It's possible to make an argument that 4e focuses more on tactical wargame mechanics than having fictional physics with a reasonable amount of verisimilitude. I would not couch it in GNS terminology, because GNS "theory" is incoherent nonsense. It's a shame Ron Edwards went and took a whiz in the already-shallow pool of RPG design terminology.
GNS theory was incredibly useful when it came out. As I've already said, it's mostly seen as a sort of "early work" that's ultimately flawed by everyone but disgruntled D&D fans. At the time however, people weren't really talking about RPG design. Ron Edwards brought people to actually talk about how RPGs are developed and what kind of RPGs could be developed.
Additionally, while the GNS theory itself is mostly frowned on outside of disgruntled grognards, some of the other ideas behind it - especially player stance - is still incredibly valid if not more so. Understanding author, actor, and pawn stance can go a long, long way to understanding the different editions of D&D, with director stance serving for understanding DMs and DMing.
|
These days I only see it come out...why, in threads just like this. To "prove" that 3e is better then 4e.3rd edition is better. 3 IS the magic number, after all. I grew up with a song telling me that, so it has to be true.
And I grew up with a song telling me that 1 is the Loneliest Number ... yet I still enjoyed 1st edition.
... though at times it did make me sad T__T
EDIT: To be fair, I wasn't actually even alive when this came out but my dad played records from that whole era all the time so that was my musical influence.
3e is simulating *itself*. That's very different from attempting to simulate a particular setting. Obviously the world you get when you actually do use the rules to drive the simulation is very peculiar even compared to any setting written with 3e in mind, but it can be treated as a simulation if you derive "How the World Works" from the rules. The same thing is of course true of 4e.
This concept doesnt make any sense to me, except in the most trivial of ways. Can you give an example of any RPG ruleset which isnt simulating itself? If they all do - then 'simulationist' isnt a very useful adjective.
I personally find the gamist-simulationist dichotomy quite a useful way of separating out concepts, provided its not used in a dogmatic sense that all games are either one or the other. I find it helps me clarify why I like to houserule some areas but not others (and why some rules have to stay, but others can be glossed over in my games).
HP? HP is a big one. I'd go so far as to say that you can't have a "simulationist" game that uses D&D-style HP; it's far, far too much of a gamist mechanic.
Experience points and class levels are another silly concept if you try and find a real-world analog (especially if you pool experience and split it amongst the party - so the rogue disarms a trap, everyone has a good night's sleep and the mage wakes up suddenly able to cast fireballs).
GNS, "The Big Model" and pretty much anything else spewed out of "The Forge" are nothing more than puff intended to make their authors sound smart and sell whatever tripe they were trying to market at the time.
Seriously - all of this garbage from the mind of the guy that said role-players are brain-damaged, and that's why you should subscribe to his pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
No, it was incoherent nonsense then, too. There's no functional separation between "narrativist" and "simulationist", and the entire essay pushed the idea of building games strictly to the hypothetical tastes of players (who don't separate themselves into these three pools), to the point of ridiculousness.
Yes, this is why the GNS theory is flawed and is seen as flawed now. Well done!
When I say it had purpose, I mean it got people talking. Why they agreed or disagreed with the essay. What they thought game design was really about, what the differences between types of games were. This wasn't being done beforehand.
Author, actor, and pawn has the exact same problem where Edwards can't make any sort of effective distinction between a player who is trying to tell a story and a player who is trying to decide their character's actions based on in-universe motivations. Hell, it doesn't even do a good job of separating actor and pawn, since most RPGs have "become stronger" as an overriding IC and OOC goal.
Well for starters, it's author, actor, pawn, and director. Secondly there's nothing saying you can't be doing more then one. Thirdly, each stance is very distinguished from each other, so you're setting up a very false premise here which tells me you don't actually know what they are.
Again, the stances are very useful for seeing narrative styles in a game. OD&D was very heavy on pawn-stance influenced gaming. 2e really, really loved actor stance. 4e pushes for both actor and author stance.
It'd be one thing if Edwards just sat on his tiny forum and made awful games. But no, he had to go and take a whiz in the gaming terminology pool by tainting common-use words with goofy, nonsensical "definitions."
Sorry, Dogs in the Vineyard is objectively one of the best games out there. Congrats on being objectively wrong.
Counterpoint - 3e was not "simulationist" in the slightest. The idea that it was came not from 3e but from 4e as a means to divide the two editions by those who disliked 4e.
It was simulationist compared to 4E or BECME, probably even 1E though I'd seriously consider debating that one. The terminology works, after a fashion (i.e if we keep it to basic commonly understood versions of the word), particularly if we keep the subject matter down to just editions of D&D and avoid trying to bring other RPGs (or especially other games or media or what not) into the discussion.
