Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.Why?
Equality is good for the soul. A PC can random crit a giant and fell it in one shot... sounds like a bad day for that particular giant.
But more seriously; I like it because it increases the impact of levels. When you are level 1, almost everyone or everything in the world is more powerful than you; but somehow you are not shown that thanks to level scaled challenges.
Similarly, at 20th level, you face 20th level challenges. There is never a time to reflect on "wow we are cooler than 99% of the population and we earned it through the slings and arrows of an unjust and unfair world".
In an unbalanced world where everything isn't scaled to CR and random chance has more of an effect, accomplishment becomes that much more satisfying, because the forces arrayed against you are so much more difficult.
To use a personal example; as a kid I would play video games on the hardest difficulty I could, right when I got them. The few times I scaled it back, there was that sick feeling of taking it easy, and I knew that I hadn't really accomplished anything- the world just gave me a teddy bear and said "See? Your special, just like everyone else!"
Also, I can't believe I am going to agree with Cartigan here; but... if you want a game that is geared towards an interactive storytelling experience... DnD/PF is (incoming pun) subOPTIMAL in that regard, imo.
-Idle
But, regardless, extending the query: Why is such a level of realism important to you in your game experience?
To turn it around...why is not such a level of realism not important in your gaming experience?
Why don't like movies where the characters never reload their guns after firing it fifty times...
Why don't I like Mary Sues in my novels....
Why don't I like books that are not consistent within themselves...
I think you'll find it is a matter of taste.
Ignoring reality does not make it better story....just as taking reality into account makes it a bad story. Heck personaly one of the reasons why I like reality in my game is because reality is far more interesting and stranger than fiction in my opinion.
Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.Why?Equality is good for the soul. A PC can random crit a giant and fell it in one shot... sounds like a bad day for that particular giant.
But more seriously; I like it because it increases the impact of levels. When you are level 1, almost everyone or everything in the world is more powerful than you; but somehow you are not shown that thanks to level scaled challenges.
Similarly, at 20th level, you face 20th level challenges. There is never a time to reflect on "wow we are cooler than 99% of the population and we earned it through the slings and arrows of an unjust and unfair world".
In an unbalanced world where everything isn't scaled to CR and random chance has more of an effect, accomplishment becomes that much more satisfying, because the forces arrayed against you are so much more difficult.
To use a personal example; as a kid I would play video games on the hardest difficulty I could, right when I got them. The few times I scaled it back, there was that sick feeling of taking it easy, and I knew that I hadn't really accomplished anything- the world just gave me a teddy bear and said "See? Your special, just like everyone else!"
Also, I can't believe I am going to agree with Cartigan here; but... if you want a game that is geared towards an interactive storytelling experience... DnD/PF is (incoming pun) subOPTIMAL in that regard, imo.
-Idle
+1 well except the last paragraph....as the above really does not interphere with interactive storytelling...heck in my opinion it actualy makes it sooo much more interesting. And I can never agree with Caritgan :)
Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.Why?I know this wasn't specifically asked of me, but I'll take a stab at it none-the-less...
For me, it adds a level of "realism" to the game. It adds a certain amount of danger that you can't get from an environment that is scaled specifically to your character...
I see your point, but you absolutely can get that danger from simply scaling encounters to your group. We all know the CR system is more of a suggestion than accurate, but I've put CR 10's against a group of 11th level PC's, and seen them nearly TPK. Throw a CR 13 at them, and they mop the floor with it. Anecdotal to be certain, but it's what I've seen. These weren't noobs either, this group has played DnD since early AD&D days.
The way I populate CR's in games I run, those little CR 1's and mighty CR 20+ are all there, it's just that the ones closer to the party average level are the ones more likely to draw their attention. Also, unless the players go out of their way to seek it out, I'm not going to slow down a party of 13th level players with a CR 2 encounter with dire rats. Sure, it might be more realistic, but in the name of fun it just slows things down and gets in the way. Same for a CR way higher than the party; it exists, it's out there, but unless the players purposely go out of their way to find it, chances are they won't encounter it.
