Different playing styles ?

One of the original design goals was


Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity


The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.


Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.


Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.


I see some but not enough progress on this end.


D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.


So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”

One of the original design goals was


Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity


The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.


Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.


Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.


I see some but not enough progress on this end.


D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.


So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”

Hmm, I don't know that the claim in blue was ever made (especially as it refers to bridging the gaps of the hobby at large).

In defense of the design process, I'd have to say that round three of a two year playtest is much too soon to be fretting over the lofty ideals of bridging all systems when the foundational system has yet to be forged. -- All in good time, my friend.

Danny

I'm curious to know what specific plug ins you'd like to see sooner than later?
Yes blue is how ive been looking at it - after you pointing it out i might very well be way off and projecting personel wishful thinking.

I am no game designer so how well it will work with D&D i dont know - but something along the lines of when a check rolls a critical the player gets to add a narrative fact that the DM has to accommodate. 


Knowledge Underdark roll 20!


DM: Yes this is indeed the cavern known death’s abode where the deep dragon is said to often come and slumber


PC: Its also the same cavern where my ancestor Gregor Dragonslayer fell.


Or Skills can be named by the players with DM approval, which go beyond proficiencies or similar. So a character might have greed and the +3 bonus applies to the check whenever the situation is relevant.  



Knowledge Underdark roll 20!


DM: Yes this is indeed the cavern known death’s abode where the deep dragon is said to often come and slumber


PC: Its also the same cavern where my ancestor Gregor Dragonslayer fell.


Or Skills can be named by the players with DM approval, which go beyond proficiencies or similar. So a character might have greed and the +3 bonus applies to the check whenever the situation is relevant.  




I think the ad hoc narrative aspect is more of a playstyle thing. I've seen it included in some indie games, so it could be ported in easily. Narrative points could be used or something (if a mechanical aspect is required).

I think greed is mechanically too powerful. It needs to be nerfed. ;)

But, joking aside, did you see the L&L article on high-level play? There are some clear intentions to address more narrative-oriented gameplay mechanics. I think a forum poster off-handedly called it story creep. So yeah... it should be coming along.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls

One of the original design goals was


Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity


The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.


Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.


Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.


I see some but not enough progress on this end.


D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.


So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”

Hmm, I don't know that the claim in blue was ever made (especially as it refers to bridging the gaps of the hobby at large).

In defense of the design process, I'd have to say that round three of a two year playtest is much too soon to be fretting over the lofty ideals of bridging all systems when the foundational system has yet to be forged. -- All in good time, my friend.



Amen.
My two copper.

One of the original design goals was


Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity


The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.


Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.


Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.


I see some but not enough progress on this end.


D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.


So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”

Hmm, I don't know that the claim in blue was ever made (especially as it refers to bridging the gaps of the hobby at large).

In defense of the design process, I'd have to say that round three of a two year playtest is much too soon to be fretting over the lofty ideals of bridging all systems when the foundational system has yet to be forged. -- All in good time, my friend.




We are on round 5-6 of the second year. They also said the core at this point was pretty much set in stone. So you are factually wrong...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.


Unless they have optional "DM tag team partner rules", there is absolutely no way to have people with different play styles sitting at the same. The campaign settings alone would prevent it from happening.

Edit: I think they can achieve most of what they have set out to do, but that was one of the statements they should have never made and probably should re-cant. It would be hard getting people with different play style who like the same edition to sit down and play at the same table. They are biting off more then they can chew to try do this across different editions as well.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

One of the original design goals was


Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity


The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.


Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.


Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.


I see some but not enough progress on this end.


D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.


So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”

Hmm, I don't know that the claim in blue was ever made (especially as it refers to bridging the gaps of the hobby at large).

In defense of the design process, I'd have to say that round three of a two year playtest is much too soon to be fretting over the lofty ideals of bridging all systems when the foundational system has yet to be forged. -- All in good time, my friend.




We are on round 5-6 of the second year. They also said the core at this point was pretty much set in stone. So you are factually wrong...


We are on round 3. You can't count the sorcerer/warlock, magic items, and monk adds as if they were a new packet :P

My two copper.
Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.


Unless they have optional "DM tag team partner rules", there is absolutely no way to have people with different play styles sitting at the same. The campaign settings alone would prevent it from happening.

Edit: I think they can achieve most of what they have set out to do, but that was one of the statements they should have never made and probably should re-cant. It would be hard getting people with different play style who like the same edition to sit down and play at the same table. They are biting off more then they can chew to try do this across different editions as well.


I myself have been for the longest time skptical about how they can pull something like that off - still am. However i am simply hoping that somehow they do pull it off, its the only reason that got me excited about D&D again and interested in playtsting - lets hope

One of the original design goals was


Goal #2: Reunification through Diversity


The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.


Further it was stated that different play styles could play at the same table.


Some articles mentioned that the designers were also looking at indie games and concepts like aspects from the fate game.


I see some but not enough progress on this end.


D&D next was/is not just an attempt to bridge the gap between 3rd and 4th edition or even all incarnations of D&D – it was going beyond that – it was the coming together of what the whole hobby meant to everybody, its roots and origin, which for all intents and purposes is D&D.


So where is the narrativist playing style plug ins – and I don’t mean “minds eye theatre”

Hmm, I don't know that the claim in blue was ever made (especially as it refers to bridging the gaps of the hobby at large).

