Once More, Defining "Swine"

[RPGPundit]

Is there any evidence for '4E was based on Forge theories' besides your paranoid megalomania?

That it specifically aimed to be one-third of the game 3e was so as not to be 'incoherent', and then lost two-thirds of its fan base as a result, specifically as I predicted it would?

[estar]

Is there any evidence for '4E was based on Forge theories' besides your paranoid megalomania?

Well there is the fact that all of the initial D&D 4e adventures were presented as interlinked miniature wargame scenarios. As well as the conventions adventures in the first year or so. It was pretty predictable how an adventure was structure for a 4 hour block. Initial roleplaying, a combat taking up a hour and a half, a second combat taking up another hour and a half, and the concluding roleplaying.

It was obvious that D&D 4e was viewed as a miniature wargame first and formost. Now in its defense the three corebooks didn't come off of this way. Yes it used the grid and miniatures but it was very much a tabletop RPG. (although not D&D but a different game using the name). However the followup products Wizards opted to focus on the miniature wargame, fantasy superhero 24/7.

And from interviews given by Rick Baker and the design team it was obvious they were heavily influenced by GNS and opted to make D&D 4e a GAME for GAMISTS. (all caps intended).

[jhkim]

It was obvious that D&D 4e was viewed as a miniature wargame first and formost. Now in its defense the three corebooks didn't come off of this way. Yes it used the grid and miniatures but it was very much a tabletop RPG. (although not D&D but a different game using the name). However the followup products Wizards opted to focus on the miniature wargame, fantasy superhero 24/7.

And from interviews given by Rick Baker and the design team it was obvious they were heavily influenced by GNS and opted to make D&D 4e a GAME for GAMISTS. (all caps intended).

People were making miniature wargames - and miniature wargame-focused RPGs - long before there was GNS theory.  

Did Rick Baker actually say anything about GNS?

[ArrozConLeche]

I don't know what Rick Baker has said, but here's an interesting link to a Ron Edwards interview. Relevant quote:

've also noticed that modern purported old-school ideology disdains D&D 4E which was a full callback to that tourney D&D, itself practically synonymous with the word "D&D" around 1980, and therefore 4E was more old-school than most of what's called old-school today.

If you put that in context with this post regarding the OSR , I think that it's reasonable to conclude Ron Edwards thought at one point  that 4e fits the Gamist definition. Relevant part of the quote is the reference to tourney play as in the quote above:

As far as I can tell, both Gamism and Narrativism are alive and well in vibrant, often strange colors, but always within the strange presumption that Agenda magically emerges from "simulatory" mechanics. The Gamism may draw upon the legacy from tourney play, especially the idea of the DM as referee; the Narrativism seems to be greatly valued in some cases as long as no one ever says they want it or, gag and spit, plan it.

[ArrozConLeche]

I was sort of jesting with the truism, but you are right.

It's ephemeral, when the players are committed and the GM is totally committed, something happens. Like a "peak moment" that keeps rolling along. That's how I know there's some art to it. If you've never had that experience, then I can't bother to explain it to you over text on the screen.

[estar]

People were making miniature wargames - and miniature wargame-focused RPGs - long before there was GNS theory.  

Did Rick Baker actually say anything about GNS?

How about this from his blog.

http://richard-baker.blogspot.com/2012/10/greetings-all-time-for-another-exciting.html

We had a good discussion of which edition of D&D we wanted to run, and I settled on 3.5 with some small tweaks. (I like running 4e, but we've spent the last few years pushing minis around on the map and using encounter powers, and I wanted something that felt a little more sim-driven than gamist.)

or

http://richard-baker.blogspot.com/2012/01/5e-announcement-more-on-game-vs-sim.html

while 4e made a conscious decision to NOT model the wizard-housecat battle, because part of the core philosophy of the system is that heroes should be matched up against appropriate monsters. That's a very gamist view (or, if you like, a sim of heroic fantasy movies/novels, not a complete fantasy world). The simulationist view is that if you go into a place where you might expect to find a cat and attack one, you're now fighting a cat.

[estar]

People were making miniature wargames - and miniature wargame-focused RPGs - long before there was GNS theory.  

Yes but the designers of those games weren't trying to do to conform to some grand RPG theory of everything.

[Armchair Gamer]

Yes but the designers of those games weren't trying to do to conform to some grand RPG theory of everything.

