D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

[Manbearcat]

@Imaro Hmmmm...ok. So the issue isn't one of any particular ruleset (as there is no mandate given to the GM by the ruleset to punish the PC for acting "off-theme"), but rather one of S'mon's own extra-ruleset playstyle preferences and table dynamics. If S'mon is running a thematic game of 4e where he expects the players' build choices to be in harmony with, or a reflection of, their thematic archetype, then that is "forcing character behavior in order to take the power" and is "deprotagonizing"? Is that correct?

If so, then I would say that it isn't true. In such a case the player has "deprotagonized" themselves, either willfully or because they aren't interested in a thematically coherent game. In which case, I'm left wondering why they are at his table.

"You are the bold, brave, valiant hero of the story" comes with certain expectations. If you choose to make that incoherent by your own behavior then you have "deprotagonized" yourself.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro Hmmmm...ok. So the issue isn't one of any particular ruleset (as there is no mandate given to the GM by the ruleset to punish the PC for acting "off-theme"), but rather one of S'mon's own extra-ruleset playstyle preferences and table dynamics. If S'mon is running a thematic game of 4e where he expects the players' build choices to be in harmony with, or a reflection of, their thematic archetype, then that is "forcing character behavior in order to take the power" and is "deprotagonizing"? Is that correct?

If so, then I would say that it isn't true. In such a case the player has "deprotagonized" themselves, either willfully or because they aren't interested in a thematically coherent game. In which case, I'm left wondering why they are at his table.

"You are the bold, brave, valiant hero of the story" comes with certain expectations. If you choose to make that incoherent by your own behavior then you have "deprotagonized" yourself.

Ok, so let me pose this... what if the theme of my paladin character is survivor... better yet, his theme is whatever it takes to survive and win. I'm not valiant, I'm not bold... but this power is rated gold on CharOp and it will help me survive and win... am I breaking thematic considerations if I take it then? who decides if I've broken thematic considerations for my character? The DM...DM and players... or me since I created him?

Finally, if that is my characters theme, and i want that power... is it deprotagonizing if you then as DM overrule me and say no, you can't take the power because you aren't a valiant character?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Do you think this has more of a metagame tone if the Paladin isn't a follower of a deity or ideal that meshes well with the performance of "valiant" actions? Or beter yet, what if (especially without alignment restrictions) the paladin is not played as a "valiant" character outside of using that power? I'm really just looking to hear your perspective since I honestly don't know how I would look at these types of situations...

There are other equally good powers that a paladin who has some other virtue can use instead. You can for instance be a Virtue of Sacrifice paladin, or you can be a Blackguard and use one of the vices (some refluffing is probably possible there too). Admittedly they could have created more virtues and haven't done so, but the concept is still pretty flexible. If the player really doesn't want to play a paladin then we STILL have the question of why he's using that class.

Remember, this isn't like 1e where the paladin class is just vastly superior to the regular fighter in every respect. A 4e paladin is just another class choice you make in order to devise a thematically appropriate character. There are small mechanical advantages to some choices, but they are actively removed from the game where they get too tempting. 4e isn't perfect and never will be in this regard, but I'd note that WotC was willing to suffer a good bit of heat for constantly refining the power level of things (too much errata!) in order to back up the promise of the game to make options thematic and not purely mechanical choices.

Clearly the ideal was that every archetype would be potentially equally effective, thus there should never arise "why are you playing a cowardly paladin? Because its WAY better than a fighter!"

 

[Manbearcat]

Ok, so let me pose this... what if the theme of my paladin character is survivor... better yet, his theme is whatever it takes to survive and win. I'm not valiant, I'm not bold... but this power is rated gold on CharOp and it will help me survive and win... am I breaking thematic considerations if I take it then? who decides if I've broken thematic considerations for my character? The DM...DM and players... or me since I created him?

Finally, if that is my characters theme, and i want that power... is it deprotagonizing if you then as DM overrule me and say no, you can't take the power because you aren't a valiant character?

