course it does, even with a rock-paper-scissors resolution system there is a 'game' there, albeit in a very minimal form.  Something like murder mystery dinner games are out on the fuzzy edge, but like LARPs with rudimentary underlying resolution systems, they don't fall down on the 'role playing' side, they fail as 'games'; they are closer to amateur performance art theatre in that respect.

Quote from: Melan;319122I believe in common sense until someone brings forth Damn Good++ grade
evidence that demonstrates it as false. I also believe it is common wisdom that makes society able to function. Take that as you wish.

I will have to look more carefully at Kyle's posts; I am not sure I agree with him.

Easy Peasy.  Anything that causes huge flame wars on the intarwebz, like tipping or washing after using the facilities.  It's 'common sense' that you leave a 15% tip when you dine out.  Until you find yourself outside of the US; in some countries, they find it rather insulting.  As another example, I am sure Kyle would feel a bit put out if someone was introduced to him as "Mr Storm, President and CEO of Citadel Enterprises", because it is 'common sense' that people are (generally) on a first name basis.

What is ususally termed 'common sense' is often 'cultural sense'.  This extends to a 'common vocabulary' as well.  The language I use to talk about computers and technology is 'common' among my techie associates, but have no place in the book club or the physics lab.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your views regarding player/rule/referee interactions, I think the overall idea of a 'common vocabulary' is a bit misleading, especially when speaking in broad terms like 'role playing games' and what that means.

EDIT:  Dammit, I forgot the whole point I was making.

I don't know if this has any kind of settling effect for GnomeWorks, but I don't think the question was out of line, nor was it an invalid question to propose.  Some may prefer a more detailed answer; I don't think that is entirely necessary, however.  There is still reasonable debate to be had over the extent that rules support the roleplaying in any given system, of course.

Quote from: Hairfoot;319182So LARPing doesn't count?

If there's some sort of system to it, however minimal, to qualify it as a 'game' rather than just 'playing pretend', then I don't see how you could exclude it.

Its funny. This is more a reply to the early posts.

A long, long time ago, one of my groups started identifying NPCs by minion or boss. I think one guy gave greek characters to it. So an Alpha level NPC could kill player characters in their sleep if they got a shot, betas could do it in a fair fight or legit ambush, and gammas could only kill you if an alpha was leading them or you did something unusually stupid.

We kept it kind of fuzzy and fluid, and we didn't talk about it too much. Sometimes NPCs could change levels, up or down, depending on the reputation they got with the players during the game.

We certainly thought it was entertaining, because we played mostly palladium and it took too long to make a character to have him die to something stupid. We also liked knowing we could make the "wrong" choice in the name of staying in character and not die.

It also let us know when we had to be on our game. It was fun knowing that such and such an NPC wasn't fucking around. Most games people run, NPCs are all assumed to be deadly, but you trust the GM not to ruin the game by TPKing the group for no reason.

The thing I don't like about 4E's system is that they identify far to fucking many NPCs as bosses to the point where it is stupid. In our games, Magneto would be an Alpha level boss character. The one guard that got a promotion because he can do a lot more push-ups didn't get the A+ grade.

Separating minions and bosses is a cinematic decision used to elevate player characters to a higher order of people. When Bruce Lee fights a bunch of guys, you know he can't lose... but he might when he comes up against Chuck Norris. If you are trying to play a game where the players are Bruce Lee, Samurai Jack, or John Wayne you want to make sure the story doesn't end with something stupid.

If you are playing an RPG where you are trying to emulate real life conditions, then you want people to feel like they can fall off a horse and die. I usually run my D&D games that way, so I don't bother with the whole NPC level designation thing.

I feel like 4E does a bad job making it cinematic, and a bad job emulating real life.

Quote from: Cranewings;319250I feel like 4E does a bad job making it cinematic, and a bad job emulating real life.

Real life plus magic, presumably.

