Post by dwayanu on Dec 7, 2008 22:11:01 GMT -6
Excerpts from an essay on "dissociated mechanics":
This matches my sense not only of 4E but of many "storytelling" games I've encountered. Someone else offered the analogy that in old-school D&D, numbers (AC, HD, etc.) may represent a dragon -- but in 4E, a dragon represents the numbers.
A thread at Dragonsfoot concerning the effects of a Ring of Fire Resistance is typical of discussions about similar demands for house rules in O/AD&D. They seem to come up most often in the field of magic, because there are not a whole lot of other rules in the game, much less ones lacking some tangible referent. That folks are keenly looking for such a conceptual model, some thing being simulated -- the very aspect dismissed as irrelevant in a "new school" of design -- is interesting. We may choose different premises, but we feel a need to have one.
I think this touches on our resistance to the grafting of "universal systems" onto D&D. It's sort of like preferring to drive with a manual rather than an automatic transmission, or with a suspension that puts "feeling the road" ahead of smoothing the ride. Our house-ruling comes mainly in ad hoc response to particular situations in the imagined world.
Now, I happen to be a longtime enthusiast of RuneQuest. For the most part, the complexity it adds (mainly in combat mechanics) simply "simulates" more stuff that's grist for my imagination. Still, there's a drawback in taking such mechanical detail as normative: it slows play a bit, and steepens the learning curve.
OD&D's basic combat system is not only pretty abstract but also rules-light. It doesn't waste a lot of time and energy on rules about "nothing." Nor does it offer much to prevent one from getting into more detail -- if, when and however one may choose.
But now we have a 4th Edition which, due to its dissociated design principles, requires you to create hundreds (or thousands) of house rules. And, of course, as soon as you switch game tables all of those house rules will change.
Of course, you can sidestep all these issues with house rules if you just embrace the design ethos of 4th Edition: There is no explanation for the besieged foe ability. It is a mechanical manipulation with no corresponding reality in the game world whatsoever.
At that point, however, you're no longer playing a roleplaying game. When the characters' relationship to the game world is stripped away, they are no longer roles to be played. They have become nothing more than mechanical artifacts that are manipulated with other mechanical artifacts.
You might have a very good improv session that is vaguely based on the dissociated mechanics that you're using, but there has been a fundamental disconnect between the game and the world -- and when that happens, it stop being a roleplaying game. You could just as easily be playing a game of Chess while improvising a vaguely related story about a royal coup starring your character named Rook.
At that point, however, you're no longer playing a roleplaying game. When the characters' relationship to the game world is stripped away, they are no longer roles to be played. They have become nothing more than mechanical artifacts that are manipulated with other mechanical artifacts.
You might have a very good improv session that is vaguely based on the dissociated mechanics that you're using, but there has been a fundamental disconnect between the game and the world -- and when that happens, it stop being a roleplaying game. You could just as easily be playing a game of Chess while improvising a vaguely related story about a royal coup starring your character named Rook.
This matches my sense not only of 4E but of many "storytelling" games I've encountered. Someone else offered the analogy that in old-school D&D, numbers (AC, HD, etc.) may represent a dragon -- but in 4E, a dragon represents the numbers.
A thread at Dragonsfoot concerning the effects of a Ring of Fire Resistance is typical of discussions about similar demands for house rules in O/AD&D. They seem to come up most often in the field of magic, because there are not a whole lot of other rules in the game, much less ones lacking some tangible referent. That folks are keenly looking for such a conceptual model, some thing being simulated -- the very aspect dismissed as irrelevant in a "new school" of design -- is interesting. We may choose different premises, but we feel a need to have one.
I think this touches on our resistance to the grafting of "universal systems" onto D&D. It's sort of like preferring to drive with a manual rather than an automatic transmission, or with a suspension that puts "feeling the road" ahead of smoothing the ride. Our house-ruling comes mainly in ad hoc response to particular situations in the imagined world.
Now, I happen to be a longtime enthusiast of RuneQuest. For the most part, the complexity it adds (mainly in combat mechanics) simply "simulates" more stuff that's grist for my imagination. Still, there's a drawback in taking such mechanical detail as normative: it slows play a bit, and steepens the learning curve.
OD&D's basic combat system is not only pretty abstract but also rules-light. It doesn't waste a lot of time and energy on rules about "nothing." Nor does it offer much to prevent one from getting into more detail -- if, when and however one may choose.