What is of consequence here is table preference and creative agenda. If character optimization supersedes the consideration for thematic coherency then you are not playing at a table that has that narrative value at the apex of its creative agenda. As such, protagonization isn't really relevant such that you need currency to spend toward the end of coherent, thematic expression (with no intermediary between you and the deployment and resolution of that expression). You're just playing step on up...and what is paramount there is strategic and tactical optimization (your currency) toward the end of maximizing your ability to defeat challenges. Protagonization is not the apex consideration (and possibly not one at all). Just because you have the ability to deploy resources and say when stuff happens and what stuff happens (without any intermediary between you and resolution) doesn't make you a protagonist. That happens in any number of games where thematic considerations are not even inherent to the construct.

In my estimation, "protagonization" is about having the currency/resources to spend/deploy toward the end of coherent, thematic expression with little (or very limited and in a coherent way with consistent, transparent application - eg p42 improvisation) to no intermediary between you and the deployment and resolution of that expression. With that comes responsibility toward the coherency of that expression. If you choose to be incoherent (your build says bold, brave, valiant, sacrificing but your actions say cowardice, self-interest, avarice), then you have "deprotagonized" yourself.

This is why my players and I build their characters together. To make sure we're all on the same page conceptually.

 

[Imaro]

What is of consequence here is table preference and creative agenda. If character optimization supersedes the consideration for thematic coherency then you are not playing at a table that has that narrative value at the apex of its creative agenda. As such, protagonization isn't really relevant such that you need currency to spend toward the end of coherent, thematic expression (with no intermediary between you and the deployment and resolution of that expression). You're just playing step on up...and what is paramount there is strategic and tactical optimization (your currency) toward the end of maximizing your ability to defeat challenges. Protagonization is not the apex consideration (and possibly not one at all). Just because you have the ability to deploy resources and say when stuff happens and what stuff happens (without any intermediary between you and resolution) doesn't make you a protagonist. That happens in any number of games where thematic considerations are not even inherent to the construct.

In my estimation, "protagonization" is about having the currency/resources to spend/deploy toward the end of coherent, thematic expression with little (or very limited and in a coherent way with consistent, transparent application - eg p42 improvisation) to no intermediary between you and the deployment and resolution of that expression. With that comes responsibility toward the coherency of that expression. If you choose to be incoherent (your build says bold, brave, valiant, sacrificing but your actions say cowardice, self-interest, avarice), then you have "deprotagonized" yourself.

This is why my players and I build their characters together. To make sure we're all on the same page conceptually.

First I still don't think you understand the context I am asking about deprotagonization in. Now, given that you've pretty much agreed that the DM alone doesn't decide what is or isn't a proper power for a character's theme? Is it deprotagonizing for him to ban you from taking certain powers because he feels your actions aren't in line with his concept of your theme and those powers matching it (S'mon said he disallows powers if he feels you aren't living up to the archetype of valiant, so for him it is not a table or group decision.)?

If you don't believe this is deprotagonizing, how is this different from the LG paladin arguments... where the DM's concept of LG overides the players?

If you do think it is deprotagonizing for the DM to have the power to ban you from taking powers because you don't meet his concept of "valiant" or "bold" well then I think you're seeing what I am getting at here.

on a side note, being on the same page can also, very easily solve the LG paladin issue as well... yet for some reason it wasn't seen as a solution.

 

[innerdude]

In general, I don't find 4e's "thematic archetyping" to be a particularly compelling "feature" of the system. The original PHB goes out of its way to explain to players, "Play this class if you want to be X." I.e., if you want to be a sneaky, resourceful type, play a rogue; if you want to play a sword and shield basher, play a figher, etc.

But I never approach my characters' "inner persona" from that angle. A character's particular features for handling combat don't reflect his or her conception of "who I am as a person, and where I stand in the world."