But at any rate 4E is not designed for "real life" emulation. It doesn't even try. It's decidedly biased towards the PCs being heroes. You could pare it down to play another way, but you're probably better off using a different system for that.

Fifth Element, almost every rpg is about players being heroes, or at least important. It isn't anything special for that. It also sucks as cinema.

Quote from: Cranewings;319373Fifth Element, almost every rpg is about players being heroes, or at least important. It isn't anything special for that. It also sucks as cinema.

The irony is that the enduring versions of D&D and Traveller are not about being heroes at all.  Indeed, the more the Special Snowflake paradigm seizes up the brand the more craptastic the game and the community around it becomes.

A good part of this is the lack of understanding amongst designers and hobbyists that the dominance of the paradigm of "What you see is what you get." has in gaming.  Despite what's said by professionals, and despite what's written on pages or heard in video games, what emerges from actually playing the game is that most gamers take literally what happens.

You have two attacks.  The common gamer sees exactly two swings or shots, and each successful attack inflicts a discreet and individual wound.  Hit Points, regardless of the rhetoric, are literally taken: they measure how much physical injury you can take before you're dead, and at (X) you die- you're not "defeated".  (This is also why so many people demand that armor work as damage reduction, because "to hit" means literally that and not "to hurt" as is often argued; the RPGs that comply enjoy considerable followings despite not being the most recent D&D edition in part for this feature.)

It's instructive to note that even the biggest player in the RPG world, World of Warcraft, adheres to this grand convention.  Despite what's written by the developers, zero Health is DEAD, not "Defeated" for PCs and NPCs alike; Cryptic Studio's "City of (X)" superhero game is routinely mocked for using the "Defeated" term when you're clearly dead.  NPCs meant to survive a fight either despawn ("escaped") or the fight ends before they die (e.g.: the four Keepers in Ulduar).  Yet there remain shit-tons of fools and fuckwits, most of them well-meaning, that dare swim against the tide despite there being now a generation's consensus and argue that their changes actually make for a better game.  (By better they mean popular; if that were so, WOW would've gone that way long ago- they haven't, and they won't, because--fucked up as they can be--they know better.  The WOTC crew ought to've taken that page when they stole from Blizz's notebook.)

Instead, we're getting a relentless tide of fraud peddled by folks using double-talk straight out of Amway's playbook.  I don't know what makes me madder, that I've being lied to in such a bald-faced fashion or that there's a lot of would-be cultists signing on to this petty cult.

I never heard City of Heroes being mocked for using the term defeated. I am sure it proably is in certain quarters, but I've actually heard it being praised for the same exact reason.

It fits with the genre. With the odd exception, traditionally superhero fights are not to the death and City of Heroes has a very traditional take.

I do agree however on your point about hit points. No matter how you rationalise them, in the heat of the game it hard not to think about them as pure, physical damage capacity.

I'm going to disagree with you on the part about hit points. In our games, we never have a hard time conceptualizing hit points as ground in a fight. I disagree fully with DR, because if someone hits a guy in plate mail with a pike and draws blood, he is probably fucked. Pike vs. plate armor isn't a death of a thousand cuts.

In fact, my players make fun of people miss using hit points all the time. They aren't blood volume or meat density. A guy with a hundred hit points doesn't weight 400 pounds.

You might be right about most people not understanding how hit points work, but there are two reasons for this:

Most gamers are kids.

Most gamers don't know anything about real fighting.

For those people, any fucking set of rules they can enjoy are fine, so it barely matters what is written.

Bradford, the special snowflake idea is a big part of gaming. Even in old editions of dnd, NPCs were supposed to gain levels at a slower rate than player characters. It almost doesn't matter how much more special treatment the rules give a player after that.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;319390The irony is that the enduring versions of D&D and Traveller are not about being heroes at all.  Indeed, the more the Special Snowflake paradigm seizes up the brand the more craptastic the game and the community around it becomes.

