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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8622570" data-attributes="member: 42582">This thread has been an interesting read, with some great posts from both of you.Fully agreed on 4e D&D (as you both know). Anyone else who's interested in more elaboration, there's this old thread: <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/pemertonian-scene-framing-a-good-approach-to-d-d-4e.333786/" target="_blank">D&D 4E - Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e</a>On story now: we all see where the narrative leads is right. So there has not be no resolution established before play. I think Ovinomancer and I disagree, however, to what extent "no myth" as such is necessary for story now RPGing. I think - based on my own play experience - that there can be story now RPGing that uses established setting, but its crucial that the setting leaves open the space both (i) for the GM to frame engaging scenes that speak to the underlying premise of the game, and (ii) for the resolution to be determined without reference to GM-only secret backstory (whether pre-authored, as in adventure notes, or made up on the spot). I think GM secret backstory is one of the most widely used GMing techniques that is at odds with story now RPGing.Following on from the above, I don't think story now has to be character-driven in a dramatic sense. Yes, the players have to have protagonism - but I think that can be manifested through elements of the fiction external to the PCs, which the players invest value in and respond to via their characters - ie, it can lean into setting. I think that 4e D&D is better for setting-oriented rather than character-oriented story now, because the PCs are rather gonzo and sometimes not that subtle, but the setting is absolutely laden with conflict and theme that the players can pick up and run with. It's like Glorantha turned up to 11! (This is something which [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] articulated beautifully in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/4e-players-why-do-you-want-5e.323784/post-5922402" target="_blank">the first post of his I remember reading on these boards</a>, sblocked just below.)[spoiler]4e Classic (4eC) sings with the right group, but requires a high degree of player buy-in to get the results that I want out of it. I tend to view 4eC as a visceral game about violently capable individuals who set out willingly or not to irrevocably enact change in their worlds who end up becoming mythic figures in their own right. This is highly reinforced in the assumed setting of the game with the backdrop of the Dawn War, tales of the fall of civilizations, and highly active Gods, Demon Princes, Primordials, etc. 4eC presents a world on fire in desperate need of heroes. Thematically it strikes the same currents that Greek Myth, the Diablo games, and Exalted does though tied to a more mortal perspective. Of course to really embrace these aspects players need to be able to shift between awareness of the game's narrative to engaging its combat encounter mini-game while remaining focused on the underlying fiction. 4eC asks a lot out of the players, but I find the relatively unique combination of satisfying my narrative jones while engaging my tactical/strategic mind incredibly refreshing.[/spoiler]I liked this post. A related thought I've often posted over the past dozen or so years: Ron Edwards, in his <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">discussion</a> of what "story now" and "step on up" often have in common in system terms, basically itemised all the aspects of 4e that generated controversy, half-a-decade before the game was released.I regard it as a strength of an analysis that it makes sense of the experiences one has and phenomena one encounters!When I first read Edwards' <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">essay on "the right to dream"</a>, I had been playing primarily Rolemaster for well over a decade. Edwards' essay made sense of so much of my RM experience that it was amazing.And asserting that such a strong proponent of RuneQuest and Champions has no clue about simulationist design is, frankly, bizarre.As for "narrativism" - the games that Edwards cites include Prince Valiant (1989), Over the Edge (1992), Maelstrom Storytelling (1997), HeroWars (2000) and The Dying Earth (2001). He also points to certain approaches to Champions and T&T taking place back in the 1980s. The idea that no one was playing RPGs in a story now fashion before Edwards invented it is also just bizarre. I was doing it, using AD&D as my (imperfect) system, back in the second half of the 1980s. (I didn't have a very good way to describe it, nor a very good understanding of the relationship between various techniques and resulting play experience, but that's a different matter.)</blockquote>

Verification