4e - Balance vs Versatility

[NephandiMan]

As to versatility, one of the things I have noticed here since people have seen the books, is that people keep saying things to the effect of "Well when they come out with this splatbook, you'll be able to play this concept." While it is great for WotC because they will sell more books, isn't it a little sad that so many people feel that their choices are so limited, that when the books aren't even officially released yet, people are already needing to buy supplements? What does this say for the system?

Well, to me it suggests an aspect of the "4e = video game" claim that I haven't yet seen mentioned (though it very well could have been). At first, I thought 4e would be like a buggy game that was released with the intention of fixing it later through patches, but it's really not. As far as I can tell, WotC has done a commendable job balancing what they've got. The problem, as many on this forum have noted, is that what they've got feels exceedingly limited after the (over-)abundance of supplementary books we enjoyed (suffered?) in 3.X.

Rather than a buggy game that will be "fixed" later with patches, 4e feels well-designed - so well-designed, in fact, that it might actually become interesting a year or two down the road, when the designers decide to take a risk or two via expansion packs. Having given some time to reading the core rulebooks, and looking for an adequate statement of my reaction to them, I could do worse than to quote Yahtzee's review of Uncharted: Drake's Fortune: "The word that best sums up [4e] is 'safe.' It takes no risks and pushes no envelopes. An envelope would move more if you put it in front of a glacier...I don't expect every single game to spark a revolution, but it could at least let off a single measly firework."

Fortunately, preliminary reports from people who have played or are currently playing 4e seem to indicate that the last quoted sentence may go too far. Maybe it will even set off enough fireworks so that some people won't mind paying extra money to make a game system that they've already bought versatile and interesting. I just don't know if I'll be one of them. (Yes, I know anything can be homebrewed, and that a lack of books doesn't change that. It's still disheartening to think how much WotC is keeping in reserve at least partially so they can sell overpriced supplements).

[Rutee]

I don't think they quite held back for the sake of supplements. At least, not solely. The third ed PHB is 302 pages, counting thei ndex and the like, the 4e PHB is 350. It's no HERO, but that's still fairly sporty for a PHB. Though with Magic Items in the PHB (I'd mention Paragon Paths/PrCs, but honestly PrCs and Classes in 3rd ed don't generally take that much space), that probably makes it even, or really close.

[Kurald Galain]

On the GitP Forums, claiming a STrawman is a Godwin, because nobody can be bothered to do it right.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

[Dyrvom]

Yes, but it's not really a tactical wargame. It's a roleplaying game. The only purpose of the rules is to prevent people from arguing like 10 year olds over who shot who first.



I disagree. The disconnect here is I don't think everyone should be equal in power. Some should be clearly superior. However, the superior ones should still be reliant on the others. Everyone should have an essential spot in the party, and that's how it is in 3.5, unless your DM is a twit.



Why? I don't care how I beat them. I'm not attempting to "win." I'm telling a story. I don't give a **** about that. I'm not proving my skill. I don't need to. I'm the DM, I rank higher than God. If I want to give you a chance to win (99% of the time), you'll have that chance. If you don't, it's just inefficient to bother doing it all tactical-like. And utterly irrelevant. This isn't a tactics/strategy/wargame the vast majority of the time.




He doesn't. If your DM is is on his toes, the wizard isn't dominating the play regardless of his great power at high levels.



Most certainly. And if the fighter plans to kill the wizard in your party, he better make sure the wizard thinks he's friendly, then CDG him in his sleep. (Or wait until he's out of useful spells, or backstab him when he's down to 2 hit points, etc.)



Aragorn was never Gandalf's equal, yet he respected him just the same.

I simply don't like the "balanced" model of magic. If you're using magic, wizards better eventually gain immense power the likes of which nobody else ever dreams of, or i'd rather not see magic in the game at all. Magic needs a reason to exist.

By the way, I normally play melee characters in games, apart from a sorceress who's ended up being all sorts of fun for RP reasons. And if my sword is as useful as your magic, then I have no respect for you. If you're a magic, you better prove that magic is something I should bother respecting. Because if that foppish wizard just a finger waggling pansy who studied for decades to learn to do something I can just swing a stick at and get the same job done, he's a moron not worth my time.

Everything from the DMGs to articles on this very site to the one experienced DM I personally know have all told me that the most important skill for a DM to learn is ultimately improvisation. By your approach, Tayla, the DM NEVER has to become adept at improvisation because the party is never allowed to deviate from their tracks in any meaningful way. You accuse 4E of taking the skill out of roles like the Wizard, but you have already, in your own games at least, taken the skill out of the role of god damn Dungeon Master.

[Talya]

Everything from the DMGs to articles on this very site to the one experienced DM I personally know have all told me that the most important skill for a DM to learn is ultimately improvisation. By your approach, Tayla, the DM NEVER has to become adept at improvisation because the party is never allowed to deviate from their tracks in any meaningful way.



How many times do I need to say the same thing, and yet a few people still insist on claiming I'm suggesting things I didn't remotely suggest? How does suggesting that DM-fiating one fight early in a multi-year campaign once in a while can be good, turn into "you never let the party deviate from their tracks in any meaningful way?"


Except that hasn't been the argument you've been making for the last five pages. Your argument is "the DM better steamroll all balance issues by him or herself, no matter how heavy-handed it has to be in order to make sure the 'book' (not game, book - I could quote you several times to support this conclusion) work out the way 'it's supposed to'.


Which isn't in conflict with anything else I've said here.


And that's patent BS. The DM is not the reason the gameworld exists. Hell, the DM is the backseat. The control panel is back there yeah, but the fact of the matter is, player actions can and will upset your little china clockworks. And frankly, just saying "oh, no, it didn't work" invalidates all the effort the players put into the story.

First of all, the players don't make the story. They form part of it, but the players react to the story and influence it. The DM makes it. The players can do nothing without the narrator advancing them forward, and providng the platform on which they do their acting. There is no story without the DM. You can have a story with no players and just a DM (although at that point he's called an author, not a DM), and you can have a story with one player, two players, three...five, ten...it doesn't matter. The players don't do any "hard work." They play. The DM does all the work. I know, I much prefer to play than to DM for this reason.



Did I ever invalidate their actions because they "threatened my story"

HELLS NO.

Then frankly, if you never excersize any directional control over the game at all EVER, I wouldn't want you as my DM.

Yes, a good DM makes his players choices matter. Yes, a good DM infrequently railroads (but occasionally does railroad when necessary.) Usually, the players choices can be accomodated without drasticly changing the campaign. Usually, if the choices can't be, you can subtlely influence them to change them themselves through normal play, without anything heavy handed. But every once in a while, it's advantageous, and just more fun, to give them a cutscene they think they are playing, rather than letting the game turn into a sandbox. Because every once in a while, it is just more fun for everyone involved that way.

[Diamondeye]

On the GitP Forums, claiming a STrawman is a Godwin, because nobody can be bothered to do it right.

First of all, that is complete horse manure. That's just a cute way of saying "I can strawman you all day long, and if you don't like it, tough because calling me on it breaks an altered version of an internet rule that is a logical fallacy in the first place."


Well, first off, you godwined by levelling the strawman claim (And badly).

Second, Don't you know we're recording this stuff?

<snip Taly quotes>

This wasn't quite the same, but claiming that if you're not telling a story, you're playing a Tac-RPG is close.

In reference to one Oslecamo's many diatribes against what amounts to "fun", for a different value of his own..


First of all, none of those quotes establish that Taly is saying Roleplaying is sheer narrativist (to use the pseudo-intellectual term) and any other way is wrong. They establish only that she is saying there's a story in a roleplaying game. Guess what? There is - period. Without a story, you are not roleplaying. You are engaging in a tactical simulation. That's where the term "hack and slash" comes from. Merely pointing out that there is a story does not mean she is saying the DM is dictating it to the players.

As for the last quote "There is no bad DMing if it fits into the story and doesn't break versimmilitude for the players", that is absolutely true. So what if railroading is going on? If the railroading improves the fun for the players, or better yet they don't even know it's happening, what's the problem? There's been a number of official books published over the ears encouraging this kind of subtle railroading.

As for this claim that there's a social contract at the table by which the DM agrees not to break the rules: That's utter nonsense. The contract is that the players agree that the DM is the one in charge, and is the one making the decisions about where the game will go, and they affect it within the context of what he decides. The DM agrees he will do his best to make it fun. If he doesn't they can leave, yes, but that is not because of any social contract at the table. It's because we have a law against forcing someone to stay someplace when you have no legal power to do so; it's called kidnapping. The players do not have to stay even if the game is fun, or the DM does follow all the rules. That's because it's a free country; not because of any pseudo-intellectual "Gaming social contract".

