As far as point c goes, thank you for giving me this new information to work with. I think I read an article regarding something that might have been the “say yes” design philosophy (notice all the conditionals)… but I’m not sure so I’ll have to check again. To be honest, what I read left a bit of a sour taste and looked like a glorified re-invention of the wheel (that’s why I’m saying that I must be onto something different.)

Please do note that, jokes and poking aside, I’m not an anti-D&D prophet or anything like that. I’m all for playing a game that’s fun for you, but I’ve also talked about how frustrating some elements of the game were… as they were presented to me, and as I had interpreted them.

Thanks again for commenting.
Fred.

c- As someone who’s done a fair amount of interviewing with the designers, I’d disagree, Mike Mearls especially talks a lot about doing interesting things in combat. It’s also a key piece of the “say yes” design philosophy.

d- I’ll have to check that out.

a) I don’t actually believe in objectivity, but I try to give whatever I look at a fair chance (sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.)

b) The boardgame thing was not a reference to D&D 4ed per se. What I meant is that I’m running a boardgamey kind of D&D with some friends on the weekends. We pretty much only do encounters and have a “out of combat” phase where people can get new stuff, get hints on new locations and things like that. Sorry if I wasn’t too clear.

c) I’m not saying that you can’t use it (“Lance of Faith to do some of the things listed here”). Certainly go ahead and do! I’m saying that from my playing experience and the material that I’ve been reading (which is mostly the PHB for now) I don’t think that this is the direction that the designers wanted for the game (or that certain people are taking for the game.)

d) Actually I don’t want to toss out the flavor text, the title of the article might have been a little deceiving at that, but I’m looking for replacing fluff for actual content (something that I’ll touch on the next entry.)

Let me know if I missed anything or if you have some other thoughts on this!
Fred.

First, you bely your objectivity in examining the issue by saying things like 4e just being a boardgame, and then proceed to back up your assertion by going out of your way to say things that could still happen. Second, I don’t see why you couldn’t use Lance of Faith to do some of the things you list there. 4e puts a lot of emphasis on saying yes as a DM to creative ideas, and putting that in the hands of the DM to handle (with a few very useful charts) instead of mechanically expressing everything that could be done with the power. It’s also not a case of tossing out the flavor text for a power, it’s changing it to fit the needs of the character and the story, and empowering players and DMs to not be bound by some description.

The mechanical reflection of narrative components is a very good step towards eliminating the fluff. However you can have non responsive mechanics (such as a generic martial arts roll for every kind of martial arts move) and still have the same effect (although the handling is different -will talk more in next article-.)

Also right is the comment about Dogs, although I did feel like the game goes a bit too much like “let’s throw dice and roleplay what comes up,” which I feel is just something that ticks me in the wrong way rather than a design problem.

Thank you for the comment,
Fred

PS: I hope we can talk on-line one of these days. Good luck with school!

Patriarch917, note how in 3rd edition you can of course use, say, burning hands to scorch and ignite things. Or how in Dogs in the Vineyard your trait “The gun my father used to carry d8+d4″ can be used in shooting, as a tool, or if your father was suitably famous, it could have effects related to that. In short, the fiction and the rules, or the crunch and the fluff, if you prefer, are not completely separated entities. 4e powers are supposed to be flavoured as one wills, and this, I feel, is not supposed to significantly alter their mechanical effect.

@Ravyn
It’s a pleasure to have you here lass, I’m glad you liked the piece… and I see you using that word again! =D

@Jonathan
My pleasure to contribute to your good times lad =) Also thank you very much for the link, I really enjoyed the article (although I felt like I was being talked down to when reading “Saying Yes it’s a Skill” I’m sure that the article has been very helpful to a lot of new GMs.)

Thank you for the compliments and I hope to see you around.

@Patriarch917

I mean, playing Dogs In the Vineyard is basically just rolling dice while pretending to be a Mormon Cowboy.

And who wants to pretend to be as Mormon Cowboy anyways?! Just kidding. I did gloss over Dogs in the Vineyard a while ago and I felt like there was just too many dice being thrown around for no particular point. I do get the intention of the author at trying to get a system that’s actually entertaining by itself but I think the result was less than stellar.

I’m a big supporter of diceless games, although I do play with dice as well. Specially because I tend to use them not to do action resolution (although I might do that if the people I play with are not comfortable with diceless) but for dissociative mechanics that can help us shape the course of the story in random ways. For more information you might want to see “The Why Method” (to see what I do with this seemingly random results) and “The Mythic RPG” for an idea of how dice can be used in less intrusive ways to add randomness at a higher level (make sure to check the “Game Master Emulator”).

In any case I agree with you, although I can certainly see people playing RPGs without pretending to be their characters (much like a writer doesn’t necessarily need to pretend to be their character per se) but actually thinking what they would do and how they would act… in any case I believe it’s more semantics than anything else.

Thank you for commenting, I hope I see you over here again.
Fred.

Don’t all meta-game things like rules, character sheets, dice, miniatures, a GM, scenery descriptions etc. pretty much automatically make whatever you’re doing NOT a real role playing game? Doesn’t real roleplaying consist of immersing yourself in a role, and speaking in character to other people also pretending to be something they aren’t?

Why do I have to roll dice? If I accurately describe how I swing my sword, can’t the GM just imagine how the monster would react, what it’s armor is like, and KNOW whether or not I hit?