Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6120980" data-attributes="member: 6688858">It sounds easy, but can you  think of any game that actually has great advice for using the same  game element in different ways for different playstyles like this? Would  this be a first in RPG history? I feel like something about this has to  be more difficult than I'm imagining...Yes, I didn't get a narrativist metagame agenda from the  4e books at all, so changes like removing the alignment restriction from  the Paladin came across to me as just making the game more bland (same  thing with a lot of things 4e does differently from earlier editions:  magic items as build elements rather than awards, XP as a pacing  mechanic rather than an award, etc.). It seems to me that in general 4e  modifies these mechanics so that they're not gamist mechanics anymore,  but without going all the way towards making them narrativist mechanics  (or by supporting them with pointedly narrativist advice)--they're just  put into a sort of neutral position. I think I have a pretty good  understanding now of why you find these changes to be helpful, or less unhelpful, for vanilla narrativist fantasy supers D&D, but I think the typical 4e game plays  more like the typical 4e published adventure.It's the same thing for me reading the opinions of people in this thread  who support the idea of reducing restrictions and the GM's control over  the player's portrayal of their paladin, but without making it clear  what the point of that would be in their view. What is the player going  to do with that extra freedom? Less restriction and more freedom for the  player doesn't necessarily appeal to me if I don't know how that would  make the game more interesting.I think unless the designers of a game understand the value and  importance of a metagame creative agenda*, then there's going to be a  natural tendency over time to remove those game elements that strongly  support one or another creative agenda, because those elements are going  to be the most contentious to people of different tastes. Eventually  you have a game that is very inoffensive and bland where almost all of  the fun relies on the GM's particular campaign pitch rather than the  game itself. I don't think that's good for the game--it hampers communication and networking between players of different groups, but more importantly it puts too much pressure on the GM to bring all the fun and creates a play culture where the GM's job is to entertain the players rather than play a game with them (the 4e DMG actually says somewhere that the DM's job is to entertain the players. I didn't like that.)*which I don't think the DDN designers do, or at least I haven't read anything to give me the impression that they do. I think Monte Cook has a good feel for gamism, but he left the project unfortunately.  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6668292" target="_blank">JamesonCourage</a> <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?335686-So-what-s-the-problem-with-restrictions-especially-when-it-comes-to-the-Paladin/page24&p=6115428&viewfull=1#post6115428" target="_blank">here</a> is Manbearcat's post if you would like to see it.</blockquote>

Verification