I have yet to see any argument for why "game balance" is important that doesn't amount to "The publisher needs to make sure the DM can't screw up."

Finally, for those of you glad you don't play in Taly's game: I acutually DO play in a game she DMs, and it's one of the best run campaigns I've ever been in, and I've been playing for 21 years now. It's very well-balanced, with a good story, and if there's any railroading going on beyond simply introducing a basic plot, I haven't seen it.

[Talya]

Finally, for those of you glad you don't play in Taly's game: I acutually DO play in a game she DMs, and it's one of the best run campaigns I've ever been in, and I've been playing for 21 years now.

I'm still not giving you that +5 kukri. Suck it up. :smallamused:

It's very well-balanced, with a good story, and if there's any railroading going on beyond simply introducing a basic plot, I haven't seen it.

Uh...yeah. That's right. I never have railroaded you. I also haven't done so subtlely enough that you thought you made the choices yourself. I definitely have not done that. Ever. :smallsmile:

Crap, you guys read this forum? I am gonna have to be careful not to post plot details.

[Diamondeye]

One of the issues I have with this type of declaration has already been stated - the GM should be playing and having fun as well. Preferably not at the other players' expense. But there's a far more insidious issue. Does the GM also decide who gets to play? I ask because I've seen a lot of advice which boils down to "kick them out" when a player's style of game didn't match the GMs.

Depends. Is it the DM's house? Whoever is responsible for the play area absolutely has the right to kick someone out.

If not, then still yes, it's ultimately up to the DM, although he shouldn't so it if most or all other players disagree. However, if one player and the DM are having a major conflict, I can't really see all the other players being too sympathetic either, unless the player is being blatantly picked on.


If you have both "the GM can't screw up as long as players are having fun" and "the GM will eject anyone not playing their way" then what you really have is an arbitrary "suck it or leave". It's no longer about ensuring the players have fun, it becomes ensuring they play by the GM's fiat. Just food for thought.

So what? It's a free country; the DM can do that. You can't force a DM to run a game in a way he doesn't want to.

[Diamondeye]

The irony of this statement in the same breath as "I would report you to a moderator" aside, I assume very little. It's hardly my fault that your arguments go back to an axiom you won't state out loud because it would be even less agreeable. Or that you phrase those arguments as absolutes. It takes serious guts to accuse someone else of constructing a straw man when you did it for them.

You have shown no evidence whatsoever that Taly's comments necessarily follow from some unstated axiom, and ONLY from that axiom. Therefore, you are strawmanning.

[Rutee]

That sentence doesn't make sense.

Alright, long version. The term straw man is generally used completely wrong on these boards, to the point where the term has no connection whatsoever with the people that are accused of making one. It's a cheap attempt to draw the emotional response of "Oh em Gee this person is cheating at debate" without actually quantifying it or really, even thinking about it. Godwin's Law, IMO, is there because a comparison to nazis is a cheap attempt to tie one's opponent to nazis, thereby associating them with the hatred of nazis most people will. have. Both are cheap attempts to invoke an emotion, rather then legitimate debate tactics.


You have shown no evidence whatsoever that Taly's comments necessarily follow from some unstated axiom, and ONLY from that axiom. Therefore, you are strawmanning.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have, Sr. Godwin.

Axiom: Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

Statements such as "A DM can not do wrong if they act for storyline reasons." can only be true if roleplaying is a purely narrativist activity. If it weren't purely narrativist, there would be times when acting for the story would be wrong (Offhand, saving a BBEG yet again when the players should have gotten the chance to kill them, because that BBEG still has a role to play). And since she spoke absolutely on the statement (Can not do it wrong), it follows that "Roleplaying is purely narrativist" is a proposition that is assumed without proof, from which her arguments operate from. Hence, an unstated axiom.

[Prophaniti]

Godwin's Law is not a debate law, it is a 'rule' of the internet, stating that the longer any topic of discussion continues, the odds that someone will compare someone else or their argument to nazis increases dramatically. Some people follow that up saying that once nazis are mentioned, the topic is dead. Please read your friendly wiki article here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin_Law).

I also find it 'ironic' that you constantly poke at peoples 'tone' and 'implied' statements, yet the vast majority of your posts come off as incredibly self-righteous. Doesn't bother me much, personally, I just find it amusing.

[Talya]

The term straw man is generally used completely wrong on these boards, to the point where the term has no connection whatsoever with the people that are accused of making one.

So that means that you can use strawman arguments (Creating a caricatured, exaggerated, or, as in this case, utterly unstated position, assigning it to me, and arguing against it), with impunity?

Na...I fail to acknowledge your misapplication of Godwin's law.

[Rutee]

So that means that you can use strawman arguments (Creating a caricatured, exaggerated, or, as in this case, utterly unstated position, assigning it to me, and arguing against it), with impunity?

Na...I fail to acknowledge your misapplication of Godwin's law.

Are you going to argue that your absolute statements like "The DM can do no wrong if they act for story reasons" are only true in a purely narrativist exercise? It would be so much easier for you to admit that you were in error for speaking absolutely. But then, people don't admit they're wrong on the internet.

[Gilead]

You can claim that all this stuff is going to be added later, but I'm comparing 3.5 core to 4e core. If 4e core can't hold up, that's a limitation of the system.

Man what is the deal with this 3.5e cpre rubbish? I can't play a warlock? Where's my eldritch blast and multiple pacts to choose from? Where's my arrogant fey elves that can do a cool and useful teleporting power to maneuver around the battlefield? And my friend's fighter doesn't get to use interesting powers in combat or get different effects from using different weapons? God, this system's so limited.

Do you see how ridiculous comparing the two cores and declaring one inferior because it doesn't have the specific (and fyi utterly overpowered) things you want in it?

[Diamondeye]

Are you going to argue that your absolute statements like "The DM can do no wrong if they act for story reasons" are only true in a purely narrativist exercise? It would be so much easier for you to admit that you were in error for speaking absolutely. But then, people don't admit they're wrong on the internet.

You have yet to explain why this is untrue in any "non-pure-narrativist" (that word is so silly) format.

[Prophaniti]

Are you going to argue that your absolute statements like "The DM can do no wrong if they act for story reasons" are only true in a purely narrativist exercise? It would be so much easier for you to admit that you were in error for speaking absolutely. But then, people don't admit they're wrong on the internet.

I've read her posts, and they don't read as absolute as you make them out to be. This is the definition of a strawman argument. Any of the single-sentence statements that you see are not meant to be taken alone, but in the context of the full argument. And your right, apparently some people don't like admiting they're wrong... (guess who I'm 'implying' here) but this has nothing to do with the internet, it is a human failing.

The crux of the discussion on DMing is entirely subjective. Whether a DM should railroad subtely, absolutely, not at all, or how much say the DM has is entirely based on the group your playing with. This cannot be simplified any further. There are guidelines that may help new DMs find the right niche for their group, but there simply are no absolutes in this discussion.

[Talya]

Are you going to argue that your absolute statements like "The DM can do no wrong if they act for story reasons" are only true in a purely narrativist exercise? It would be so much easier for you to admit that you were in error for speaking absolutely. But then, people don't admit they're wrong on the internet.

The DM can do no wrong, period, really. It's impossible for a DM to "cheat." That's because they are explicitly allowed to do anything they want to do. DMs by definition cannot break the rules. DMs are the rules.

The only question is whether people are having fun. If they very subtlely railroad a bit on occasion for narrativist reasons, it won't affect anyone's fun, and very well may make things more fun. There may also be other reasons when it is more fun for everyone if the DM steps in and railroads a bit. Or a lot, and maybe not so subtlely. I don't know, I don't do it much.

[Indon]

MAn you guys are too much. It's not just enough that the game's played your way, but the story style and aesthetic has to be one you like, or it's not Roleplaying?

Oh, it can be Roleplaying. I could play Football and make it Roleplaying (In fact... that'd be interesting). It's a matter of how good it is at helping me do roleplaying. If I have to do all the work of the game, what's the system doing? Why do I even have the books sitting on the table taking up space that could be occupied by tortilla chips and salsa?


Well, first off, you godwined by levelling the strawman claim (And badly).

