@andreszarta
Thanks for the link upthread to the Vincent Baker blog post. I've just finished reading through the comments. There's a lot in there that's interesting; here's one exchange that seemed relevant to this thread:
So in the case of 4e, how do we do this?
Passionate character requires using the right bits of PC build. I'm on record as saying that rangers and halflings are weaker, here, than (say) tieflings and warlocks. I'm prepared to accept that maybe someone could build a passionate halfing archer, but I've got my doubts.
Turning point - in 4e I think this most naturally comes from the setting rather than from the character's inner life. In my campaign it began as "order" (humans, settlements, victims of slavers) vs "the wild" (slavers, gnolls, threats to the human settlements, etc) and that gradually shifted to the Dusk War (is it here? and what does it mean?).
Fit opposition - I think Goblins, Gnolls, Duergar, Drow are great. I think kruthiks, Kobolds, swordwings and many fey are a bit weak. At least, they would require shifting one's conception of the turning point quite a bit from how the setting speaks to me by default.
Rising conflict across a moral line - this is the hard bit in D&D, I think. For D&D-ish epic fantasy, where it is the setting rather than the character's inner life that seeds conflict, I really have one well I keep going back to draw from (and these days I think of it in terms of Wagner's treatment in the Ring Cycle) - mortal choice in the context of the divine plan. I think 4e provides the material for this - see the creatures I mentioned above, the Dusk War, etc. And the ancient, and also recently fallen, empires, which record the working out of the divine plan so far and provide material for that rising conflict across a moral line.
On the other hand, every time a dragonborn NPC turns up to whom Arkhosia means nothing; every time the Nerathi ruins are mere colour but don't feed into some sort of choice about how the characters are oriented towards the working out of the destiny of things; the rising action across a moral line gets diluted, and we drift from story now into a type of high-action sim, or maybe some colourful gamism.
The 4e books - monster manuals, setting supplements, in my view the whole idea of the Draconomicon, etc - are full of this sort of crud that will undermine your "story now" play if you let it. The players have to build their passionate characters, but as GM I think you have to constantly be on the lookout, making sure you avoid this stuff that will just get in the way (even if it looks really fun and colourful).
I'm not saying things can't be done with it - because of some backstory (I can't recall now if I made it up or took it from a sourcebook) about the Raven Queen having reached a pact with some aberrant stars to hide her name, the star spawn took on a thematic resonance in my game that they don't necessarily bring by default. And maybe in someone else's game dragons could do that. But I'd still caution against getting sucked into the depths of the Draconomicon. (Open Grave and Demonomicon don't pose the same immediate risk, because the link between undead and demons (on the one hand) and the mortals-vs-divine-plan rising conflict across a moral line (on the other) tends to scream off every page.)
And finally, Resolution - the mechanical system will help make this collaborative, rather than "GM decides". But you have to be prepared to follow it where it leads. Big picture: let the players change things - the world, the planes, rulers, whether this Goblin shaman remains sworn to Maglubiyet, etc. Minutiae: follow the PbtA idea (which is also in BW and Torchbearer) of descriptive and prescriptive, even if this means changing PC sheets in ways the rules don't contemplate. Eg the human wizard multi-class invoker paragon path divine philosopher in my game, upon dying and being restored to life, was revealed as a deva invoker multi-class wizard paragon path divine philosopher, and in due course Sage of Ages. The rebuilt PC was mechanically legal, and closely emulated the old PC in many ways; but there is no rule of the game permitting this sort of rebuild. In due course I let his Sage of Ages stuff work with his invoker bits even though they're not Arcane because it would be pointless not to. When the PCs in our game chose themes (around 20th level - they weren't a thing in the rulebooks when we started) I designed two custom themes and adapted a third (Devil's Pawn) to make it a manifestation of the PC's Book Imp familiar.
Anyway, those are some thoughts prompted by reading Vincent and interlocutors!
Thanks for the link upthread to the Vincent Baker blog post. I've just finished reading through the comments. There's a lot in there that's interesting; here's one exchange that seemed relevant to this thread:
Vincent Baker: If we collaboratively address theme for three sessions in the middle of a campaign but not for the whole campaign, we weren't playing Narrativist the whole time, just for those three sessions. It's very important to note that it takes significant time to address theme: one character decision, one scene, is VERY RARELY sufficient. . . .
Narrativism, Simulationism, Gamism - they operate at a time scale you can generally measure in hours. They are not present in moment-to-moment decisions.