I'd say all rpgs are about being heroic in some way, but I think I still take your point.  AD&D for instance, looking at 1st level pcs in combat, *mechanically* they aren't heroic at all in the 4E sense of already standing head and shoulders above your most likely foes, but only in the sense of daring and risking what most other people wouldn't.  (And yes, levelling faster than most, though not all, npcs, but that always struck me as grafted on by fiat rather than something I could feel would be organic to a fantasy world.)

So it comes down to how the game defines heroism.  4E strikes me as being good for people who want to be Conan at first level, which is a change from previous editions.  Personally I have a hard time seeing a 1st level 4E adventurer as a hero precisely because of his power level: with his gifts, he'd damn well better be adventuring.  Its his duty.

Quote from: Cranewings;319431I'm going to disagree with you on the part about hit points. In our games, we never have a hard time conceptualizing hit points as ground in a fight. ...

In fact, my players make fun of people miss using hit points all the time. ...

You might be right about most people not understanding how hit points work, but there are two reasons for this:

Most gamers are kids.

Most gamers don't know anything about real fighting.

...

In other words, you concede his basic point as it applies to the majority of gamers.  Only the select few know the truth!  But that still begs the question:  write combat rules that can be understood by the unwashed masses, or insist on definitions known only to the initiated?

Quote from: StormBringer;319215I don't know if this has any kind of settling effect for GnomeWorks, but I don't think the question was out of line, nor was it an invalid question to propose.

I don't really think that any question is invalid or out of line. In my study of philosophy I have found that anything and everything can be questioned, and should be, at least to some extent.

I think that there has been enough said on the topic that I'll let it lie, for now, and contemplate what has been said here.

Quote from: Saladman;319612In other words, you concede his basic point as it applies to the majority of gamers.  Only the select few know the truth!  But that still begs the question:  write combat rules that can be understood by the unwashed masses, or insist on definitions known only to the initiated?

Salad Man, or write a description of the use of hit points in the book. DR doesn't make half as much sense as hit points, but they have to be understood correctly.

Also, DR rules are filled with difficulties. They have to have a lot of if ands and buts to work. Regular AC rules with hit points not only make more sense, but are easier.

Quote from: Cranewings;319373Fifth Element, almost every rpg is about players being heroes, or at least important. It isn't anything special for that.

4E takes a lot of shit because you can't play a 'dirt farmer' anymore. That is, even characters at 1st level can do heroic things. 4E is just more blatantly heroic than previous editions of the game, especially at low levels. That's my only point, and note that I'm not saying or implying that it's a good or bad thing. It just is.

Quote from: Fifth Element;3197204E takes a lot of shit because you can't play a 'dirt farmer' anymore. That is, even characters at 1st level can do heroic things. 4E is just more blatantly heroic than previous editions of the game, especially at low levels. That's my only point, and note that I'm not saying or implying that it's a good or bad thing. It just is.

Except that 4e isn't doing it to emulate a genre.  People like to point at Grey Mouser or John McClane as what they want to play, completely forgetting that they were well on their way at the start of their stories.  John McClane in particular wasn't fresh out of the academy in Die Hard.

If you want to twist the explanation (until it screams), it could be said that is the first level in their particular story, but calling any of those cinematic characters '1st level' is really stretching the premise.

Quote from: StormBringer;319724Except that 4e isn't doing it to emulate a genre.  People like to point at Grey Mouser or John McClane as what they want to play, completely forgetting that they were well on their way at the start of their stories.  John McClane in particular wasn't fresh out of the academy in Die Hard.

If you want to twist the explanation (until it screams), it could be said that is the first level in their particular story, but calling any of those cinematic characters '1st level' is really stretching the premise.

I agree that they're not trying to emulate a particular genre. But I don't understand your point. My argument was that 4E was not designed to emulate real life.