  And so far, we don't seem to have much evidence that the 4E design team was either. (Baker's quotes come from 3-4 years post-design, and are descriptive of the result, not necessarily a prescriptive philosophy used during the process.)

[jhkim]

http://richard-baker.blogspot.com/2012/10/greetings-all-time-for-another-exciting.html

http://richard-baker.blogspot.com/2012/01/5e-announcement-more-on-game-vs-sim.html

And so far, we don't seem to have much evidence that the 4E design team was either. (Baker's quotes come from 3-4 years post-design, and are descriptive of the result, not necessarily a prescriptive philosophy used during the process.)

First of all, thanks, estar for the quotes.  It is suggestive, though not definitive. Has anyone asked him about it?  

I would note that his use of "simulationist" is in keeping with the older Threefold Model usage, not necessarily Ron Edwards' GNS.  Still, GNS was more widely touted at the time among game design circles, and it did push the idea of focused coherence - where the Threefold did not.  So it seems like a plausible theory that he was influenced by GNS.

[estar]

And so far, we don't seem to have much evidence that the 4E design team was either. (Baker's quotes come from 3-4 years post-design, and are descriptive of the result, not necessarily a prescriptive philosophy used during the process.)

Sigh, whatever, find some quotes that supports your position.

D&D 4e was designed to be a game first and a roleplaying game second. It wasn't quite so obvious at first but slightly later when the adventures, sourcebooks, and organized play stuff came out it became obvious what the Wizards team had in mind. Then through blogs, interviews, etc we find out the why. Namely one or more of the primary designers liked GNS and the RPG Theory in general and used those ideas by it to make D&D 4e a game focused on gamist play.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I think Estar makes a pretty compelling case guys. It also jibes with my memories of the discussions brewing when 4E launched.

[rawma]

My recollections of the discussions at the time of 4e was the complaint that they were trying to mimic World of Warcraft in a paper-and-pencil role-playing game. Of course that would end up being described as more gamist after the fact, but still no evidence that the decision was made to avoid "incoherence" according to somebody's theory. The success of collectible card games and the popularity of more-game-than-simulation board games would seem enough reason to go more game than simulation.

Occam's Razor says burden of proof still on estar.

[RPGPundit]

I don't know what Rick Baker has said, but here's an interesting link to a Ron Edwards interview. Relevant quote:

How amusing.  I guess this OSR-disdain was from before he decided he wanted to take credit for inventing the movement, huh?

[ArrozConLeche]

How amusing.  I guess this OSR-disdain was from before he decided he wanted to take credit for inventing the movement, huh?

I like Ron and his stuff, so  take this with a grain of salt. That disdain seems to be rooted in what I can only describe as "hurt feelings" more than anything. At least that is how it looks to me from the outside.

I mean, most of the OR seems to have categorically rejected  his views directly,. The 4e edition is widely disdained in that space, yet he seems to think it's "more OSR than the OSR" Because it leans Gamist. That's another rejection.

Then there was the whole business with Slay w/ Me and the full page add he took addressing old school gamers. If I remember correctly, the reactions were mostly negative.That one in particular had to hurt, as I think he was truly earnest there.

It's like when you desperately want to join a club and bring in your ideas but the members dismiss them out of hand.

[estar]

Then there was the whole business with Slay w/ Me and the full page add he took addressing old school gamers. If I remember correctly, the reactions were mostly negative.That one in particular had to hurt, as I think he was truly earnest there.

It's like when you desperately want to join a club and bring in your ideas but the members dismiss them out of hand.

It sucks when that happens.

People miss the point of the OSR is to play D&D or something similar. It is not about playing Sorcery & Sorcery, Dungeon crawling, or whatever people thought OD&D was about. Stuff like Stars without Number, White Star, Arrows of Indra, Dark Albion, my Majestic Wilderlands, Starships & Spaceman, Mutant Future, etc succeed because they tie back to classic D&D in terms of mechanics although each of them have very different take on genre and theme.

With that being said there is a path where a non-D&D game can be successfully promoted to the OSR as exemplified by Dungeon Crawl Classic. The secret sauce is to publicize heavily and use the OSR social network to help DEVELOP the game. Because as much as the OSR is about D&D it also about doing it yourself projects and collaborative efforts. ("Hey I will edit your book if you draw me some maps").  

The game would have to have something of interest of course. Slay w/ Me qualified on that point. The author would have to be able to listen to criticism and feedback. What doesn't work  is to sit in isolation writing and then come down like Moses with your latest and greatest.