I do not think that word means what you think it means. But heck, only like 15 people on the forum know what a fallacy is, so I guess I can't fault you too hard.


As to versatility, one of the things I have noticed here since people have seen the books, is that people keep saying things to the effect of "Well when they come out with this splatbook, you'll be able to play this concept." While it is great for WotC because they will sell more books, isn't it a little sad that so many people feel that their choices are so limited, that when the books aren't even officially released yet, people are already needing to buy supplements? What does this say for the system?

I don't think this says anything of the system, but rather speaks of the culture that was cultivated under 3'rd edition.

The system is quite different - really, with the core 3 books, we have 90% of the unique material that 4'th edition will ever have availible to us. We can make a Bard, right now. We can make a Druid. We can make a Barbarian. It's just a matter of taking what we already have, mixing things up a bit, and changing around some names. Kinda boring? Yeah. Saves you twenty bucks? Hells yeah.

Which is, indeed, a significant advantage to having a system with little versatility - the entirety of 4'th edition fits into 3 books, so 3 books is all someone will ever need.

[Dark Tira]

I think the real problem here is that Talya likes to make inflammatory blanket statements and then supports them via rule 0.

I 100% agree with this post.

Nothing a spellcaster could do in 3e should have been taken away, ever.

And no, spellcasters in 3.x were not gamebreakingly powerful nor did they make the game signficantly less fun for melee types. (The lack of utility for melee types may have, but that was rectified with splatbooks for the most part.)

Now if she had instead said something like "I don't like how 4th edition reduces spellcaster options. I can manage balance in my own games quite well using 3.5." Then we probably wouldn't have argued across 5 pages.

[Talya]

Then we probably wouldn't have argued across 5 pages.

Don't count on it.

[Rutee]

You have yet to explain why this is untrue in any "non-pure-narrativist" (that word is so silly) format.
Okay, I don't usually take the role of Captain Obvious, but one does what one must.

Narrativist concerns or goals are those related to the game as a story. They can be as simple as "I want to tell an entertaining-to-read story/episode/session", or as complex as "I'd like to tell a story that is emblematic of <insert complex modern day issue here>, and illustrates both sides fairly", or anything in between. If one's goal is entirely about the story, then yes, it's hard for the GM to do wrong, when acting for the sake of the story, provided that the experience makes the story better. But what if the other players don't care about story? What if they just want to have a completely internally consistent world? Most storytelling techniques aren't totally internally consistent, and Talya's have been no exception (Such as 'You won the fight game-wise, but lose storywise", for an egregious example. I'm not persecuting her for this; Mine aren't either, and as I said, most storytelling techniques aren't.) If that's what the other players want, acting for story reasons is pretty patently wrong. Or, what if the other players just want to play the game (Kick down the door, loot the room, move on to the next room)? Powergamers or others focused on the game as a purely mechanical construct are often denigrated, but I'd argue they're the ones playing DnD most correctly, and if that's what the other players want, why are you imposing storyline stuff on them? It isn't even entirely true that acting for story reasons when the other players only seek a story is okay. I think that the people who have voiced concern at how Talya removes narrative control from the players when she acts unilateraly as she does in some of her examples are self evident, on this count, but if you'd like I can quote them.


The DM can do no wrong, period, really. It's impossible for a DM to "cheat." That's because they are explicitly allowed to do anything they want to do. DMs by definition cannot break the rules. DMs are the rules.
Where do you dig up these perfect humans for use as GMs? Around here, humans aren't perfect, and can screw up pretty mightily sometimes.


The only question is whether people are having fun. If they very subtlely railroad a bit on occasion for narrativist reasons, it won't affect anyone's fun, and very well may make things more fun. There may also be other reasons when it is more fun for everyone if the DM steps in and railroads a bit. Or a lot, and maybe not so subtlely. I don't know, I don't do it much.
Haven't the people telling you "Why are you doing this, it's not fun" indicated well enough to you that some people don't want to be railroaded period?

[Thrawn183]

Dark Tira, award yourself a +1 inherent boost to your wisdom score.

[Diamondeye]

Statements such as "A DM can not do wrong if they act for storyline reasons." can only be true if roleplaying is a purely narrativist activity. If it weren't purely narrativist, there would be times when acting for the story would be wrong (Offhand, saving a BBEG yet again when the players should have gotten the chance to kill them, because that BBEG still has a role to play). And since she spoke absolutely on the statement (Can not do it wrong), it follows that "Roleplaying is purely narrativist" is a proposition that is assumed without proof, from which her arguments operate from. Hence, an unstated axiom.

You are making a circular argument:

"Statements such as "A DM can not do wrong if they act for storyline reasons." can only be true if roleplaying is a purely narrativist activity. If it weren't purely narrativist, there would be times when acting for the story would be wrong (Offhand, saving a BBEG yet again when the players should have gotten the chance to kill them, because that BBEG still has a role to play)."

You state that the first underlined portion can only be true in a pure narritivist setting, because outside a pure narrativist setting, it could be wrong. that is what you are trying to show in the first place! HOW could it be wrong? Your example is even poor; the characters "should" have been able to kill the bad guy? "Should" why? Because they would get his loot? Because they wanted to? Because they rolled well? Because God kills a kitten every time the DM railroads?

[Prophaniti]

Because God kills a kitten every time the DM railroads?
If I weren't at work, I'd link a picture of a cute little kitten with that as the caption. I'll edit this post when I get home or someone else will beat me to it. That's just too awesome to pass up.

[Rutee]

Assuming you're capable of filling in the gaps yourself isn't quite the same as making a circular argument. Also, I already played captain obvious once. Of course, you're going to ask "Why isn't it okay for the GM to act on narrativism just because the other players don't want it?", if you hold true to form, and I'm going to throw my hands up in exasperation and give up on you.

[Talya]

But what if the other players don't care about story?

Then I don't want to play with them. Not as a DM, not as a player. What's the big deal here?



Where do you dig up these perfect humans for use as GMs? Around here, humans aren't perfect, and can screw up pretty mightily sometimes.

You're putting words into my mouth again. DMs are allowed to screw up. It's still not "wrong."




Haven't the people telling you "Why are you doing this, it's not fun" indicated well enough to you that some people don't want to be railroaded period?

1. They wouldn't ever know.
2. I just said I don't want to play with those people anyway.

[Prophaniti]

but I'd argue they're the ones playing DnD most correctly, And I'd imediately dismiss your argument as closed-minded and foolish. We've been over this. There is no 'correct' or even 'most correct' way to play this game.


Haven't the people telling you "Why are you doing this, it's not fun" indicated well enough to you that some people don't want to be railroaded period?
I believe his point is that no one has ever told him this. He does subtle plot railroading without ruining his players' enjoyment. Yes, it can be done.

[AKA_Bait]

How many times do I need to say the same thing, and yet a few people still insist on claiming I'm suggesting things I didn't remotely suggest? How does suggesting that DM-fiating one fight early in a multi-year campaign once in a while can be good, turn into "you never let the party deviate from their tracks in any meaningful way?"

Because you didn't suggest only that. You also suggested fudging roles and fiating to keep wizards balanced with the rest of the party so that encounters turn out the way that you intended. Basically, you have argued that both at high and low levels fudging and fiating on the part of the DM is acceptable practice in order to keep the story going as planned.


First of all, the players don't make the story. They form part of it, but the players react to the story and influence it. The DM makes it. The players can do nothing without the narrator advancing them forward, and providng the platform on which they do their acting.

This is a fundimental disagreement in playstyle bettween us. In my games, the players also make the story. Ultimatley, the story is about the PCs, and the players are supposed to control the actions of the PCs. The DM sets up the rest of the world, the events that the PCs must react to or choose not to react to and adjudicates the consequences of PC actions under the rules everyone has agreed to.


There is no story without the DM. You can have a story with no players and just a DM (although at that point he's called an author, not a DM), and you can have a story with one player, two players, three...five, ten...it doesn't matter.

Again, this is precisley where we disagree. You seem to view your players as actors playing a part in the story. Most of the rest of us seem view them as co-authors.


The players don't do any "hard work." They play. The DM does all the work. I know, I much prefer to play than to DM for this reason.

I take it you do not consult with your PCs about what kinds of things they would like to see happen in the campagin? You ignore any time and effort they put into character backstory? Build? Development? All of those things require work. I have played games where the players put as much or more work as the DM.


But every once in a while, it's advantageous, and just more fun, to give them a cutscene they think they are playing, rather than letting the game turn into a sandbox. Because every once in a while, it is just more fun for everyone involved that way.

