Looking at the '4e' store encounters program and it's 5e direction

If the new D&D encounters are representative of play, then it seems to be going backwards. Back to where dice are thrown in a desultory manner and you start thinking (or at least I start thinking), I'd really just prefer to hear the GM give an oral reading of his short story (which is fine - I could sit for 10 to 15 minutes just hearing someone read their story, it's not a crazy concept), because that's how 'play' ends up in this state, where the make believe part is that the players are playing.

Well, in the first session of the new encounters campaign, there were various choices in terms of where do you go in the world. But while 4E, on the battle grid the rules mechanics gave you various choices. While here, going down this path, or figuring a riddle an imp gives or fighting it, these choices are either created and presented by the GM, or they don't exist (unlike the battle grid choices, which remain in the rules).

Now I don't want to aggrandize the 4e encounter program either - some battles felt as if you could just do basic attacks and still win. Much like this thread '[4e] The day I tried to die'.

Others in the 4e encounters seemed to hinge on pre play choices. Ie, we got whipped by a krackens tentacles, because we had no wizard. Though at least that absence of a class hinges on player choice somewhat.

Never mind that even if you got TPK'ed, the next week the next encounter just happened anyway. It was that linear. When we got whipped, the after battle text didn't even have an option for losing and the GM actually took the piss by inserting the facts into the fluff text 'Oh, heroes, please help us with the next threat, as you were so awful at dealing with the Kraken!'. But it wasn't taking the piss, because it was just true.

BUT, having said all that, I've seen interesting things on the battle grid take place. As one fellow put it 'we make our story during the battle'. And indeed I'd agree it sometimes does happen.

But not in this new, 5e style campaign. If 4e occasionally made a 'battle story' happen, but with some lame on the side, 5e makes sure only the lame comes through - unless you have a GM making up all these paths to go down, all these imps riddles to figure.

And some GM's get off on that. Being so absolutely in charge of the fun. I get that. Trying to define roleplaying as fundamentally requiring being so in charge, not so much.

But hey, if you find players who want you to be utterly in charge of the fun, okay. Perhaps D&D is trying to get back to you, then.

But really the second encounter session reminds me of why one grows tired of this - how it slumps into a linear track, with desultory fights you can neither really win nor really lose - combat becomes it's own kind of fluff text, fluff lent to the GM's linear story. I'll just note that the encounters program comes from WOTC - they send it down, the local GM doesn't make it up.

But it's a slide backward to me, back to something which flatters GM's ego's that they are so great (what else is being 100% in charge of fun, but such a claim?), balms them when players attempt to riot from the linear, with a much assured forum culture that it's the players fault, they are being douches, find a new group, no play is better than...etc. All hinging on the bastardisation of the word 'game', whereas actors know they are to follow a script because their playwright uses words which mean that information, to tell them that information, not words which mean something else entirely, but then still expect them to be happy with a script.

Back to the murky, like wading through molasses 'play'.

Yuck.

I just hope a distinction survives in gamer culture, between at least some kind of rule set that occasionally empowers player choices so much you get a battlefield story deriving from the players actual play, Vs one where the GM is in charge of the fun (and really player choices get in the way of his solemn duty).

So when we talk, we can refer to one or the other as what were pursuing and want, instead of all discussion seeming to point at the latter, given it's dominance in gamer culture over the last thirty years.

"Boyfriend" mode

I was watching a review by Dave Callan (ah, what a great surname!) of some dance games on Good Game. A review with back up dancers!

Anyway, he refered to one as having a "Boyfriend" mode, especially if the boyfriend has a mullet and likes wrestling. As it was the theme with the figures on the screen.

This reminds me of the outrage of "Girlfriend" mode idea in Borderlands 2.

So how does one end up outrageous, whilst the former probably doesn't bare mentioning.

Why the distinction?

Safe but Interesting?

I was reading people talking about 'what makes a dungeon interesting' today.

And it struck me as incredibly pompous. Like a rich man picking over incredibly expensive food - bored with the lot, had it all before, looking for something interesting amongst it all.

I'm tempted to preach the virtues of characters who can die, instead of the usual 'Oh, I want to develop my special character!'.

Things taste better - they taste more interesting, when you may not taste them for much longer.

But then again that's the thing - alot of people think their character is the only interesting thing in the world and they focus on that, before a world even exists.

How can anything else in the game world compare?

Anyway, there's kind of two layers of interesting - one is where you are desperate for something, or something you are desperate for hinges upon something.

The other is where you're like a couch potato, channel surfing, wanting entertainment.

In the latter case, it's the position that undermines the interest, basically. Like playing poker for nothing, rather than for some money.

Safety undermines.

Is alot of roleplay based on hypocritical practices?

I was thinking, the way players might expect some amount of creative control over a game - is that hypocritical?

Let's assume the game was good for them somehow - and because it was good, THEN they want creative control.

They only want in once the bread has been baked. As if they deserve creative control in a roleplay game they did nothing in building up from scratch.

Certainly if the game is somehow (in their subjective judgement) not good, then they (99% of the time) don't want to try and put in effort to build it up. They just abandon it.

Yet if it's good, then they want creative control. In particular this begs the situation where their creative input simply wrecks what's there - but again, why not, as they didn't put in any effort.

It's quite a dilemma. Roleplaying generally involves players having some creative control. But if it keeps getting handed out to people as if they deserve something they don't respect?

Possibly this is why leveling systems (like in D&D) took off - at the start the GM necessarily put in a great deal of effort. Here's some giant rats to kill. Done. In other words, no ones put any creative effort in as yet. So if all participants help nurture the game, it continues - the higher levels requiring greater amounts of creativitity as you start to deal with organisation of enemies, or even pantheons.

Perhaps RPG's could do with some system that ensures everyone either contributes to nurture the game from scratch?

'Of Orcs and Men' sounds interesting!

Can't tell if it's single player only or has a capacity for co-op? Kinda like an orcish army of two?

After so many games where for some reason there are masses of guys who are perfectly evil and perfectly in abundance for you to level (but apparently NOT so perfectly in abundance they don't just zerg yo' ass), some other side treatment seems in order.

Just that in Australian stores it's around the $70 price mark for the playstation (didn't shop around for that price, there might be lower ones). Support a different idea/perspective by buying it early, or wait for a bit of a discount?

The goblins background sounds interesting, how he says yeah, the other goblins are stupid - but he's a survivor. Old enough to be the orcs grandfather.