4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[buzz]

I'm not very familiar with GNS, but is the argument that GNS theory shows 4th edition to be a "bad" game?

Contrary to skeptic, I don't think GNS says anything in particular about 4e. You can look at 4e and think about what play experience (i.e., creative agenda) it may engender/satisfy in GNS terms, but you really need to look at a group of people playing it as informed by the text.

Honestly, still based on a browse-through, I think 4e is pretty focused. I'm not seeing a huge disconnect between the game the text describes and the rules as written. Nonetheless, I reserve judgement until I have a chance to play it. And I can't wait to play it!

 

[eyebeams]

I didn't put much effort in the wording, sorry.

The key idea is to prevent nailing down to new players that roleplaying is defined as / limited to actor stance.

I'll come back with other ugly things coming from the DMG later.


BTW, I put RPG theory in the title, if you don't care for it, simply ignore the thread !

I hear there's this thing called a blog that you can use whenever you want to make sweeping statements about things, but don't want anyone to reply with anything you don't like.

 

[S'mon]

Because I want D&D to fill the gamism niche and that I think that many players (both newcomers and old-timers that suffered from "bad" DMs) would enjoy a lot more vanilla Nar than Sim at the adventure level.

But why do you think that? Is it purely personal preference? Not many RPG players play this Gamism-&-Nar game you advocate, and it seems a much more complex idea than "You ARE the Hero!"

 

[eyebeams]

This is a situation where emotion really precedes argument. On some "theory" sites, people are patting themselves on the back in the beliefs they contributed to 4e because Mearls posted in their livejournal or something -- and other people think that "theory" secretly invaded and corrupted the game.

Here's the thing: At the upper tiers, RPG design and development is concerned with a lot more than some internet-based schools of thought. They're looking at cards, minis, wargames, video games and bigger trends in entertainment. This open, interconnected set of influences really matter -- far more so than some quasi-club on a bulletin board. Sure, they will always say nice things, because social marketing to the prosumer niche demands it.

Sure, there's "theory" (and even theory) in there -- and a lot more. But the final criteria lay in the results of playtesting and workable craft, not a thesis-like design aesthetic that everything else needs to get enslaved to. And guess what: If that sort of thing -- if "theory" -- worked for what they were trying to accomplish, they'd use it. It doesn't, obviously -- which indicates that as a way to understand all RPGs, "theory" isn't holding up.

My initial critique of the books' advice is that is isn't development-oriented. There's some advice about surviving initial sessions, mostly. (This is noticeable for me especially because the actions per hour don't match my group at all.) It is also *very* much linked to marketing DDI, the RPGA and adventures.

 

[buzz]

"Arliss, you go back in the house with your momma, now. Go!"

:takes thread out back behind the shed:

"Sorry, ol' boy."

*BANG*

:sniff: "I'll miss ya, thread." :sniff:

 

[eyebeams]

"Arliss, you go back in the house with your momma, now. Go!"

:takes thread out back behind the shed:

"Sorry, ol' boy."

*BANG*

I think your attempt to destroy the discussion is telling. To ignore that and move on, I think there's a bit of dissonance between the PHB and DMG. The PHB provides very little support for how class abilities are represented in the story. What might it look like when a fighter marks a target? The DMG does talk about story, but the critical task of extending the excellent rules into what players narrate as happening in the world is not well-supported. Maybe this supports the idea that the character is more of a "playing piece" -- but pawns and rooks don't generate compelling personal histories that are the basis for talking things out with the duke. "Incoherent?" I don't think so. The rules do not contradict or bar creating a persona at all. They just don't provide coaching for that.

 

[mearls]

I think the one major "crack" in "big model" theory is the idea of the absolutism of incoherence. It's certainly something you need to look out for, but just because 2 parts of a game cater to different agendas doesn't necessarily mean that the game is flawed.

Yup. I think that GNS is a quality-neutral metric, not a tool or a true measure of how good a game is.

The important lesson of GNS and similar theories is very simple: make sure your game does what you want it to do. It also provides a useful vocabulary for talking about a game.

If you want heavy simulation, then bring on the charts for cargo weight and volume, interstellar tax rates, and fuel consumption for your SF game about interplanetary travel.

If your game of high adventure swashbuckling is too slow and cumbersome, you might say "Hey, our rules for stunts are too complex and slow. We pushed too hard for simulation."

The nice thing about that statement is that not only have you figured out what is wrong with the rules (they're too slow), you also have a useful insight into why they are too slow (they're stumbling over realism.)

IMO, GNS goes wrong when it tries to dictate how to design a game. I like the three categories as useful tools for talking about games and what they do, but I think that using it to design is like saying a movie has to be either a comedy, an action flick, or a drama. Every line in a comedy has to be a joke, and every second of an action flick has to have violence or explosion.

That said, it's still useful to say "Caddy Shack is a comedy" or "Ang Lee's version of The Hulk was boring; the fights were dull, and it the scenes between them dragged on forever!"

 

[marune]

Yup. I think that GNS is a quality-neutral metric, not a tool or a true measure of how good a game is.

The important lesson of GNS and similar theories is very simple: make sure your game does what you want it to do. It also provides a useful vocabulary for talking about a game.

You don't know how much it's cool to heard that coming from one of the most important designer of D&D.

IMO, GNS goes wrong when it tries to dictate how to design a game. I like the three categories as useful tools for talking about games and what they do,

You are right; Edward's Big Model (evolution of GNS) was not build for game design purpose, but to analyze the behavior of the players at the table.

However, one can look at a game text (crunch and fluff) and see elements that have good chances to promote one creative agenda (G/N/S) more than another one at the table. Edward has done it in his reviews.

What my OP said, is that in 4E, like in all editions of D&D, I see G and S elements that in some places, are in conflict. (BTW, that doesn't mean that valid hybrid games are not possible).

I would also add again that I said that it seems more easy in 4E than in 3.xE to resolve those conflicts, mainly by ignoring some fluff text that push the S agenda.

To be honest, there was a lot of work done to avoid these conflicts, for example the freedom given to the Paladin and the Cleric. In fact, I realize that it is such very nice examples that made me angry when I saw the remaining pro-S elements.

I'm also glad that thing such as puzzles and clues gathering done in "conversation mode" have been clearly identified as being tricky.

but I think that using it to design is like saying a movie has to be either a comedy, an action flick, or a drama. Every line in a comedy has to be a joke, and every second of an action flick has to have violence or explosion.

IMHO comparing the effect of incoherence in games vs in movies isn't a good idea.

Thanks for your input on this matter !

 

[marune]

But why do you think that? Is it purely personal preference? Not many RPG players play this Gamism-&-Nar game you advocate, and it seems a much more complex idea than "You ARE the Hero!"

Depends on what you mean by "You ARE the Hero!".

First question, Hero of an already much written story or Hero of a story to be written (or no story at all for Purist-For-System S) ?

I want established players to go from incoherent G-S to hybrid G-N, because I think they will have more fun playing D&D this way.

For newcomers, I'm pretty sure they would find it more natural before they are taught that S is the GOOD way to roleplay, because it is played by WoD players, which are of course better than gamist D&D players.

Why I like G and N more than S? Because in the firsts ones, players have a meaningful impact on the game, and that is coming from a DM !

 

[buzz]

Mearls = mensch.