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

[hong]

No matter how low you go, some people will always want to go lower. I remember a 1E module where you played 0-level guys who didn't even have alignment or a character class. Can't remember if I've mentioned in this thread though.

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.

... you don't ever want to go back to real life?

 

[Blackeagle]

No matter how low you go, some people will always want to go lower. I remember a 1E module where you played 0-level guys who didn't even have alignment or a character class. Can't remember if I've mentioned in this thread though.

Andy Collins started one of his 3e campaigns with 1/2 level PCs. Their first adventure involved tracking down some missing livestock and fights with a lone goblin and a single wolf. Definitely a Bildungsroman opening. From reading the campaign journal, it sounds like it was a pretty fun campaign.

... you don't ever want to go back to real life?

I know I don't. That's why I went to grad school.

 

[Hussar]

The problem, Two, is that you conflate the growth of character power with the growth of character. They are completely different issues. Bildungsroman does not prevent you from having a character in a story that is physically robust. The growth is in how the character progresses, NOT in how the character's power progresses.

 

[Zil]

True, understandable, and intentional.

Most people don't enjoy playing very weak low-level characters.

The game sessions I think I enjoyed the most as a player were old 1st level games (AD&D/1E games) where everything was deadly and we survived by being smart and sneaky. Bad things would happen when we screwed up and it was exciting knowing that death was but a single blow away. But that was another time, and I think the later gamer generations have come to expect something different from the game.

 

[Zil]

No matter how low you go, some people will always want to go lower. I remember a 1E module where you played 0-level guys who didn't even have alignment or a character class. Can't remember if I've mentioned in this thread though.

Yes, I ran that adventure and it was a huge hit with our gaming group. I assume you are talking about the one where the players are shipwrecked from a slaver ship and end up having to deal with rival groups of goblin and orcish pirates looking for treasure?

I thought for a while about creating an analogous 3E adventure with the players starting with NPC classes which would either be converted to player classes or just remain a first level "freebie" level that wouldn't count against any multi-class rules but never got around to it.

 

[Hussar]

The game sessions I think I enjoyed the most as a player were old 1st level games (AD&D/1E games) where everything was deadly and we survived by being smart and sneaky. Bad things would happen when we screwed up and it was exciting knowing that death was but a single blow away. But that was another time, and I think the later gamer generations have come to expect something different from the game.

Let's not forget though that your new character took all of 10 minutes to create, likely had no background story and was named something like Fytor II.

Yeah, I think we've come a little ways since then.

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

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

Weak and strong are relative terms. Only by giving a baseline of adversaries can this be true.

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

Same applies here.

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

Bildungsroman does not require any mechanical support to achieve. It requires that the characters start "normal" and progress to "accomplished", and usually refers more to personal and spiritual growth than personal power. Since "normal" and "accomplished" are both fluff, 4e will not deny bildungsroman as we are talking about it. In the fantasy literature bildungsroman has been adapted to mean "Farmboy to Hero", but nothing in that requires a deprotagonization of the character early in their career. The character has to have options and has to survive for them to make it until the hero stage, or the character dies or is very uninteresting, or has some higher level protection. None of these are fun. Some authors use the option of "don't get in a fight" to keep them alive, some use the "he got really lucky", some use protection, and some use the "characters are special from the beginning". All of these require that the character have the possibility of death, but also the invariable fact that they don't die. Otherwise they are just side characters and not protagonists (read PCs). Since DMPCs (read protection) and "don't get into a fight" are not fun, then this leaves the options of "get really lucky" and "characters are special". "Get really lucky" is not fun if they don't, so mechanics have been created to achieve this, which really becomes "characters are special", at least in game mechanical sense if not actually in fluff sense. In any event, 4e lessens the need or possibility of the unfun options for bildungsroman, while leaving only the fun possibilities still in for those who like this trope. It just requires that you separate your "story" from your "game" a little. And this still doesn't eliminate the possibility of creating characters that just plain suck for those who want to.

I don't think that any of the previous options for bildungsroman have been eliminated, just added to, and given a mechanical framework to ensure that the bildungsroman theme can be made to work successfully more often and in more fun ways than "Run away!!!" or "Don't worry kid. I'll protect you!" or "Good thing I rolled that natural one or your PC would have been squashed!" Sounds like the game is better for everyone who doesn't like to have to get lucky for their character not to die or suck.

 

[Zil]

Let's not forget though that your new character took all of 10 minutes to create, likely had no background story and was named something like Fytor II.

