4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Oy. I'm defending 4e. What next?

World Peace?

 

[BeauNiddle]

The main problem is that a good part of the book says that decision should be tactical and the rest says the opposite (do what your character would do).

In my OP, I said that I think D&D should be tactical at the encounter level.

Why did you decide to play a character that thinks it's a bad idea to be tactical?

 

[marune]

Why did you decide to play a character that thinks it's a bad idea to be tactical?

They may know it's a good idea to do A (follow tactics) but their heart says to do B (follow character definition). That's the whole problem.

 

[buzz]

I think the one major "crack" in "big model" theory is the idea of the absolutism of incoherence.

Functional hybrid agendas are actually part of the Big Model. The Riddle of Steel (2002) is an example of a well-regarded Sim-Nar hybrid.

I.e., if the two agendas are working together harmoniously, then there's no incoherence. Ergo, 4e isn't necessarily incoherent (in a design sense) just because you can see potential support for both GNS-G and GNS-S in the text. (Still theoretical (sic) here, as I have not fully read the books.)

And, again, by-the-book (as it were) GNS incoherence is about incompatible agendas among people at the game table. It can be applied to a design, but you still need to look at the play experience.

Oy. I'm defending 4e. What next?

You have met the enemy, and it is you.

 

[xechnao]

You are sure to have understand something about the Big Model(GNS) ?

Unfortunately the GNS as originaly defined is weak because the terms it defines are not different in practice the way it wants them to be in theory.
I presented you a model using the GNS words but on more powerful terms IMO so to help you see what I am talking about here.

 

[xechnao]

Functional hybrid agendas are actually part of the Big Model. The Riddle of Steel (2002) is an example of a well-regarded Sim-Nar hybrid.

I.e., if the two agendas are working together harmoniously, then there's no incoherence. Ergo, 4e isn't necessarily incoherent (in a design sense) just because you can see potential support for both GNS-G and GNS-S in the text. (Still theoretical (sic) here, as I have not fully read the books.)

And, again, by-the-book (as it were) GNS incoherence is about incompatible agendas among people at the game table. It can be applied to a design, but you still need to look at the play experience.


You have met the enemy, and it is you.

Actually sim-nar are two faces of the same coin of game design. This is what the original GNS model fails to grasp.

 

[buzz]

They may know it's a good idea to do A (follow tactics) but their heart says to do B (follow character definition). That's the whole problem.

Where in the chargen process are there mechanics to cause this dichotomy? Everything seems (to me) to drive you towards making an adventuring badass. I can't think of any choices a player is forced to make that conflict with this.

Or are you saying there is fluff text that encourages behavior that's at odds with the adventuring badass setup?

(3.5's PHB2 was a serious offender in this regard. That big chapter on "roleplaying" was a big turd in an otherwise pure-awesome volume, IMO.)

 

[buzz]

Actually sim-nar are two faces of the same coin of game design. This is what the original GNS model fails to grasp.

I don't agree, but...

With all due respect, I think this thread would be more productive and on-topic if it wasn't used as a venue to debate the merits of GNS/Big Model. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but I think that's one of the main reasons, as people said earlier, that GNS threads here tend to devolve pretty quickly. Skeptic has made it pretty clear that he wants to talk about 4e in the context of GNS/Big Model. Debating whether GNS is itself valid is probably better taken to another thread.

OTOH, I would recommend to Skeptic to maybe take this thread to Story-Games.com or Knife Fight. Or, play a few sessions and start an AP thread at The Forge.

Please read the above charitably, folks. I'm honestly trying to be helpful here.

 

[BeauNiddle]

They may know it's a good idea to do A (follow tactics) but their heart says to do B (follow character definition). That's the whole problem.

Yes but how often?

If it's rarely then it's a moment that elevates the game and allows you to explore your characters motivations and ideals. That's a good thing.

If it's all the time then it's a sign you've made a decision to play a character that is bad at tactics. (which is not necessarily a bad thing)


Either way it's not a rule problem (or a RPG theory issue)

 

[marune]

Or are you saying there is fluff text that encourages behavior that's at odds with the adventuring badass setup?

(3.5's PHB2 was a serious offender in this regard. That big chapter on "roleplaying" was a big turd in an otherwise pure-awesome volume, IMO.)

Exactly (To make decisions, put your characters shoes, which include alignement, personality traits and background stuff).

BTW, I'm also saying that the DMG text is promoting Illusionism/Participationism in some places.