I completely disagree that the idea sprang from nothing only with the release of 4E. During the 3.x era I was involved in a number of debates on the topic comparing 3rd to 2nd and 1st.
It's possible to make an argument that 4e focuses more on tactical wargame mechanics than having fictional physics with a reasonable amount of verisimilitude. I would not couch it in GNS terminology, because GNS "theory" is incoherent nonsense. It's a shame Ron Edwards went and took a whiz in the already-shallow pool of RPG design terminology.
The problem here is I only have the vaguest idea of what you mean. It gets even more confusing when I realize that I did more really wargame like things with every edition except 4E. I played Red Arrow Black Shield in BECME, Parts of the big Dragonlance series of adventures in 1E and had a huge battle with hundreds of miniatures in both 2nd and 3.5. Nothing on these scales has yet happened in any 4E game I've been in though I recognize that its certianly possible.
This concept doesnt make any sense to me, except in the most trivial of ways. Can you give an example of any RPG ruleset which isnt simulating itself? If they all do - then 'simulationist' isnt a very useful adjective.I personally find the gamist-simulationist dichotomy quite a useful way of separating out concepts, provided its not used in a dogmatic sense that all games are either one or the other. I find it helps me clarify why I like to houserule some areas but not others (and why some rules have to stay, but others can be glossed over in my games).
You can stick Gamist-Simulationist on a continuum but how Narrativist fits in is trickier. Narrativist seems to be more like a bell curve related to the Gamist-Simulationist continuum. Its pretty easy to have lots of Narrativism so long as you are not at either extreme of the continuum.
GNS theory was incredibly useful when it came out. As I've already said, it's mostly seen as a sort of "early work" that's ultimately flawed by everyone but disgruntled D&D fans. At the time however, people weren't really talking about RPG design. Ron Edwards brought people to actually talk about how RPGs are developed and what kind of RPGs could be developed.No, it was incoherent nonsense then, too. There's no functional separation between "narrativist" and "simulationist", and the entire essay pushed the idea of building games strictly to the hypothetical tastes of players (who don't separate themselves into these three pools), to the point of ridiculousness.
Author, actor, and pawn has the exact same problem where Edwards can't make any sort of effective distinction between a player who is trying to tell a story and a player who is trying to decide their character's actions based on in-universe motivations. Hell, it doesn't even do a good job of separating actor and pawn, since most RPGs have "become stronger" as an overriding IC and OOC goal.
The temptation to try and split things into three nice, neat groups is very strong. The problem is that Edwards can't seem to form discrete groups.
It'd be one thing if Edwards just sat on his tiny forum and made awful games. But no, he had to go and take a whiz in the gaming terminology pool by tainting common-use words with goofy, nonsensical "definitions."
Hmmm...well thinking about it and here I agree with you. The common sense definitions are in fact more useful in terms of the discussion then GNS theory and its rather odd definitions. Its the railing against the use of any terminology that irritates me. I'm all for returning to common sense usage. Particularly if it helps to allow people to discuss the philisophical underpinnings of the various editions instead of having everything get derailed into a hate-athon for GNS theory (seriously does anyone actually like GNS theory? I've only ever met haters and those are legion).
(seriously does anyone actually like GNS theory? I've only ever met haters and those are legion).
Edwards himself abandoned it and distanced himself from it.
Also, I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but under said theory, isn't it impossible to be in two different "circles" at the same time?
For the record, Dogs in the Vineyard was written by Vincent Baker, not Ron Edwards, which actually makes it even worse.
I removed a post and a reply to it. Please don't misquote people.
|
I don't flip over to the dark side often, but was intrigued by this thread so for the first time went to the wotci web and read the article.
Same ole' Mearls.
Imho he's fishing around for "what is D&D" when there are whole communities of gamers who know exactly what it is. He states that he wants to understand the game.
I remember when the burden of coming up with 4e was thrust upon him by the R&D department, several years before its announced arrival. Now that he's one of the few who haven't been fired from wotci, I wonder if his 5e will be any better than 4e.
He's too rules-focus, too mechanics focused, and seldom when reading the article did I feel like he understands the feel of D&D. Modular designs have been around since the BOXM versions, yet he's looking for ways to make a game under the name "D&D" that actually feels like D&D. What a novel idea, yet he missed his shot with 4e imo.
And think about the mandate over there: to make books and boxes that sell versus serve the community. The article seems to indicate he's looking for yet another way to slice and dice the same old stuff and realizes different rulesets will further fragment the community. On this point, I give kudos.
Tough part is... there are two games today that very much deliver D&D well. Pathfinder RPG and Castles & Crusades. There may be others, but these two come to mind as optimal D&D.
