Using D&D 4e as a GNS Litmus Test
Ayyavazi:
I do want to play 4e, but perhaps not as it is designed. It kind of feels like a rat race to me. You get more abilities which are technically more powerful, but might as well not be since everything you are getting is only making you able to cope with the increasing challenge, always keeping it perfectly balanced. There is no way (apart from drifting) to actually achieve play in which the player can get ahead of the threats he is supposed to be facing. The other problems is that after two or three encounters, the powers available to the player have become repetitive and do not foster creativity of any sort that I can see or appreciate. And it takes ten encounters on average to get to a new level, where you might learn one power. Ultimately, I like the system, I just think it needs more variety, which is what I'm trying to inject. And I'm not actually trying to prevent him from using the system as is. We are both frustrated by the constraint on options, and so I am trying to get him to think outside the framework. But, its possible he would have loved the framework just fine if I had as well, since he is a new player after all.
Thanks for your input. You've got me thinking.
Cheers,
--Norm
Dan Maruschak:
Quote
You get more abilities which are technically more powerful, but might as well not be since everything you are getting is only making you able to cope with the increasing challenge, always keeping it perfectly balanced. There is no way (apart from drifting) to actually achieve play in which the player can get ahead of the threats he is supposed to be facing.
So you want the challenges to be easier to overcome as you increase levels? Wouldn't someone pursuing a Gamist agenda feel let down if he could walk through challenges without breaking a sweat?
Quote
The other problems is that after two or three encounters, the powers available to the player have become repetitive and do not foster creativity of any sort that I can see or appreciate.
I think the kind of creativity the game rewards is "what can I put together with the tools I've got?". This is why having multiple players is important (since different character class powers can synergize in different ways, modulated by the particular situation on the battlefield, like where the various characters are positioned) and why having interesting encounter locales is important (e.g. powers that move enemies are very different things if you are fighting on a bridge rather than a corridor -- you have the same powers on your character sheet, but they have very different implications in this particular fight). If the kind of creativity you are after is something more along the lines of very rich descriptions of actions having mechanical weight, then there are other systems that support that much better than D&D 4E.
Callan S.:
Hi Norm,
Quote
That's why I think it is important to showcase the various possible agendas through this medium that he learned first, before it becomes his default way of looking at gaming.
Have you asked him if he wants to see all the other agendas?
Ayyavazi:
Hey there Dan and Callan.
First, Dan. Yeah, I see your point about being able to walk over encounters without breaking a sweat. It removes the drama just a tad, doesn't it? As for playing with multiple players, believe me, if I had other players, I would. I am finding it very difficult to get a group together in my area for the time slot I have available. Because of that, I am doing the best with what I have. And the party is still 2 characters, not 1, and it looks like it will soon increase to 3 if Eli becomes a mainstay. As for other systems handling the creative drama input better, I'm sure there are. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated. The funny problem is, he is enjoying the story so much he wants to stick with the system because he has linked the system to the story in his mind. If we changed systems, he would feel like the story no longer fits. So, he wants to stay with this one for now, until we reach a point at which he thinks its good to stop. Of course, a little discussion would probably convince him that we can carry on the story just fine in another system, and that is something worth looking into.
Callan, I have asked him about pursuing all three agendas and given him a brief explanation of each. He is interested. He wants to figure out where we are going so far, and then change as necessary. But, he also has said he is perfectly willing (and wants) to continue playing the way we are if it remains extremely fun.
Now, for a general question, Which agenda is being pursued in the actual play example above? Also, is it possible to argue that each of the three agendas is being pursued, individually? That is, can someone say, "This is gamist play because," at the same time someone else says, "This is Narrativist play because," and so forth?
Dan Maruschak:
Quote
As for playing with multiple players, believe me, if I had other players, I would. I am finding it very difficult to get a group together in my area for the time slot I have available. Because of that, I am doing the best with what I have.
I wasn't intending to criticize, I can certainly sympathize with the difficulty of getting a group together to play. You may want to look into alternatives to only playing with local people -- I have recently started playing a game over Skype and I'm having a lot of fun. On the number of players thing, I was just trying to point out that you may not have fully appreciated the degree to which the number of players is important to getting the most out of the 4E experience.
Quote
As for other systems handling the creative drama input better, I'm sure there are. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.
I am not very widely read in RPGs, so hopefully others will give you better suggestions than I do, but I know that Sorceror gives you bonus dice for richly describing your actions, and I think Houses of the Blooded gives the player the ability to introduce facts into the world when they win at dice rolls. FATE, such as in Spirit of the Century, lets you do "declarations" to place Aspects on things. Any system that is more conflict-resolution focused than task-focused is probably also more conducive to on-the-fly creativity, even if it doesn't directly reward it, since people tend to get tired of describing themselves winning conflicts in the same ways.
Quote
Now, for a general question, Which agenda is being pursued in the actual play example above?
There's a possibility that you two are just excited to be playing at all, and that initial enthusiasm may overshadow any subtler nuances, like asking a starving man what he would like to eat. However, I'll try to answer, even though I'm certainly not a GNS expert. It doesn't sound like you're doing Gamism. Since you didn't focus on any in your writeup, it sounds like you weren't particularly jazzed about any cool moves or gutsy plays or things like that. There's a possibility that it's Sim ("what is it like to be a priest of Melora?") or Nar ("what am I willing to do for Melora?"). From your AP, it seems like the two of you get most excited about introducing interesting color and cool setting details. Based on that, I would guess Sim. But I'm not an expert, so I could easily be wrong.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page