Also, it helps if when you're envisioning challenges for the PC's, just try to look at the encounter for what it is, and not label everything with a CR or ECL above it's head. I've rolled characters who were middle aged, grizzled war veterans and only level 6, and had young, ambitious, especially gifted wizards be level 14. Don't make ECL and CR part of the story, all they are is a mechanical measure to help balance should the opposing sides ever meet.
Try not to get too hung up on the numbers and see challenges for what they are. That creature isn't just a CR 8, it's an Ogre with formal training in martial weaponry and tactics. It's an evil Elf wizard gathering power, etc. etc. I just keep things roughly 2 levels below and above the party average and go from there(ie., if the party is ECL 6, I throw CR's from 4-8 at them). It's worked so far.
Indeed. Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.Why?I know this wasn't specifically asked of me, but I'll take a stab at it none-the-less...
For me, it adds a level of "realism" to the game. It adds a certain amount of danger that you can't get from an environment that is scaled specifically to your character...
I see your point, but you absolutely can get that danger from simply scaling encounters to your group. We all know the CR system is more of a suggestion than accurate, but I've put CR 10's against a group of 11th level PC's, and seen them nearly TPK. Throw a CR 13 at them, and they mop the floor with it. Anecdotal to be certain, but it's what I've seen. These weren't noobs either, this group has played DnD since early AD&D days.
The way I populate CR's in games I run, those little CR 1's and mighty CR 20+ are all there, it's just that the ones closer to the party average level are the ones more likely to draw their attention. Also, unless the players go out of their way to seek it out, I'm not going to slow down a party of 13th level players with a CR 2 encounter with dire rats. Sure, it might be more realistic, but in the name of fun it just slows things down and gets in the way. Same for a CR way higher than the party; it exists, it's out there, but unless the players purposely go out of their way to find it, chances are they won't encounter it.
I don't disagree with you...except in that no one( well atleast I am saying) those encounters with lower or higher CR results in combat. Sure if my 13th level group runs into a group of cr 2 dire rats...I am not going to play out the combat; PCs just win...and when the 1st level party ignores the many warning or by chance run into that cr 20 dragon combat does not always happen...maybe the dragon just ate...or a 100 of other things might happen. It actualy create some interesting RP...
And as you say a cr 10 creature can wipe out of higher level group of PCs...The PCs can also actualy defeat higher cr creatures...granted not on the scale of 1 to 20...but I have seen 1st level parties beat cr 5 to 6 encounters...
Equality is good for the soul. A PC can random crit a giant and fell it in one shot... sounds like a bad day for that particular giant.
"Equality is good for the soul" is not an established truth when it comes to a cooperative game like D&D. In fact, in the vast majority of cooperative games created nowadays, the players' analogues in a game follow very different rules from their adversaries.
But more seriously; I like it because it increases the impact of levels. When you are level 1, almost everyone or everything in the world is more powerful than you; but somehow you are not shown that thanks to level scaled challenges.
You don't need to inflict a 20% chance of outright death upon your players to demonstrate to them that they are not the most powerful creatures in existence. This can be just as easily illustrated through "off-stage" action (a dragon razes an entire neighboring town), or through villains who toy with the party ("You're not worth my time. Minions! Deal with them!", etc.). A 20% chance of outright death doesn't show the party that they are small fish in a big pond. It shows them that the game itself is incredibly brutal.
Similarly, at 20th level, you face 20th level challenges. There is never a time to reflect on "wow we are cooler than 99% of the population and we earned it through the slings and arrows of an unjust and unfair world".
Why not? Many games encourage you to remind the PCs of their increased prowess by reusing enemies that they might have fought five or ten levels ago. 4e, for example, provides minions to fill this purpose. Whereas you might fight fearsome orcs at 3rd level, by 9th level those orcs are instead represented as minions who practically fall upon your swords.
In an unbalanced world where everything isn't scaled to CR and random chance has more of an effect, accomplishment becomes that much more satisfying, because the forces arrayed against you are so much more difficult.
