Why I'm done with 4e

[resistor]

Large numbers of HP don't simulate anything. Notice that every RPG out there that tried to be simulationist went away from exploding hitpoints. Whenever AD&D/D&D was criticized for not being realistic, Gobs of HP was usually the first thing on the list (Armor making you harder to hit was usually the second). HP and AC of course survived and thrived because they work, they make games exciting. They are pretty much the ultimate gamist rule and one of the reasons every edition of (A)D&D was firmly in the G corner of the GNS triangle.

The problem with trying to get too detail-oriented about a GNS discussion is that there's no such thing as absolutes. I'd say that what's more relevant is what relative weights the three elements receive in a design. Traditional (pre-4e) D&D had a mixture of rules, some of which were justified as "it simulates the world" (simulationism) and some of which were justified as "it makes it more fun as a game" (gamism). In general, there were very few mechanics whose justification was "it makes a better story" (narrativism).

I think what bothers a lot of people about 4e is that the relative weights of the GNS points is significantly different. Gamism still receives a lot of weight, and narrativism has probably received a boost, but simulationism is a much lower priority than it was previously.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, but some people got a head-start on hating it. In some circles, the lead time was almost a year pre-launch.

Yes, and apparently some other circles won't let old stuff drop into the past, where it belongs.

How about nobody here be part of those circles any more?

 

[BryonD]

D&D (up until 3e) has always been more "narrativist" than "simulationist."

I agree.
Of course, that is why I left D&D for better games and only "came back" when D&D caught up.

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, but some people got a head-start on hating it. In some circles, the lead time was almost a year pre-launch.

For the record (and being "all about me" ) I was one of the 4e cheerleaders when it was announced, amongst a pretty solid "too soon for a new edition" reaction that immediately followed the announcement.

My enthusiasm ran into harsh reality pretty shortly thereafter. But my issues were anything other than preconceived notions. I still chuckle about all the claims that my later concerns were repeatedly poo-pooed as commenting without having all the context. Once the game was out, the context was completely unchanged.

 

[pawsplay]

Large numbers of HP don't simulate anything. Notice that every RPG out there that tried to be simulationist went away from exploding hitpoints. Whenever AD&D/D&D was criticized for not being realistic, Gobs of HP was usually the first thing on the list (Armor making you harder to hit was usually the second). HP and AC of course survived and thrived because they work, they make games exciting. They are pretty much the ultimate gamist rule and one of the reasons every edition of (A)D&D was firmly in the G corner of the GNS triangle.

Hit points simulate staying power. "Realism" is something different than simulation. A game can be quite narrative and also realistic. D&D characters have lots of hit points because they are heroic. While some of the rationale may involve story-making, at bottom, hit points are for letting 6th level fighters wade through a squad of goblins because that's what 6th level fighters do. Dragons don't get more hit points because they are more significant in story terms or because they are meant to win, but because they are tougher. D&D simulates swords-and-sorcery, and Conan, like most action heroes, can withstand a lot of combat. High hit points simulate Conan getting hacked at by brigands and walking away with only flesh wounds and bruises.


Healing surges, in their general use, are more narratavist, because the player decides when they think it's important to win, basically.

Things can get very muddy... Torg characters live in a reality where dramatic action is reality, and hence their Possibility Points are both meta-game and in-game. From a meta standpoint, they allow dramatic action and are spent at the player's behest. From an in-game standpoint, they represent the manipulation of reality by a determined protagonist.

That's pretty muddy. Hit points, though, are simple. They represent, abstractly, your ability to not die, and they are whittled down by attacks and hazards until one gets you. Very simulationist.

 

[Ariosto]

Older editions of D&D could have benefited from guidelines like this, but they weren't there - because Gygax and co. pretty much thought that any experienced player would want to play a magic-user - so cool stunt mechanics were unnecessary.

Is this claim based on ESP, or what?

"Cool stunt mechanics were unnecessary" the same way a bicycle is unnecessary to a fish. As Dangerous Journeys illustrates, Gary was quite capable of producing a rules-heavy game when he wanted to. A reasonable conclusion -- supported by his actual statements -- is that it is by design that AD&D "fails" to get bogged down in hour-long fights.

The actually expressed assumption was that experienced players who wanted to weigh down the game would do so on their own or with help from the many articles in The Dragon. Plenty did just that, but I don't recall any indication of D&Ders widely warming to the 4e notion of "cool".

 

[Obryn]

Hit points simulate staying power. "Realism" is something different than simulation. A game can be quite narrative and also realistic. D&D characters have lots of hit points because they are heroic. While some of the rationale may involve story-making, at bottom, hit points are for letting 6th level fighters wade through a squad of goblins because that's what 6th level fighters do. Dragons don't get more hit points because they are more significant in story terms or because they are meant to win, but because they are tougher. D&D simulates swords-and-sorcery, and Conan, like most action heroes, can withstand a lot of combat. High hit points simulate Conan getting hacked at by brigands and walking away with only flesh wounds and bruises.

This definition of "simulation" is the same in which 4e's encounter powers simulate cinematic combat. That is, they simulate a genre - not physics.

As long as you're able to ask "What am I simulating?" anything can be simulationist. IME, when gamers are talking about simulation, they're generally talking about world-simulation, not cinematic simulation or pulp simulation.

-O

 

[Ssadral]

I suggest you try playing a FATE3-based game like Spirit of the Century or Diaspora, or Amber Diceless, or any number of other indie games where narrativism is an explicit element of the game design.

Pretty much this.

Plus if your a Dresden fan, the RPG is tentatively scheduled for summer of 2010.

 

[Failed Saving Throw]

All my players are WoW players, as myself as a DM. We play WoW together often, but we still enjoy getting together on occasional Saturdays to play D&D (4e, nowadays). It is a very different experience.

It is a different experience, however; I have a level 80 in WoW and one of my players has several, since he's been playing WoW ever since it was released. To us the WoW influence on 4e is clear as day. It amuses me when people stridently try to dismiss this.

 

[FireLance]

It is a different experience, however; I have a level 80 in WoW and one of my players has several, since he's been playing WoW ever since it was released. To us the WoW influence on 4e is clear as day. It amuses me when people stridently try to dismiss this.

Examples? What you consider a WoW influence on D&D may have actually started out as a D&D influence on WoW!