D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
Gamers Online Now: 1,166
232 members and 934 guests
Most users ever online was 4,029, 8th April 2009 at 05:04 PM.
This product is 56 pages long and free. Cover, credits, intro and ToC take up 4 pages. I counted 17 pages of adds many of them for other Rite... [Read More]
Evocative City Sites Lorn's Entrepot (Abandoned Warehouse) by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. This product is 47 pages long. Cover, Credits, two pages of... [Read More]
Feats 101 by Rite Publishing. I was given this product for the purposes of this review. I have not yet played using these feats my review is based on reading the feats and checking a few against... [Read More]
The Plane Below: Secrets of the Elemental Chaos is a 4e D&D product describing some of the different planes in the 4e Cosmology. The book is a typical hard bound book that Wizards of the Coast... [Read More]
In a long blog post, Rodney Thompson confirm to us that the designers intent on D&D 4E is still to deliver a game that support a twisted gamist/simulationist playstyle.
Why? Because he says that players should be rewarded both for :
1) Using the best strategy
2) Acting in character, or "roleplaying" (I don't like this definition of roleplay, but anyway).
Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.
Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.
*In narrativist play, the players are rewarded to move the story / evolve their character in a original / interesting way.
In a long blog post, Rodney Thompson confirm to us that the designers intent on D&D 4E is still to deliver a game that support a twisted gamist/simulationist playstyle.
Why? Because he says that players should be rewarded both for :
1) Using the best strategy
2) Acting in character, or "roleplaying" (I don't like this definition of roleplay, but anyway).
Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.
Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.
*In narrativist play, the players are rewarded to move the story / evolve their character in a original / interesting way.
I'll have to jump in and disagree with your last point. There is absolutely nothing in this rule set that hinders a narrativist playstyle. In fact, I find that it lends itself quite well to both the DM and players developing an interesting narrative.
__________________ Bill Benham
Living Forgotten Realms Pacific Region (East Rift) Writing Director
-Better to be hated for what you are than loved for what you're not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by torchlyte
..Ultimate Rogue Power 20
You run up to someone and, like a camel, stab them in the face.
I'll have to jump in and disagree with your last point. There is absolutely nothing in this rule set that hinders a narrativist playstyle. In fact, I find that it lends itself quite well to both the DM and players developing an interesting narrative.
A player playing a paladin with a strict code having already to deal with the confusing gamist/sim way of taking actions cannot reasonably be asked to come with an interesting narrative on top of it (and such without rewards!).
Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.
There's never been a pure gamist D&D, so I don't know what anyone's missing. Pure gamism is Chess, or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeptic
Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.
*In narrativist play, the players are rewarded to move the story / evolve their character in a original / interesting way.
Replace "Killing monster = XP Award" with "Advance story/plot = XP Award." Done.
__________________ I don't "tell stories" when I play D&D. I adventure. Afterward, when the gold is counted and the bodies piled high, we may tell stories about how it all went down. Or not.
I'll have to jump in and disagree with your last point. There is absolutely nothing in this rule set that hinders a narrativist playstyle. In fact, I find that it lends itself quite well to both the DM and players developing an interesting narrative.
This.
The OP is arguing semantics.
__________________ It doesn't matter how gimped the class may be, people will always play Rangers. Saying "I'm a Ranger" in fantasy gaming is kinda like saying "I'm Batman."
"I have no silver gifts for thee,
No scented words nor frankincense:
Only this love, that burns in me
Like a vain fire in valleys whence
The sun has flown beyond the sea."
-Clark Ashton Smith, 'The Song at Evenfall'
"Oh pick up flutes and fiddles, a new tune is beginning
A melody forsaken, on the chords of our elders' song
Each note is telling a story, a fragment of existence."
-Elvenking, 'Oakenshield'
Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.
Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.
Yay for those of us who think GNS theory is extremely dubious as a guide to making good RPGs, and would rather see WotC focus on improving D&D as it's actually played.
A player playing a paladin with a strict code having already to deal with the confusing gamist/sim way of taking actions cannot reasonably be asked to come with an interesting narrative on top of it (and such without rewards!).
Wow, you certainly have low expectations of players! I can easily imagine asking my players to not only pay attention to the complicated set of rules in any edition of D&D *and* that they contribute to the overall narrative of the campaign. I've done so not only in previous editions of D&D, but a fair number of other RPGs.
I'll have to jump in and disagree with your last point. There is absolutely nothing in this rule set that hinders a narrativist playstyle. In fact, I find that it lends itself quite well to both the DM and players developing an interesting narrative.
Maybe we should get some common vocabulary first. Excerpts from wikipedia on GNS theory
Gamist
refers to decisions based on what will most effectively solve the problem posed. These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time explaining why the characters are facing them.
