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

[FireLance]

What am I?

String, or nothing.

 

[LostSoul]

What am I?

German?

 

[marune]

The Big Model (current form of GNS) helped me to go from Vanilla Narrativism to "Pervy" Narrativism as my favorite playstyle, but also to accept Gamism for what it is (that's why I'm still here, I plan to play D&D 4E).

It also helped me to get rid of some Purist-for-System Sim habits.

What was difficult for me at first glance, was to distinguish High-Concept Sim like Feng Shui/Dread, etc. from Nar.

I just tried RL quiz for fun, that's the result :

Storyteller 100%
Power Gamer 58%
Specialist 50%
Tactician 42%
Butt-Kicker 33%
Method Actor 25%
Casual Gamer 8%

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Okay, I didn't get FireLance response, but LostSoul ones made sense, and in way is correct. Neither seemed to be the answer I was looking for, though

(I think LostSoul is close, though. In our group, we like to use the expression "Teutonic Overengineering". Don't build something that works, build the best for all circumstances, even if you never need it, will blow your budget or take longer than you have...)

 

[ExploderWizard]

I understood Firelance's reference it just seemed to answer the wrong question. You didn't ask : What have I got in my pocket?

It seems like a perfect Rain Man answer: "He is answering a question that I asked four hours ago!!"

Okay, I didn't get FireLance response, but LostSoul ones made sense, and in way is correct. Neither seemed to be the answer I was looking for, though

(I think LostSoul is close, though. In our group, we like to use the expression "Teutonic Overengineering". Don't build something that works, build the best for all circumstances, even if you never need it, will blow your budget or take longer than you have...)

 

[LostSoul]

Okay, I didn't get FireLance response, but LostSoul ones made sense, and in way is correct. Neither seemed to be the answer I was looking for, though

(I think LostSoul is close, though. In our group, we like to use the expression "Teutonic Overengineering". Don't build something that works, build the best for all circumstances, even if you never need it, will blow your budget or take longer than you have...)

My real response (that I'm not sure I want to get into, not sure this thread or even this forum is the place for GNS discussions) would be:

You need to look at the choices of the players, and how other players react to those choices, over a decent amount of time - say, from one level-up to the next. What kinds of choices did players make? What were the reactions of the other players to those choices? What things were glossed over, and which ones grabbed everyone's focus? What did other players give out "awesome!"s for?

 

[pemerton]

Or Vanilla narrativism ?

Sure. But I don't think it will be the way the majority (at least the majority of existing players) will play 4e. But obviously it's how I want to play it!

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)

Yep, the opposite of the adventure path model.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I think there may be some truth in this. But it's a delicate balance, because too much (for example) gamism at character build, or action resolution, runs the risk of making other playstyles impossible (because the whole game ends up revolving around victory over challenges, rather than the thematic significance of particular challenges).

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.

I don't fully agree with this. Pervy narratavism also gives power to the rules - it's just that the rules themselves allocate narrative power to the players as well as (or instead of) the GM. And successful gamist rules also have to give power to the players - hence the complaints that 3E and 4e give too much power to players at the expense of the GM.

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

I don't fully agree. As a long time player of purist-for-system simulationism (RM) I found it pretty helpful in making sense of what I'd been doing for all those years, and getting a sense of why some things worked in the game and some didn't.

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.

Clearly Ron Edwards prefers narrativist play, but the essays are written so as not to expressly privilege one playstyle over another. Ron Edwards does characterise narrativist play as "ba..s to the wall" artistry which, leaving aside the unnecessary gendering, does suggest that he regards it as the most artistic form of play. I don't find that absurd, although I think it might exaggerate the quality or cutting-edge character of a lot of that art - in my experience most RPGers are not great novelists or movie directors just waiting to be discovered!

But it doesn't follow that narrativism is the best form of play; that would require an argument, that I've not seen, that the pursuit of artistry is superior to other recreational pursuits. I see it this way: narrativist play is like writing short stories in your spare time, gamism is like playing team sports, and simulationism is like going to the movies (or, in its more thoughtful mode, like going to a book club). Unless someone knows a good argument that one of those recreational activities is inherently superior, I don't see any argument that one style of play is inherently superior (as opposed to subjectively prefereable for some person or other).

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.

This I don't agree with at all. Illusionism means the story is predetermined. Narrativism means the story emerges during play, as the primary purpose of play. Illusionism without player/GM antagonism would be a type of consensual high-concept simulationism. Well-GMed CoC would be an example of this, I think.

Okay, here's what I want to do, ideally <snip descriptions>

As Lost Soul said, it's not easy to judge from that info. The bit's about immersion are common to all RPGing. The bits about mechanics likewise aren't GNS individuating: all they tell us is that you don't like 1st ed AD&D-style direct player-GM mediation of action resolution.

Do you like your character and his/her story to be predetermined, and the point of the game is to have the GM lead you through that story? Mabye simulationism.

Do you like to work out your character and his/her story in the course of play, as the main purpose of play (so you always succeed at that, even if your character doesn't always succeed at his/her goals)? Maybe narrativist.

Is the whole bit about character story simply a vehicle for taking on the challenges that the game poses? Maybe gamist.

My guess would be simulationist preferences, just because that's where many RPGers seem to default to ("simulationist by habit"). But it's hard to tell from the descriptions you give.

 

[Henry]

GNS & Robin Laws...

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

.....

What am I?

In Robin Laws' ideas, you'd probably be a mix of tactician and storyteller. GNS theory seems to seek to describe games themselves; Robin Laws system tries to describe players, not the games they play, because his goal is to help GMs satisfy their players' "emotional kick", as he puts it. If being able to tell a good story, and use the rules to do it as much as roleplaying, is what would make you say you had a good session at the end of the night, then those are the goals the GM sets for himself.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Do you like your character and his/her story to be predetermined, and the point of the game is to have the GM lead you through that story? Mabye simulationism.

Do you like to work out your character and his/her story in the course of play, as the main purpose of play (so you always succeed at that, even if your character doesn't always succeed at his/her goals)? Maybe narrativist.

Is the whole bit about character story simply a vehicle for taking on the challenges that the game poses? Maybe gamist.

My guess would be simulationist preferences, just because that's where many RPGers seem to default to ("simulationist by habit"). But it's hard to tell from the descriptions you give.

If you attest myself "simulationismn", that might mean that I actually won't enjoy 4E, despite all evidence to the contrary? Or is my description just not good enough? Or is there an error in what we believe 4E or GNS tells us?

In a way my point was that I want a little bit of everything.

I am not sure I can really play fully "narratively" and have the story totally depend on my (and my fellow players)decisions as player and the decisions of my character. I need input, that a "simulationist" way might provide - here are monsters/villains, these are potential allies, do something with it. I might be wiling to play a Drama Card (to use an element from Torg) to declare an NPC a potential Romance or a Nemesis, though, if I felt confident the system and/or the DM (and me) can handle it.

But even if it's all "pretending to be an elf", I want the rules to show me what it means to be an Elf instead of a Dwarf and this influence what or how I do things in the game. If I kill people and take their stuff, I want to feel that it's still an Elf or a Dwarf (or a Fighter or a Wizard) killing people and taking their stuff.