Its too bad about how things have to be these days. Just a short time ago, the wotci were bashing old school gamers, saying "this isn't your daddy's D&D" and now, after having jumped the shark, they're attempting to appeal to us with diagrams of Lum the Mad, essays on rust monsters, and ecologies of the tentamort. Its as if Mearls is working hard to undo a lot of the gamer-hate initiated by the wotci marketing team. Unfortunately the damage was too severe and there's really no going back.
In today's world of so much communication, its pretty easy to discern what seems like propaganda from actual customer concern. And this fishing-around-for-5e just reminds me why I haven't bought a product of theirs since the first verion of the GSL was released.
But thanks for the link, and I must say it was refreshing to go back to my formerly favorite website for the first time in 3 years. In all seriousness I wish Mearls well, because many of his colleagues have already been fired from wotci in their annual thanksgiving-firings. I wonder if he suspects he's next to go?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Typical rant/threadcrap
Referring to WotC as "wotci" only serves to degrade the already tenuous credibility of your posts. If you dropped the whole religious nut act, you might find people more receptive to your arguments and opinions.
Tough part is... there are two games today that very much deliver D&D well. Pathfinder RPG and Castles & Crusades. There may be others, but these two come to mind as optimal D&D.
You forgot Dungeons & Dragons.
In today's world of so much communication, its pretty easy to discern what seems like propaganda from actual customer concern. And this fishing-around-for-5e just reminds me why I haven't bought a product of theirs since the first verion of the GSL was released.
You forgot about all those minis you bought.
I remember when the burden of coming up with 4e was thrust upon him by the R&D department, several years before its announced arrival. Now that he's one of the few who haven't been fired from wotci, I wonder if his 5e will be any better than 4e.
Rob Heinsoo was the lead designer for 4E. Mike Mearl's could not have made 4E in the manner we have it. He's to backward focused, to much the 1E fan.
I'm sure the politics of the fan base would keep him from ever working for Paizo but I actually think that is too bad. He would probably like working on Pathfinder and I suspect he would create mechanics and adventures that would very much appeal to that side of the D&D fan base.
He's too rules-focus, too mechanics focused...yet he's looking for ways to make a game under the name "D&D" that actually feels like D&D. What a novel idea, yet he missed his shot with 4e imo.
I cut out the chunk of this that felt most like a blatant attack without really addressing the issue. That said I do agree with you - he really is too rules focused, to often he looks to mechanics that make the game feel 'realistic'. He has to much of a simulationistic bent. There is a chunk of the D&D audience - and by chunk I mean somewhere around 1/2 (maybe 40% maybe 60%, doubt anyone really knows) that think D&D is best when its emphasizing these simulationistic elements. The other half tends to be much more willing to hand wave these elements and instead focus on the story.
The most famous example of this on these boards would be the big debate on the 'cut scene' in Curse of the Crimson Throne. The cut scene of course violates every rule of the game - it completely ignores the fact that there is a rule set upon which the world is based. It does, of course, have a method to this madness, there was important story elements that were meant to be conveyed in this scene.
Paizo has never done such a cut scene again and some of their designers have pointed that out. I think they made the right choice - it jives well with the sorts of fans they have acquired. Fans that feel that a rule set that emphasizes that the DM and the players are playing in the same world and the 'laws of game physics' apply to both sides of the screen.
Would such a cut scene work in 4E? Absolutely and without argument. 4E runs on DM fiat with guidelines. The NPCs do what the DM says they do simply because the DM says it is so. They have the powers the DM says they have because he says it is so and the rules are little more then his tools to shape as he needs to tell the story he intends to tell. If the DM says NPC X slaughters NPC Y using his own crossbow bolt and does it in one blow - well that is how it went down. The DM is the rules and they bend to the needs of the DM.
I use a lot of cut scenes in 4E and really WotC would do well to emphasize them in their adventures as well. They work very well with the system.
Another example, closer to the skill system, is that in PF lava is a discrete element with consistent rules. If the DM sticks lava in the encounter then its simply a matter of looking up how lava works and recording this information so that the DM knows what to do when the players interact with the Lava. At its core the rules tell us what happens when players encounter lava.
In 4E Lava does not have a discrete state - lave exists to work as part of a scene and its impact and effects are variable - existing to convey the scene the DM is trying to portray. The DM uses the skill mechanics to create this scene and the outcomes of this interaction are what the DM says they are not what the rules say they are because there are no rules that specifically say Lava always works in this manner.
Bringing this back around to Mike Mearl's - well I agree with you in the idea that we somewhat have 'the same old Mike Mearls' and I definitely see issues with what he is doing because he clearly prefer's a system where the rules tell us how the elements of the scene work. That is fine for roughly 1/2 of the D&D fanbase, but 4E tends to appeal to the side of the fanbase where the story trumps the rules, or more accurately where the rules exist help convey the story.