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

[ExploderWizard]

If powers are relevant to monsters and players, then the concern is of no importance. Characters, while having more options than before, are facing monsters with the same number of options. I don't see this issue in 4E whatsoever.

While relative power levels are not an issue, the general numbers creep throughout the editions can be. Characters, now more than ever, are defined by thier bonuses and big numbers. This in no way means that superpowered characters cannot have flavor or personalities just that the focus is on the numbers.

Depending on the type of game you enjoy this may or may not be a problem. I remember when being attacked by an ogre with a +2 damage bonus for size and strength was pretty frightening. These days any fighting human with such a small bonus is half laughed at.

The scale remains close but the impressions of what defines the character are very different. Neither style is right or wrong as long as all are having fun.

 

[Hussar]

While relative power levels are not an issue, the general numbers creep throughout the editions can be. Characters, now more than ever, are defined by thier bonuses and big numbers. This in no way means that superpowered characters cannot have flavor or personalities just that the focus is on the numbers.

Depending on the type of game you enjoy this may or may not be a problem. I remember when being attacked by an ogre with a +2 damage bonus for size and strength was pretty frightening. These days any fighting human with such a small bonus is half laughed at.

The scale remains close but the impressions of what defines the character are very different. Neither style is right or wrong as long as all are having fun.

I'm curious, why do you think that characters are defined by their "bonuses and big numbers" moreso than any other edition? In 1e, by about 12th level, you could take on pretty much any non-unique creature single handedly and expect to win.

On a relative scale, 1e characters, particularly after Unearthed Arcana, were far and away more powerful than any other edition.

2e characters were also comparatively more powerful, although, perhaps less so because a number of creatures got a bump between editions. A 1st level fighter, with an 18/01 str, can kill an ogre in one round (2 weapon fighting, longsword specs, gives him 2d12+10+1d8+3=45 points of damage max) at 1st level.

If anything, 3e characters were considerably weaker compared to the opponents they face. The max damage was reduced and the hit points of the monsters were massively increased. Also, the damage output of the monsters was greatly increased, without a very large increase in PC hit points. Thus, combat in 3e is probably the most lethal of any edition (or certainly in the top 2) barring save or die effects.

4e seems to be giving some parity between the PC's and the monsters. Monster damage is being reduced to prevent monsters from smoking PC's in one round, but, then again, monsters are being made a bit tougher and the PC's do less damage (mostly due to the lack of stacking effects). So, you have more granularity in combat. Combats last more rounds, with each round seeing less spikes in damage.

So, it's more like earlier editions where the monsters simply couldn't kill PC's in one round, while retaining 3e's tactical options in combat.

I guess where I disagree with you is the idea that an ogre with a +2 was frightening. It wasn't IMO. The fighter types that were engaging that ogre had enough hit points to be able to take a few rounds of punishment before things got really hairy.

To me, its combining the best of both worlds.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm curious, why do you think that characters are defined by their "bonuses and big numbers" moreso than any other edition? In 1e, by about 12th level, you could take on pretty much any non-unique creature single handedly and expect to win.

On a relative scale, 1e characters, particularly after Unearthed Arcana, were far and away more powerful than any other edition.

2e characters were also comparatively more powerful, although, perhaps less so because a number of creatures got a bump between editions. A 1st level fighter, with an 18/01 str, can kill an ogre in one round (2 weapon fighting, longsword specs, gives him 2d12+10+1d8+3=45 points of damage max) at 1st level.

If anything, 3e characters were considerably weaker compared to the opponents they face. The max damage was reduced and the hit points of the monsters were massively increased. Also, the damage output of the monsters was greatly increased, without a very large increase in PC hit points. Thus, combat in 3e is probably the most lethal of any edition (or certainly in the top 2) barring save or die effects.

4e seems to be giving some parity between the PC's and the monsters. Monster damage is being reduced to prevent monsters from smoking PC's in one round, but, then again, monsters are being made a bit tougher and the PC's do less damage (mostly due to the lack of stacking effects). So, you have more granularity in combat. Combats last more rounds, with each round seeing less spikes in damage.

So, it's more like earlier editions where the monsters simply couldn't kill PC's in one round, while retaining 3e's tactical options in combat.

I guess where I disagree with you is the idea that an ogre with a +2 was frightening. It wasn't IMO. The fighter types that were engaging that ogre had enough hit points to be able to take a few rounds of punishment before things got really hairy.

To me, its combining the best of both worlds.

As far as 1E and later goes I agree with you. I was speaking about OD&D and Basic D&D- pre stat bloat. If you are a human fighter without a combat bonus that ogre is impressive. If you cannot imagine a fighter without so much as a +1 then I rest my case.

 

[DandD]

OD&D? Basic D&D? Was this at a time when you fought against dinosaurs and mammuts for real, and you all wore shoes made of wood, and you enjoyed it? When was this? 1.000.000 years before Christi? Did you even have wood back then?

 

[Hussar]

Even Basic D&D (at least Mentzer) your first level character was significantly more powerful. Plate mail was easily available at 1st level, making your fighter about AC 1 or 2 not terribly difficult, meaning that very little you faced at that level could hit you. By the time you hit 3rd or 4th level, nothing could kill you in one round, by and large.