Thor Olavsrud: If it's impossible to isolate discrete decisions made in moment-to-moment play and determine whether they support one of the three CAs (and I don't mean to dispute your assertion that it's not), how can I possibly design rules that help make moment-to-moment decisions reliably create theme over the course of play?
Vincent Baker: Passionate character, turning point, fit opposition, rising conflict across a moral line, crisis, resolution. That's how.
Narrativism, Simulationism, Gamism - they operate at a time scale you can generally measure in hours. They are not present in moment-to-moment decisions.
Thor Olavsrud: If it's impossible to isolate discrete decisions made in moment-to-moment play and determine whether they support one of the three CAs (and I don't mean to dispute your assertion that it's not), how can I possibly design rules that help make moment-to-moment decisions reliably create theme over the course of play?
Vincent Baker: Passionate character, turning point, fit opposition, rising conflict across a moral line, crisis, resolution. That's how.
So in the case of 4e, how do we do this?
Passionate character requires using the right bits of PC build. I'm on record as saying that rangers and halflings are weaker, here, than (say) tieflings and warlocks. I'm prepared to accept that maybe someone could build a passionate halfing archer, but I've got my doubts.
Turning point - in 4e I think this most naturally comes from the setting rather than from the character's inner life. In my campaign it began as "order" (humans, settlements, victims of slavers) vs "the wild" (slavers, gnolls, threats to the human settlements, etc) and that gradually shifted to the Dusk War (is it here? and what does it mean?).
Fit opposition - I think Goblins, Gnolls, Duergar, Drow are great. I think kruthiks, Kobolds, swordwings and many fey are a bit weak. At least, they would require shifting one's conception of the turning point quite a bit from how the setting speaks to me by default.
Rising conflict across a moral line - this is the hard bit in D&D, I think. For D&D-ish epic fantasy, where it is the setting rather than the character's inner life that seeds conflict, I really have one well I keep going back to draw from (and these days I think of it in terms of Wagner's treatment in the Ring Cycle) - mortal choice in the context of the divine plan. I think 4e provides the material for this - see the creatures I mentioned above, the Dusk War, etc. And the ancient, and also recently fallen, empires, which record the working out of the divine plan so far and provide material for that rising conflict across a moral line.
On the other hand, every time a dragonborn NPC turns up to whom Arkhosia means nothing; every time the Nerathi ruins are mere colour but don't feed into some sort of choice about how the characters are oriented towards the working out of the destiny of things; the rising action across a moral line gets diluted, and we drift from story now into a type of high-action sim, or maybe some colourful gamism.
The 4e books - monster manuals, setting supplements, in my view the whole idea of the Draconomicon, etc - are full of this sort of crud that will undermine your "story now" play if you let it. The players have to build their passionate characters, but as GM I think you have to constantly be on the lookout, making sure you avoid this stuff that will just get in the way (even if it looks really fun and colourful).
I'm not saying things can't be done with it - because of some backstory (I can't recall now if I made it up or took it from a sourcebook) about the Raven Queen having reached a pact with some aberrant stars to hide her name, the star spawn took on a thematic resonance in my game that they don't necessarily bring by default. And maybe in someone else's game dragons could do that. But I'd still caution against getting sucked into the depths of the Draconomicon. (Open Grave and Demonomicon don't pose the same immediate risk, because the link between undead and demons (on the one hand) and the mortals-vs-divine-plan rising conflict across a moral line (on the other) tends to scream off every page.)
And finally, Resolution - the mechanical system will help make this collaborative, rather than "GM decides". But you have to be prepared to follow it where it leads. Big picture: let the players change things - the world, the planes, rulers, whether this Goblin shaman remains sworn to Maglubiyet, etc. Minutiae: follow the PbtA idea (which is also in BW and Torchbearer) of descriptive and prescriptive, even if this means changing PC sheets in ways the rules don't contemplate. Eg the human wizard multi-class invoker paragon path divine philosopher in my game, upon dying and being restored to life, was revealed as a deva invoker multi-class wizard paragon path divine philosopher, and in due course Sage of Ages. The rebuilt PC was mechanically legal, and closely emulated the old PC in many ways; but there is no rule of the game permitting this sort of rebuild. In due course I let his Sage of Ages stuff work with his invoker bits even though they're not Arcane because it would be pointless not to. When the PCs in our game chose themes (around 20th level - they weren't a thing in the rulebooks when we started) I designed two custom themes and adapted a third (Devil's Pawn) to make it a manifestation of the PC's Book Imp familiar.
Anyway, those are some thoughts prompted by reading Vincent and interlocutors!
.