Quote from: StormBringer;319724If you want to twist the explanation (until it screams), it could be said that is the first level in their particular story, but calling any of those cinematic characters '1st level' is really stretching the premise.

i.e. there is a reduced sense of accomplishment in 4e, simply because instead of having to work to become awesome as in prior editions, you "work" to become awesomer that you start out.

Nothing wrong with that, I guess.

Quote from: Werekoala;319740i.e. there is a reduced sense of accomplishment in 4e, simply because instead of having to work to become awesome as in prior editions, you "work" to become awesomer that you start out.

The reason for why I insist on using "Special Snowflake" is that "being awesome from the start" is just a symptom of the real problem, and that problem is that the people what subscribe to this being a good thing are also the folks that can and will make PCs will no consideration whatsoever of the milieu from which the PC arises- which, quite frankly, is going to be strongly tribalist in function if not in form, and that means little or no tolerance for said Snowflakes.

Being a hero requires that there be a crucible-like process of character forging, one that can't be had by crunching numbers, and can only happen by playing a character through that early phase typical of the earlier editions.  (Indeed, as I see it, that's when people playing the game are most likely to think and act as if the fictional world was real; at higher levels, this tends to evaporate.)  That character has to make a choice, to embrace or reject his culture--the very thing that gives him his identity and organizes all that he knows of existence--and then deal with the consequences of that decision.  The Special Snowflake fraud undermines that by insulating players from that necessity.

Steven Pressfield's "War of Art" puts the process into mundane (by comparison) terms, because it's the same process that makes people into artists worthy of the term.  What the Special Snowflake crowd wants is the results without the work, and those that already did the work will tell you that (a) there's no getting around the work and (b) there's no end to the work- each creation/campaign/plot starts the process anew.

D&D4 is a hell of an awesome boardgame, but as an RPG it's lacking because its design resists this process by (ironically, you might say) taking the real character out of role-playing.

Quote from: Fifth Element;319731I agree that they're not trying to emulate a particular genre. But I don't understand your point. My argument was that 4E was not designed to emulate real life.

I'm clearly not stating it is trying emulate real life.  People point to various action heroes, ignoring the fact that we are seeing their life at a mid-point, or at least at a point where they are often more than competent.  There was always that option before, too; start out at 3rd level, or 5th or 10th.  The option to start out at the beginning is missing now, erasing an entire style of play in preference to another.

I can't think of many other situations where removing a popular, valid  option is an objective 'improvement'.  It would be the same as removing the 'play' button from an iPod to go straight through a playlist, replacing it with random only functionality.  Steve Jobs can go on and on at Macworld about how much better it is, because being able to play through a list was complete garbage, a mistake of engineering.  I am certain many Apple fans would agree, and happily play lists in no particular order without complaint.  Yet, people who like setting up a list and playing through it would have a valid complaint.

Quote from: Werekoala;319740i.e. there is a reduced sense of accomplishment in 4e, simply because instead of having to work to become awesome as in prior editions, you "work" to become awesomer that you start out.

Nothing wrong with that, I guess.

No, and again, I don't care how people do things at their own table.  But when someone takes the time and effort to sign up for a public discussion board, compose a post or thread, then checks back to follow up on that thread, it is hardly a matter that exists solely at their table at that point.

If they are looking for an echo chamber to discuss the coolness of Game X, most of them have their own forums for such.  If someone wants to propose that 'old games suck and new games are the best', they ought to be ready to discuss that point of view.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;319743The reason for why I insist on using "Special Snowflake" is that "being awesome from the start" is just a symptom of the real problem, and that problem is that the people what subscribe to this being a good thing are also the folks that can and will make PCs will no consideration whatsoever of the milieu from which the PC arises- which, quite frankly, is going to be strongly tribalist in function if not in form, and that means little or no tolerance for said Snowflakes.