Why not then just be honest with them and tell them it's a cut scene? I'd be ticked if my DM tried to pull a fast one. I wouldn't be if they came out and told me 'for plot purposes, this is what's going to happen'.



They establish only that she is saying there's a story in a roleplaying game. Guess what? There is - period. Without a story, you are not roleplaying. You are engaging in a tactical simulation. That's where the term "hack and slash" comes from. Merely pointing out that there is a story does not mean she is saying the DM is dictating it to the players.

Right. However, they do establish that she believes she has the right to dictate it to the players, at least once in a while.


As for the last quote "There is no bad DMing if it fits into the story and doesn't break versimmilitude for the players", that is absolutely true. So what if railroading is going on? If the railroading improves the fun for the players, or better yet they don't even know it's happening, what's the problem? There's been a number of official books published over the ears encouraging this kind of subtle railroading.

And depending upon the group it's perfectly fine. The issue is, at least in my exp, that railroading and versimilitude are opposite ends of a teeter-totter. The more of one, by necc, the less of the other. Even subtle railroading becomes not so subtle after a few sessions.


As for this claim that there's a social contract at the table by which the DM agrees not to break the rules: That's utter nonsense. The contract is that the players agree that the DM is the one in charge, and is the one making the decisions about where the game will go, and they affect it within the context of what he decides. The DM agrees he will do his best to make it fun.

Depends upon the group. I don't break the rules in games I DM without consulting and explaining to the player first why I must do that. As far as I'm concerned that's cheating on my part. It is one thing to get the players approval to nullify their work and actions. It is another to lead them to believe that they are still playing a group game when in fact you are simply telling them a story with interruptions for dice rolling.


I have yet to see any argument for why "game balance" is important that doesn't amount to "The publisher needs to make sure the DM can't screw up."

If you want to phrase it that way, I'll agree with you. A better product is one where the user doesn't need to be constantly on guard as to problems inherent in the product. I honestly have trouble seeing why this notion is controversial at all.


Finally, for those of you glad you don't play in Taly's game: I acutually DO play in a game she DMs, and it's one of the best run campaigns I've ever been in, and I've been playing for 21 years now. It's very well-balanced, with a good story, and if there's any railroading going on beyond simply introducing a basic plot, I haven't seen it.

As I said, I'm glad her group approves of her playstyle. It may also well be the case that her position here is put more strongly than she applies in actual gameplay. From that comment, I'd suspect it is.


But then, people don't admit they're wrong on the internet.

Speaking of unfair absolute statements!


The DM can do no wrong, period, really. It's impossible for a DM to "cheat." That's because they are explicitly allowed to do anything they want to do. DMs by definition cannot break the rules. DMs are the rules.

@Prophanti and Diamondeye- these are exactly the kind of absolute statements to which some of us object. In some games, with the consent of the players, the above assertions may well be true. In other games, the DM is just as bound by the rules as the players are. This agreement on the scope and depth of DM authority is one of the key factors in how much fun the group will have playing the game. The authority follows the agreement which is made in the interest of fun, it does not stand alone.


Which is, indeed, a significant advantage to having a system with little versatility - the entirety of 4'th edition fits into 3 books, so 3 books is all someone will ever need.

Indeed, and as someone else pointed out, having fairly homogenous power formats makes it easier to homebrew without destroying that balance.



Now if she had instead said something like "I don't like how 4th edition reduces spellcaster options. I can manage balance in my own games quite well using 3.5." Then we probably wouldn't have argued across 5 pages.

Indeed.


Don't count on it.

Well, I guess I could be wrong.

@Rutee :smalltongue:


HOW could it be wrong?

It could be wrong in the case that player particpation and universal (DM included) subjugation of event resolution for which there are rules are goverend under those rules are more important to a particular group than the narritive that the DM had in mind. Games, in short, like mine.


Because God kills a kitten every time the DM railroads?

Possibly, but as I do not like cats at the moment (mine covered my suit in fur when I was in the shower this morning), I do not care.

[Diamondeye]

Okay, I don't usually take the role of Captain Obvious, but one does what one must.

Narrativist concerns or goals are those related to the game as a story. They can be as simple as "I want to tell an entertaining-to-read story/episode/session", or as complex as "I'd like to tell a story that is emblematic of <insert complex modern day issue here>, and illustrates both sides fairly", or anything in between. If one's goal is entirely about the story, then yes, it's hard for the GM to do wrong, when acting for the sake of the story, provided that the experience makes the story better.

OK "Captain Obvious". When I say that a word is silly, that does not mean I don't know what the word means. I would have thought THAT would have been obvious.


But what if the other players don't care about story? What if they just want to have a completely internally consistent world? Most storytelling techniques aren't totally internally consistent, and Talya's have been no exception (Such as 'You won the fight game-wise, but lose storywise", for an egregious example. I'm not persecuting her for this; Mine aren't either, and as I said, most storytelling techniques aren't.) If that's what the other players want, acting for story reasons is pretty patently wrong. Or, what if the other players just want to play the game (Kick down the door, loot the room, move on to the next room)? Powergamers or others focused on the game as a purely mechanical construct are often denigrated, but I'd argue they're the ones playing DnD most correctly, and if that's what the other players want, why are you imposing storyline stuff on them? It isn't even entirely true that acting for story reasons when the other players only seek a story is okay. I think that the people who have voiced concern at how Talya removes narrative control from the players when she acts unilateraly as she does in some of her examples are self evident, on this count, but if you'd like I can quote them.

She has NOT removed narritive control from the players; she is simply stating that it rests mainly with the DM. That is true whether the DM is human or a computer. Someone else has to run the rest of the world. If the DM sits back and does not take narrative control the players have nothing to do. Every published manual on DMing talks about constructing story arcs to move the game along.

Furthermore, you keep talking about "what if the players want X"? Here's a clue: Players almost never all want the same thing even in the same play group. You have to have some elements to satisfy every playstyle that's present. However, there is ALWAYS a story, even if that is nothing more than "You all meet in a tavern, and agree to go to the old keep and kill monsters for loot, then come back to town and sell it." If the DM doesn't move things along, the players never leave the tavern to kill the monsters and satisfy the powergamers you are so worried about!


Where do you dig up these perfect humans for use as GMs? Around here, humans aren't perfect, and can screw up pretty mightily sometimes.

So what?


Haven't the people telling you "Why are you doing this, it's not fun" indicated well enough to you that some people don't want to be railroaded period?

Then those people don't need to be playing D&D, period. Just making a campaign setting is a form of railroading. All you're doing is arguing the players should be able to railroad the DM.

[Talya]

And I'd imediately dismiss your argument as closed-minded and foolish. We've been over this. There is no 'correct' or even 'most correct' way to play this game.

The irony of Rutee claiming a "most correct way to play" is highly amusing, considering she was bitching about others doing it (when they weren't.)



I believe his point is that no one has ever told him this. He does subtle plot railroading without ruining his players' enjoyment. Yes, it can be done.

I have only one disagreement with this statement.

Her. None of her players have ever told her this. She does subtle plot railroading (occasionally) without ruining her players enjoyment.

[Diamondeye]

Assuming you're capable of filling in the gaps yourself isn't quite the same as making a circular argument. Also, I already played captain obvious once. Of course, you're going to ask "Why isn't it okay for the GM to act on narrativism just because the other players don't want it?", if you hold true to form, and I'm going to throw my hands up in exasperation and give up on you.

In other words, it's wrong because you say so. Got it. Thanks.

[Prophaniti]

The irony of Rutee claiming a "most correct way to play" is highly amusing, considering she was bitching about others doing it (when they weren't.)
I know. Its perplexing how someone can be so vocal against such offenses, even when only implied or unintentionally alluded to, and yet state it outright as their own stance.

I have only one disagreement with this statement.

Her. None of her players have ever told her this. She does subtle plot railroading (occasionally) without ruining her players enjoyment.Ack! My apologies, I miss the gender thing sometimes... Although, technically, 'he' can be used as a gender-neutral pronoun.

[AKA_Bait]

She has NOT removed narritive control from the players; she is simply stating that it rests mainly with the DM. That is true whether the DM is human or a computer. Someone else has to run the rest of the world. If the DM sits back and does not take narrative control the players have nothing to do.

