R. Thompson : D&D still a sim/gamist RPG

[small pumpkin man]

GNS is only good for facilitating arguments about GNS. Consider instead Robin Laws' scheme. 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

Specialists: meh on 4E, depends on whether chosen schtick is well-supported

Casual gamers: meh on 4E, depends on whether it's easy to use

So 4E's a Buttkicking, Storytelling System? You know what, that explains why I'm so hyped about it.

 

[hong]

So 4E's a Buttkicking, Storytelling System? You know what, that explains why I'm so hyped about it.

COME TO MY ARMS

 

[marune]

Storyteller and narrativism in the same sentence make me .

But I agree that 4E is a buttkicking storytelling game (like I said in my OP, gam/sim mix).

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Much like the debate about whether video games are "art," GNS theory is a distraction from the central issues at hand: whether the game is fun. If it is fun, there is no need to justify it. It has fulfilled its purpose. If it is not fun, there is no need to continue doing it, as it has failed its purpose. As fun is an essentially subjective experience, attempting to place objective, critical labels on it is a sadly futile exercise.

--G

QFT. I wholeheartedly agree. Games are for entertainment. No one game will entertain everyone because we're not carbon copies of each other. If you like it, play it, if you don't like it, don't play it, or if you're really motivated, change it to the point that you do like it.

 

[hong]

Here's where we disagree.

Power Gamers: Slightly down on 4e. The removal of system mastery as a design principle will not sit right with those who enjoy the edge that their system knowledge provides them in the character building process. Still, it's pretty much impossible to completely remove advantages gained from system mastery in any nontrival game system and power gamers that like the challenge of optimizing new systems will enjoy finding out what does and does not work in 4e. Those that like the devil they know will not enjoy 4e.

Tacticians: Depends on the nature of the tactician. Tacticians who take a longer view and tacticians that enjoy the ability to decisively win a given encounter before it even begins will likely loathe 4e. Decreasing the role of attrition and making the game less reliant on countermeasures guarantees that outcome. However, there are some tactically oriented players who are not satisfied with the game as it currently stands. They don't want encounters to be decided before hand, are dissatisfied with the importance placed on single decision points (they want encounters to be decided on the basis of multuple decision points), want to deal with more unexpected variables, and are more focused on the ebb and flow of the game than long term strategy. I'm not sure how common the second group is, but I know they are at least a few of us around these parts.

Specialists: A number will hate 4e. The generalized competence that 4e characters possess is anathema to a large quantity of specialists. Required skill selections and power weapon restrictions certainly don't help. Ninja specialists will be as pleased as pudding though.

Method Actors: No real disagreement here, but I think you failed to mention the element that will really get under method actors' skins - the use of game mechanics that don't have a direct correlation to game setting elements. Stuff like action points, the new skill challenge rules, 'encounter' as a time frame, and abilities that imply a degree of narrative control break the fourth wall in a violent way.

Seems like we don't actually disagree. By "meh" I distill several possible reactions, ranging from suspicion and apathy to guarded acceptance, down to one syllable. The common factor is that they're somewhere in between the extremes of excitement and disgust. (For specialists it's true that some will be excited with 4E and others will be disgusted depending on how they specialty is handled; in the grand D&D tradition of treating someone with their head in the oven and their legs in a bucket of ice water as having an average temperature just right, they're also lumped into "meh".)

Compression of syllables is friend to all children!

 

[small pumpkin man]

COME TO MY ARMS

KITTY!

 

[pemerton]

Storyteller and narrativism in the same sentence make me .

Agreed.

Because he says that players should be rewarded both for :

<snip>

2) Acting in character, or "roleplaying" (I don't like this definition of roleplay, but anyway).

I share your dislike.

On the substantive point, rewards for acting in character aren't necessarily at odds with narrativism, provided that the player is in charge of, and able to shape the character. (More on this below.)

But I agree that 4E is a buttkicking storytelling game (like I said in my OP, gam/sim mix).

A player playing a paladin with a strict code having already to deal with the confusing gamist/sim way of taking actions cannot reasonably be asked to come with an interesting narrative on top of it (and such without rewards!).

I'm one of those who has been looking for vanilla narrativist potential in D&D 4e. I didn't come away from Rodney Thompson's blog quite as dissuaded on that idea as you have.

Narrativism doesn't necessarily require the game's actual reward mechanics to reward the players for moving the story or evolving their characters - the reward from vanilla narrativist play may come in a broader sense of the game allowing for pleasurable play of a certain sort. But narrativist play does depend upon it being possible to play the game satisfactorily while moving the story or evolving the characters, and this requires that other aspects of the game (including its actual reward mechanics) not get in the way.

The rules for non-combat challenges have that potential, depending on the nature of the reward and the degree of empowerment of players in determining the parameters of a challenge and the effects of using various skills.

Levelling up needn't get in the way of this: for example, we are told that there will be retraining rules. If these allow a player, upon level up, to swap skill training feats in and out, then (given that skill bonus, and thus skill used to resolve non-combat challenges equals half level plus stat plus skill training), levelling up becomes an opportunity for a player to change the skills whereby s/he will respond to non-combat challenges, and hence to engage in an exercise of, and facilitate future exercises of, narrative control.

The combat example is a perhaps a bit more unhappy for narrativism, with the paladin apparently being mechanically penalised for making a thematic choice. It may be that a lot of thematic choices get made at the point of character build, however, rather than action resolution, and depending on the range of powers to choose from, the frequency of level-up and the details of the retraining rules this needn't be all bad.

And even within the confines of the paladin example, the choice to keep fighting rather than hunt the shield did generate temporary hit points, reducing the degree of mechanical penalty. Depending on the precise to-hit chances of monsters at that level, and the degree of expected AC for a paladin, it may be that the mechanical penalty was very slight or perhaps even non-existent.

 

[Geoff Watson]

GNS is only good for facilitating arguments about GNS.

Correct; you'd be better off using the older GDS system (with D as Dramatist), as GNS uses weird meanings that are unlike anything in the dictionary (for N/S anyway).

To summarise GNS for those not familiar with Forgisms:

N = what Ron likes).
G = what Ron doesn't like.
S = what Ron doesn't understand.

Geoff.

 

[JesterOC]

So 4E's a Buttkicking, Storytelling System? You know what, that explains why I'm so hyped about it.

Yep, me too sign me up. If I had 5k sitting around I would even buy in to get it early. I have thought about it, but Damn 5k!

 

[JesterOC]

I fail to understand how Narrative play as described in this thread could approach anything that I would call fun.

To me it seems like it is two or more people talking about a movie and then one guy says "Hey wouldn't it have been cool if the dude was trying to save a princess instead. And the other guys say. "yeah that would be so cool". Then they all sigh and smile to each other or something.

I doubt that this is actually what some people want. To me if you do this you might as well call if writing a story more than playing a game.

So if anyone here wants to have a more Narrative D&D game. Can you give me an example of what you mean? I really don't get it, and if I was given a good example maybe I can be enlightened.

Thanks,

JesterOC