Yeah, I think we've come a little ways since then.

Heh. I always had pretty good names for my characters (and usually a back story), but I do have to confess that some folks in those games relied on random name generators we wrote in BASIC on the old Commodore Pet and at its worse, there were a few players who went with names like 'Timex' and when that character died 'resistant' (as in Timex water resistant watch).

 

[Dormain1]

Originally posted by PrecociousApprentice
Weak and strong are relative terms. Only by giving a baseline of adversaries can this be true.

Relative to commoners 1 level 3E characters were only a small step, commoner to 1 lvl 4E characters are a much larger step, 1 lvl wizards were not able to cast magic missile all day every day, we never have minions before but they would make great fodder for the low level character to cut their teeth on while still having the threat of dying

two described Bildungsroman as the stableboy, shepard etc type character, which may have been inaccurate but does not change the point of his post, some people like to play with the threat of death at every corner, some people don't either way both were supported in 3E but not so much in 4E, he was just saying that he would have prefered to be able to run "his" style of Bildungsroman campaign without houseruling

Originally posted by PrecociousApprentice
And this still doesn't eliminate the possibility of creating characters that just plain suck for those who want to.

please dont call others playing styles or characters as sucky it's just rude and doesn't contribute, if you feel a need to be L33tist which is what I got from your post just stay away, and if I misunderstood what you were trying to say and you were just being cheeky sorry in advance

 

[PrecociousApprentice]

Relative to commoners 1 level 3E characters were only a small step, commoner to 1 lvl 4E characters are a much larger step, 1 lvl wizards were not able to cast magic missile all day every day, we never have minions before but they would make great fodder for the low level character to cut their teeth on while still having the threat of dying

I have not yet played 4e, but playtest reports have stated that there is still a very real threat of dying in 4e. I am not sure if people are actually comparing 4e characters to 4e NPCs, or if they are comparing 4e characters to 3.x NPCs/PCs. This would make a big difference, and will only be worked out when playing 4e. If anyone has any first hand knowledge, this would be appreciated. All I have to go on is 4e playtest reports about charactes vs kobolds, and the kobolds seemes pretty formidable.

Only one magic missile has nothing to do with bildungsroman, and only doing one cool thing in an adventure plain sucks from my perspective. The minions are great, but I think that their role is not to cut teeth on, but to act as hordes of mooks that a hero can hack their way through without the DM accidentally killing the PCs, while still maintaing their threat to the PCs.

two described Bildungsroman as the stableboy, shepard etc type character, which may have been inaccurate but does not change the point of his post, some people like to play with the threat of death at every corner, some people don't either way both were supported in 3E but not so much in 4E, he was just saying that he would have prefered to be able to run "his" style of Bildungsroman campaign without houseruling

I definitely understand the desire to run a bildungsroman campaign. That is my favorite type. But I heartily disagree that 4e eliminated it. I think that it is more alive and well than ever before. As I stated above, I think that the threat of death hasn't been eliminated, but the threat of accidental death on the part of the GM has been lessened.

please dont call others playing styles or characters as sucky it's just rude and doesn't contribute, if you feel a need to be L33tist which is what I got from your post just stay away, and if I misunderstood what you were trying to say and you were just being cheeky sorry in advance

I wan't refering to any particular playstyle or charater. I was refering to the fact that if any group wanted to purposly gimp themselves, I am pretty sure that they would be able to. I appologise for sounding pompous, but really, if you want to emulate stories (which is what I got from the OP) or if you want to run weak characters, 4e will not only allow it, but with exception based design, should facilitate it to a greater degree than ever before.

You can also consider this a formal apology to two. I did not intend to disparage your playstyle if that is what I did. I was saying that if you wanted to go from "character sucks at everything" to "Greatest Hero in the Land", 4e sould be able to do it. It is all how you conceptualize it. WotC thinks that most people don't like to accidentally die. If you want the possibility to die, they have not eliminated it. The sucks comment was refering to a hypothetical character being devoid of competence and not a value judgement. Sorry for the confusion.

And my comments about realative strength/weakness of characters was not developed enough. If one wants weak characters, then there are two ways of going about it.
1)Lower the power of the characters.
2)Increase the power of NPCs
If fear of death is desired, and you don't feel like creating rules for creating weak characters, just run more formidable NPCs. I really don't think that this will be necessary (see playtest reports), 4e just makes the "Whoops, your character is dead." less likely.