Depending upon how strong this statement is, you may or may not be wrong. It is entirely possible for the DM to play the rest of the world without a preplanned narrative they expect the PC's to follow. They need only create a setting, NPC's with goals of their own that they will act upon(including one or more BBEG's), toss the players in and let the events evolve naturally from interactions of the PC's goals and the NPC's goals.


Every published manual on DMing talks about constructing story arcs to move the game along.

Does web publishing, for example on this forum, count? If so, you are wrong. Some manuals purposefully avoid the subject because of arguments like this, which are basicaly about playstyle. *cough*

[Talya]

Because you didn't suggest only that. You also suggested fudging roles and fiating to keep wizards balanced with the rest of the party so that encounters turn out the way that you intended.

Actually, no. the fudging rolls is something I'd only ever do narratively. I balance spellcasters in other ways.



This is a fundimental disagreement in playstyle bettween us. In my games, the players also make the story. Ultimatley, the story is about the PCs, and the players are supposed to control the actions of the PCs. The DM sets up the rest of the world, the events that the PCs must react to or choose not to react to and adjudicates the consequences of PC actions under the rules everyone has agreed to.



Again, this is precisley where we disagree. You seem to view your players as actors playing a part in the story. Most of the rest of us seem view them as co-authors.

That would be true if (and only if) the players read what I scripted for them, and chose what I decided for them. They don't. They are coauthors. Thing is, they are restricted to writing one character in a story with at least 3 other main characters, and dozens of secondary and millions of tertiary characters, as well as gods, fate, the natural environment, etc. They can influence things, but they only get to write one tiny part of it.




I take it you do not consult with your PCs about what kinds of things they would like to see happen in the campagin? You ignore any time and effort they put into character backstory? Build? Development? All of those things require work. I have played games where the players put as much or more work as the DM.

Prior to the campaign I tell my potential players what the campaign is going to be about, the style of it, the houserules, etc. I periodically consult them to see if they are having fun and what they would like changed. I give very wide lattitude in character build (but I dislike "cheese," and likely disallow it outright),and may even suggest things I think they'd like if they've missed it (but I don't put any pressure on them.) I don't consider build and development of a character to be "work," it's incredibly fun. I do it for a couple characters every week that I never intend to play. If that type of stuff is more work than your campaign management, then the DM isn't doing much.


Why not then just be honest with them and tell them it's a cut scene? I'd be ticked if my DM tried to pull a fast one. I wouldn't be if they came out and told me 'for plot purposes, this is what's going to happen'.

Because it is my impression that they have more fun if they are involved, and are more likely to pay attention that way, too.


Right. However, they do establish that she believes she has the right to dictate it to the players, at least once in a while.

Absolutely she does. Just as they have a "right" to decide not to play. Anyway, that right is explicitly stated in the rules. You do know that "rule 0" is actually part of the game, right? Everyone has a "right" to do what they want, so long as you aren't infringing on anyone else's "right." You have no "right" to play in my game, for example. I have no "right" to make you play.

[Rutee]

In other words, it's wrong because you say so. Got it. Thanks.

If my cunning plan is

"Find Stairwell that leads to roof" and then "drop penny from roof", and I have to explain to you that between steps 1 and 2 is "Climb stairwell", you're not worth the effort.


I take it you do not consult with your PCs about what kinds of things they would like to see happen in the campagin? You ignore any time and effort they put into character backstory? Build? Development? All of those things require work. I have played games where the players put as much or more work as the DM.

Honestly, I would say that the players tend to contribute more then the GM. It's simple, really; There are more of them. It's similar to the argument that game creators should listen to their players, because their players have collectively spent more man hours on it then the creators ever would.

[Prophaniti]

Honestly, I would say that the players tend to contribute more then the GM. It's simple, really; There are more of them. It's similar to the argument that game creators should listen to their players, because their players have collectively spent more man hours on it then the creators ever would.The only way the players would contribute more than the DM is if they were running an unmodified prepublished campaign. Anything else involves many times more effort on the DMs part.

Did you read that article on Godwin's Law? Heaven forbid you should use it incorrectly again, as you say so many people use the term 'strawman' incorrectly. (intended more jokingly than you'll probably read it as, calm down)

[Azerian Kelimon]

The only way the players would contribute more than the DM is if they were running an unmodified prepublished campaign. Anything else involves many times more effort on the DMs part.

He has a point there. If you have to design a campaign setting, you spend WAY more time on it than the players ever will.

[AKA_Bait]

Actually, no. the fudging rolls is something I'd only ever do narratively. I balance spellcasters in other ways.

That was previously unclear, at least to me. Thank you for clarifying it.


That would be true if (and only if) the players read what I scripted for them, and chose what I decided for them. They don't. They are coauthors. Thing is, they are restricted to writing one character in a story with at least 3 other main characters, and dozens of secondary and millions of tertiary characters, as well as gods, fate, the natural environment, etc. They can influence things, but they only get to write one tiny part of it.

Although in terms of the overall setting this is the case, in terms of the 'on screen' part of the campagin they play a much larger role. They may only be 1 of 4 main characters, but the are one of the only 4 characters taht is on screen all the time.


I don't consider build and development of a character to be "work," it's incredibly fun.

I'm taking work in the sense of man hours invested not as the opposite of fun. I have fun running and managing my game too. In that sense, in an ideal group, no one does any 'work'.


If that type of stuff is more work than your campaign management, then the DM isn't doing much.

I'm also talking about character development. I generally spend a fair amount of time thinking about how recent events in a campagin would effect my charcter emotionally and intelectually. Then I think about how to translate that into changed behaviours of the character IC.


Because it is my impression that they have more fun if they are involved, and are more likely to pay attention that way, too.

Fair enough, depends upon the game. As a player, I'd rather not be lied to. But then, I'd rather not be playing in a game where I had to be lied to in order to keep the narrative in order either.


Absolutely she does. Just as they have a "right" to decide not to play. Anyway, that right is explicitly stated in the rules. You do know that "rule 0" is actually part of the game, right? Everyone has a "right" to do what they want, so long as you aren't infringing on anyone else's "right." You have no "right" to play in my game, for example. I have no "right" to make you play.

I would argue that the rights of the DM under rule 0 are determined by the group at large, not the DM alone. Everyone playing the game has a 'right' to have fun when playing. That right trumps the DM's right to dictate play at any moment. In all groups, there is a negotiation bettween everyones right to fun, DM included, and hopeully a playstyle that is amenable to everyone emerges. If not, then people exercise their right to walk away.

[Rutee]

He has a point there. If you have to design a campaign setting, you spend WAY more time on it than the players ever will.

Why would you freeze the players out of this? :smallconfused:

Come to think of it, there are a lot of reasons. It does still depend quite vastly on detail, 'inspiration' taken, and the length of the game (In a sufficiently long game, the players' numbers will cause them to have invested far more time then the GM, no matter how involved the setting creation process is.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Why would you freeze the players out of this? :smallconfused:

What freezing? It simply takes a lot more time to prepare new classes, races, items, the landscape, the characters, etc.

Once you think it is reasonably complete, you run the players through it. They'll make suggestions and expose cheese, and then you go back to the lab to redesign, and repeat until everything works just fine.

[Prophaniti]

Why would you freeze the players out of this? :smallconfused:
Freeze them out? Most of the group I play with don't even want to touch campaign creation precisely because its so much work. They want the DM to create a setting, then have the simpler and (for most people) more enjoyable task of playing a single character in that setting. Sometimes there are specific things they want from a setting, and we usually do have a brainstorming session prior to starting a new campaign, but the vast majority of the work is left to the DM (who is then subsequently blamed for anything that they end up hating about it).

[Rutee]

What freezing? It simply takes a lot more time to prepare new classes, races, items, the landscape, the characters, etc.

Once you think it is reasonably complete, you run the players through it. They'll make suggestions and expose cheese, and then you go back to the lab to redesign, and repeat until everything works just fine.

Right, I struck that out on consideration. But I'm still fairly sure it depends on a lot of factors. Especially in a system where races and classes aren't a design issue (Such as a points based system). And again, given sufficient time, the players will always overcome this.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Right, I struck that out on consideration. But I'm still fairly sure it depends on a lot of factors. Especially in a system where races and classes aren't a design issue (Such as a points based system). And again, given sufficient time, the players will always overcome this.

Aaah, that's much better. I can agree with that.

[Prophaniti]

Well, bottom line, in most campaigns the DM does most of the 'contributing' when it comes to the amount of material and personal time investment brought to the gaming table. The players just need their character sheets and their imaginations. What else would you mean by 'contribute'? Time played? Doesn't seem like much of a contribution, you just have to sit there. Ideas? Depends entirely on the specific people in the group and how much they want to help in the idea proccess.