No they're not. On average they're the same. If random chance is truly what you're after, the PCs should encounter much weaker foes as often as they encounter much stronger foes. The forces arrayed against them run a wider gamut, but are on the whole no more challenging. The sense of increased accomplishment is artificial. The PCs cannot overcome challenges they would not have been able to overcome anyway if the encounters scaled with the PCs.
To use a personal example; as a kid I would play video games on the hardest difficulty I could, right when I got them. The few times I scaled it back, there was that sick feeling of taking it easy, and I knew that I hadn't really accomplished anything- the world just gave me a teddy bear and said "See? Your special, just like everyone else!"
So, rather than for escapist purposes, you play games to give yourself an artificial sense of worthwhile accomplishment?
Also, I can't believe I am going to agree with Cartigan here; but... if you want a game that is geared towards an interactive storytelling experience... DnD/PF is (incoming pun) subOPTIMAL in that regard, imo.
I agree with Cartigan, too. Of course, you're ignoring the fact that Cartigan would also point out that if you want a game that facilitates interactive storytelling while providing a dynamic, involved, and entertaining combat and challenge encounter experience, you probably won't do better than D&D.
"Equality is good for the soul" is not an established truth when it comes to a cooperative game like D&D. In fact, in the vast majority of cooperative games created nowadays, the players' analogues in a game follow very different rules from their adversaries.
What other game besides 4th ed D&D? You said vast majority...I see one.
To turn it around...why is not such a level of realism not important in your gaming experience?
To put it very simply, D&D is a game. When I play a game, realism is only worthwhile up to the point where it contributes to the facilitation of gameplay. When realism starts to detract from the game, I lose interest in adding further realism to the game.
Why don't like movies where the characters never reload their guns after firing it fifty times...
If the movie experience is enjoyable, the fact that the characters fire fifty bullets without us seeing them reload is something I have no problem glossing over. The term "suspension of disbelief" exists for a reason.
Why don't I like Mary Sues in my novels....
No one likes Mary Sues in their games, but not because they aren't realistic. Mary Sues are frowned upon in tabletop games because they are typically used as an excuse to hog the gaming spotlight.
Why don't I like books that are not consistent within themselves...
Internal consistency is not the same as realism.
I think you'll find it is a matter of taste.
Undoubtedly.
Ignoring reality does not make it better story....just as taking reality into account makes it a bad story. Heck personaly one of the reasons why I like reality in my game is because reality is far more interesting and stranger than fiction in my opinion.
And yet we don't find ourselves sitting down around a kitchen table and playing Real World the RPG.
"Equality is good for the soul" is not an established truth when it comes to a cooperative game like D&D. In fact, in the vast majority of cooperative games created nowadays, the players' analogues in a game follow very different rules from their adversaries.What other game besides 4th ed D&D? You said vast majority...I see one.
Dozens of modern "indy" tabletop games make use of this model (Dogs in the Vineyard, Feng Shui, etc.), as do almost every video game featuring cooperative, non-competitive multiplayer experiences. Just pop up the Steam store page and you'll see dozens of games where the player's character(s) follow wildly different rules from the rest of the game's inhabitants. Heck, every MMO follows this model.
So, rather than for escapist purposes, you play games to give yourself an artificial sense of worthwhile accomplishment?
Seems sort of insulting wouldn't you say? Especially considering that is pretty much the only reason people do anything entertaining. /blanket statement.
-Idle
Also, I can't believe I am going to agree with Cartigan here; but... if you want a game that is geared towards an interactive storytelling experience... DnD/PF is (incoming pun) subOPTIMAL in that regard, imo.
I've seen this opinion before, specifically by Cartigan funnily enough. I understand that there are systems out there that cater more to storytelling as part of the mechanics of the system. However, the purpose of this game, at least insofar as I can tell, is cooperative storytelling.
I offer the following:
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a tabletop
fantasy game in which the players take on the roles
of heroes who form a group (or party) to set out on
dangerous adventures. Helping them tell this story is the
Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player
characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn
for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative
storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists
and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the
rest of the world.