Being a hero requires that there be a crucible-like process of character forging, one that can't be had by crunching numbers, and can only happen by playing a character through that early phase typical of the earlier editions.  (Indeed, as I see it, that's when people playing the game are most likely to think and act as if the fictional world was real; at higher levels, this tends to evaporate.)  That character has to make a choice, to embrace or reject his culture--the very thing that gives him his identity and organizes all that he knows of existence--and then deal with the consequences of that decision.  The Special Snowflake fraud undermines that by insulating players from that necessity.

Steven Pressfield's "War of Art" puts the process into mundane (by comparison) terms, because it's the same process that makes people into artists worthy of the term.  What the Special Snowflake crowd wants is the results without the work, and those that already did the work will tell you that (a) there's no getting around the work and (b) there's no end to the work- each creation/campaign/plot starts the process anew.

D&D4 is a hell of an awesome boardgame, but as an RPG it's lacking because its design resists this process by (ironically, you might say) taking the real character out of role-playing.

Can you trim this down a bit so I can fit it in my sig? kthnx.

Quote from: StormBringer;319745Can you trim this down a bit so I can fit it in my sig? kthnx.

Let me dig through the aforementioned Pressfield book for a quote that fits.

Edit: Try this one:

Quote from: Steven Pressfield, "War of Art" p. 42, WRT Resistance & Being a StarGrandiose fantasies are a symptom of Resistance. They're the sign of an amateur. The professional has learned that success, like happiness, comes as a by-product of work. The professional concentrates on the work and allows rewards to come or not come, whatever they like.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;319390The irony is that the enduring versions of D&D and Traveller are not about being heroes at all.  Indeed, the more the Special Snowflake paradigm seizes up the brand the more craptastic the game and the community around it becomes.

I heartily endorse this product or service!

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;319747Let me dig through the aforementioned Pressfield book for a quote that fits.

On an unrelated note, I think I have to order that book.

Quote from: Fifth Element;3197204E takes a lot of shit because you can't play a 'dirt farmer' anymore. That is, even characters at 1st level can do heroic things. 4E is just more blatantly heroic than previous editions of the game, especially at low levels. That's my only point, and note that I'm not saying or implying that it's a good or bad thing. It just is.

The whole deal with old dnd was taking a pos dirt farmer and turning him into something great. In my opinion, they threw out the half of the game that I liked.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;319743The reason for why I insist on using "Special Snowflake" is that "being awesome from the start" is just a symptom of the real problem, and that problem is that the people what subscribe to this being a good thing are also the folks that can and will make PCs will no consideration whatsoever of the milieu from which the PC arises- which, quite frankly, is going to be strongly tribalist in function if not in form, and that means little or no tolerance for said Snowflakes.

Being a hero requires that there be a crucible-like process of character forging, one that can't be had by crunching numbers, and can only happen by playing a character through that early phase typical of the earlier editions.  (Indeed, as I see it, that's when people playing the game are most likely to think and act as if the fictional world was real; at higher levels, this tends to evaporate.)  That character has to make a choice, to embrace or reject his culture--the very thing that gives him his identity and organizes all that he knows of existence--and then deal with the consequences of that decision.  The Special Snowflake fraud undermines that by insulating players from that necessity.

Steven Pressfield's "War of Art" puts the process into mundane (by comparison) terms, because it's the same process that makes people into artists worthy of the term.  What the Special Snowflake crowd wants is the results without the work, and those that already did the work will tell you that (a) there's no getting around the work and (b) there's no end to the work- each creation/campaign/plot starts the process anew.

D&D4 is a hell of an awesome boardgame, but as an RPG it's lacking because its design resists this process by (ironically, you might say) taking the real character out of role-playing.

wow, awesome

I am constantly amazed by you guys' ability to have the same discussion somewhere on the page at all times with the same players even when you lack any opposition.

Quote from: counterspin;319844I am constantly amazed by you guys' ability to have the same discussion somewhere on the page at all times with the same players even when you lack any opposition.

Well, if someone would present some kind of valid argument, we wouldn't be so bored.

