4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[Darrin Drader]

I can't imagine any version of D&D that doesn't have gamist and simulationist elements, and also mixes the two from time to time. If you want a game that is very much like D&D but is 100% gamist, try Descent by FFG. It takes all the fun roleplaying stuff out and puts your party on a board against the overlord and the monsters he spawns. With enough house ruling, you might even get something where the overlord doesn't win 9 times out of 10.

I really don't have a problem with 3.5 having gamist and simulationist elements, nor would I care if 4E has both. That's just part of the contradiction of playing an RPG. Most players are just as interested in the tactical challenges as they are shaping the world they are exploring. Both sides of the argument should come together, be happy, and throw a party.

 

[PeelSeel2]

Let me drunk first before answering this thread fither. Further.

 

[the Jester]

Let me drunk first before answering this thread fither. Further.

Good start!

 

[marune]

I can't imagine any version of D&D that doesn't have gamist and simulationist elements, and also mixes the two from time to time.

I said I wasn't gonna talk about the theory itself, but I'm tired of this one.

It's not a gamist vs simulationist elements problem.

100% gamist doesn't translate to a board game.

You can have a pretty high level of Exploration in a gamist RPG, without having a simuliationist gameplay.

A simulationist gameplay is when Exploration is the main goal of play. When exploration is not the main goal, but still there, it is gamist or narrativist play. No Exploration = pawn stance = board game.

------------

Now with the real issue :

The problem with 4E is that 2/3 the text says G and 1/3 the text says S.

2/3 is all the stuff that describe encounters as challenges to beat.

1/3 is all the stuff that stays that winning/loosing encounters isn't really that important because the DM will weave a fun story around it anyway.

 

[Oni]

I'm not sure I see what the problem is?

Why is it bad that new players are told to make decisions as if they were in their character shoes?

And isn't it by virtue of being included in the books the intended thrust of the game. Whats having wrong with having a mix of playstyle tied up in the presentation of the books, isn't part of what makes this game what it is and not something else?

 

[marune]

I'm not sure I see what the problem is?

Why is it bad that new players are told to make decisions as if they were in their character shoes?

And isn't it by virtue of being included in the books the intended thrust of the game. Whats having wrong with having a mix of playstyle tied up in the presentation of the books, isn't part of what makes this game what it is and not something else?

Because it creates lose-lose situations for the players.

My character is a elven paladin of Correlon, Lawful Good and with X and Y as personality traits.

If I choose my action using my character definition, I'll do A.

If I choose my action using the best strategy, I'll do B.

If I do A, other players can blame me for loosing the encounter.

If I do B, other players can blame me for not playing my character like he is defined.

Worse, a good part of the text seems to says that the second reasoning is expected and another good part says that it is the first.

That's the first simulationist-driving aspect of 4E.

The other one is in the DMG, in the "how to be a DM" chapter where Illusionism is clearly promoted. (Loosing / winning encounters isn't too important, because the DM will find a way to make it a fun story anyway)

 

[the Jester]

But seriously, if you wanted a rule set that rewrote everything like you did, you would prolly double the size of the PH. Your rewritten passage doesn't really improve the statement you rewrote, and doesn't really convey the same information.

A roleplaying game always has elements of, you know, playing a role. That's why they call it that. A quick statement that sums this up (like "When you play your D&D character, you put yourself into your character’s shoes and make decisions as if you were that character") wins. Your rewrite of the statement is neither clear nor concise, nor does it convey what an rpg is about very well ("share [...] a justification"?).

Have you actually read the 4e books already? I know pirated copies are going around like mad, as are "early" copies. (I'll see some pirate pdfs tonight, as one of my friends was given them by one of his friends.)

 

[marune]

But seriously, if you wanted a rule set that rewrote everything like you did, you would prolly double the size of the PH. Your rewritten passage doesn't really improve the statement you rewrote, and doesn't really convey the same information.

A roleplaying game always has elements of, you know, playing a role. That's why they call it that. A quick statement that sums this up (like "When you play your D&D character, you put yourself into your character’s shoes and make decisions as if you were that character") wins. Your rewrite of the statement is neither clear nor concise, nor does it convey what an rpg is about very well ("share [...] a justification"?).

My rewrite has poor wording, I wrote it in less than a minute and English is my second language.

The key idea is that in D&D, the decision should be made according to the best way to beat the challenge. The roleplay kicks in when you share with the other players at the table, using narration or acting, the rationalization that explains how your character has choose to do this action (In many cases, it's easy because both reasoning lead to the same action).

For example, if the paladin didn't save his injured allies (i.e. what we expect from a paladin) because the best strategy was to take down an opponent some squares away, the player has to come with a "justification" for his character do such a thing, doing so, he is roleplaying.

In few words, a group of PC in D&D should never loose an encounter because the players read too much in the "put your character shoes".

 

[SPoD]

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

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

"RPG Theory" does not equal "G/N/S Theory". One can discuss the theories behind RPGs without subscribing to the G/N/S Theory as particularly valid or useful. Some, such as myself, may have come to this thread not knowing what theory of RPGs you wished to discuss. It's not like it's universally accepted; I doubt all the WOTC designers have even read the entire thing.

In fact, I would argue that any theory of RPGs that fails to properly capture the dynamics of the single most frequently-played game in the history of the hobby is inherently flawed, or at least overly simplistic. It's sort of like teaching high school students about basic physics by ignoring all of the factors that complicate things, like air resistance. Interesting to contemplate, useful for beginners, but ultimately not worth spending too much time discussing.

 

[pawsplay]

D&D has always had an essentially immersionist philosophy... G, N, and S are all meta. Trying to adopt an explicitly GNS viewpoint is more likely to produce a pathological game than to actually contribute to the experience.