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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 6127914" data-attributes="member: 463">Something I haven't seen discussed is that when compared to 0e-3e, 4e encourages a less adversarial mindset between players and GMs. The player and GM advice and the mechanics seem designed to foster trust between the two - trust that both are working together in trying to create a fun game, which in 4e seems primarily about creating an engaging story. It's widely recognised that 4e is less Simulationist than pre-4e, but it's also less Gamist, except within the narrow combat-as-sport confines of the combat encounter system.The result of this trust is that IME in actual play 4e players don't complain about GMs going 'outside the rules' - because they trust that doing so will create an engaging story, and is not being done in adversarial fashion.In this sense, 4e feels empowering for both GMs (who can do what they like) and for players, who are trusted to contribute in creating the emerging story. But it also means that 4e is a different and (I think) narrower game than pre-4e D&D; it is not designed for the Gamism-built-on-Simulation style which I think was common to at least 1e through 3e, if not 0e (0e seems more pure Gamism to me, but obviously had the potential to be tweaked in a Simulationist direction).  I think it's a legitimate complaint about 4e that it is not good at 'doing D&D', if D&D means the Gamism-on-Simulation style of 1e or 3e. It's also not very tweakable to other styles, eg the way 2e used 1e rules for a more dramatist/story style. I'm wondering if this is a source of the complaints about disempowerment: it's not disempowering if it's run the way it's designed, but it's not designed to run like traditional D&D.</blockquote>

Verification