R. Thompson : D&D still a sim/gamist RPG
- Thread starter marune
- Start date
Lackhand said:
If I want to sell a novel, I will hint about plot or theme development points. In rpgs setting background that makes its way to the rules is a kind of storytelling focus of a game than the new edition will lack at launch. Instead of alignments, pantheons, world relations and specific problems you will be (and already are) elaborating your thoughts on board game rules. Even as a DM. There is no Greyhawk now and we know that settings will change -so for 4e fans not worth it investing your creativity in forgotten realms or eberron development right now. Instead you will get encounters ready for use and what you mostly need is to think and learn how they are designed to play out so you can use them at their best. DDI seems a perfectly matching tool or interface to this gameplay-gamestyle.
Instead of thinking of D&D as the background story you need to develop, they mostly remind you to focus thinking of it as a tabletop game first. It is a question of emphasis or focus of the 4e launch.
While 3e was largely accepted and welcomed as a rules tide up of a game that could desperately benefit from, 4e now seems more of a new game than the rules tide up of 3e from 2e.
Last edited:
Hussar
Legend
xechnao said:
You are assuming that the game will be so different that you will be unable to use the flavor elements from previous editions? I strongly disagree.
Where do you get this from? From the delve format at DDXP? Because, that's how the Delves have been run since they started, regardless of edition.
I have never thought of D&D as a background story that I needed to develop. I never used Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. For me, D&D has always been the ruleset I've used to develop my own material, aside for a couple of years delving into Scarred Lands.
I suggest you look at the pdf that's being flogged on the front news page here at Enworld. That will truly help to set you straight.
Halivar said:
I'm not against rewards for "good in-character acting"
What I really don't like to have in D&D (and personally in any RPG) is the Sim idea that players should be rewarded foremost to play their character up to their definitions (a.k.a. paladin code and such).
BTW, I won't answer to blatant criticisms to GNS/BigModel/Forge essays.
As a long time Forgite who's played many, many, many Narrativist games, let me come out and say that I'm HAPPY that 4e is not a focused, gamist system. Or a focused ANYTHING system.
I've played D&D (all editions - except Brown Box) and I've played (and bought) more Indie press offerings than I can count -- including Donjon.
And I've found that the "problem" with focused games is that they're boring.
Allow me to clarify.
A "focused" game strives towards coherency which ties it into a particular experience and supports that experience/playstyle at the table. You couldn't -- for example -- divorce "Under the Bed" or "My Life with Master" from their very specific and supported experiences. Sure, you could change genre. But in practice, that's more an issue of changing the fluff of the session, while the basic experience remains the same.
In execution, I've found this makes many "focused" games one-trick ponies.
For example, Donjon. A great game. A lot of fun. It shows that a game can be narrativist and gamist at the same time. I've played it with a number of groups. And we've played a few short adventures with it over the past 10 years of so.
But once the players have gotten over the novelty of the mechanics, they're on to something new. And, in my opinion, that's the problem with the indie games that attempt to adhere to the Forgey stuff.
Let me qualify my statements by saying I love them. Absolutely do. I've bought my weight in books from IPR. And some of the most exciting stuff published at the moment comes from people like Vincent, Clinton and Czege. Hands down brilliant stuff.
But "focused" games tend to lack depth. Once you've gotten over the inventive quirks of the rules or setting, it's on to something new.
That said, I could see a group playing Spirit of the Century and Burning Wheel for a long period of time. But both those games offer a bit more that I think supports longer-term, campaign-style play. And, believe me, I've tried to entice groups to a longer term Mountain Witch game. But there's just no interest.
And these are guys that write and devour indie games like Doritos at a game table.
In my experience, most indie games wind up as one-shots or parlor games merely because they only support one (perhaps two) playstyles and often do so with no more than a novel and simplistic mechanic. Once that novelty has passed, the group typically shelves the game and heads back to D&D (if you're lucky). In many cases, the group lacks cohesion (thanks to essentially playing nothing but one-shots) and play is sporadic (maybe twice a year as opposed to twice a month).
So let me say I'm glad that 4e isn't a "focused" game. I'm glad that it's "incoherent" and doesn't adhere to GNS or the "Big Model". Because I honestly think that D&D is on to something when it comes to long-term, regular, team-focused play in a variety of styles. From the classes to the wonky, incoherent mechanics and subsystems. I think D&D is designed to never feel stale. Or at least to preserve game freshness for more than a few sessions.
