Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[Truth Seeker]

These Legends and Lore articles by Mearls has a lot of people talking. There are people (like myself) who wonder if he is talking about a new edition of D&D, or at least some kind of rules and options/unearthed arcana for 4e. There are others that think that he is just blabbing about game theory with no other motive. I can imagine one of the more asked questions that Mike will be asked is "Where are you going with these articles?"

Anyhow after reading page after page of discussion about these articles I've been surprised at the number of people who are say"This won't work!!!!" or who say something like "If this is 5e then count me out!!!!" without any sort of sense of how this would even actually look beyond discussion about theory.

So this makes me wonder, could WotC actually make the majority of people happy with a new edition? Are WotC just the hated big guy that draws a lot of fire from people (granted they've made unpopular choices)? I imagine if say Paizo came out with with these articles as the possible new direction that Pathfinder would be taking the response would definitely be more positive. Is WotC in a no win situation?

It matter not what 'Edition' will emerged, it matters what People will accept in this day and age.

Could Wotc get back folks ?

The answer will be--What people playing now? That is the answer.

 

[Eric Tolle]

Random thoughts:

The discussion of the demo game reminds me of all the demo games I've been in over the years that have had good roleplaying...
......
......
......
...OK, you've got me. Over the last 30 years I've never seen a demo or in-store game that's had much, if any roleplaying. In store games can make Nobilis and Everway look like tactical games. Despite common opinion, I don't see demos of any sort really giving any real hint of the roleplaying potential of a game. Yes, that includes the local darling Pathfinder. I've never seen more roleplaying coming out of that game.

Thinking of the roleplaying angle, does anybody remember the whole "back to the dungeon" campaign for 3.0? When 3.0 was supposed to be relief from the complexities and amateur thespianism of AD&D?

I'm bemused by the complaints about 4E changing the magic system, since it seems that for the last 34 yearspeople have been complaining about and trying to change the magic system away from Vancian magic. I've seen dozens of attempts, from mana point systems, to fatigue based, to skill roll based systems. Trying to get away from Vancian magic seems to be the origin point of most fantasy heartbreakers, as well as games such as Runequest. Amd then WOTC goes and moves away from Vancian magic, and people complain about that. Huh. I guess even though 3.X didn't fix the magic system, at least they made it overpowered enough to make the power gaming crowd happy.

I'm also bemused when people complain about 4E magic being video gamey, and then continue in the same paragraph about how they love Savage Worlds...a system that makes 4E look like a paragon of flexibility. Go fig.

 

[Balesir]

While I agree with the majority of what SSquirrel says, I have a question. [MENTION=5202]SSquirrel[/MENTION], you say:

I have hated the whole GSN Theory crap ever since it came out. It is used largely for cases like what this thread has turned into. Useless navel-gazing. I don't' find GSN useful at all. I don't think of my gaming in terms like Gamist or Simulationist. It's just crap.

...which is fair enough as an opinion. But this:

I suppose the GSN crew would label our current campaign Narrativist b/c we kew in advance we were going to play Revenge of the Giants and so everyone in the party could speak Giant and most had some extra benefits against Large or larger creatures. Like my Halfling Daggermaster Rogue.

...tells me that you don't understand the concept of GNS at all. Campaigns are not "Gamist" or "Narrativist" at all. Nothing in the facts you give about aspects of your play 'are' Narrativist or even suggest Narrativist focussed play at all.

So, my question is, what do you base your initial comments about GNS on? What actually motivates your despite of GNS? Do you just dislike understanding what you are doing? Do you just regard understanding of what you do as a waste of time? Or, maybe, has there been some bad experience, involving those (claiming to) "know GNS" that has set you against it? What is the root of your dislike of something you clearly know little about?

 

[P1NBACK]

Sorry, I read just over 7 pages and couldn't take anymore GSN w/o saying something.

98% of the people on this forum don't use GNS's meaning as originally conceived (and later morphed into The Big Model, which is far more conducive to examining play).

Instead, they use bastardized meanings of the terms to try and reflect roleplaying and rules at a fundamentally contrary point to actual GNS.

"Simulationism" in GNS isn't about how "realistic" the game mechanics are necessarily. Yet, on this forum, you'll find people consistently refer to games as "simulationist" because there is a rule that tries to model the weather or tables for populations and whatnot.