You could have a group where the players come up with all the ideas and tell the DM exactly what kind of setting and campaign they want to play. Probably the exception rather than the rule, but I'm sure it happens. I still think the DM does more 'work' though, even in such a case.

[Rutee]

Well, bottom line, in most campaigns the DM does most of the 'contributing' when it comes to the amount of material and personal time investment brought to the gaming table. The players just need their character sheets and their imaginations. What else would you mean by 'contribute'? Time played? Doesn't seem like much of a contribution, you just have to sit there. Ideas? Depends entirely on the specific people in the group and how much they want to help in the idea proccess.

You could have a group where the players come up with all the ideas and tell the DM exactly what kind of setting and campaign they want to play. Probably the exception rather than the rule, but I'm sure it happens. I still think the DM does more 'work' though, even in such a case.
No, they really don't. The DM does more then an individual player, sure, but they outnumber the DM. It's like you're assuming Mega-OCD GM and slacktard players, and that's really not a good comparison. I've seen a player produce a more detailed and intricate /backstory/ then the entire campaign setting, and this was a well detailed and thought out setting. One guy. Not to speak of the rest of the players.

[Talya]

No, they really don't. The DM does more then an individual player, sure, but they outnumber the DM. It's like you're assuming Mega-OCD GM and slacktard players, and that's really not a good comparison. I've seen a player produce a more detailed and intricate /backstory/ then the entire campaign setting, and this was a well detailed and thought out setting. One guy. Not to speak of the rest of the players.

That's cool. Wonder if anyone but the DM ever read it.

I'd hate to do that much detail into a background before I started the game...only to have my character die at level 2.

[Prophaniti]

No, I'm assuming nothing. I stated as much. I know different groups and individuals do things differently. The example I used was how the group I play with most does things. Everything outside their own character creation is the province of the DM in most of our games. Even with such detailed backstories as you describe, the DM still puts more ink on paper than the party on average, assuming (this time I actually am) an average group size of 4-5, and a DM-made campaign setting. This is a general estimate of time invested and ideas implemented. By definition, if the DM is making a world and the player is making an individual, it would take a very detailed character and a very undetailed world for the players to pass the DM in these categories.

[Azerian Kelimon]

That's cool. Wonder if anyone but the DM ever read it.

I'd hate to do that much detail into a background before I started the game...only to have my character die at level 2.

Amen, sister. The only thing that would be worse would be losing an amazing post to data vampires.

[Prophaniti]

Amen, sister. The only thing that would be worse would be losing an amazing post to data vampires.Ugh. I hate that so much... half a dozen times I've typed up multi-paragraph, articulate and wonderful posts, then I lose my connection or the power goes out or some crap. The second draft always sucks for some reason.

[Diamondeye]

If my cunning plan is

"Find Stairwell that leads to roof" and then "drop penny from roof", and I have to explain to you that between steps 1 and 2 is "Climb stairwell", you're not worth the effort.

Right. "You pointed out my argument is circular so I'll just pretend you're too dumb to understand".

Whatever.

[AKA_Bait]

Right. "You pointed out my argument is circular so I'll just pretend you're too dumb to understand".

Whatever.

Ok, I didn't really want to get into this, but since I'm like that I feel compelled to point out that the argument was not, in fact, circular. In order for an argument to be circular it must contain its conclusion in its premises. Rutee's argument, broken down into its logical structure, went as follows.

Premises:
1. A DM can do no wrong in furtherance of the story is true if and only if D&D uses a pure narrative playstyle is also true.
2. If a person states they believe the anticedant of a conditional then they by inference they also believe the consequent of a conditional.
3. Talya stated that a DM can do no wrong in furtherance of the story.

Therefore:

4. Talya believes that D&D uses a purley narrative playstyle.

Note, I'm not saying that Rutee's argument is correct here. Premise 2 and/or 3 are probably flawed in that Talya doesn't seem to have meant exactly what she said before. I'm merely pointing out that the argument isn't circular.

Your mistake is in thinking that Rutee was attempting to prove by that argument that Premise 1 was correct. She was not, she was attempting to prove the conclusion on line 4, that Talya believed D&D uses a purley narrative playstyle.

We can debate about the truth of premise one, and I gave you an argument as to why it's true above (when I talked about different priorites in gaming. Namley the group determined importance of universal rules v. planned narrative), to which you didn't respond.

[Talya]

Note, I'm not saying that Rutee's argument is correct here. Premise 2 and/or 3 are probably flawed in that Talya doesn't seem to have meant exactly what she said before. I'm merely pointing out that the argument isn't circular.

Your mistake is in thinking that Rutee was attempting to prove by that argument that Premise 1 was correct. She was not, she was attempting to prove the conclusion on line 4, that Talya believed D&D uses a purley narrative playstyle.



The "if and only if" clause makes premise 1 incorrect, too.

[Rutee]

Note, I'm not saying that Rutee's argument is correct here. Premise 2 and/or 3 are probably flawed in that Talya doesn't seem to have meant exactly what she said before. I'm merely pointing out that the argument isn't circular.

If I've followed the discussion properly, this is actually accurate. This is really only happening because I've been accused of constructing a strawman. No, that was done for me when a position was badly represented by its advocate.

[AKA_Bait]

The "if and only if" clause makes premise 1 incorrect, too.

It certianly makes it questionable. I only stated it that way because it seems to me that it is what Rutee was arguing.

I'm not sure if it's incorrect or not phrased as an if and only if rather than a reguar old conditional. I would need an example of another playstyle under which the DM can do no wrong in furtherance of the story it to be false. I suppose there are probably middle cases, but in each one if there is a single instance of the DM being able to do wrong in furtherance of the story then Premise 1 would still hold.

[Diamondeye]

Ok, I didn't really want to get into this, but since I'm like that I feel compelled to point out that the argument was not, in fact, circular. In order for an argument to be circular it must contain its conclusion in its premises. Rutee's argument, broken down into its logical structure, went as follows.

Premises:
1. A DM can do no wrong in furtherance of the story is true if and only if D&D uses a pure narrative playstyle is also true.
2. If a person states they believe the anticedant of a conditional then they by inference they also believe the consequent of a conditional.
3. Talya stated that a DM can do no wrong in furtherance of the story.

Therefore:

4. Talya believes that D&D uses a purley narrative playstyle.


That's all well and good, but what you framed as an argument is not the same as this:


"Statements such as "A DM can not do wrong if they act for storyline reasons." can only be true if roleplaying is a purely narrativist activity. If it weren't purely narrativist, there would be times when acting for the story would be wrong (Offhand, saving a BBEG yet again when the players should have gotten the chance to kill them, because that BBEG still has a role to play)."

The first sentence is her premise; namely, that a DM can only do no wrong in acting for storyline reasons if and only if the roleplaying game were purely for narrative value.

The second sentence is a conclusion: If the game is not played purelly for narrative value then the DM CAN do wrong by acting for storyline reasons (presumably at the expense of the rules).

However, that conclusion is no different, logically, than the premise; it's just rephrased. Nothing is presented with any probative value of either the premise or the conclusion; they are simply presented as true in and of themselves.

[Thrawn183]

Congratulations on the most badly derailed thread I have ever seen.

Really, good going. /Sarcasm

[ghost_warlock]

Congratulations on the most badly derailed thread I have ever seen.

Really, good going. /Sarcasm

Meh, this thread wasn't going anywhere other than "4e is teh roxxors" vs. "Nuh-uh, 4e sux!" anyway.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Congratulations on the most badly derailed thread I have ever seen.

Really, good going. /Sarcasm

About time he shows up, right?

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b60/timmyab1/Epic_fail_guy.gif


HAI GUIS!

O HAI THAR, THRAWN!

PS: No, you are not epic fail. Just in case, gotta explain that.

[AKA_Bait]

That's all well and good, but what you framed as an argument is not the same as this:

The first sentence is her premise; namely, that a DM can only do no wrong in acting for storyline reasons if and only if the roleplaying game were purely for narrative value.

The second sentence is a conclusion: If the game is not played purelly for narrative value then the DM CAN do wrong by acting for storyline reasons (presumably at the expense of the rules).

However, that conclusion is no different, logically, than the premise; it's just rephrased. Nothing is presented with any probative value of either the premise or the conclusion; they are simply presented as true in and of themselves.


