Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5459731" data-attributes="member: 15538">Sure. And you can bust the creative agenda model wide open by positing a game where:1. the reality of the game world is literally based on narrative tropes, that is, the characters live in and may even be aware they are in a story, controlled by the physics of dramatic tropes.2. the out-of-game (metagame) rewards are based on successfully fulfilling the narrative structure.Conveniently, I can name three examples off-hand: Torg, Toon, and Discworld. But you can reach this edgepoint in any game by defining your dramatic or gameplay outcomes as the reality you want to define, and start implementing it mechanically and narratively. Ron could never seem to grasp that if you successfully implemented a Narrative model game, it would be simulating a narrative mechanically in a way that would tend to produce narratives, irrespective of the players' agendas. And, if you don't want to "lose" a Narrative game, you buy into its token rewards. All the best games are "abashed." Why? Because they are the game of which they are the game of. That is why BECMI D&D stands out as such a great design, despite being mired in dinosaur age rules design and inconsistencies. Regardless, if you play that version of D&D, you get what it says on the tin.Which is why, I think, 4e remains popular with the people it is popular with. If you like what it is, it is very much what it is. It is the work of some fantastic designers, who incidentally contributed to a version of D&D I like very much. But despite 4e's successful focus, I think play is just going to be inherently limited. As long as you continue to draw intrinisic satisfaction from dipping into 4e's well, you will continue playing and enjoying it. But its cornucopia is not great.Ok, so I think I'm talking to myself a bit there. What am I trying to say that is worth saying? Here it is: I would never point to 4e and say, "Don't do this." 4e does some things really well. But I don't think it was a good idea to point to 4e and say, "This is the new D&D." Plenty of people like it, but enough rejected the opportunity to play the new D&D that it can be said, definitively, that the new D&D was not well-received. All previous editions of D&D have largely eclipsed their preceding versions. Someone is welcome to say, "By definition, 4e is the new D&D." But if you say, "4e is sufficiently D&D to provide a superior replacement experience for previous versions of D&D," the numbers say you are mistaken. 4e is not sufficiently D&D, not from a creative standpoint, nor a financial viewpoint. It did not capture its audience, it did not successfully compete with the D&D already being played.</blockquote>

Verification