Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5957059" data-attributes="member: 996">I don't know about your experience, but my experience with classic D&amp;D was that you /never/ got something like an heroic fantasy story out of it.&nbsp; What you got was a D&amp;D story.&nbsp; One of contrasting forces of fear and greed tugging on your character, kinda like the stock market or a game show, but with greed being about power as well as simple wealth.&nbsp; If your DM got bit by the 'storytelling' bug, he might change or ignore rules and conventions, try to enable a story - or go outright into a 'story mode' where the game was suspended while stuff happened (including stuff you were doing) to move the plot along and resolve things that the rules just couldn't be trusted with.Those are nice examples of how you changed or added to the rules to get a little something going, and riffed off the random stuff to build a story.&nbsp; Not an heroic fantasy story maybe, but a story.&nbsp; It's still random, though.&nbsp; If a player wants his character to be a Zatoichi, getting blinded is cool, but being blind from the start (for instance, in Hero System, taking it as a Disadvantage) is probably a little better, giving more of the narrative control over his character to the player.A more 'narrative' or story-modeling game - and 4e is just a bit in that direction from classic D&amp;D, not dedicatedly-narrativist - has the advantage that both the players and the DMs have some control of the narrative.&nbsp; It's not just the DM running a simulation of a world and the players reacting to it in-character, everyone has some of the plot-power an author of the story.&nbsp; 'Cooperative storytelling' they started calling it in the 90's.&nbsp; 4e didn't go very far in that direction, it lets players describe their powers, so they can interpret a use of a daily or encounter power as having some meaning beyond the character deciding to do something, then succeeding or failing.&nbsp; Everyone's experiences are different.&nbsp; As are standards for what constitutes an 'interesting story.'&nbsp; People don't watch game shows because they're boring, for instance - that's what classic D&amp;D 'stories' felt like to me, and I quite enjoyed them.&nbsp; Not many of them are that interesting to relate years later, though.Like I said, I have liked those sorts of games.&nbsp; 5e is supposedly going to try to support multiple styles of play, that means supporting both (somehow!?!).&nbsp; Picking one isn't part of 5e's goal.&nbsp; Understanding the appeal of each can only be productive.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5957059, member: 996"] I don't know about your experience, but my experience with classic D&D was that you /never/ got something like an heroic fantasy story out of it. What you got was a D&D story. One of contrasting forces of fear and greed tugging on your character, kinda like the stock market or a game show, but with greed being about power as well as simple wealth. If your DM got bit by the 'storytelling' bug, he might change or ignore rules and conventions, try to enable a story - or go outright into a 'story mode' where the game was suspended while stuff happened (including stuff you were doing) to move the plot along and resolve things that the rules just couldn't be trusted with. Those are nice examples of how you changed or added to the rules to get a little something going, and riffed off the random stuff to build a story. Not an heroic fantasy story maybe, but a story. It's still random, though. If a player wants his character to be a Zatoichi, getting blinded is cool, but being blind from the start (for instance, in Hero System, taking it as a Disadvantage) is probably a little better, giving more of the narrative control over his character to the player. A more 'narrative' or story-modeling game - and 4e is just a bit in that direction from classic D&D, not dedicatedly-narrativist - has the advantage that both the players and the DMs have some control of the narrative. It's not just the DM running a simulation of a world and the players reacting to it in-character, everyone has some of the plot-power an author of the story. 'Cooperative storytelling' they started calling it in the 90's. 4e didn't go very far in that direction, it lets players describe their powers, so they can interpret a use of a daily or encounter power as having some meaning beyond the character deciding to do something, then succeeding or failing. Everyone's experiences are different. As are standards for what constitutes an 'interesting story.' People don't watch game shows because they're boring, for instance - that's what classic D&D 'stories' felt like to me, and I quite enjoyed them. Not many of them are that interesting to relate years later, though. Like I said, I have liked those sorts of games. 5e is supposedly going to try to support multiple styles of play, that means supporting both (somehow!?!). Picking one isn't part of 5e's goal. Understanding the appeal of each can only be productive. [/QUOTE]

Verification