In addition:
Mastermind: GMs work to keep a game’s momentum moving in directions that entertain all the players while exploring the stories and settings they desire. To such ends, a GM manipulates dozens of elements, from how narrative components unfold to what rules are used and how they function in every situation. Chapter 2: Running a Game addresses a variety of topics that help GMs handle some of the most complicated aspects of their duties, from the details of how a GM actually performs in-game and frames a story to ways to create adventures and juggle the myriad aspects of a campaign.
Also:
Storyteller: Among a GM’s most important tasks is imagining and telling engaging stories.
I could go on. There are references all over the core rulebook and the GMG that talk about cooperative storytelling. It is the point of the game, is it not? How then, if storytelling is the point of the game, can it, the system, be suboptimal at storytelling. If anything I'd say the players or the GMs are suboptimal at using the rules to make the story, since clearly the creators of the game believe it should be used for the explicit purpose of cooperative stoytelling...
Dozens of modern "indy" tabletop games make use of this model (Dogs in the Vineyard, Feng Shui, etc.), as do almost every video game featuring cooperative, non-competitive multiplayer experiences. Just pop up the Steam store page and you'll see dozens of games where the player's character(s) follow wildly different rules from the rest of the game's inhabitants. Heck, every MMO follows this model."Equality is good for the soul" is not an established truth when it comes to a cooperative game like D&D. In fact, in the vast majority of cooperative games created nowadays, the players' analogues in a game follow very different rules from their adversaries.What other game besides 4th ed D&D? You said vast majority...I see one.
Oh you mean all those 'indy' games no one buys...of course 4th ed and a bunch of game no one plays...and video games(actualy I have no clue on how prgramming works but it seems to me that all of them follow the same basic programming...but who cares video game are not even close to what RPGs are...that is like including Monoply).
Gee here I was thinking of games that people actualy play...like Hero system...or the whole slew of FF Warhammer 4ok based stuff...or L5R...or Pathfinder true there are differences in those games between PCs and NPCs but those are not the vast differences.
Now I understand where youu are coming from.
Some deaths should be due to simply random chance rather than all of them being about choice.
Having been silently following this thread for several days now, I have to say that I'd find such a capricious act by a fellow GM to be deplorable.
Groups play together and stay together based on trust and mutually enjoying the game together. If such practices are what works for your group then more power to you. However, with all the groups I've run and/or played in, I'd fully expect such wanton disrespect for all the time and love put into such characters to be met with having one's dice pouch stowed in... "an uncomfortable place".
To each their own I guess.
All I know is that the quickest way to turn off an audience to a story is to go killing off the characters that made them love following the story. In this case, not only is the 'audience' following the story, they are part of it. In storytelling, you simply don't include things that don't further the story (not if you have any clue as to pacing and dramatic tension anyway).
At any rate, I suppose it all comes down to setting expectations between the players and the GM. If everyone is onboard with their characters getting treated like the blond bimbo at the start of every 1970s dinosaur flick then great. If that happened to one of my characters though without that expectation being set first, you can bet your ass that there would be a problem.
Sorry if this post has been incoherent, but that just really made me see red...
Quoted alot of stuff and said some insightful things.
Honestly, this is a matter of personal taste; and for me it comes down to a simple aspect- fluff is not tied to mechanics.
That is what makes PF/DnD a suboptimal storytelling experience at its core for me.. Fluff can be tied in by the individual DM/GM but everyone is not working from the same framework by the core rules; unlike a storytelling game, say Werewolf or Immortal, where the fluff are the rules and everyone has the same standpoint of the who's and why's.
Allow me to elaborate, for simplicity.
In a storytelling game, the mechanics of what you can do are strongly tied to the fluff of why you can do them; and not being able to to something for a fluff reason is just as valid a reason for prohibition as not being able to do it for a mechanical one.
In PF/DnD, fluff and mechanics are estranged, one might even say divorced from one another on an intrinsic and fundamental level.
Again, this is my opinion on the matter, not holy writ.