As far as Narrativist play in D&D goes, it's always been possible. There are a number of threads on the Forge in Actual Play where groups or DMs did their best to work Narr into D&D -- each meeting with different degrees of success and usually an admonition or two by Ron.
In fact, I would argue that one of the reasons it's such a frequent topic on the Forge is because groups/gamers actually want the kind of long-term play and "choose-your-play-focus" incoherence that D&D directly (or indirectly) supports. I believe these guys/gals (usually DMs) feel that if they could get their Narr jollies off the world's most popular RPG then all their problems would be solved.
But has D&D ever supported Narr play? Nope. Not well, if at all. And 4e won't officially give us any supported paths to achieve that objective either. But they've left us hooks in there. Something that no edition of D&D has ever done. And here's why I think 4e will more easily support Narr play than previous editions...
1) Separation of combat and non-combat abilities. This makes the game easier for those interested in Narr play because they're no longer penalized for taking those 12 skill ranks in Blacksmithing. Also, the options during combat are simpler and are expressed in terms of mechanical effects, allowing players to engage in Narr play every time they use a manuever in a specific situation.
2) Actual rules for non-combat encounters. From all we've seen, this mechanic looks like a pared down version of Extended Contests from HeroQuest. Each round, you set a stake. The GM sets a difficulty. Dice are rolled and the results are narrated. If the DM would allow a player to narrate the results, then this would be a Narr mechanic practically cribbed from the Forge. And, even better, PCs get XP for non-combat encounters now. Not that they couldn't before, but the hand-wavy nature of it has gone the way of Large Dragons and Half-Orcs. I don't think we've ever had an official mechanic in D&D that so approximately emulates and supports Narrativist play.
3) Action Points and Healing Surges. Note that this is the FIRST edition of D&D to offer currencies such as this in the core rules. An innovation that TSR's own Marvel Super Heroes started playing around with has finally made its way into 4e. And really. If you don't understand how either of these two currencies could be easily bent to Narr use, you should stop pretending to be a Forgite.
And that's not even mentioning the myriad numbers of House Rules from 3e that can inject more Narr into 4e -- including adding the Keys from tSoY (which Clinton himself did for d20), adding Drama/Destiny/Hero Points that give players Narr options and other fun tweaks like the "Death Flag", "Players Roll All the Dice" and "Raising the Stakes" from Epic6. All of which are either just as easy (or easier) to apply to 4e.
For my part, I'm glad that D&D is incoherent and unfocused. I'm giddy that I finally have a seat at the table with a little twist of N added to what was previously a system designed for S and barely supported G playstyles. Streamlining and optimizing the G, downplaying a bit of the S and making it easier to N, makes D&D more of a playstyle Swiss Army knife.
And I think that was a wise choice. Take away my Forge merit badge, if you must.
Because I think that -- combined with the breadth of options and relative depth of mechanics -- D&D insures that my upcoming 4e group will meet (and play) more than the 3-4 times a year that my previous THREE indie groups did.
And I'm looking forward to rolling some dice.
I've played D&D (all editions - except Brown Box) and I've played (and bought) more Indie press offerings than I can count -- including Donjon.
And I've found that the "problem" with focused games is that they're boring.
Allow me to clarify.
A "focused" game strives towards coherency which ties it into a particular experience and supports that experience/playstyle at the table. You couldn't -- for example -- divorce "Under the Bed" or "My Life with Master" from their very specific and supported experiences. Sure, you could change genre. But in practice, that's more an issue of changing the fluff of the session, while the basic experience remains the same.
In execution, I've found this makes many "focused" games one-trick ponies.
For example, Donjon. A great game. A lot of fun. It shows that a game can be narrativist and gamist at the same time. I've played it with a number of groups. And we've played a few short adventures with it over the past 10 years of so.
But once the players have gotten over the novelty of the mechanics, they're on to something new. And, in my opinion, that's the problem with the indie games that attempt to adhere to the Forgey stuff.
Let me qualify my statements by saying I love them. Absolutely do. I've bought my weight in books from IPR. And some of the most exciting stuff published at the moment comes from people like Vincent, Clinton and Czege. Hands down brilliant stuff.
But "focused" games tend to lack depth. Once you've gotten over the inventive quirks of the rules or setting, it's on to something new.
