4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[Harr]

"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.

Indeed. Sorry if my reaction came off as antagonizing, it was simply the result of me going "Oh hey, RPG theory neat! ... oohh. ...GNS. *sigh* ".

That coupled with the fact that I've never seen a GNS thread that doesn't devolve into excrutiating semantics, or flames.

But you're right, I shouldn't have said anything, and I aplogize. Carry on

 

[marune]

Please, again, stop it folks.

 

[hong]

The key idea is that in D&D, the decision should be made according to the best way to beat the challenge.

No. You have constructed this belief because of your desire to see everything through the lens of GNS.

The decision should be made according to how the people at the table want to make it. Sometimes this will be tactical, other times not so much.

 

[SavageRobby]

No. You have constructed this belief because of your desire to see everything through the lens of GNS.

The decision should be made according to how the people at the table want to make it. Sometimes this will be tactical, other times not so much.

This.

GNS is so much more interesting when its not being used as a club to beat people who aren't "doing it right".

 

[Darrin Drader]

GNS is so much more interesting when its not being used as a club to beat people who aren't "doing it right".

Bingo!

That said, I think game design theory undergoes major shifts every few years anyway. At one time second edition AD&D was not only doing it right, but was the starting point for other games that emphasized storytelling. After roughly five years where crunch was king, I think the pendulum is swinging back in the other direction again, which is fine with me.

 

[buzz]

Preamble: I :heart: GNS/Big Model theory.

Like some designers' comments hinted to it, D&D is still a confused gamist/simulationist RPG.

Leaving any specific talk of GNS aside*, I think 4e is pretty clear about its intended focus. From the new PHB:

"D&D is a fantasy-adventure game. You create a character, team up with other characters (your friends), explore a world, and battle monsters.
...
You “win” the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game by participating in an exciting story of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils.
...
Your character grows as the game continues. Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to your continuing story, but also earns your character new abilities. "

Hello, challenge-focused RPG'ing (what some might call Gamism).

I don't think you should get too derailed by the "exploring worlds" part. Settings are a big part of D&D, but that doesn't necessarily mean incoherence. Setting is situation (and vice-versa), after all. 4e appears to be embracing the idea that setting exists to facilitate play, not just provide color or fill up sourcebooks.

The bit you quote about thinking like your character is, I think, talking more on the level of basic introduction to RPGs. Regardless of stance, one of the important bits central to the concept is that players will control a single figure on the board, and they will have to react (no matter what the stance) based on the shared imagined space. I.e., regardless of whether I play my PC as an actor or an author, I still have to grok the concept that who they are and what's happening to them in-game is my frame of reference.

I.e., this isn't Monopoly. There's fiction that needs to be considered.


* Remember folks, the GNS bit of Big Model theory describes agendas of people at the game table as observed over multiple sessions of play. While it's become common parlance to refer to designs as G, N, or S, GNS is really about people, not the text.

 

[marune]

Preamble: I :heart: GNS/Big Model theory.

Leaving any specific talk of GNS aside*, I think 4e is pretty clear about its intended focus. From the new PHB:

"D&D is a fantasy-adventure game. You create a character, team up with other characters (your friends), explore a world, and battle monsters.
...
You “win” the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game by participating in an exciting story of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils.
...
Your character grows as the game continues. Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to your continuing story, but also earns your character new abilities. "

Hello, challenge-focused RPG'ing (what some might call Gamism).

I don't think you should get too derailed by the "exploring worlds" part. Settings are a big part of D&D, but that doesn't necessarily mean incoherence. Setting is situation (and vice-versa), after all. 4e appears to be embracing the idea that setting exists to facilitate play, not just provide color or fill up sourcebooks.

The bit you quote about thinking like your character is, I think, talking more on the level of basic introduction to RPGs. Regardless of stance, one of the important bits central to the concept is that players will control a single figure on the board, and they will have to react (no matter what the stance) based on the shared imagined space. I.e., regardless of whether I play my PC as an actor or an author, I still have to grok the concept that who they are and what's happening to them in-game is my frame of reference.

I.e., this isn't Monopoly. There's fiction that needs to be considered.

Cool, first interesting reply.

Of course there is some pro-Gamism parts in the books, I even said that most of it is.

Maybe your right that the PHB quote was not meant as an pro-Simulationist thing, but as a gentle intro. I still fear the effect on the new players.

However, many parts of the DMG promote Illusionism/Participationism and that can't be ignored*.

*Even if scene framing during dungeon crawl and "Say yes" is also promoted.

 

[buzz]

I dunno. I'd really have to wait until I can fully read the books, and my group starts playing 4e to comment with any certainty. Nonetheless, I think D&D just ain't a hippie Nar game. And, that's okay.

 

[marune]

I dunno. I'd really have to wait until I can fully read the books, and my group starts playing 4e to comment with any certainty. Nonetheless, I think D&D just ain't a hippie Nar game. And, that's okay.

I don't think you group will be much influenced by the fluff text of the DMG anyway

If you appreciate the Big Model, don't tell me that you wouldn't prefer vanilla Nar play between encounters than Sim-by-habit

 

[Plane Sailing]

The key idea is that in D&D, the decision should be made according to the best way to beat the challenge.

Whose key idea? Yours?

I don't think that has been the expected mode of play as found in D&D rules for, like, forever.

Why should D&D change its approach because you personally have a different (and slightly more limited) idea of what D&D is actually about?