-Idle
So, rather than for escapist purposes, you play games to give yourself an artificial sense of worthwhile accomplishment?Seems sort of insulting wouldn't you say? Especially considering that is pretty much the only reason people do anything entertaining. /blanket statement.
-Idle
It wasn't intended as an insult. Certainly no more than seeking out escapism would be, and that's why most people play D&D (myself included). The only other significant reason I can think of is seeing D&D primarily as a social function, but that doesn't really have a place in this discussion.
How then, if storytelling is the point of the game, can it, the system, be suboptimal at storytelling.
While there is some merit to your argument, here, it's worth noting that something can be designed to do a particular thing well, but still be worse at it than something else.
For instance, a car company can design a car with any degree of quality. Another car company can come along and design a car that does the same things the first car does, but better. This is within the realm of possibility.
Oh you mean all those 'indy' games no one buys...of course 4th ed and a bunch of game no one plays...
You're right. The most popular roleplaying game out there, and some other games that no one you know plays. Only those things.
and video games(actualy I have no clue on how prgramming works but it seems to me that all of them follow the same basic programming...but who cares video game are not even close to what RPGs are...that is like including Monoply).
And all RPGs are written on paper. That doesn't mean that the design is the same. When you play Gears of War in co-op multiplayer, your character follows different rules from the enemies you fight. Most significantly, the fact that you can recharge your health by staying out of the line of fire. In World of Warcraft, NPCs can be created as elite monsters, or even boss monsters, gaining abilities and strength that no player could ever hope to possess, because giving them these abilities makes for stronger gameplay.
You see D&D as a fantasy world simulator first and foremost, and I see it as a game.
And, no, it's not like including Monopoly. Monopoly is an entirely competitive game. There are no non-player controlled decision-makers. We're talking about cooperative games, because cooperative games are where we start to see players following different rules than non-players do.
It is, however, like including Betrayal at the House on the Hill. Which is an example of a cooperative game featuring non-player characters who follow different rules from player characters.
Gee here I was thinking of games that people actualy play...
Yeah, no one plays World of Warcraft. What was I thinking.
In a storytelling game, the mechanics of what you can do are strongly tied to the fluff of why you can do them; and not being able to to something for a fluff reason is just as valid a reason for prohibition as not being able to do it for a mechanical one.
Interesting. Most of the games I've played that were developed for ease of storytelling (Spirit of the Century, for instance) use a system where fluff and mechanics are almost completely divorced from one another.
This leads me to believe that there really isn't any consensus on how to facilitate a storytelling game, to begin with.
I removed some personal attacks and the replies to them. Don't post angry.
In a storytelling game, the mechanics of what you can do are strongly tied to the fluff of why you can do them; and not being able to to something for a fluff reason is just as valid a reason for prohibition as not being able to do it for a mechanical one.<snip>
This leads me to believe that there really isn't any consensus on how to facilitate a storytelling game, to begin with.
I would consider that fairly obvious, game design being as much (or more) an art as a science. Ultimately, it comes down to what you consider a storytelling-oriented game to be as well as what you even considering facilitate to mean.
For some games, the storytelling comes from how the player avatars interact with their surroundings with the mechanics and lore of the game heavily focused on what that avatar can do. They story is built out of the chronicle of things they do and the world they affect and the game's rules facilitate adjudicating how those interactions occur. Others may also involve other tools for the players to use to manipulate the situation external to the actions and abilities of their avatars, with those rules facilitating the players bending the situation into the story in which they want their avatars to function.
I don't think there's any way to determine that one type of game or element designed to facilitate story telling is inherently superior to the other. That comes down to taste.
Fluff ? Is that the name of your pet ? I was pressed to ask.
Distinction between "crunch" and "fluff" was highly irritating for me, when I played modern D&D3 for the first time.
But here again, you can most definately not say that this is true for D&D in a general fashion, since this distinction did not exist in First Edition times.
Divorcing fluff from crunch allows you to maintain the tie between the two if you want, and allows you to reflavor the mechanics when you need to.
What exactly you mean by "re-flavor" ? Of course, in MY game of Pathfinder, such a strict distinction would not exist.