In defense of the design process, I'd have to say that round three of a two year playtest is much too soon to be fretting over the lofty ideals of bridging all systems when the foundational system has yet to be forged. -- All in good time, my friend.



While I'm not in full disagreement with you, they have already fallen into the trap of enforcing a specific playstyle.  The most egregious example of this is alignment restrictions.  Make them suggestions, and all will be well.  Keep them as mechanical requirements, and you're forcing people to play the "right way."  Now I'll grant you that alignment restrictions can be ignored by DMs who don't care about them, players don't have this ability.  They have an arbiter at the table that they have to presuade to their point of view.  Whereas a DM who chooses to make the alignment suggestions hard rules at his table can just do so because he has the final word.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I am thinking that most participants of the playtest aren’t really that concerned with narratvist playing styles, or enjoy games like Dogs in The Vineyard or Feng Shui.


If the future of of D&D next is thus dependent on the majority view of the playtesters does this mean that the “different style” concerns, hopes and and interest that I have is wasted ?


I hope I am not sounding presumptuous, I am just voicing myself maybe in the hopes that someone might point out that I am completely off track and the playtest will be addressing the “different style of play (at the same table or not)” soon.



I am thinking that most participants of the playtest aren’t really that concerned with narratvist playing styles, or enjoy games like Dogs in The Vineyard or Feng Shui.


If the future of of D&D next is thus dependent on the majority view of the playtesters does this mean that the “different style” concerns, hopes and and interest that I have is wasted ?


I hope I am not sounding presumptuous, I am just voicing myself maybe in the hopes that someone might point out that I am completely off track and the playtest will be addressing the “different style of play (at the same table or not)” soon.


Despite all of my simulationist posts, I consider myself a narrativist.  At this stage, I am trying to get the simulation to work well enough that it gets out of the way of the narrative.  I see these as two complementary halves of a whole that can work well together towards a common goal.

That said, DDN is very mechanics heavy in a way that discourages narrativism unless heavy DM Fiat is invoked, something that should never be the sole pillar that supports a playstyle.  While one can hope that a module will be written to support narrativism, so much is being thrown upon that altar one cannot help but be worried.
I guess the question is are enough playtesters worried that their worry will be noticed ?
I guess the question is are enough playtesters worried that their worry will be noticed ?




Maybe 90% of the commentary on this forum is directly related to mechanics or class balance, two things that don't get a lot of attention on my mental radar. In watching the commentary that happens outside of this forum I have come to believe that the design team has a very accurate picture of the likes, dislikes, concerns, and buying trends of the entire RPG player base. And that those trends are as important to the design process as is all the banter that happens here.

So, I applaud your topic. Its a great one and this is the place to discuss it. I'm very happy that I read through the posts, your illustration of the dragons cavern and the player who drew a card or rolled a die that indicated one of his relatives fell there was great, something I am already thinking about how to implement in my own game. 

So don't worry too much about ideas involving non-mechanic perspectives being displaced by all the crunchy number talk here; this forum has drawn a large contingent of people who like to argue on internment forums.  But I'm pretty sure that Mike Mearls and co are designing for a far wider audience.

Yes blue is how ive been looking at it - after you pointing it out i might very well be way off and projecting personel wishful thinking.

I am no game designer so how well it will work with D&D i dont know - but something along the lines of when a check rolls a critical the player gets to add a narrative fact that the DM has to accommodate.


I intensely dislike two aspects of this rule:

a) the player only having the option on a crit
b) obligating the DM to accommodate

I as a player have very often added narrative elements, but the DM can veto them. (They rarely do, but they CAN and I don't complain.)

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

bluespruce786 - thankx, gives me hope again.

warri - they were just examples from the top of my head. Keep in mind what i gave as examples were representing the kind of narrative mechanics that narrative games enjoy. Adding descriptive elements to a game by the DM or Players is something that happens to different degrees on any game table, that does not necessarily mean that the game being played is designed as a narrativist game.

Another example would be you dont try to roll a success on a check to succeed on your action but to choose if you do.  While pick pocketing the Vizier if you fail the DM might rule ah ok - you get the royal signet ring. But if you succeed you might decide to get caught, thrown in the dungeon and thus making the direction of the plot do a 360 degree turn.


A dungeon scenario: As the players travel towards the dungeon, they tell each other rumors of what they have heard of the Dungeon. They add monsters and traps in their telling. Raising XP awards and CRs and adding abilities to monsters "My cousin survived the dungeon, faced of the many headed hydra, each head  breathing fire, ice and other foul breaths from each maw." Other players can contest, lowering the CRs if they feel this last addition would be their deathknell. "One of the lost blades of the kingdom is in there" putting in rewards etc.  Once something goes uncontested its in place, and the DM coming from such games enjoys the challenge.


44 a game of automatic fear - its a free game floating around on the net. Anybody wanting to get an idea of how such games work should check it out.   


 
Head over to youtube and search for DDN, D&D 5th, etc. The vibe over there is very different than here. Its more of a "wait and see, be hopeful, and remember we are all gamers" theme. The link in my sig goes to my intro vid, and will probably bring up many of the other DM's in the video's to the right.
Interesting