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

[marune]

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.

The Big Model Creative Agendas (current form of GNS) describe the behavior of players during instances of play, not games.

It is usual however to say that a given game will help or go against one of the CA.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

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.

I find this to be enlightening and somehow frustrating all at once. I was under the impression that I preferred a fair mix of nar and gam, and I have been relatively turned off by sim.

I have played in games where it was "plot-less", where the impetus of the action was all on the players. I felt that they were incoherent, and not just plot-less, but pointless. Maybe the group I was with did it all wrong, but there was continual conflict between the GM and players. Either we did nothing, or the GM was squashing our plans because they didn't fit his world concept. If nar is supposed to be this free of predetermined plot, I am not interested. Granted, a little more narrative power would have gone a long way for the players.

I have played in games where it was a long string of encounters that had no point other than "kill things, take their stuff." It was fun for what is was, but left me feeling like the game was hollow. No real chance for discovery, just geeks with dice. Gamism alone will be very unsatisfying for me as an RP outlet. I play lots of gamist games, and most are more fun than RPGs for that style.

I have also played in games that were the cliched amature novelist GM meets munchkin, thesbian, grognard, rules-lawyer, me, and a guy who always shouts "that's not how it should work!" as a party. Railroad city, with frustration on every side for about ten sessions before we just decide to drink instead. Much healthier. Sticking too much to a concept, whether embodied in the rules, a genre, or some hair-brained GM railroad is no fun. I have many other outlets that already tell me what I can't do. No need for my imagination driven hoby to do that as well.

I am looking for a game that has a plot and a point beyond the immediacy of the challenge, but is not limited strictly to some "High Concept" held either by the rules or by the amature novelist GM. I want a plot I can interact with, not be subjected to. But I also want that feeling of discovery that comes from not being in charge. The way the characters in stories feel at the start of their adventure. I also want that bildungsroman feeling.

There are elements that enhance this. Abstraction of the rules as they relate to the world allows a lot of narrative interpretation. 4e seems to have this. HP are a good start. Protagonization of the PCs so that they can effectively be "Nobodys" but still in possesion of "plot super powers". Healing surges and second wind mechanics seem to be a good start toward this. I want evocative and varied ability to take action and interact with the scene. The unified mechanic of 1/2 lv. + ability mod vs. Defense when combined with the powers and skill challenges seem to get at this. And to top all this off, I want enough of a fun game that it doesn't grind on boringly, and without the game getting in the way of my imagination and character concept. The separation of in-combat role from out-of-combat role, along with the seemingly flexible multiclass rules and the promised retraining rules, and mixed with the death of Vancian magic and the promised amazing ritual rules seem like they will facilitate my ideas of what makes a good game.

Through hashing all this out in this post, I am coming to the realization that if all goes as promised, 4e will make me care much less about GNS theory. Maybe a tweak to the rules here and there as a house rule could be inspired by GNS theory, but on the whole I am confident I will be satisfied with the possibilities of the system.

Now I just need more time to play and the ability to find a group that fits my playstyle. Oh yeah, and I have to wait til June.

 

[marune]

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).

I like those analogies, however, watching movies / reading books fit more High-Concept than Purist-for-System Sim.

Playing old versions of games like Flight simulator, Civilization, Sim City, etc. would be more like it, no ?

 

[pemerton]

I like those analogies, however, watching movies / reading books fit more High-Concept than Purist-for-System Sim.

Playing old versions of games like Flight simulator, Civilization, Sim City, etc. would be more like it, no ?

Sounds plausible. I don't know much about computer games but know a bit about books and movies, so went that way. Maybe if you like to read literature it's high concept, if you like to read non-fiction it's more like purist-for-system. After all, I read much more non-fiction than fiction and prefer purist-for-system to high-concept simulationism.

OK, maybe the analogy just reached its limit!

 

[Family]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I know I'm coming in waaaaaaaaaaay late on this, but I feel I had to address this comment:

-The ability to be killed by 1 lucky hit is not really essential to the billdungsroman, because by definition, no young hero of these stories actually ever IS killed by one hit. They live to become men.

This is only really true if you look at the stories in which there is but one singular hero.

If the focus of the story features companions of any kind, sudden death becomes a real possibility, and is often a catalyst within the story. Sometimes, a critical death MAKES the hero adopt the mantle of true heroism.

To take an example from comic books: Without the death of Uncle Ben, Peter Parker's path wouldn't have led so directly to becoming the hero Spider-Man- before that event, he was thinking of ways to exploit his transmutation in pure financial terms. He would have been the first incarnation of Booster Gold.

And in fantasy literature, Joel Rosenburg's Guardian of the Flames stories also feature early death and permanent disability of members of the core group of would-be heroes quite earaly on. In a way, those setbacks are their wake-up calls. And while Moorcockian heroes seldom die (for long, anyway), their allies and lovers often do, thus shaping the worldviews of thos characters.

In film, both the early demise of Charlie Sheen's character in Young Guns and James Brolin's death in front of Richard Benjamin in Westworld illustrate to both characters within the stories AND the audiences that death is possible and real.

So, while its not essential, the threat of sudden death is not unknown, and may even be crucial to certain elements.

 

[jeffhartsell]

I am looking for a game that has a plot and a point beyond the immediacy of the challenge, but is not limited strictly to some "High Concept" held either by the rules or by the amature novelist GM. I want a plot I can interact with, not be subjected to. But I also want that feeling of discovery that comes from not being in charge. The way the characters in stories feel at the start of their adventure. I also want that bildungsroman feeling.

You're not asking for much. I've GMed my fair share, but I'd still consider myself an amature compared to those I'd consider pros. And I am one of the better GMs in our group simply because I want the players to have fun.

But trying to make a complex plot that has a choose-your-own-adventure feel without being a railroad and pulling unexpected, interesting, and plot-worthy encounters out of your @$$ is not easy.

As far as the OP, even 3e considered the players heroes at level 1. And it looks like that has been mentioned numerous times. The fluff of the campaign will set the stage on how "heroic" a player feels. If you want to replicate The Sword of Shanara you sure can with 4e. Those hero powers don't seem so amazing when everything chasing you can crush you and the NPC running around with you is epic. But is that the point?

As others have said, playing DnD is a means to it's own end. It *IS* the point.

I take time out of a busy schedule to play DnD. For fun. With friends. I can read a book on my own time. And I can feel like a commoner without playing a game.

 

[Lurker37]

Actually, all the death of a supporting NPC proves is that they had low enough hit points to be one-shot. It tells us nothing about the durability of the PCs.

And I'd argue that any character killed off purely for dramatic effect had better be an NPC if the DM wants anyone to turn up to the next session. ( Retiring characters with player consent are an exception. )

 

[hong]

Die, Bill Dungsroman. Die. Die. Die.

 

[pemerton]

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?

If you like high-concept simulationism, then the "zowie" of 4e would deliver, but the metagame aspects (battlemat combat, character retraining, narrative required to support encounter powers, etc) might be a bit grating.

It may be that you like gamism with a very strong high-concept sim support, in which case 4e might really be the thing for you.

Again, it's hard to say based on a few posts exchanged on a messageboard.

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.

If you're happy to let the GM tell you who are the villains and what it means to be heroic, then you're definitely incling towards high-concept sim and away from narrativist preferences.

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.

Perhaps with a little narrativism leavened in?

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.

I think this is neutral on the GNS scale. Any sort of preference can still be looking to the mechanics to correlate to the colour of the world.