I never played OD&D, so, I have no opinion there.

 

[LostSoul]

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".

My problem with Robin Law's categories is that I line up (mostly) as a buttkicker/storyteller, too - but GNS "Narrativism" is exactly what I want. So I doubt I'm the same type of buttkicker/storyteller that you are.

Though I think GNS is really only helpful for people who self-identify as Narrativists.

(Just finished a game of TSoY; my PC has the Keys of Bloodlust, Masochist, Glittering Gold, and Fraternity w/another PC. All to address the theme of what's worth fighting for, but you can see the buttkicker tendencies there.)

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

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....

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.

This brings up an interesting point for current GNS theory. It may be possible to have no tension between any of the legs of the triangle, as long as each leg deals with a separate area of the game, or lives on a different scale of the game. In the area of public health this strange tension is readily acceptable, and medicine is practiced differently for one person than for a population of people. Maybe a game could work out the perfect ballance to get the small scale gamist but large scale sim or nar play.

On a slight tangent, this is what I am talking about when I say that Orthodox GNS theory seems incomplete. The dichotomy between narrative play and other play seems hinge the ability of the participants to choose how they create the story. Gamist and simulationist systems seem to both place the power in the rules, even if the power is given to the rules for different reasons. Since I don't see a lot of difference between the GM and the players in most instances when referring to participants, to me illusionism could easily fit the narrativist playstyle, as long as there is no tension between the players and the GM about what the story should entail. Tension on that level would seem to relate more to player/participant style than system style, and so should be the purview of Robin Laws. As long as the system spreads out the narrative power between the participants, and fully empowers the participants' storytelling ability, then narrative play is achieved.

I guess this may be my issue entirely. There needs to be three theories. One to explain participants, one to explain systems, and one to explain motivations. The playstyle one would explain how participants like to interact, the system one would outline the allocation of power, and the motivation one would cover the reason that people play.

So to get this straight, GNS postulates tension between various elements

tension between "ideals" and "fun" ->sim vs others
tension between "storytelling" and "rules" -> nar vs others
tension between "winning" and "playing" -> gam vs others

The GM is assumed to be the agent of the rules in all cases, and hense they are at odds with the players on all accounts. For sim the GM is "Enforcer of the Ideal", in gam the GM is "Arbiter of the rules" and "Opponent" all roled into one. Even in nar the GM is assumed to be at odds with the players, because the nar games and mechanics are the ones that take power from both the rules and the GM and allocate it to the players. I am just not seeing why the GM and players have to be at odds. Why can't we have a "participant" category, with no tension between GM and players. That could give us a game that is tactically fun, has a coherent narrative with a ballance of power that facilitates creation of a narrative, with each of the participants having access to mechanics that facilitate the role that they are in, and allowing a collective "ideal" to emerge organically without being enforced by the rules or a draconian GM.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Though I think GNS is really only helpful for people who self-identify as Narrativists.

I self identify as narrativist with gamist tendencies. I think that there is an inherent bias in the current GNS theory literature that is tilted toward narrativism. The way most of the essays are writen, nar seems both the most pure or noble form of role play, and the most difficult for players to pull off, making it the most worthy pursuit. Besides Purist for Systems, sim play seems doomed to fail because any model can only be totally consistent with itself, and so simulating anything external to the system is doomed to be imperfect. Gam sounds base, even though the point of gaming is fun. So inherently, I think that there is bias in the theory. It stands to reason that the bias would lean that way considering that the theory's creator seems planted firmly in the nar group. (Can't say for sure, considering I'm a noob at this, but that is the way it appears to me.)

Anyway, I think that there has to be a better way to explain gaming than the current theory.

 

[hong]

My problem with Robin Law's categories is that I line up (mostly) as a buttkicker/storyteller, too - but GNS "Narrativism" is exactly what I want. So I doubt I'm the same type of buttkicker/storyteller that you are.

The RL schema doesn't distinguish between "storytellers who want to play through a story" vs "storytellers who want to write the story". It seems to be devised with the former in mind, though. You can even see this in its examples of how to run a game, with a flowchart showing where you start, the expansion of scope in the middle, and things coming together at the end.

I suspect that a lot more people who fall into the storyteller bucket are "storytellers who want to play through a story", and the book reflects that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

GNS & Robin Laws...

Okay, here's what I want to do, ideally:

I want to play in a world I can conceptually understand. Where stories told in the real world (or even happening there) could happen, within the limitations of the fantasy world, and augmented by the non-real-world elements of the fantasy world. So, an experienced veteran dying when falling from his horse and a one-legged pirate captain should make sense in the game world.

I want to create a character with game mechanic abilities that represent his personality and style. During play, I always want to have the ability to rely on my mechanical abilities to advance the story or the game. In combat, I want to use special tactical maneuvers that make the scene exciting and let me kick my enemies but. When discussing the kings expansion politics, I want my characters ability, not just my ability to read the DM minds, to matter.

In the game, I want to tell the story of my character achieving his goals (or at least trying to do so), finding allies, having romances, beating his nemesis, saving the princess/nation/world...

Doing all this, I want to feel tension, the fear of failure, setbacks and the rewards of success.

What am I?