However...I see a lot of people here on the boards enjoy sticking to "RAW", which basically comes down to the ultimate divorce.
A really minor example of reflavoring would be a feat that grants you a spell from your deity. Changing that feat to come from a different deity is reflavoring. The mechanics of the feat are preserved, but the fluff attached to it is changed.
A more complex example would be a feat that allows you to knock an opponent prone with a leg sweep. A more mystical character might want to reflavor this as being able to manipulate the strands of fate around someone next to them so that their target trips and falls. Again, the mechanics could be preserved while the flavor of the feat is changed to suit the character.
|
Why is such a level of realism important to you in your game experience?
Because to me, the game is a simulation; and it is through this simulation that I escape...
And the more realistic the simulation, the better my suspension of disbelief becomes...
Is it a perfect simulation? No. But it works...
This is why I have such issue with many of the mechanics of 4e (which both you and I have debated ad nauseam a couple of years back). Those mechanics (and the style of play discussed here by many of those posting, including yourself) simply do not allow me to adequately suspend my disbelief...
An infamous example where 3.5 mechanics failed the story telling is with one of the Crimson Throne issues. *slight spoiling coming* Off stage, NPC A moves up to NPC B and points a crossbow at NPC B's head and fires. In the description, this is described as a killing blow (which amazed everyone when NPC B not only survives but doesn't seem to be very injuried).
Now in the mechanics, there are no "called shots", so no shot to the head. A crossbow shot isn't very lethal to most characters with a couple of levels. NPC B wasn't helpless so the shot was a coup-de-grace. etc....
The PCs' interaction with the game world made such a storytelling inconsistent with what the characters knew. This is an example where the game mechanics failed to aid a storytelling aspect.
Because to me, the game is a simulation; and it is through this simulation that I escape...
So then it does, indeed, come down to one group wanting a simulation and the other wanting a game. It's always been my contention that the goal of D&D's design was to provide a good game first and an "accurate" simulation second, but if you can't find what you're looking for elsewhere D&D will do in a pinch for either.
An infamous example where 3.5 mechanics failed the story telling is with one of the Crimson Throne issues. *slight spoiling coming* Off stage, NPC A moves up to NPC B and points a crossbow at NPC B's head and fires. In the description, this is described as a killing blow (which amazed everyone when NPC B not only survives but doesn't seem to be very injuried).
Now in the mechanics, there are no "called shots", so no shot to the head. A crossbow shot isn't very lethal to most characters with a couple of levels. NPC B wasn't helpless so the shot was a coup-de-grace. etc....
The PCs' interaction with the game world made such a storytelling inconsistent with what the characters knew. This is an example where the game mechanics failed to aid a storytelling aspect.
Right, this is a good example. I never saw situations like this as an issue, though. I have no problems accepting the equivalent of "cut-scene action" when I'm playing a game of D&D, and I have no problem running such "cut-scene action" when I'm DMing. The rules exist to facilitate the story and the enjoyment of the players. The rules do not exist to straight-jacket the story. They should be flexible enough to be adjusted when needed, and non-essential enough to be thrown out when needed.
|
|
but if you can't find what you're looking for elsewhere D&D will do in a pinch for either.
This is true. I have played in games that were not "my cup of tea", and had fun. It just wasn't my preferred game style. In fact, back when I was working in OC, I thought about asking to join your group for a session or two knowing full well you played 4e (but that was two or so years back)...
but if you can't find what you're looking for elsewhere D&D will do in a pinch for either.This is true. I have played in games that were not "my cup of tea", and had fun. It just wasn't my preferred game style. In fact, back when I was working in OC, I thought about asking to join your group for a session or two knowing full well you played 4e (but that was two or so years back)...
Haha, that's a shame, it would have been good times. If you're ever in the area, though, I'm not above tossing in special guest appearances. ;p
For what it's worth, I would give 4E another shot if Scott or Cirno were running it. It's not the game, it's who you play with.
