D&D 4E 4e: Death of the Bildungsroman

[marune]

I'd guess that most groups that enjoy the APs are gamist.

Probably, but sadly, AP and gamist playstyle isn't a good match, too many DMs will throw away successes/failures that put the players out the planned path.

BTW (Not for LostSoul) : When "enjoy the ride" is more important to a player than the weight of his successes/failures, that's a Simulationist playstyle (like one said above, not the most recognized variant).

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't oppose those changes.

So what are we arguing about?

But surely, you aren't saying that the changes will de facto facilitate everyone's fun equally?

Clearly not. But they should do good for far more players than they do harm. That's all we can really ask for: make the game better, on the whole, for the greatest number of players.

That somehow, since the changes appeal to you and your group, they are inarguably the best method?

LOL. My method is to fudge rolls and prevent random character death whenever possible, so the new rules will be nice but completely unnecessary for me personally. Please don't ascribe motive to my posts - I think the changes are good for the great majority of players, regardless of whether I would prefer the changes in my game.

If fun is your goal, why would you adhere so tenaciously to the rules, especially when you simultaneously decry them for preventing it?

I don't adhere tenaciously to the rules, and never implied I did. I have no trouble adjusting the rules for the situation. But I think it's a very good thing that they are changing the rules so that it makes many DMs' jobs much easier. I think it's ridiculous that a significant part of the ruleset needs to be ignored in low-level play to prevent too much character death - and am glad they're fixing that.

 

[hong]

I'd guess that most groups that enjoy the APs are gamist.

I'm not. I'm a buttkicker/storyteller. As a player, I like APs because they let me promulgate violence within a storyline that gives meaning and context to that violence. I'm not in it to "win", so much as to "watch".

 

[hong]

Probably, but sadly, AP and gamist playstyle isn't a good match, too many DMs will throw away successes/failures that put the players out the planned path.

BTW (Not for LostSoul) : When "enjoy the ride" is more important to a player than the weight of his successes/failures, that's a Simulationist playstyle (like one said above, not the most recognized variant).

See, life would be so much easier if you stopped trying to shoehorn everything into GNS wackery.

 

[Hussar]

I'd guess that most groups that enjoy the APs are gamist.

I disagree with this. Going way back to the old 007 game, which is the first place I encountered Action Points (can't remember what they were called in that game) I remember being blown away by the fact that suddenly the players had a small degree of narrative control - if you needed a trashcan in the alleyway to jump over and foil your pursuit, you spent an action point and "poof" the trashcan was there.

AP's =/= gamist approaches.

 

[pemerton]

AP and gamist playstyle isn't a good match, too many DMs will throw away successes/failures that put the players out the planned path.

Maybe. I don't have enough experience to judge from. Given that failure, in D&D, tends to equal PC death, and given the complexity of building a new PC in 3E, I think there are some problems with the game facilitiating gamist play. 4e (judging from the high-level character build rules in the Paragon Path excerpt) seems better designed for this.

When "enjoy the ride" is more important to a player than the weight of his successes/failures, that's a Simulationist playstyle (like one said above, not the most recognized variant).

I think the key attraction of adventure paths, and "storyline-heavy" games in general, is that people often don't want to write a story. They want to _experience_ it, or at least the broad outline of it, in the same manner as experiencing a movie or book.

<snip>

That doesn't mean they want to be railroaded, by which I mean experience a story that isn't compelling, or which they have _no_ ability to influence. An adventure path (and CRPGs and JRPGs) has a fixed beginning and a fixed ending, but scope in the middle to do what you like. The freedom lies in choosing the path you take to the end, not necessarily in the ending itself. The art of good design lies in making invisible the constricting of options as you get closer to the end, so that players don't _feel_ like they're being forced to do stuff.

This suggests that APs appeal to a type of simulationist play - namely, illusionism (with some of the choices I identified in my earlier post taking place within the overall pre-determined framework).

Orthodox GNS takes the view that D&D is an incoherent tension between simulationism and gamism. Obviously, that's a big call to make about the most popular RPG. But if we drop the word "incoherent" and just focus on the tension, I think that AP play (and the sorts of threads it tends to generate) do demonstrate that the tension exists: too much gamism and the players break the plot - either at character build, by building broken or too wimply PCs, or in action resolution by killing the wrong things or getting killed too early - but too much simulationism and the players get restless and feel hamstrung by the GM.

4e seems to me to have features that will alleviate some of the tension: changes to healing rules, more emphasis on power mix and tactical power play in action resolution, and so on all seem to offer the possibility of win/lose conditions other than TPK, which will then facilitate a mix of gamism at the encounter level with simulationism of the illusionist variety at the overall plot level.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree with this. Going way back to the old 007 game, which is the first place I encountered Action Points (can't remember what they were called in that game) I remember being blown away by the fact that suddenly the players had a small degree of narrative control - if you needed a trashcan in the alleyway to jump over and foil your pursuit, you spent an action point and "poof" the trashcan was there.

AP's =/= gamist approaches.

APs here means "Adventure Paths", not "Action Points".

 

[marune]

I disagree with this. Going way back to the old 007 game, which is the first place I encountered Action Points (can't remember what they were called in that game) I remember being blown away by the fact that suddenly the players had a small degree of narrative control - if you needed a trashcan in the alleyway to jump over and foil your pursuit, you spent an action point and "poof" the trashcan was there.

AP was for Adventure Path.

But btw, Actions Points can support all the recognized playstyle (G/N/S), it depends on 1) how you get them, 2) what they can do.

Giving "narration right" to a player to create a trashcan can also be found in the three playstyles.

For example, in a gamist RPG, Actions Points could be a limited ressource that help the player suceeed at challenges when their most common skills/abilities have failed.

 

[marune]

Maybe. I don't have enough experience to judge from. Given that failure, in D&D, tends to equal PC death, and given the complexity of building a new PC in 3E, I think there are some problems with the game facilitiating gamist play. 4e (judging from the high-level character build rules in the Paragon Path excerpt) seems better designed for this.

Failure can be equivalent to : No XP/Treasure, but for that you have to find different ways of making the PCs survive a failed challenge.

Orthodox GNS takes the view that D&D is an incoherent tension between simulationism and gamism. Obviously, that's a big call to make about the most popular RPG. But if we drop the word "incoherent" and just focus on the tension, I think that AP play (and the sorts of threads it tends to generate) do demonstrate that the tension exists: too much gamism and the players break the plot - either at character build, by building broken or too wimply PCs, or in action resolution by killing the wrong things or getting killed too early - but too much simulationism and the players get restless and feel hamstrung by the GM.

4e seems to me to have features that will alleviate some of the tension: changes to healing rules, more emphasis on power mix and tactical power play in action resolution, and so on all seem to offer the possibility of win/lose conditions other than TPK, which will then facilitate a mix of gamism at the encounter level with simulationism of the illusionist variety at the overall plot level.

Or Vanilla narrativism ?

Something like.. When the adventure #1 ends, the DM ask to the players to come up with the triggering event of adventure #2 from which he starts his prep ? (I know that this may be not enough to effectivly produce nar play)

 

[Hussar]

Ahh, sheesh, you'd think those remedial reading classes would help. Sigh. Sorry.