I get that for some players, particularly beginning players, having a "shorthand" for a "thematic archetype" makes it easier to make decisions about "what kind of character I want to be." I just think 4e would've been better served by decoupling powers from classes entirely. A "class" basically becomes a core set of skills, weapon proficiencies, and maybe determines a baseline selection of feats. That way, if I want to play a "valiant" rogue, I can do that. If I want to play a "sneaky, tricksy fighter," I can do that too.

If the primary consideration is "thematic" play, then why straitjacket players into a "role" where powers selections determine the theme?

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm talking about creative agenda being the overriding issue here. I don't play "pick-up games" so I don't have an incoherent table dynamic. In the past, when we wanted a new player, we would vet them for chemistry (generally) and playstyle coherency (with our own). I have not had a new player in my game for 8 years (and have not had a single moment like you are postulating here, because of it). None of the 3 players that I GM for would consider doing something utterly antagonistic to thematic coherency; eg, they wouldn't build a brave, bold, valiant, sacrificing hero and then all of a sudden play (or select a random power that depicts their character) as a cowardly, timid, self-interested, avaricious character.

Are you asking me: "If you did GM a pickup game with complete strangers, all of varying interests (step on up vs story now vs right to dream), and you didn't make sure that everyone agrees to and assimilates into a collective, coherent playstyle for this specific game...would you feel inclined/empowered to legislate PC build type coherency with thematic considerations?"

If you are, the answer is a firm no. And the follow-up to that is, if table playstyle and creative agenda coherency isn't an issue...then how can enforcing playstyle standards and agenda coherency be legitimized? It can't. Players, GM, everyone at the table has to agree to these things. So if you have canvassed that thematic coherency is paramount at your table and the players are explicitly in agreement (or implicitly, perhaps they are shy wallflowers, if they are still sitting at the table after the agenda has been clearly outlined) then there shouldn't be a problem. If that isn't a concern (and you don't explicitly make it one), then no, you have no authority (granted by the players...who provide the GM their authority to "make rulings") to talk to a player about an issue related to the coherency of that creative agenda (thematic considerations or other).

But for myself, that is akin to asking me "have I beaten my wife today?" I don't play "at the mercy of the unknown" anymore and never would again. When I play with old buddies (as would be the case if I did a pick-up game), we play very non-serious, beer and pretzels one-offs. Lofty notions of "thematic coherency" and "protagonization" need not apply. And we don't play 4e D&D.

 

[Imaro]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] ... So you have no experience with the situation postulated by S'mon. It would never happen in a group you played in ( and let's overlook the fact you still totally mischaracterized the simple situation I last presented to you)... So why did you reply to my post in the first place? I'm not being snarky, I honestly want to know why?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Cool, thanks - we're not playing this Tuesday though, maybe next Tuesday? Also if you have any games looking to recruit eager newbies, I have nine of them!

Heh. I'd been thinking of running a new game at the Meetup. Unfortunately my planned pitch ("In 2002 a crack SAS Team was sent to prison for a crime they didn't commit...") has been preempted by my Monday group as there's no way I'm running two sets of heist games at the same time. One set of Judith plans at a time is quite enough... And looking at my bookshelf, would a look at either Spirit of the Century or Marvel Heroic Roleplaying interest you? (I get FATE Core in march and have both the rulebook and a premium edition of Civil War that comes with the rules for MHRP so am incredibly unlikely to need either for some time).

 

[Neonchameleon]

But I never approach my characters' "inner persona" from that angle. A character's particular features for handling combat don't reflect his or her conception of "who I am as a person, and where I stand in the world."

They may not reflect the character's conception of who they are and where they stand, but to me what you do when the rubber meets the road says far more about who you are and where you stand than what you think who you are is. And combat really is where the rubber meets the road, especially in a high action game.

If the primary consideration is "thematic" play, then why straitjacket players into a "role" where powers selections determine the theme?

Because role isn't a straightjacket, it's guidance. I can make a wizard who does striker damage with minimal control. I can make a warlock or rogue that will out-control most druids. And I can make a fighter that's likely to outdamage any warlock. Role is descriptive rather than prescriptive and is both a guideline for the designers of a given class and for the players to know what to expect from that class.