So I can have a friendly discussion with you and Hairfoot?  Why on earth would anyone who has been on this forum any length of time fucking bother?

Quote from: counterspin;319890Why on earth would anyone who has been on this forum any length of time fucking bother?

Because here you can say what you think without getting banned for a bullshit reason.

Quote from: counterspin;319890So I can have a friendly discussion with you and Hairfoot?  Why on earth would anyone who has been on this forum any length of time fucking bother?

You can have any kind of discussion you want.  The kind you tend to choose is the 'poorly supported, ill-thought, coherence deprived screed' and flip out when people don't agree unequivocally.

Expressing a preference isn't a discussion, but this isn't an 'expressing your preference' forum.  This is a discussion forum, hence, most people will assume that if you raise your hand, you are initiating a discussion.  Even if you are wholly transparent in your expression of a preference only, there will be people who do not share that preference; again, being a discussion board, they will then go on to express their preference.  Unsurprisingly, they won't all agree with yours.  The only way to really prevent anyone from interfering with your expression is to start your own blog and turn the comments off.

Statements such as "I like the way powers work in 4e" are an expression of preference.  You are more than free to ignore any commentary it generates and let it stand on its own.  Statements like "4e powers are better than Vancian magic" is an assertion.  You are also more than free to let that stand on its own, but you are almost guaranteed to generate discussion.  If you are only interested in a discussion when people agree with you, you may be more comfortable with the aforementioned solution of starting a blog.

On the other hand, posting things in the manner of "I am constantly amazed by you guys' ability to have the same discussion somewhere on the page at all times with the same players even when you lack any opposition." and following it up with "So I can have a friendly discussion with you and Hairfoot? Why on earth would anyone who has been on this forum any length of time fucking bother?" simply marks you as a whiny douchebag.

Here's another example:  I picked up the Empire of the Petal Throne pdf from RPGnow a couple of days ago.  I will likely start talking about it over on the Citadel for two main reasons.  a) It's my board, and it is dedicated to vintage games, and b) theRPGsite doesn't have a pack of EPT fans wandering around to talk with.  In both cases, it's a matter of knowing your audience.  I am not here to proselytize EPT, as even among the old guard, it's something of an oddity that gets less spotlight than current retro-clones.  Hence, were I to spend endless hours talking about EPT and then getting pissy when people didn't agree with me, I would have earned the appellation "douchebag".

So present reasonable arguments that allow for the idea that you may not be correct about some of them, and understand that that some game design ideas may not mesh as well as you assume they do despite your enjoyment, and ultimately, you don't need a consensus of opinion regarding your own preferences.

Quote from: jeff37923;319902Because here you can say what you think without getting banned for a bullshit reason.

Also a good reason.  You can eat a bowl of cocks because you thought of it before I did, asshole.

Quote from: StormBringer;319906Also a good reason.  You can eat a bowl of cocks because you thought of it before I did, asshole.

And to think I just came back from a trip through the Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru...   :D

Quote from: jeff37923;319913And to think I just came back from a trip through the Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru...   :D

:D

I wonder if that should be added to the running KFC jokes with the "How large are your breasts" question at the drive-through.  

"Can I get a bucket of cocks?"

The problem isn't with the site, it's with the participants.  I know what you, Hairfoot, and Jeff think about 4e, as does everyone on this site.  You probably know that I like 4e, but miss some stuff(mostly multiclassing).  Given that this is true, why bother?

This is why I dislike discussions that aren't at the mechanics level.  I cannot imagine why I would care what you guys think about minions, or why you would care what I think about minions.  But when we get into mechanical discussions, like whether minions are worthless and unchallenging, and least we have somewhere to go.  

But whether minion are good or bad for the game?  Fuck it who cares.  They haven't been bad for my game, and that's all the interest you'll ever raise from me.

