D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[Micah Sweet]

I agree, wish lists were merely a technique that was referenced in one sentence. Yet 4e-bashers flailed on that line of text to no end! If you were a player, and you read it and picked up on it, you COULD JUST ACT, the worst that could happen is the DM threw it in your face, right? I mean, realistically he might ignore it, more likely it will at least color his thinking, and OFTEN GMs said "thank goodness, I don't have to do this work!" In fact, most 4e GMs seem to have felt that way.

Most GMs who enjoyed running 4e seemed to have felt this way. If 4e didn't end up appealing to you (I ran it for a year but ultimately discarded it) the wishlist idea was yet another reason not to like the edition.

 

[hawkeyefan]

OK, I get it. To me such unmoored dramatic needs seem incredibly shallow and lack any proper emotional weight and of course it would be impossible for me to immerse into a character who doesn't even have rudimentary knowledge of their own past, but to each their own.

This is the kind of deliberate “let me assume the worst” kind of post that really makes it hard to have a conversation.

I don’t think @niklinna is into incredibly shallow play that lacks emotional weight. I would assume that’s not really the goal of most folks here.

The fact that you don’t want to proceed with the idea that the goal is engaging and exciting play, and then figure out how that can be achieved despite the difference in approach, is pretty lousy.

Having played examples of both games, I can tell you that Story Now games don't lack for depth or dramatic weight. The characters are not unmoored, with no sense of their own history. That you would categorize them as such reveals your lack of knowledge on the topic, because as others have been saying throughout this thread, they are essential to play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was referring to the following hypothetical situation we have created together, in which:

I am a game designer

I am designing a game utilizing Story Now techniques.

I am unable to appeal to both players and Game Masters in said game to promote Story Now, and am instead forced to choose one or the other to appeal to.

No worries. I just think it's funny.

Oh agreed! I was just trying to clarify the purpose of the hypothetical. Not to imagine a scenario where an editor kicks in a door and yells at a writer “I said advice for either GMs or players, not both you crazy bastard!”

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Weird. Because the 2E DMG give explicitly cooperative guidelines about players researching (i.e. creating their own) spells. I get that it's a meme that DM's don't read the 5E DMG...but was that a thing all the way back in 2E as well? 2E DMG Black Cover, p64.

Basically the same spell research rules go all the way back to the original game, though I think they weren't spelled out until maybe Eldritch Wizardry or something? I'm not sure. Anyway, tons of spells were getting added every month in The Dragon/SR, WD, 3PP materials, and just by players in games. I think the thought was that its not a big deal if a wizard gets a new spell, that's just interesting. It still counts against the limits in their books, and they can only memorize so many spells. If the character makes a scroll or just does spell research, they also burn a lot of cash, so it wasn't a common thing, particularly later on in 1e or in 2e where the spell lists were HUGE.

Magic Items are, however, a totally different thing, and specifically involve quests. The 2e DMG rules on that are incredibly harsh! Even the 1e rules were quite harsh already, as any permanent item, even a +1 dagger, required Permanency (an 8th level spell acquired at 15th level) as well as Enchant an Item (level 6, acquired at 11th level). Permanency demands sacrificing a point of CON as well! These spells, and thus presumably requirements, continue to exist in 2e as well. On top of that 2e goes into a LOT of details about just how extraordinarily hard it is to make items and the crazy stuff that is needed as ingredients. 99% of items are utterly not worth making in either system and crafting items was very rare in AD&D (my level 14 Wizard made one item once, obviously a non-permanent one).

Frankly I found this system to be poorly thought out and designed, it was clearly intended to simply kill off any real attempt to make items while lampshading how they could exist at all. I remember creating a substitute set of rules and spells at some point, though I am not going to try to dig up the notebooks they'd be in. I wasn't alone, many people were disappointed. The message was clear though, players stay in their place as receptacles of the largesse of GMs! lol.

 

[overgeeked]

Most GMs who enjoyed running 4e seemed to have felt this way. If 4e didn't end up appealing to you (I ran it for a year but ultimately discarded it) the wish list idea was yet another reason not to like the edition.

I think that's a great example of the other side doing exactly what the Story Now people are trying to do. Taking a brief reference to one possible idea and blowing it wildly out of proportion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is the kind of deliberate “let me assume the worst” kind of post that really makes it hard to have a conversation.

Look. I'm working here with what I've been provided with. I assume nothing. I directly responded to the example provided.

I don’t think @niklinna is into incredibly shallow play that lacks emotional weight. I would assume that’s not really the goal of most folks here.