First, you are removing her argument from the contex in which it existed by virtue of her previous post. For the argument she was actually presenting, you need to look at what she was proving, stated earlier, not just a quotation a little later in the informal argument presentation.

Second, you are making the mistake of thinking that the conversational structure of an argument is the same as the logical structure of an argument. The argument, if you want to take it as about the proof anything in that particular post, would read like this:

1. If the game is played for purley narrativist reasons then the DM can do no wrong by furthering the story.

1a. If a DM can do wrong by furthering the story then the game is not being played for purley narrativist reasons. (contrapositive of premise 1 and logically equivalent thereto)

2. There is at least one case in which the DM can do wrong by futhering the story (the BBEG surviving example).

Therefore:

3. There is at least one case in which D&D is not played for Purley Narrative Reasons.

Unless you deny that this is what Rutee was arguing, you have to admit it is not circular although not ideally phrased in logical terms.


Meh, this thread wasn't going anywhere other than "4e is teh roxxors" vs. "Nuh-uh, 4e sux!" anyway.

Yep. It was derailed PAGES ago.

[Talya]

I really don't get the stick figure in the Guy Falkes mask.

[NephandiMan]

He's known as Epic Fail Guy. Posting him in a thread is a way of saying that one or more of the participants in that thread have failed...epically.

[AKA_Bait]

I really don't get the stick figure in the Guy Falkes mask.

I admit, I too am confused.


He's known as Epic Fail Guy. Posting him in a thread is a way of saying that one or more of the participants in that thread have failed...epically.

Oh. Well isn't that... humble.

[NephandiMan]

No one ever accused Anonymous of being humble.

And hey, at least it wasn't a Rickroll.

[Azerian Kelimon]

I admit, I too am confused.



Oh. Well isn't that... humble.

"Don't be humble. You are not so great."

Golda Meir nailed it on the first try. Humility is for the exceptionally skilled.

[AKA_Bait]

"Don't be humble. You are not so great."

Golda Meir nailed it on the first try. Humility is for the exceptionally skilled.

Shall we continue the derailment train into a discussion of human virtues? :smallannoyed:

[Azerian Kelimon]

Shall we continue the derailment train into a discussion of human virtues? :smallannoyed:

That would be...

http://www.jungfreudlich.de/myfiles/Excellent.jpg

[Dark Tira]

Shall we continue the derailment train into a discussion of human virtues? :smallannoyed:

I don't see why not. Might as well see what you can jam in here before Roland takes notice.

[JaxGaret]

I don't see why not. Might as well see what you can jam in here before Roland takes notice.

Thog likes puppies.

[Reel On, Love]

I don't see why not. Might as well see what you can jam in here before Roland takes notice.

That's what she said!

[Diamondeye]

First, you are removing her argument from the contex in which it existed by virtue of her previous post. For the argument she was actually presenting, you need to look at what she was proving, stated earlier, not just a quotation a little later in the informal argument presentation.

I did. She still had not presented anything that showed how it could be bad to do things for narrative purposes.


Second, you are making the mistake of thinking that the conversational structure of an argument is the same as the logical structure of an argument. The argument, if you want to take it as about the proof anything in that particular post, would read like this:

Not at all. The conversational structure IS the structure of what she actually said. If someone makes an argument, it is not my job to pry the real logical structure out of a linguistic mess.


1. If the game is played for purley narrativist reasons then the DM can do no wrong by furthering the story.

1a. If a DM can do wrong by furthering the story then the game is not being played for purley narrativist reasons. (contrapositive of premise 1 and logically equivalent thereto)

2. There is at least one case in which the DM can do wrong by futhering the story (the BBEG surviving example).

Therefore:

3. There is at least one case in which D&D is not played for Purley Narrative Reasons.

Unless you deny that this is what Rutee was arguing, you have to admit it is not circular although not ideally phrased in logical terms.

Her example did not constitute the premise you say it did, so no, that is not hat she argued. She established a "should" premise without establishing why the "Should" exists in the first place.

Specifically, it was a BBEG not dying when he "should". WHY "should" he die then?

You cannot normally establish a should conclusion without a should premise (outside of arguments where any other result would be absurd). In this case, there is a "should" premise, but it is already a conclusion to the argument that the DM ought not to violate the rules in favor of telling the story, which is precisely what is trying to be established!

[AKA_Bait]

Not at all. The conversational structure IS the structure of what she actually said. If someone makes an argument, it is not my job to pry the real logical structure out of a linguistic mess.

It is if you want to start accusing them of logical errors, like circularity. If you do not wish to address an argument in it's actual logical structure, then you should not accuse it of logical errors.

What you are arguing is that there is insufficent evidence to support her premise that there is a case where the DM would be wrong for doing something for story reasons. You may, or may not be right on that account and you can go right ahead and say that it's false but don't go saying it's logically invalid because that goes to the structure of the argument and not it's truth.

[Diamondeye]

It is if you want to start accusing them of logical errors, like circularity. If you do not wish to address an argument in it's actual logical structure, then you should not accuse it of logical errors.

No, I don't. They have to present that logical structure. If I don't know what it is because it's obscured behind poor language, THEY need to clarify, not pull this "I'm not playing Captain Obvious" stunt.


What you are arguing is that there is insufficent evidence to support her premise that there is a case where the DM would be wrong for doing something for story reasons. You may, or may not be right on that account and you can go right ahead and say that it's false but don't go saying it's logically invalid because that goes to the structure of the argument and not it's truth.


False. As I already explained, that premise is in itself the conclusion of the argument that it is bad to advance the storyline at the expense of adherence to the rules, which is the entire argument we're having here: Is it or is it not all right for the DM to advance the storyline he or she is constructing at the expense of following the established rules?

I should also point out that treating an example as a separate premise is highly questionable in and of itself, because it is an example. What it is an example of is already stataed.

[kc0bbq]

You may, or may not be right on that account and you can go right ahead and say that it's false but don't go saying it's logically invalid because that goes to the structure of the argument and not it's truth.OMG an internet debate where someone actually understands what logic represents. Pretty soon we'll be seeing exotic voodoo phrases like modus tonens. Color me suprised.

What color is suprised, anyway? Bile yellow comes to mind.

[AKA_Bait]

No, I don't. They have to present that logical structure. If I don't know what it is because it's obscured behind poor language, THEY need to clarify, not pull this "I'm not playing Captain Obvious" stunt.

If the argument is obscured behind poor language you should accuse them of that. Not of making logical errors when you don't care to parse out the language and determine if such errors actually exist.


As I already explained, that premise is in itself the conclusion of the argument that it is bad to advance the storyline at the expense of adherence to the rules, which is the entire argument we're having here: Is it or is it not all right for the DM to advance the storyline he or she is constructing at the expense of following the established rules?

Humm. Actually, I don't believe that "it is bad to advance the storyline at the expense of adherence to the rules" is the argument Rutee was making at all. As I understand it her argument was that "there are perfectly valid playstyles in which it is bad to advance the storyline according to the DM's plan at expense of adherance to the rules". Those are two different arguments and frankly, given what she has said in other places, I'd be very very surprised to see Rutee make the first argument at all, here or otherwise.

Am I wrong here Rutee?

Regardless, you proved no such thing. You asserted it and then when challenged insisted that you don't need to consider the logical structure of an argument inorder to accuse it of being logically invalid.


I should also point out that treating an example as a separate premise is highly questionable in and of itself, because it is an example. What it is an example of is already stataed.

No, it's not, for logical purposes. You accused Rutee of making a logical error, i.e. that her argument was logically invalid. Invalid is a different thing from false. Validity is about the structure of an argument, not the truth of an argument. A person can start with false premises and reach an entirey valid but false conclusion. In doing so they have not made a logical error but a factual one.

In this argument the fact in dispute is if there is indeed one case (the BBEG example) in which the BBEG should get beaten to the detriment of the planned story. You can attack the truth or insufficency of the example all you want, but it does not change the logical structure of the argument.


OMG an internet debate where someone actually understands what logic represents. Pretty soon we'll be seeing exotic voodoo phrases like modus tonens.

Don't tempt me to start quanitfying over your butt.



Color me suprised.

What color is suprised, anyway? Bile yellow comes to mind.

I've always pictured it as an off-mauve.

[fendrin]

Focus on Balance causes the designers to make concessions to atmosphere and world-feel (which is all-important) to make sure nobody's feelings get hurt (which us utterly unimportant.)