That said, I could see a group playing Spirit of the Century and Burning Wheel for a long period of time. But both those games offer a bit more that I think supports longer-term, campaign-style play. And, believe me, I've tried to entice groups to a longer term Mountain Witch game. But there's just no interest.
And these are guys that write and devour indie games like Doritos at a game table.
In my experience, most indie games wind up as one-shots or parlor games merely because they only support one (perhaps two) playstyles and often do so with no more than a novel and simplistic mechanic. Once that novelty has passed, the group typically shelves the game and heads back to D&D (if you're lucky). In many cases, the group lacks cohesion (thanks to essentially playing nothing but one-shots) and play is sporadic (maybe twice a year as opposed to twice a month).
So let me say I'm glad that 4e isn't a "focused" game. I'm glad that it's "incoherent" and doesn't adhere to GNS or the "Big Model". Because I honestly think that D&D is on to something when it comes to long-term, regular, team-focused play in a variety of styles. From the classes to the wonky, incoherent mechanics and subsystems. I think D&D is designed to never feel stale. Or at least to preserve game freshness for more than a few sessions.
As far as Narrativist play in D&D goes, it's always been possible. There are a number of threads on the Forge in Actual Play where groups or DMs did their best to work Narr into D&D -- each meeting with different degrees of success and usually an admonition or two by Ron.
In fact, I would argue that one of the reasons it's such a frequent topic on the Forge is because groups/gamers actually want the kind of long-term play and "choose-your-play-focus" incoherence that D&D directly (or indirectly) supports. I believe these guys/gals (usually DMs) feel that if they could get their Narr jollies off the world's most popular RPG then all their problems would be solved.
But has D&D ever supported Narr play? Nope. Not well, if at all. And 4e won't officially give us any supported paths to achieve that objective either. But they've left us hooks in there. Something that no edition of D&D has ever done. And here's why I think 4e will more easily support Narr play than previous editions...
1) Separation of combat and non-combat abilities. This makes the game easier for those interested in Narr play because they're no longer penalized for taking those 12 skill ranks in Blacksmithing. Also, the options during combat are simpler and are expressed in terms of mechanical effects, allowing players to engage in Narr play every time they use a manuever in a specific situation.
2) Actual rules for non-combat encounters. From all we've seen, this mechanic looks like a pared down version of Extended Contests from HeroQuest. Each round, you set a stake. The GM sets a difficulty. Dice are rolled and the results are narrated. If the DM would allow a player to narrate the results, then this would be a Narr mechanic practically cribbed from the Forge. And, even better, PCs get XP for non-combat encounters now. Not that they couldn't before, but the hand-wavy nature of it has gone the way of Large Dragons and Half-Orcs. I don't think we've ever had an official mechanic in D&D that so approximately emulates and supports Narrativist play.
3) Action Points and Healing Surges. Note that this is the FIRST edition of D&D to offer currencies such as this in the core rules. An innovation that TSR's own Marvel Super Heroes started playing around with has finally made its way into 4e. And really. If you don't understand how either of these two currencies could be easily bent to Narr use, you should stop pretending to be a Forgite.
And that's not even mentioning the myriad numbers of House Rules from 3e that can inject more Narr into 4e -- including adding the Keys from tSoY (which Clinton himself did for d20), adding Drama/Destiny/Hero Points that give players Narr options and other fun tweaks like the "Death Flag", "Players Roll All the Dice" and "Raising the Stakes" from Epic6. All of which are either just as easy (or easier) to apply to 4e.
For my part, I'm glad that D&D is incoherent and unfocused. I'm giddy that I finally have a seat at the table with a little twist of N added to what was previously a system designed for S and barely supported G playstyles. Streamlining and optimizing the G, downplaying a bit of the S and making it easier to N, makes D&D more of a playstyle Swiss Army knife.
And I think that was a wise choice. Take away my Forge merit badge, if you must.
Because I think that -- combined with the breadth of options and relative depth of mechanics -- D&D insures that my upcoming 4e group will meet (and play) more than the 3-4 times a year that my previous THREE indie groups did.
And I'm looking forward to rolling some dice.
Last edited:
Kwalish Kid
Explorer
Amen.smathis said:
The rest of the post is really decent, too.
smathis 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)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
June 16 2026 -
June 16 2026 -
September 16 2026 
Arcana Unleashed(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.
Replies (250) -
September 16 2026 -
October 1 2026 -
October 6 2026 -
January 1 2027 -
January 1 2027
