Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e: the new paradigm
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kwalish Kid" data-source="post: 4113597" data-attributes="member: 446"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kwalish Kid, post: 4113597, member: 446"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions
4e: the new paradigm
Top