Talya, I know this is so yesterday for this thread, but can you elucidate what about balance is bad for the story? I mean, other than your personal preference. Personally, as a DM, I would rather do the 'atmosphere and world-feel' and let the designers make sure the full casters aren't stealing the show. My taste for 'atmosphere and world-feel' is usually different from the designers anyway, so in 3.5 I end up doing it all. At least in 4e I have one less thing to have to think about while running the game.

@AKA_Bait, Diamondeye, & kc0bbq:
I was going to translate Rutee's arguments into formal logic, but couldn't figure out how to type upside-down 'A's or Backwards 'E's. I suppose I could do it without the quantifiers, they aren't really necessary in this case...

And now I can't find the original post. Regardless, I recall it(and AKA_Bait's interpretation of it) being logically valid, though, as AKA_Bait pointed out (in informal terms) not necessarily sound.

Here's what AKA_Bait wrote:

1. If the game is played for purley narrativist reasons then the DM can do no wrong by furthering the story.

1a. If a DM can do wrong by furthering the story then the game is not being played for purley narrativist reasons. (contrapositive of premise 1 and logically equivalent thereto)

2. There is at least one case in which the DM can do wrong by futhering the story (the BBEG surviving example).

Therefore:

3. There is at least one case in which D&D is not played for Purley Narrative Reasons.

In formal logic terms (fudged a little to avoid quantifiers, '->' is a 'horseshoe' and '=' is a 'tribar')
1. N -> ~W (premise)
2. W = S (premise)
3. S (premise)
4. ~~W -> ~N (contraposition on 1)
5. W -> ~N (double negation on 4)
6. (W -> S) . (S -> W) (equivalence on 2)
7. S -> W (simplification on 6)
8. W (modus ponens on 7, 3)
/therefore
9. ~N (modus ponens on 5, 8)

I could cut it down a little by using modus tollens, but I wanted to get AKA_Bait's '1a' in there.

[AKA_Bait]

@AKA_Bait, Diamondeye, & kc0bbq:
I was going to translate Rutee's arguments into formal logic, but couldn't figure out how to type upside-down 'A's or Backwards 'E's. I suppose I could do it without the quantifiers, they aren't really necessary in this case...


Yeah, I thought about doing that too, had the same formatting problems and realized: well, anyone who understands what I'd be writing agrees with me in the first place so I'm probably better off trying to explain it without resorting to the formal notation. Thanks for putting in out though. It seems there are more of us creeping logicians on these boards than was suspected. :smallbiggrin:

[Rutee]

Am I wrong here Rutee?

Not really, no. I've got no problem on a conceptual level with kicking the rules so hard they kiss the moon, if it'll make for a better story. That doesn't mean everybody is fine with it, or that you're somehow doing it wrong if you don't like breaking the rules for story.

If you can't figure out how to do the signs, check Wikipedia, and copy/paste. Though I can't find their notation...

[Prophaniti]

In formal logic terms (fudged a little to avoid quantifiers, '->' is a 'horseshoe' and '=' is a 'tribar')
1. N -> ~W (premise)
2. W = S (premise)
3. S (premise)
4. ~~W -> ~N (contraposition on 1)
5. W -> ~N (double negation on 4)
6. (W -> S) . (S -> W) (equivalence on 2)
7. S -> W (simplification on 6)
8. W (modus ponens on 7, 3)
/therefore
9. ~N (modus ponens on 5, 8)


Wow, I have to learn what the crap all those symbols mean. I've always considered myself at least semi-competent at presenting a logical argument, but this is just as much gibberish to me as high-level math...

Also, I said it earlier but... We're really not going to get anywhere on a discussion of whether the behavior of a DM is 'wrong' or not. Its simply too subjective. What is 'right' for a DM to do in one group won't be in another and vice versa. Let's go back to discussing something at least a little more constructive, like... um... Well, we could talk about... Yeah, ok, keep arguing about DMs being wrong.

[fendrin]

Wow, I have to learn what the crap all those symbols mean. I've always considered myself at least semi-competent at presenting a logical argument, but this is just as much gibberish to me as high-level math...

Also, I said it earlier but... We're really not going to get anywhere on a discussion of whether the behavior of a DM is 'wrong' or not. Its simply too subjective. What is 'right' for a DM to do in one group won't be in another and vice versa. Let's go back to discussing something at least a little more constructive, like... um... Well, we could talk about... Yeah, ok, keep arguing about DMs being wrong.

Well, I think 'Wrong' has a variable meaning, depending on the type of game being run. Generally, I think that it means something along the lines of "does something which may interfere with the players' fun".
Note I emphasized 'may'. Doing something 'wrong', in my opinion, does not necessarily have a negative impact on the player's enjoyment of the game, just that it has the potential to. Also note that I include the DM as a player in the above statement. Thus in my games, excessive paperwork is 'wrong, but in another DM's games, it might not be 'wrong'.

As for the logic, the letters are all statements:
{table] Letter | Meaning
N | The game is played for purely narrative reasons.
W | The DM does 'wrong' by furthering the story.
S | The 'BBEG Surviving' example.[/table]

The symbols are logical connectives.
{table] Symbol | Meaning | Example | Example Translation
->1 | If - Then | p -> q | If p is true, then q is also true.
~ | Not | ~p | p is not true.
=2 | Is Equivalent To | p = q | p and q share the same truth value (if p is true then q is true, and if p is false then q is false)
. | And | p . q | p is true and q is true.
v3 | Or | p v q | One or both of p and q are true.[/table]
1: substituting for a 'horseshoe' which looks like a 'U' rotated CCW 90 degrees
2: substituting for a 'tribar' which looks like an equal sign with a third line
3: I didn't use this one, but it is also very common

The terms in parenthesis (contraposition, double negation, etc.) are all rules for transforming the sentences. I won't go into what they mean specifically, as some of them can be less than intuitive, and proving them is even more complicated, and involves other, even less intuitive techniques. A google search should provide relevant information, if you are interested. Also, different systems of logic use different sets of rules. The system I learned had 18, but others have more or less. This is also just a basic intro, kind of what you might get in the first part of a basic logic course from a college philosophy department.

Also, this is logic as it exists in the world of philosophy. If you study logic ion other contexts (such as electronics and computer programming), the symbols and terms change, though the underlying principles still apply.

[Breaw]

Wow, I have to learn what the crap all those symbols mean. I've always considered myself at least semi-competent at presenting a logical argument, but this is just as much gibberish to me as high-level math...

Also, I said it earlier but... We're really not going to get anywhere on a discussion of whether the behavior of a DM is 'wrong' or not. Its simply too subjective. What is 'right' for a DM to do in one group won't be in another and vice versa. Let's go back to discussing something at least a little more constructive, like... um... Well, we could talk about... Yeah, ok, keep arguing about DMs being wrong.

The first logic course (offered by your local university's philosophy department) will give you a strong introduction to most of these symbols. If I may, I recommend taking it in the spring or summer semester as there really is no reason to spend 4 months learning what they want to teach you.

The second logic course offered will have you actually analyzing some arguments of note (as well as introducing fun things like solvable problems and turing machines!)

I have to say I always get a good chuckle out of a logic argument between a logician and one non-logician. The two participants are rarely even arguing the same point, the nomenclature is just too different.


./popcorn

[fendrin]

The first logic course (offered by your local university's philosophy department) will give you a strong introduction to most of these symbols. If I may, I recommend taking it in the spring or summer semester as there really is no reason to spend 4 months learning what they want to teach you.

The second logic course offered will have you actually analyzing some arguments of note (as well as introducing fun things like solvable problems and turing machines!)

I have to say I always get a good chuckle out of a logic argument between a logician and one non-logician. The two participants are rarely even arguing the same point, the nomenclature is just too different.


./popcorn

Now see, I covered Turing machines and solvable problems in a computer science class. i have an interesting history of studying logic in various disciplines... first in electronics, wiring up breadboards with logic gate circuits (did you know you can make any circuit with just NAND gates or just NOR gates? Interestingly, you can apply this to philosophical logic and express any statement in negated ands or negated ors... of course, those two are the same via DeMorgan's Theorem). Then I moved on to computer science, where logic was utilized first in simple programming (conditional statements), then later with computer architecture (we built a functioning 8086 processor from the logic gate level up- in an emulator, anyway) somewhere in there was a class that covered turing machines... again we used an emulator to make Turing 'programs'... it was only much later that I delved into the philosophy department and learned terms like 'modus ponens', though I had been using that logical tool for years.