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

[Sojorn]

I'd say that the 4e design team is focused on making a good game. Some of them may be familiar with these indie games, but -- if Ryan Dancey is any indication -- the Forge isn't high on their radar.

There are a number of different ways to look at this GNS thing -- all of which spiral into a tornado of death.
<snip the rest of a very, very nice post>

Agreed.

When I said play styles, I wasn't referring to GNS specifically, even though I had mentioned it just the sentence before. I mean the essence that GNS is apparently attempting to categorize and define, and makes much more static sounding then it actually is.

But I would point out that GNS as playstyles isn't a set of three exclusive modes of being. It's not like you're a Dwarf, and Elf or a Human. Nope, I look at GNS as a dynamic spectrum. Some people stay in one area almost exclusively. But others shift dynamically, even within the same scene or game. And their expectations shift too.

Oh, yeah, that. EXACTLY.

GNS is something I only heard about last week so you'll have to excuse any confusion I have with the concepts. And it sounds like they're confusing even to experts

But it does sound like what I'd be interested in would be a Kludge. With a capital K even, wow. Given a history years long arguing against "unfocused" gameplay, I can now see why the OP would get edgy about the blog post.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

In a long blog post, Rodney Thompson confirm to us that the designers intent on D&D 4E is still to deliver a game that support a twisted gamist/simulationist playstyle.

Why? Because he says that players should be rewarded both for :

1) Using the best strategy

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

Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.

Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.


*In narrativist play, the players are rewarded to move the story / evolve their character in a original / interesting way.

While I am enjoying the GNS discussion I wanted to get back to the OP. For those that have been asking, here is a link to the blog.

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=48904&pagemode=2&blogid=2100

I fail to see the OP's point. I read the article and could not draw the same conclusions. I am seeing Rodney making a case on how 4E isn't just a wargame but I don't see how this in any way is saying that 4E will be even close to 3.x in the simulation category. From everything I have seen and heard (including Rodney's blog) this is still a large step away from simulation and much more a gamest with Narravest elements system. I am still not seeing a twisted gamist/simulationist playstyle.

 

[marune]

While I am enjoying the GNS discussion I wanted to get back to the OP. For those that have been asking, here is a link to the blog.

http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=48904&pagemode=2&blogid=2100

I fail to see the OP's point. I read the article and could not draw the same conclusions. I am seeing Rodney making a case on how 4E isn't just a wargame but I don't see how this in any way is saying that 4E will be even close to 3.x in the simulation category. From everything I have seen and heard (including Rodney's blog) this is still a large step away from simulation and much more a gamest with Narravest elements system. I am still not seeing a twisted gamist/simulationist playstyle.

Evil Quote from the blog : A roleplaying game rewards the player for making choices that are consistent with his character.

That's is Sim support hard wired in the game design.

 

[marune]

Is this how XP is going to be dealt with in 4th Ed? I was under the assumption that it was becoming a "show up x times and go up a level" system?

That would be really bad, XP should be the main reward system of D&D.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

That would be really bad, XP should be the main reward system of D&D.

One thing I always liked with WoD XP was at the end of the session the ST could deal out say 1-2 XP for RPing well, 1-2 XP rewarded when a flaw comes into play to the detriment of the character, etc.

Just gave a bit more of a reward to actually RPing well. Though I imagine translating that into D&D XP be hard, given the exponential numbers of XP needed as you go up, and that the XP numbers in general that mean anything are high.

 

[hong]

I kind of feel 4e is moving away from 3.X's:

1) Character design (roleplaying of a sort)
2) Encounter a situation (no roleplaying)
3) Determine a goal (lots of roleplaying)
4) Determine tactics and RoE (some roleplaying)
5) Dice rolling

towards (not entirely by any means, but significantly in the case of the skill challenges)

1) Character design (as above0
2) Encounter a goal (no roleplaying)
3) Determine what circumstances would allow your character to achieve that goal in the way most appropriate to how he wished he could act (roleplaying of a sort, I guess)
4) Dice rolling.

for a net massive loss of roleplaying. Your character isn't defined *by* his encounters, but by *how* he chooses to deal with them.

You have a rather odd metric for "roleplaying".

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Evil Quote from the blog : A roleplaying game rewards the player for making choices that are consistent with his character.

That's is Sim support hard wired in the game design.

That is one of the greatest non sequitors I've ever seen on this board.

 

[marune]

That is one of the greatest non sequitors I've ever seen on this board.

If you fail to recognize what is a Simulationist creative agenda, that's not my problem.

 

[BryonD]

You have a rather odd metric for "roleplaying".

Hey! Look! Irony

 

[small pumpkin man]

If you fail to recognize what is a Simulationist creative agenda, that's not my problem.

The problem is that has nothing to do with the complaints people are making when they say "4e is not simulationist", which has to do with the apparent difficulty of using 4e to make a consistant world that feels "real" to people.

Thompson said nothing about that.

I'd also like to point out that these arguments are really starting to show me the limitations of the GNS descriptions.

Edit- most of this has been discussed like 5 times in this thread allready, hasn't it?