D&D 4E 4e Monster List - Dwarven Nosepicker & Elven Butt Scratcher

[D'karr]

I just get anal retentive when the GNS terms get thrown around too much.

And that is one of the reasons I don't subscribe to the GNS philosophy. It seems to be used mostly as labels to put down the style of play you don't agree with.

I might not agree with "Johnny X" that his style of gaming is what I like, but when I call his style either G,N or S, then I get to feel superior because "obviously" his style is inferior.

It is a bunch of hogwash if you ask me. I can disagree with somebody's style of gaming but that does not make his style any less valid of more valid than mine.

 

[Cadfan]

A gamist plays the game as a series of tactical battles of precisely balanced odds, strung together with no story whatsoever, and for the sake of player characters who are nothing more than faceless statblocks. Obviously he is inferior to me.

A simulationist writes in his DM notes that Bal-Shuggoth, the elder god of death, death, madness, and more death, secretly slumbers in the hills to the north of town. Then he places first level PCs in the town, gives them no directions, and when they wander north he has Bal-Shuggoth devour them all. When the PCs object, he explains that he is merely running the gameworld as written, and he's not going to change the gameworld just for them like some low down dirty gamist. He's cleary inferior to me as well.

The narrativist is just trying to create a flashy story, so he changes rules mid fight in order to let cool things happen, or to ensure that the fight's outcome is the sort of thing he's looking for. He may go whole sessions without combat if that's what the story requires. Obviously his game is boring and inferior to mine.

Which one am I? Whatever the person I'm arguing with isn't, of course.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And that is one of the reasons I don't subscribe to the GNS philosophy. It seems to be used mostly as labels to put down the style of play you don't agree with.

I might not agree with "Johnny X" that his style of gaming is what I like, but when I call his style either G,N or S, then I get to feel superior because "obviously" his style is inferior.

It is a bunch of hogwash if you ask me. I can disagree with somebody's style of gaming but that does not make his style any less valid of more valid than mine.

Well, I wouldn't want to assign superiority to certain play styles. On the other hand, I and my group figured that if we would want to describe us using this model, that we are mostly gamist. Everything else is a distanct second. My preferences will probably always shine through when trying to use the GNS model.
But never forget - it's just a model. Models abstract, leave details out, and are imperfect. They serve as base for creating explanations, but aren't the end of it, and they certainly aren't the "reality".

 

[Keenath]

There's a difference between witnessing a magical power or feat and witnessing a (rather mundane) creature using a (mostly mundane) weapon to great effect.

In 3e, you can pick up the garrote, the harpoon, or the kobold stinkpot, and have varying levels of success depending on how the weapon was used. It might be an exotic weapon (harpoon), and it might require a feat to activate certain uses (garrote), or you might just be able to pick it up and use it (stinkpot).

But IS it different? I've watched a lot of kung fu sparring in my life -- but I don't dream I can walk in and take that dude who's been training for ten years. Or if I've had five years of training with target shooting with a rifle, I don't suppose that means I can pick up a pistol and be an expert -- or even particularly accurate!

A PC and pick up and throw a harpoon, sure. That doesn't mean he can lodge it properly; that doesn't mean he can use the trailing rope to control his target; it just means he knows how to throw a spear.

Likewise, being able to use stinkpot bombs is kind of variable depending on what seems appropriate. I'd probably decide that they're bulkier and "sloshier" than the standard run of sling stones, so you take a penalty on your attack. I might decide that an untrained hand has a 25% chance of breaking the pot while loading it, in which case the stink is on you.

It's pretty easy to come up with rulings for these things that fall between "It vanishes into thin air" and "you can you it freely".

 

[Keenath]

Well, I wouldn't want to assign superiority to certain play styles. On the other hand, I and my group figured that if we would want to describe us using this model, that we are mostly gamist. Everything else is a distanct second. My preferences will probably always shine through when trying to use the GNS model.

Of course.

GNS is a tool for finding out what you and your players really want, and for finding a system that best supports that. It's not a way to slap insulting tags on other people.

In fact, I find that I use varying quantities of all three depending on the situation.

I normally have the plot laid out in very general terms before anything else happens -- "The PCs are going to be sent on a mission to find out information about this bad guy, and they'll discover that the only way to defeat him is with a magic spear. They'll go on a series of fetch quests to find the head and the haft, maybe with part being stolen in the middle there, and then they'll have to perform the ritual of binding to reforge the spear..."

That plot is going to be at the highest, most abstract level. It's narrativism -- the players can't really avoid that plot short of actively refusing to do it. They'll always be able to find the place where the spearhead is entombed, because that's what the plot demands. There's no question as to whether or not they will discover the location of the Tomb of the Druid.

Events are more gamist for me -- a monster that they meet all alone will be a solo challenge; a group will usually be balanced; and so on. The close in, tactical level of the game is gamist so that the challenges work and the characters are a balanced group.