Quote from: StormBringer;319903You can have any kind of discussion you want.  The kind you tend to choose is the 'poorly supported, ill-thought, coherence deprived screed' and flip out when people don't agree unequivocally.

Expressing a preference isn't a discussion, but this isn't an 'expressing your preference' forum.  This is a discussion forum, hence, most people will assume that if you raise your hand, you are initiating a discussion.  Even if you are wholly transparent in your expression of a preference only, there will be people who do not share that preference; again, being a discussion board, they will then go on to express their preference.  Unsurprisingly, they won't all agree with yours.  The only way to really prevent anyone from interfering with your expression is to start your own blog and turn the comments off.

Statements such as "I like the way powers work in 4e" are an expression of preference.  You are more than free to ignore any commentary it generates and let it stand on its own.  Statements like "4e powers are better than Vancian magic" is an assertion.  You are also more than free to let that stand on its own, but you are almost guaranteed to generate discussion.  If you are only interested in a discussion when people agree with you, you may be more comfortable with the aforementioned solution of starting a blog.

On the other hand, posting things in the manner of "I am constantly amazed by you guys' ability to have the same discussion somewhere on the page at all times with the same players even when you lack any opposition." and following it up with "So I can have a friendly discussion with you and Hairfoot? Why on earth would anyone who has been on this forum any length of time fucking bother?" simply marks you as a whiny douchebag.

Here's another example:  I picked up the Empire of the Petal Throne pdf from RPGnow a couple of days ago.  I will likely start talking about it over on the Citadel for two main reasons.  a) It's my board, and it is dedicated to vintage games, and b) theRPGsite doesn't have a pack of EPT fans wandering around to talk with.  In both cases, it's a matter of knowing your audience.  I am not here to proselytize EPT, as even among the old guard, it's something of an oddity that gets less spotlight than current retro-clones.  Hence, were I to spend endless hours talking about EPT and then getting pissy when people didn't agree with me, I would have earned the appellation "douchebag".

So present reasonable arguments that allow for the idea that you may not be correct about some of them, and understand that that some game design ideas may not mesh as well as you assume they do despite your enjoyment, and ultimately, you don't need a consensus of opinion regarding your own preferences.

That reminds me bitch, why am I not seeing any Dragonquest love over on your boards? Not vintage enough for ya?

Quote from: counterspin;319918The problem isn't with the site, it's with the participants.  I know what you, Hairfoot, and Jeff think about 4e, as does everyone on this site.  You probably know that I like 4e, but miss some stuff(mostly multiclassing).  Given that this is true, why bother?

This is why I dislike discussions that aren't at the mechanics level.  I cannot imagine why I would care what you guys think about minions, or why you would care what I think about minions.  But when we get into mechanical discussions, like whether minions are worthless and unchallenging, and least we have somewhere to go.  

But whether minion are good or bad for the game?  Fuck it who cares.  They haven't been bad for my game, and that's all the interest you'll ever raise from me.

Then I would ask, why the hell are you reading and participating in this thread? Not seeing a thread you're interested in? Start one. Otherwise, you're just acting like a threadcrapping crybaby.

Quote from: Sigmund;319919That reminds me bitch, why am I not seeing any Dragonquest love over on your boards? Not vintage enough for ya?

Hmmm...  That is a good question.  Maybe there aren't any Dragonquest discussions going on at the Citadel because the people who are interested in such discussions are at other boards complaining about the lack of Dragonquest discussions.

:D

Quote from: counterspin;319918I know what you, Hairfoot, and Jeff think about 4e, as does everyone on this site.  You probably know that I like 4e

Ah.  I wondered why my handle was being taken in vain.

Can someone direct this tool to to B. C. Walker's comments on the Unique Snowflake Syndrome?  It might help if he understands that his favourite masturbatory ego-trip used to be a roleplaying game.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Sig:  Well, to tell you the truth is I read these threads, work up an argument, realize that no one will care, and then give this standard screed.  Of course now that you point it out, I realize that anyone that might know there ass from their elbow mechanics-wise for any system I enjoy is long gone.  Hmm.

