D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[BryonD]

Well, I'm glad that's cleared things up.

You're welcome.

 

[hong]

storytellers

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

A lot of storytellers, such as myself, are very meh, because gamism over simulation can mess up the feel of the story.

If there is gamism in 4E, it's all on you. From what I've seen, there has never been an edition of D&D friendlier to narrative.

 

[Surgoshan]

I actually just want to quickly pipe in with one-quick complaint I had with 3.5, when it comes to character classes that is addressed in 4e (or potentially addressed).

I disliked how broad the classes were sometimes. It meant to me if I wanted to play a specific kind of character I had to ignore half my powers, and essentially play weaker then everyone else.

In 4e, I imagine with tighter/more narrowly focused characters you will be able to pick a class very specific to your character concept and later on branch out if you wish with class-training.

I imagine future classes in 4e, instead of the do-everything supplement classes of 3e, they will be much more specific and narrow so you have a wide-range of different classes that you can fit your whole concept into.

Well, we've only seen the first level feats/powers, at least for everyone other than the wizard. Given that you'll have to choose one of four or five powers at every single level, I'm guessing you'll have a whole lot of opportunity to flavor your character the way you want.

 

[AllisterH]

mechanical differences > bolted mechanical flavor. And I think the distinction should be very clear from the context of this thread.

Um, I'm an idiot because it isn't very clear.

What are you referring to? Seriously, I'm looking at the SRD and the only difference between the humanoid monster races is the stat allocation.

Compared to the 4E version, I'm kinda wondering what about the 4E version makes it inferior to the 3E breakdown for the humanoid races.

 

[Primal]

So far, I would guess:

Power gamers: meh on 4E, due to having to relearn the system, but intrigued by prospect of more broken stuff to find

Buttkickers: love 4E, due to polished combat rules, more and varied ways to kick butt

Tacticians: meh on 4E, lots more combat options, but fewer ways to avoid/short-circuit combat, inherent vagueness of conflict resolution system

Character actors: hate 4E, because of dumbing down of skill system, siloing of combat vs noncombat powers, more narrowly-focused classes

Storytellers: love 4E, due to n*rr*tivist elements like per-encounter and per-day powers, flexible definition of encounters/milestones, new conflict resolution mechanic

I don't see anything narrativist about per-encounter or per-day powers, since they are IMO gamist elements and nothing else (unless you choose to describe them in-character, but as noted elsewhere, some of them may be a bit difficult to describe storywise).

I have to agree with you on the skill system, though (I believe that is what you mean by new "conflict resolution mechanic"?). It clearly encourages narrativist play by involving players to participate in the storytelling and lets them decide (and tell) what and how they're going to accomplish and how "hard" they want it to be. So it's a gamist method (very similar to The Shadow of Yesterday's way to reward you by triggering your Keys) and the "lure" of higher rewards will probably drive players to accomplish harder tasks which have a greater impact on the story. I like it.

 

[BryonD]

If there is gamism in 4E, it's all on you. From what I've seen, there has never been an edition of D&D friendlier to narrative.

You need to send a memo out to WotC then, since they have been very up front about the shift from simulation to gamism.

And the funny thing is, every time WotC says that, someone will question if the issue is closed now and pro-4e replies will come out saying that no one is even questioning it. So you really need to educate a lot of people.

 

[BryonD]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Ok. It doesn't bother me that you are wrong.

 

[hong]

Ok. It doesn't bother me that you are wrong.

I also do not think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

You need to send a memo out to WotC then, since they have been very up front about the shift from simulation to gamism.

And the funny thing is, every time WotC says that, someone will question if the issue is closed now and pro-4e replies will come out saying that no one is even questioning it. So you really need to educate a lot of people.

We have a problem of communication here. I mean "narrative" in a broad sense that is, I think, more in line with how actual people use the word. I do not use the terms as the appear in the GNS-type theories. Neither do I use "simulation" similarly. Nor do I use the term "gamist", at all.

WOTC employees have been very clear that they reject the idea that D&D is there to simulate anything. They are quite clear that they are creating an abstract system that people can use for role-playing. If I want to tell a good story in a fantasy RPG game, I don't particularly want simulation. On the one hand, I don't need or want a great deal of mechanics that faithfully recreate the reality of physics, wounds, or magic. On the other hand, I don't need special rules to stay true to the causes within the game world. Hopefully this addresses the different meanings of "simulation".

What WOTC employees have been explicit about is that they want to make sure that the rules serve the purpose of playing the events of the game. Combat is a large part of D&D games, so much of the rules reflects this. The rules surrounding PC combat powers are designed to ensure that all characters can have roughly equal impact on the combat events of the game as it is played. I call this approach an approach that serves the narrative of the game because these combat events are much of the actual story of the game as it is played. Other parts of the game system, though not well previewed yet, are designed to give players the chance to apply the skills that they have assigned to their characters. This too gives players a chance to better ensure that their character can take part in the story that is told through play.

Now there seem to be two different senses of "gamist" charges that are thrown around, though neither are very clearly articulated. One charge is that 4E is merely a board game. I really don't care to address that charge. The other charge (at least one coherent with GNS) is that 4E makes everything dependent upon player tactics. I think that it is probably true for combat in 4E that player tactical ability will be very influential. Given what we've seen of the other aspects of the game, I do not think that the same is true outside of combat, but I must reserve judgement on that. However, I do not think that the influence of player ability on combat is something that is necessarily antithetical to story-telling in RPGs.

I believe that in the case of 4E, the design of the powers and abilities of characters in combat is such that whatever the tactical choices of players are, their character actions have a flavour that they can draw upon in order to encourage the story aspect of the combat events. That is, player tactics remain such that they are using the different aspects of their own character and other characters that, because of rule design, give the characters access to story roles. Assisting this is that characters can always take part in combat events as their character. In other words, the rules allow for character design that allows players to design characters that can always function, in the story of the game, as they were designed to do. For example, wizards can always take part in the story of the combat event as spell-casters and fighters can always take part in the story of combat as warriors.

This is so because of careful rule design, but this rule design ends up in many important cases providing rules for the overall story of the game, not the mechanics of the simulated world. Thus, for example, the mechanic for tripping someone is Ability Score vs. Appropriate Defence unless one has a per encounter power that allows one to do a special trip attack. Another example is that the mechanic for a devastating strike is the standard melee attack, unless one chooses to use a daily power. In both of these examples, there is a standard, game-world mechanics to handle what could be a specific actions in combat and there is a special, narrative-level mechanic to handle these actions. Both of these mechanics are abstract. Developing the former mechanic into a specific rule serves the purpose of game mechanics that simulate the game-world for its own sake. Developing the latter mechanic, as the 4E designers have done, serves the purpose of game mechanics that assist the story told by the game.

This is why I say that 4E is the most narrative friendly version of D&D. This edition explicitly addresses rules that assist the story while previous editions focused on game-world mechanics.