skeptic said:I have certainly less play experience with indie RPGs than you, but here I must disagree.
The key idea of my OP is : What is done to the G part is good, it's the "downplaying S" that isn't enough for 1) my personal taste (my ideal is a nicely mixed G/N RPG like Burning Wheel*), 2) for those wanting to add a N layer on top of it.
My example was the classic paladin already tortured by his G/S alternatives.
*(without much emphasis on the lifepaths part of it)
Yet in Rodney's own post, his paladin chooses (essentially) a Narr-style sub-optimal choice by not going after his shield.
If he was tuned into G mode, he would have gone for the shield for the bonus.
If he was tuned into S mode, he would have probably just taken a breather. He was just dropped to negative hit points only seconds before.
But, in N mode, he jumped back into the fray (sans-shield) because that's what was good for the story. And because that's what he felt his character would do. He chose a sub-optimal choice, unencumbered by any sense of "realism" applied to the environment.
If anything 4e has downplayed D&D 3e's Simulationist foundation. Hence, you see all the grognards who are pissed off because Healing Surges don't make sense or because getting fully healed up between encounters isn't "realistic".
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I see 4e as a boon to Narr-play.
Or at least as much of one as we could ask for from D&D.
Hong stated it well that GNS is only good for arguing about GNS.
But I don't understand how 4e could simultaneously screw over Sim by becoming a boardgame/CCG/MMO and at the same time decrease Narr possibilities by boosting/retaining Sim while implementing undoubtedly the most Narr D&D subsystems in the history of the game.
Sure. It's not Burning Wheel. But it was never going to be.
Maybe selecting a more realistic basis for comparison might help.
I mean, if you were going to do Narr D&D, would you rather have 3e?