Simulationism fits in between those levels, for me -- If I'm laying out a dungeon or a castle, I will put a certain amount of simulationist thought into it, figuring out if every creature has access to food and water, how neighboring creatures interact, how alarms spread through the complex, etc. If I drop a hydra over here, I won't put a tribe of orcs right next to it (Gygax style), unless the orcs are actually somehow in control of the hydra (or otherwise placating it with sacrifices, or something).

But at the same time, that simulationist thought only goes so far. I'm not going to figure out what this or that monster is doing at any given time of day, or tracking the clock while the PCs run through the complex -- the monsters are where they need to be to meet my gamist goals of balanced and fun encounters.

Going back to the "solo ogre" question a while back -- the players wouldn't be ABLE to avoid the ogre-battle, for example. It's narratively required, so he's where he needs to be to confront the PCs when he's needed. I don't care about his overland speed or something to figure out if he could be in place in time. He moves at the speed of plot. Similarly, there is no Solo Ogre On Staff until I need there to be one. Dirk Darkfist doesn't just pick a random ogre who suddenly becomes a solo monster -- he sends his most powerful enforcer to go handle the PCs, and that enforcer is a solo monster. If the PCs find the castle, they won't be able to fight the enforcer with a group of other ogres; he'll have his own room, or just happen to be out when the PCs attack, or something -- whatever is necessary to meet the gamist requirement that the encounters be balanced. Simulation is not required -- just enough of an explanation to satisfy the PCs. In fact, it's MORE fun to have the ogre burst in just after they finish killing all the other ogres, and kick off the encounter that way -- I don't *care* where he was during the previous battle; he wasn't on screen, so it doesn't matter.

 

[WayneLigon]

Actually, it occurred to me earlier today that if you wanted to just get all dramatic, you could declare an 'encounter refresh' without any actual rest, by pure narrative fiat. So you fight the orc lord's minions, then, when they're all dead, the orc lord himself, deciding you are worthy foes, rises from his throne to engage you. The combat music starts up and you have all your encounter powers refreshed and you can burn off all the healing surges you want to risk.

I would speculate that 4E encounter design will work in that exact manner. If not, people will use it in that exact manner.

 

[Celebrim]

A simulationist writes in his DM notes that Bal-Shuggoth, the elder god of death, death, madness, and more death, secretly slumbers in the hills to the north of town. Then he places first level PCs in the town, gives them no directions, and when they wander north he has Bal-Shuggoth devour them all. When the PCs object, he explains that he is merely running the gameworld as written, and he's not going to change the gameworld just for them like some low down dirty gamist. He's cleary inferior to me as well.

He's a far inferior simulationist to me as well. If Bal-Shuggoth was slumbering in the hills north of town, EVERYONE in town who had been there for any length of time would KNOW with a scary fervor that NOONE who leaves town to the north ever comes back. No good simulationist places 1st level PC's in town. If they are in town it is because they were born there or otherwise have come to be thier, and so the very word 'north' would send a tremble of fear down thier spine. If they are natives, they'd have to make a saving throw merely to decide to travel north because of the ingrained fear of northness years of bed time stories and being warned about naughty children going to the north. There would be terrible omens, cousins and relatives would throw themselves tearfully on the shoulders of the PC's and beg them not to go. Religious authorities would arrive with mobs of wide-eyed scared villagers with pitchforks and threaten violence and/or damnation on anyone that would risk bringing 'the evil' on the village. And if in the face of all of this, the PC's decided to push on to north, then sure they'd run into Bal-Shuggoth and probably get devoured.

And I'd say, "That was fun. You want to create some new PC's and try a creating a story that isn't quite so short this time?"

 

[ruleslawyer]

Multiclass to Swordsage.

In the case of the others, I'd like to be able to say:"If I ever run a humanoids campaign, you can learn those things as Exploits" or even, "Well, if you make an effort to win the trust and respect of the bugbears -- good luck with that -- I will allow you to learn it if you meet all the other prerequisites."

Both of which require a more formal system of power allocation than, it seems, 4e provides.

I wouldn't be too sure about that, what with Mearls' mention that such abilities will eventually be provided for either in the DMG or a PHB/DMG 2-X.

 

[pemerton]

For example, when fighting multiple characters a dragon might be able to spread out its attacks and react more readily to shifting battlefield consitions at the cost of exerting itself to the point where its attacks are less effective and it might have more problems defending itself against the concentrated efforts of multiple PCs. When the same dragon fights with allies at its side it might be able to focus on single targets more effectively and need not worry as much about defending itself from multiple PCs. This approach will of course not be entirely satisfying for all folks.

It's very satisfying for me - I hadn't thought of it before and it's a great way to understand solo-ization within the context of the gameworld.

 

[pemerton]

The narrativist is just trying to create a flashy story, so he changes rules mid fight in order to let cool things happen, or to ensure that the fight's outcome is the sort of thing he's looking for. He may go whole sessions without combat if that's what the story requires. Obviously his game is boring and inferior to mine.

It does puzzle me why so many non-narrativist posters on this forum use "narrativism" as a label for GM-driven raildroading, which obviously has nothing to do with narrativism in the Forge sense (the only well-defined notion of "narrativism" that I'm familiar with).