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

[pemerton]

If the focus of the story features companions of any kind, sudden death becomes a real possibility

As someone else has posted, these "companions" are (in RPG terms) NPCs.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

You're not asking for much.

Yeah, I get the point, but we are talking about ideals here right. If I can't wax hyperbolic in a rant on En World, where can I? I am definitely not getting all I ask for regularly. I am just striving for it. I think that 4e is likely to facilitate this ideal better than any previous edition, and I have seen no other game that does it better than the preconceived notion of 4e I have in my head. This is the best time of all for ranting and being rediculously idealistic. Come on June!

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

If nar is supposed to be this free of predetermined plot, I am not interested.

This sounds like sandbox-style purist-for-system play: some approaches to AD&D (especially 1st ed) are like this, and I think that Rolemaster is also played in this fashion from time to time.

The difficulty with this approach is that if the GM won't provide a story, the players have no way to do so within the rules (because they have no way of shaping the gameworld other than by having their PCs respond to the elements that the GM introduces).

In narrativist play, the character build mechanics should build in a story for each PC, and the encounter design mechanics should (ideally, at least) respond to this (that is, the adversity introduced by the GM correlates appropriately with the story aspects built into each PC). At least in non-vanilla narrativism, the action resolution mechanics should also respond to each PC's story (eg TRos Spiritual Attributes or HeroWars Relationships). Superficially, therefore, it can look like sandbox play, but the difference is that there is overt metagaming on the part of both GM and players - at least at the level of character build and encounter design, if not at the stage of action resolution - which ensures that a story will emerge and be developed.

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.

<snip>

Granted, a little more narrative power would have gone a long way for the players.

What you're describing there sounds like dysfunctional sandboxing, in which the GM has a predtermined idea of the world and wants the players to go out and discover it. Analogous to railroading, except at the level of story generation rather than story resolution.

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.

That sounds like gamist play with comparatively little exploration of any of the game elements (ie the flavour text didn't really matter, with players adopting "pawn stance" towards their PCs all the way).

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.

This is the sort of game I really don't enjoy.

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.

I think this is really hard to achieve - a plot that is yours, but that you discover rather than create. Maybe consensual illusionism can deliver it - so the "high concept" is delivered by the GM, but in such a subtle fashion that you don't notice it's not emerging from your play.

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.

Most of this is about giving power over the game, and over the deployment of the rules, to the players rather than the GM. This is good for both gamism and narrativism.

In terms of narrativism vs illusionism, the question is "Who will do the narrative interpretation"? If it's the GM, we're back in illusionist (or, if badly done, railroading) territory. If by the players, then we might be looking at reasonably vanilla narrativist play.

Even in an obviously narrativist game like HeroWars/Quest, the dice are still there to produce surprise, and to produce mechanical outcomes on which narrative can be hung. So maybe 4e played in this style might give you the sense of discovery (as the dice tell you things that you didn't already know about the story) without having to hand control to the GM.

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.

Interestingly, the fact that D&D - the biggest RPG - is apparently attempting to devlop a set of rules that are able to consistently deliver a certain (non-simulationist) play experience has actually made me more interested in GNS theory. Because it can now be used to shed light on one of the most important discussions for all RPGers (namely, the future of D&D).

 

[Hambot]

I think the original poster laid out their argument very well. I understand what he is saying and see where he is coming from.

I just simply don't care.

But that is because our group of 7pc's just got crushed by about 16 goblins in our first level 1 D& D adventure that we've played in for a while. Yup, first time DM.

In 4e, it would be harder for a new DM to screw up so badly. If you want to make a level 0 to hero story, go ahead. Nothing is stopping you. Start em off basic and every milestone give them a new power or ability or batch of hit points to play with. When they've got all their class powers, they are ready with 0xp.

 

[AllisterH]

I want my campaign to run like a Slayers (the anime) season. I don't want to run a LotR/Record of Lodoss Wars campaign as honestly they look boring for the players.

 

[Xris Robin]

That's kinda ironic, isn't it? Since Lodoss War is so much based on D&D. In fact, I believe that, like Dragonlance, it started off as an actual bunch of played sessions.

 

[two]

I've returned from a long, unhappy trip to RL (real life), and I don't ever want to go back there. Ever. Not now, not tomorrow, not in twenty years.

After perusing the long thread, I have have a few simple remarks to make, because people repeatedly think I am being dictatorial in my demands.

1) 3e supported weak starting PC's (level 1) and strong starting PC's (level 3+).

2) 4e only supports robust starting PC's (level 1) and really, really robust PC's (3+).

I don't care what sort of game you play personally. I don't want everyone to play D&D as I play it. I don't have any interest in defining how the game SHOULD be played.

But I would like 4e to support (without house rules) a "bildungsroman" style of play, and it does not look like it will.

That's the crux of it.

3e = start weak, start medium, start strong, all supported.

4e = start robust, and get more robust, the "bildungsroman" option of a really weak initial PC is missing.

 

[Fifth Element]

But I would like 4e to support (without house rules) a "bildungsroman" style of play, and it does not look like it will.

True, understandable, and intentional.

Most people don't enjoy playing very weak low-level characters. And since most new players start at 1st level, WotC want 1st level to be as much fun to the largest number of players as possible. The old "if you want to be more powerful, just skip a few levels" idea doesn't work very well for people just picking up the game. 1st level is the natural starting point.

 

[Blackeagle]

But I would like 4e to support (without house rules) a "bildungsroman" style of play, and it does not look like it will.

I don't know about that. WotC's got a lot of space to fill if they're going to be releasing a new PHB, DMG, and MM every year. I'm guessing we'll get rules for sub-1st level PCs (and maybe some sub-1st level monsters to go with them) sooner or later. And until then, there's always 3e, or houseruled 4e.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't know about that. WotC's got a lot of space to fill if they're going to be releasing a new PHB, DMG, and MM every year. I'm guessing we'll get rules for sub-1st level PCs (and maybe some sub-1st level monsters to go with them) sooner or later. And until then, there's always 3e, or houseruled 4e.

Necromancers Advanced Players Guide is supposed to contain rules for "0-level" PCs. And it looks really easy to create some, and they might possibly even be balanced against each other (being equally useful)