Hairfoot: Thank you for showing up and proving my point about you.  I was worried I might have to link.

Quote from: counterspin;319929The problem isn't with the site, it's with the participants. I know what you, Hairfoot, and Jeff think about 4e, as does everyone on this site. You probably know that I like 4e, but miss some stuff(mostly multiclassing). Given that this is true, why bother?

This is why I dislike discussions that aren't at the mechanics level. I cannot imagine why I would care what you guys think about minions, or why you would care what I think about minions. But when we get into mechanical discussions, like whether minions are worthless and unchallenging, and least we have somewhere to go.

But whether minion are good or bad for the game? Fuck it who cares. They haven't been bad for my game, and that's all the interest you'll ever raise from me.

 

Quote from: counterspin;319929Well, to tell you the truth is I read these threads, work up an argument, realize that no one will care, and then give this standard screed.  Of course now that you point it out, I realize that anyone that might know there ass from their elbow mechanics-wise for any system I enjoy is long gone.  Hmm.

Goddamn, can you manufacture a bigger cross to nail yourself to?

In the beginning there were the 4E Zealots, now we have the first 4E Martyr.

Quote from: counterspin;319929Hairfoot: Thank you for showing up and proving my point about you.  I was worried I might have to link.

Two minutes flat from post to snark.  Nice to know you have a life outside of hovering over threads on a gaming site, waiting to pounce.  Because that would be a bit pathetic.

Adjust your eyeliner and do some homework, or mum won't let you borrow the car again.
Posted in Mobile Mode

Quote from: StormBringer;319926Hmmm...  That is a good question.  Maybe there aren't any Dragonquest discussions going on at the Citadel because the people who are interested in such discussions are at other boards complaining about the lack of Dragonquest discussions.

:D

That could be, but when I look I don't see fancy dedicated forum anywhere for it and so I get all pissy and run off to sulk, and it's all your fault. No DQ love.

On the upside I did just post further to the police procedural thread that I've participated in before, so there :snotty:

Quote from: counterspin;319929Sig:  Well, to tell you the truth is I read these threads, work up an argument, realize that no one will care, and then give this standard screed.  Of course now that you point it out, I realize that anyone that might know there ass from their elbow mechanics-wise for any system I enjoy is long gone.  Hmm.

Hairfoot: Thank you for showing up and proving my point about you.  I was worried I might have to link.

What system ya referring to?

Quote from: Sigmund;319942That could be, but when I look I don't see fancy dedicated forum anywhere for it and so I get all pissy and run off to sulk, and it's all your fault. No DQ love.

On the upside I did just post further to the police procedural thread that I've participated in before, so there :snotty:

w00t!

Generally, anything that is fantasy but not TSR goes in the High Fantasy forums.  Not much call for differentiation beyond that, and the aggregate discussion of all non-TSR threads is unlikely to warrant a specific forum dedicated to a specific title.  I would totally dig it if I was wrong about that, however.

Quote from: StormBringer;319949w00t!

Generally, anything that is fantasy but not TSR goes in the High Fantasy forums.  Not much call for differentiation beyond that, and the aggregate discussion of all non-TSR threads is unlikely to warrant a specific forum dedicated to a specific title.  I would totally dig it if I was wrong about that, however.

Yeah but Dragonquest is so much better than any other game ever made ever.
:hissyfit:

Quote from: jeff37923;319931In the beginning there were the 4E Zealots, now we have the first 4E Martyr.

He's far from the first.

Quote from: StormBringer;319915:D

I wonder if that should be added to the running KFC jokes with the "How large are your breasts" question at the drive-through.  

"Can I get a bucket of cocks?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzbURUrgQao

Quote from: Fifth Element;320030He's far from the first.

Probably, but the first I've seen around here.