Well, and, y'know, it doesn't hurt that the adventures are pretty dang awesome too. ;p
Haha, that's a shame, it would have been good times. If you're ever in the area, though, I'm not above tossing in special guest appearances. ;pThank you. I will certainly keep that in mind. Unfortunately, I don't make it down south very often...
I'll be at PAX this fall with some of my players, it looks like. There's always that.
Which adventures? I haven't read any 4E ones except Keep on the Shadowfell.For what it's worth, I would give 4E another shot if Scott or Cirno were running it. It's not the game, it's who you play with.Well, and, y'know, it doesn't hurt that the adventures are pretty dang awesome too. ;p
Oh, I was referring to converted Paizo adventures.
How then, if storytelling is the point of the game, can it, the system, be suboptimal at storytelling.While there is some merit to your argument, here, it's worth noting that something can be designed to do a particular thing well, but still be worse at it than something else.
For instance, a car company can design a car with any degree of quality. Another car company can come along and design a car that does the same things the first car does, but better. This is within the realm of possibility.
This is a statement I cannot argue with. However, let me play the devil's advocate. At their heart every vehicle ever created was designed to do three things: 1)go faster when you hit the accelerator, 2)slow down and eventually stop when you hit the brakes, 3)turn when you turn the wheel.
Those are the essential functions of any vehicle. You can add all the bells and whistles you want, but every vehicle is designed to get you from point A to point B in varying degrees of style and speed. I would say (this is an opinion based thread after all) that regardless of degrees of "functionality" PF is a system designed at its core to tell stories. The stories may take any path the GM and PCs choose, linear, nonlinear, scaled, not scaled, military, non-military, mapped, non-mapped, miniatured, non-miniatured... etc. The point being, from its design inception to it's fruition PF is a storytelling game. If you are using it to not tell stories, you have chosen that path. If you are using to tell stories, you should use the rules to back up your style of play. Rules are there to benefit the players, not players there to adhere to the rules.
|
So then it does, indeed, come down to one group wanting a simulation and the other wanting a game.
Add narration and we have Ron Edwards GNS theory (gamism, narrativism, simulationism). And I think that D&D (including Pathfinder) does a good job in appealing to players with different preferences, even if it's priorities lie in the more gamistic aspects.
As far as I'm concerned, I do not consider roleplaying as a game but as a form of collaborative storytelling. You could easily make the point (and others have made it in the past), that the rules of D&D and derivatives don't lend themselves to my style of play. But to be honest, I never played D&D because of the rules but because of the worlds invented for it. I came to D&D because of Greyhawk and the Realms and just happened to use the system which came with those worlds. And I never care about other systems as long as they don't come with a setting which piques my interest.
As far as I'm concerned, I do not consider roleplaying as a game but as a form of collaborative storytelling.
Roleplaying isn't a game, you're right. Roleplaying is simply playing a role. When teenage girls write steamy collaborative fiction over chat clients featuring their favorite characters from anime, they are roleplaying. There's no game to this, because there are no rules.
A roleplaying game, however, is a game (as though that needed to be said). And Dungeons & Dragons is a roleplaying game. So if you mean to say that you don't see Dungeons & Dragons (or any RPG similar to it) as a game, your perceptions are, I'm afraid, quite mistaken.
This ("programmed plot") is not an example I care about, but out of curiosity: Does NPC B be aware of the attacker ?An infamous example where 3.5 mechanics failed the story telling is with one of the Crimson Throne issues. *slight spoiling coming* Off stage, NPC A moves up to NPC B and points a crossbow at NPC B's head and fires. In the description, this is described as a killing blow (which amazed everyone when NPC B not only survives but doesn't seem to be very injuried).
Now in the mechanics, there are no "called shots", so no shot to the head. A crossbow shot isn't very lethal to most characters with a couple of levels. NPC B wasn't helpless so the shot was a coup-de-grace. etc....
The PCs' interaction with the game world made such a storytelling inconsistent with what the characters knew. This is an example where the game mechanics failed to aid a storytelling aspect.
Yes. Surprised by the turn of events, but certainly aware of her attacker.