People consistently refer to 4E here as "gamist", when it's mostly played as a Right to Dream (i.e. simulationist) game, where the focus is on simulating heroic action adventurers kicking ass and taking names throughout a string of connected, linear "set-piece" encounters. And, OD&D is far more Step On Up (i.e. gamist) because it's focus is on player skill, resource management, character survival and overcoming challenges.

The fact that 4E has action points and OD&D has geographic tables with random encounters has little to do with the creative agenda going on at the table.

But, of course, people will continue using their bastardized version of GNS in order to describe how 3E is more "simulationist" than 4E because it's grapple rules are more complex... *puke*

 

[SSquirrel]

So, my question is, what do you base your initial comments about GNS on? What actually motivates your despite of GNS? Do you just dislike understanding what you are doing? Do you just regard understanding of what you do as a waste of time? Or, maybe, has there been some bad experience, involving those (claiming to) "know GNS" that has set you against it? What is the root of your dislike of something you clearly know little about?

I've read the GNS theory and don't believe it has any real use other than causing arguments. I listed that specific example largely from someone upthread making comments on how the group making characters knowing X is what the focus of the campaign would be about is an example of Y.

I have no problem understanding what I'm doing. When I play any RPG w/my friends I am, hopefully, having fun. Someone on the internet trying to pigeonhole it means zero to me. The past roughly decade of internet RPG discussions that end up devolving into people throwing GNS terms at each other have been more than enough to make me hate it.

Nice way to imply that if I don't understand GNS that I won't understand what I'm doing. This is a great example of why people hate the theory. The ones who use it generally come off as rather elitist and know it all. GNS doesn't enhance anything IMO, it's just a way for some people to throw around terms that they think are important, but inform nothing.

 

[Andor]

Do you just dislike understanding what you are doing? Do you just regard understanding of what you do as a waste of time? Or, maybe, has there been some bad experience, involving those (claiming to) "know GNS" that has set you against it? What is the root of your dislike of something you clearly know little about?

I'm not a mod or anything, but that's pretty insulting. It's also completely offbase. GSN is a somewhat useful set of benchmarks for use in comparing playstyles or systems or campaigns, etc. It is not the "TRUTH" any more than the metric system produces truer measurements than the english system.

There were GMs and players who knew what they were doing before anyone ever dreampt up the GSN definitions, and there are GMs and player now who can quote you chapter and verse about GSN today and still run a boring game.

As far as not wanting to know... *shrug* Talk to a drama major some time, they'll often tell you that taking classes on cinematography is an excellent way to ensure you'll never enjoy another movie again. Once the tool kit is laid bare, the magic goes away and all you can think it "Hey! He stole that line from the 1962 remake, and using a dissolve instead of a fade ruins the sub-text anyway."

 

[Balesir]

People consistently refer to 4E here as "gamist", when it's mostly played as a Right to Dream (i.e. simulationist) game, where the focus is on simulating heroic action adventurers kicking ass and taking names throughout a string of connected, linear "set-piece" encounters.

I have necer experienced 4E played in that mode. I can quite believe that there are some people who do play it that way, but I'm not at all convinced that either of us know whether or not they constitute 'most' of the players of 4E.

I do, however, think that, compared to other systems I have played, D&D is quite poor at supporting Simulationist play. The reasons why I explained above, but basically are around experience points, 'levelling up' and hit points. And not because they are "unrealistic".

I've read the GNS theory and don't believe it has any real use other than causing arguments.

OK, but what I was asking was what is your belief based on?

I have no problem understanding what I'm doing. When I play any RPG w/my friends I am, hopefully, having fun. Someone on the internet trying to pigeonhole it means zero to me.

Pigeonholing means nothing to me, either - but that is not what GNS as I understand it tries to do. Maybe you have reached a different understanding of it; I'm interested in why and how you have done that.

The past roughly decade of internet RPG discussions that end up devolving into people throwing GNS terms at each other have been more than enough to make me hate it.

So the way some internet posters have misused the terms has soured you to them? I can understand that.

Nice way to imply that if I don't understand GNS that I won't understand what I'm doing.

Sorry, that was not my intent. Let me rephrase the point:

- GNS is an attempt to understand the motivations of people while roleplaying

- You say you abhor the 'GNS stuff'

- But you not only don't say why it's a poor way to understand roleplaying, you say things that imply you misunderstand it yourself.