The fact that you don’t want to proceed with the idea that the goal is engaging and exciting play, and then figure out how that can be achieved despite the difference in approach, is pretty lousy.

Having played examples of both games, I can tell you that Story Now games don't lack for depth or dramatic weight.

If all I know about character is that they fear heights and love their sister and that's it, then to me it is shallow. If people feel otherwise, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong.

The characters are not unmoored, with no sense of their own history. That you would categorize them as such reveals your lack of knowledge on the topic, because as others have been saying throughout this thread, they are essential to play.

Right. And I didn't assume that Story Now characters are unmoored without knowledge of their history. I assumed they have backstories. Except that I was just provided that this is not necessarily the case. I was merely directly responding to what Nik said.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's about not what I want it to say, it is about what I think it says. And I really don't think it is saying anything revolutionary. Players always had an option to declare goals for their characters.

Sure. You think the GM should be the only source of story. Any player "contributions" are to be vetted, manipulated, and approved by the GM before being allowed into play. Effectively, player "contributions" are just writing oromots for the GM. Hence your focus on backstory as a GM approved set of GM prompts for GM provided story.

In this framework, ANY mention of the GM approving anything is subsumed into this thinking. No amount of "say yes" or "should" or any of the other changes to GM advice in 4e matters because we can just beeline back to "the GM is the unquestioned boss, okay, players only get things at the GM's desire". There can be no other explanation because of how obvious it is that the GM is just in charge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sure. You think the GM should be the only source of story. Any player "contributions" are to be vetted, manipulated, and approved by the GM before being allowed into play. Effectively, player "contributions" are just writing oromots for the GM. Hence your focus on backstory as a GM approved set of GM prompts for GM provided story.

In this framework, ANY mention of the GM approving anything is subsumed into this thinking. No amount of "say yes" or "should" or any of the other changes to GM advice in 4e matters because we can just beeline back to "the GM is the unquestioned boss, okay, players only get things at the GM's desire". There can be no other explanation because of how obvious it is that the GM is just in charge.

No. There is no 'should'. I'm sure any approach is fine. I am merely not projecting my wishes on the text. And considering that D&D indeed has a long primacy of GM authorship tradition, had they wanted to break that they would have said so explicitly, and not expected to people to figure it out via a textual Rorschach test.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, they're not. And no, it isn't.

4E DMG, p102. "Quests are the fundamental story framework of an adventure—the reason the characters want to participate in it. They’re the reason an adventure exists, and they indicate what the characters need to do to solve the situation the adventure presents."

That's it. The rest of the section is about what their components are and how to put them together and how to use them. There's nothing even approaching the level of import you say is there. It's simply not. I get rose-colored glasses, but damn.

Yes, fundamental story framework and if you read PHB p1-8 you will read about how D&D is a 'storytelling game', so what would be more core to such a game than the fundamental story framework? Since ALL of 4e consists of 'adventures' (I see nothing to suggest there is any other significant activity envisaged in the game, unless you count 'downtime' as significant) that means quests are the core conceptual framework, along with adventures, to which they are pretty much indivisibly married for the most part. So, we will simply have to totally disagree. IMHO, while you can technically just not declare any quests, you cannot play actual 4e as designed and not have quests. No more than you can play AD&D and not have XP and gold.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Look. I'm working here with what I've been provided with. I assume nothing. I directly responded to the example provided.

You absolutely made assumptions. Your entire post consisted of them.

If all I know about character is that they fear heights and love their sister and that's it, then to me it is shallow. If people feel otherwise, I'm not going to tell them they're wrong.

Perhaps if that's all you ever know, sure. But don't you think more will come up during play? Or did you assume it would not?

Do you stop at page one of a book or the first couple minutes of a film and lament the shallow characters that have been introduced? Do you assume this is all you'll ever know of these people? Or do you expect you'll learn more?

Right. And I didn't assume that Story Now characters are unmoored without knowledge of their history. I assumed they have backstories. Except that I was just provided that this is not necessarily the case. I was merely directly responding to what Nik said.

What makes you assume the character doesn't know their own history? Of course they would, unless they were suffering from some form of amnesia or something. Of course the character will have a backstory. That it hasn't all been decided before play even begins doesn't prevent it from happening.

You're assuming that only the pre-established backstory approach to characters can be satisfying for a player, or dramatic in play.

Instead of asking "I've always found I'm more invested in a character when I have a strong sense of who they are already; how does this minimal approach to backstory and character traits result in investment?" you instead decide to assume the worst. That it doesn't, and the person you're talking to has tastes that are beneath yours.