Narrativist
refers to decisions based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme.To resolve combat, a narrativist approach might be to consider the thematic implications of the fight, why the fight is important to the characters involved in it (beyond the obvious risk of harm), and what the story would look like if one side or the other won out.
Simulationist
Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working.
Before we go further, please remember that none of those styles is superior or inferior to others. Also, every game can be completely houseruled into anything, questions is about focus of the system as it is presented in books.
It is very clear that according to this definition D&D has nothing to do with Narrativist type of play. Narrating actions has nothing to do with Narrativist gameplay - key here is trying to resolve the complications by looking at how the outcomes are fitting in the game we want to have, not by comparing Athletics versus DC number.
D&D fits very well for Gamist style of play. Min/maxing combat decisions, creating encounters to provide challenges, instead of telling a story or making a world believable - these are all trademarks of gamism.
As far as simulationism is concerned, it is probably bit there, but not too heavy. D&D was always quite abstract in many aspects, but especially in 4e, designers have focused on fun over realism. If you browse Worlds&Monsters book, almost every sidebar is full of "Is it realistic? Yes. Is it fun? No. So let's change it". My first D&D was AD&D 2nd ed and I can clearly see movement from simulation to gamism/fun over the following editions - with 4e seeming to reach the target finally.
So, in my interpretation, 4e is 80% gamist, 15% simulationist and maybe 5% narrativist in some corner cases (like handling total-party-kill in story mode "you got captured" instead of rolling new characters).
Once again - it is not bad. I'm expecting D&D to be like that. I want my party to defeat the dragon based on their tactics/powers/gear, not on how cool it will be to have the dragon dead. I don't want to have TPK just because somebody pulled wrong rope and dropped tons of rock on their heads.
Other question is how much 4e is a gamist RPG and how much it is gamist boardgame - but this subject is already mentioned in many other threads.
GNS is only good for facilitating arguments about GNS. Consider instead Robin Laws' scheme. So far, I would guess:
Power gamers: meh on 4E, due to having to relearn the system, but intrigued by prospect of more broken stuff to find
Buttkickers: love 4E, due to polished combat rules, more and varied ways to kick butt
Tacticians: meh on 4E, lots more combat options, but fewer ways to avoid/short-circuit combat, inherent vagueness of conflict resolution system
Character actors: hate 4E, because of dumbing down of skill system, siloing of combat vs noncombat powers, more narrowly-focused classes
Storytellers: love 4E, due to n*rr*tivist elements like per-encounter and per-day powers, flexible definition of encounters/milestones, new conflict resolution mechanic
Specialists: meh on 4E, depends on whether chosen schtick is well-supported
Casual gamers: meh on 4E, depends on whether it's easy to use
In my experience, and in reading on these boards, simulationist has nothing to do with role playing and neither does gamist.
Sim = realist / zero suspension of disbelief. Rules are designed to simulate the real world rather than approximate it. This is not to say that sim games cannot have magic but within the physics established by the rules, the rules seek to reflect how a person might experience it in real life.
Gamist = represented in game terms, designed to abstract the system into basic tactical concepts. It is what Risk and Battleship are to war simulations.
"Narrativist" is, in my experience, tends to be a form of a gamist paradigm. After years of playing (and working my butt of to enjoy and ultimately failing) White Wolf games, which claim to be narrative, I came to realize they are simply gamist systems pretending to reward "story" when actually they have created an abstract system to compartmentalize role playing. From the nature / demeanor / clan system of Vampire 2e to the more recent overhauls, the only narrative aspects come from the only place they ever do: the players & DM.
In my experience, simulationist games tend to inhibit rather than support roleplaying because all to often the simpilest actions prove very complex to resolve. The moment the dice come out, it is very easy for the momentum of the scene to be derailed.
While gamist games necessarily require increased suspension of disbelief and "hand waving" they offer more freedom to imagine the scene and continue roleplaying while the dice are out.
In terms of the above example, I think it is specious. The events of a single, combat-based encounter is far from sufficient to establish a lack of narrative motivation on the part of the character.
DC
__________________ --
The reason I think that I am "right" and they are "wrong" is because my view of the world includes them but somehow theirs doesn't seem to include me.
Wow, you certainly have low expectations of players! I can easily imagine asking my players to not only pay attention to the complicated set of rules in any edition of D&D *and* that they contribute to the overall narrative of the campaign. I've done so not only in previous editions of D&D, but a fair number of other RPGs.
The problem is a player confused about :
Doing A because it's the best strategy.
Doing B because it's the way a Paladin of Torm would act before a Cleric of Bane.
Doing C because it would make a very good twist in the story.
Of course A, B, C being much different.
Problem is worse then you consider the reactions of the other players and DM. In regards to what they consider the best way to play, they may or may not react well to A, B or C.
Gamers Online Now: 1,166
Linear Mode