So I asked what your reason for disliking GNS was. It appeared not to be that GNS is a flawed system of understanding roleplaying - what's left as a reason? I thought of (i) being opposed to the very idea of seeking understanding, (ii) thinking that "theorising" is just a waste of time and (iii) having bad experiences with those espousing the theories that set you against them. From your responses so far I am inclined to think it's the last one, but I am still very unsure.

This is a great example of why people hate the theory. The ones who use it generally come off as rather elitist and know it all.

This comment, specifically, seems to point to the last explanation.

But my explanations are probably not even a complete list, and hence the reason for me asking, rather than just trying to divine the answer from your posts.

GNS doesn't enhance anything IMO, it's just a way for some people to throw around terms that they think are important, but inform nothing.

Well, they inform me. I realise that this might hold no value for you, but your virulence against GNS makes me think that there must be something beyond them "not having value for you" to make you feel the way you do.

I'm not a mod or anything, but that's pretty insulting.

I have explained above why I didn't think that was the case, but if it sounded that way I apologise for that misstep.

It's also completely offbase. GSN is a somewhat useful set of benchmarks for use in comparing playstyles or systems or campaigns, etc. It is not the "TRUTH" any more than the metric system produces truer measurements than the english system.

Actually, I don't think GNS is either of those things. It specifically does not talk about systems, it really only addresses a part of what might be called 'playstyle' and it hardly really applies to campaigns. It's really just about what the players have as the focus of their attention in the moment of actual play. All the other stuff - the systems and the routines and habits formed by the group - simply may support one or other of the available focuses of attention. Or may support none of them, specifically.

There were GMs and players who knew what they were doing before anyone ever dreampt up the GSN definitions, and there are GMs and player now who can quote you chapter and verse about GSN today and still run a boring game.

Absolutely true. Knowledge of theory has never guaranteed facility with the practical art. Theory does, however, give a perspective and a clarity of vision that can help a reasonably competent practitioner of the practical art. Practical art is useful on its own, theory is not, but the two combined will always be superior to either alone.

As far as not wanting to know... *shrug* Talk to a drama major some time, they'll often tell you that taking classes on cinematography is an excellent way to ensure you'll never enjoy another movie again. Once the tool kit is laid bare, the magic goes away and all you can think it "Hey! He stole that line from the 1962 remake, and using a dissolve instead of a fade ruins the sub-text anyway."

Yes, indeed - and that analogy would be a good explanation of why someone does not wish to bother understanding GNS theories. But seldom do I hear anyone going around saying that cinematography is "crap" or that it's "useless navel-gazing". I am interested in what causes that, rather extreme, reaction - not in what causes disinterest.

 

[SSquirrel]

GSN is a somewhat useful set of benchmarks for use in comparing playstyles or systems or campaigns, etc. It is not the "TRUTH" any more than the metric system produces truer measurements than the english system.

You know, one of my really bad 3.5 experiences happened w/a group where one of the members, when we were discussing possibly starting higher than 1st level, whine that if we didn't begin at 1st level we "would never really know our characters". Really? For make believe characters in a make believe game? So we're 4th level, fine, I'll make up a small bit more background. Voila, I know my character just as well as I would have at first level. The comments you are referring to strikes me similarly. If you don't do X, you're doing it wrong. Non-adherence to GNS appears to be badwrongfun to some. *shrug*

Not saying you think that, considering you were defending what I said, just used your comment as a jumping off point

 

[Balesir]

Non-adherence to GNS appears to be badwrongfun to some.

I really don't know how you would "adhere" to GNS, but part of the main thrust of it is that none of the agendas are "badwrongfun", I don't see where this comment is coming from. What, in your view, is GNS saying is the "correct" method/mode of play?

 

[BryonD]

I guess this is why I, and perhaps many others, find it so hard to look at 4e as being anything but designed for Gamist focused tactical skirmish play, with a light coating of roleplaying... I mean fans of 4e swear it's insulting when you claim this is what 4e is, but in all honesty this is exactly how the company that owns and created it chooses to market it, and with Lair assault it's no longer an excuse of keeping it simple for new players... it's the chosen style, by the company, of official play for experienced players of 4e as well.

This ties back to some of my upthread comments.

I still find the description of 4e play amongst a handful of people here to be in a stark contrast not just to WotC's comments, but to the play style described and advocated by the great majority of 4e fans I speak to.

It is the sweet spot of the game design.