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

[Kraydak]

You have fallen into the common trap of thinking of roleplaying as character-building. There is nothing that states being true to your character concept requires, or must be associated with, mechanically suboptimal choices.

I take (light) exception to the above suggestion. I am offended, sir, offended! That said, there is some roleplaying inherent in the process of coming up with a character design. *I* don't value that aspect of roleplaying as much as roleplaying that occurs in game-time, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

There are indeed SOME gamers who associate roleplay with character-building, and in Robin Laws' scheme, they are called method actors. These are the people who consider taking a bard and then playing up his uselessness in combat to be an excellent way of differentiating themselves from the rest of the group. Needless to say, this definition of roleplay is not universally held.

a) Bards don't suck (except in 4 person parties, and not even always then)
b) People who do the above are annoying.

In your 4E example, Thogg's player would roleplay by thinking up possible ways in which he can relate his ass-kicking schtick to each situation at hand. The DM then assigns skill checks deemed appropriate to the proposed solution, which may or may not coincide with the skill that the player had in mind. In a harmonious group, they'll probably coincide more often than not; even if not, 4E characters have much more flexibility where noncombat skills are concerned than 3E ones, so Thogg will rarely be caught completely without options. Thogg thus manages to express his ass-kicking schtick, his player remains engaged, and everyone is entertained by Thogg's asskicking antics.

There will no doubt be some situations where no plausible asskicking solution can be found, but you can't have everything.

At the level you have described above, there is *no* difference between 3.X and 4e. In 3.X, if you have a skill-set, you can always try to apply it to a situation. *If* the blog is meaningful (which, for me, given its context, means that it illuminates a *difference* between 3.X and 4e), then 4e will be taking a step farther, which means modifying the encounter to suit the character's schtick. My argument then flows.

If you take the blog at the level that you describe, it might as well have not been written, as it fails utterly to differentiate between 3e and 4e. Mind, I feel that a *lot* of dev blogs describing how cool 4e is compared to 3e seem to be written about a very different 3.X than is included in the rules...

 

[Alnag]

The mistake the OP makes in this thread is assuming that GNS theory is not, in fact, bunk. Which it is And I'm glad WOTC is aware of that fact.

I agree at least partially. I think, the 4e design as far as one can tell from the pieces presented is not "well" according to GNS yet is will be successful yet again... If I accept the terminology of GNS (for now) than there are elements of all creative agendas in 4e - gamist (for sure, very heavily), simulation (partially, yet still present) and some say narrative elements... although I am not sure about them that much.

 

[BryonD]

I also do not think that word means what you think it means.

And yet you seem to think that I care if you are wrong yet again.

 

[Vempyre]

Nobody wants to play pure narrativism games. Some might try once or twice then leave it aside.

The good stuf comes from sprinkling it at leasure (or not) into your gamist or sim games, not playing that style of "gaming" by itself.

Nobody wants to play pure gamist in RPGs either. That would be a board game, or Diablo. You have to get some sprinkling of narratives 'n simulationism into it to be truely great.

Blah blah. Same deal for simulationism games.

Edit : all those terms are a meaningless to try and define DnD anyway. DnD is DnD, it's a RPG. Anybody who's played it long enough is bright enough not to try to camp it into one of these definitions.

 

[hong]

I take (light) exception to the above suggestion. I am offended, sir, offended! That said, there is some roleplaying inherent in the process of coming up with a character design. *I* don't value that aspect of roleplaying as much as roleplaying that occurs in game-time, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I didn't say character design. I said character-building. You do not gain roleplaying karma points by doing stuff that is unfun, or sacrificing yourself on the altar of your character concept.

a) Bards don't suck (except in 4 person parties, and not even always then)
b) People who do the above are annoying.

They are, nevertheless, method actors.

At the level you have described above, there is *no* difference between 3.X and 4e. In 3.X, if you have a skill-set, you can always try to apply it to a situation. *If* the blog is meaningful (which, for me, given its context, means that it illuminates a *difference* between 3.X and 4e), then 4e will be taking a step farther, which means modifying the encounter to suit the character's schtick. My argument then flows.

The difference is as much in the zeitgeist as it is in the rules. Look at how many people have been saying that the player getting to roll a History check to escape guards is silly; 4E is about trying to overturn that preconception, and it's doing that by loosening up the way that skills can be applied. So yes, the encounter can be modified to suit the character's schtick, and how that happens is as much in the hands of the player as the DM. The DM still retains veto power, but the point is that purely negative roleplay -- "I am an asskicker because when it comes to non-asskicking situations, I do nothing" -- is to be minimised.

Consider also previous information on things like skill challenges, where the entire party is given the task of accumulating X successes to achieve a given objective, and exactly how they get those X successes is left for them to decide.

If you take the blog at the level that you describe, it might as well have not been written, as it fails utterly to differentiate between 3e and 4e. Mind, I feel that a *lot* of dev blogs describing how cool 4e is compared to 3e seem to be written about a very different 3.X than is included in the rules...

If your current approach to the game is the same as the zeitgeist described, then yes, 4E will feel samey to you. But if so, then where's the downside? You'll be doing exactly what you're doing now, with no big jarring paradigm shift or anything to worry about.

 

[hong]

And yet you seem to think that I care if you are wrong yet again.

Oh, I am sure you do not care if those words do not mean what you think they mean.

 

[wgreen]

Hay guyz,

I will be everybody's bestest friend if we can stop talking about GNS in these threads. All it leads to is Forge-bashing, which is a shame, because despite what your personal opinions of the forum or the model may be, it's helped a great number of people. And, since nobody 'round these parts agrees on what the terms mean, it's singularly unhelpful.

So, what do you say? Eh? Any takers? Ehhhh?

Thanks!

-Will!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

hong, BryonD, since the 4E discussions have begun months ago, I have developed a phobia against red colored text. Please try your best to avoid it. You don't want me to shiver and cover in my chair due to the sheer terror of red colored text, do you?

red *aaaaah*

 

[xechnao]

The only thing I honestly wish the designers would have thought of is better gradations of success and failure. Really, "Fumble-Fail-Succeed-Crit" is SOOOO 1980s.

Give me minor successes and minor failures in D&D and I can do Narr - to hell with what the acolytes and badwrongfun police say.

QFT.
A design like this would also fix the sim problem of HPs and of other resources too.

 

[Nytmare]

The only thing I honestly wish the designers would have thought of is better gradations of success and failure. Really, "Fumble-Fail-Succeed-Crit" is SOOOO 1980s.

Give me minor successes and minor failures in D&D and I can do Narr - to hell with what the acolytes and badwrongfun police say.

You're still rolling for damage, doesn't that give you enough gradation to narrate along?

Fumble - miss - minor success - success - major success - crit?