A Response to the Tao of Zen Nihilism
This is in response to a blog post by John Wick (via Declassified). The first chief premise is that D&D 4E will not be a role-playing game, at least insofar as it does not fit his definition of a role-playing game:
A roleplaying game is a game in which the players are rewarded for making choices that are consistent with the character’s motivations or further the plot of the story.
Rather than quibble over the definition of “what is” and “what is not” role-playing - I would rather put forward the idea that role-playing games cannot be defined in a binary “is/is not” manner. As John points out, all games can have aspects of narrative storytelling, allowing players to assume imaginary roles. The effort and reward for doing so also varies wildly across the spectrum of games. A game like chess, for example, would require a reasonable amount of effort, but virtually no reward. A game like D&D actively encourages a narrative setting - it’s as difficult (or more so) to play without a such a setting - but it still doesn’t actively encourage deep characterization with in-game rewards. Other RPGs - Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel, for example - actively encourage players to pursue character goals with their reward systems. Putting these games on an arbitrary scale of 1-10, Chess might be a 1, D&D a 5, Riddle of Steel 7, and Burning Wheel 8. To me, stating that anything with a “reward value” of less than 6 is not a role-playing game seems incredibly arbitrary. Furthermore, any game’s reward system will have at least some inherent limitation. Chess only rewards capturing the enemy king - any other goal is simply meaningless within the game. D&D has a much wider range of potential rewards - ranging from the simplistic kill things and take their stuff to the more esoteric accumulation of “power” within the game world. That power could be fame/notoriety, money, magical or physical might, political, or even basic survival. These types of goals certainly aren’t required within the game, but they are all valid and achievable “victory conditions” that a player can pursue.
The second chief premise of the post is D&D’s preoccupation with game balance. He dismisses the pursuit as pointless - “A Great and Massive Failure” - because from the very beginning of character creation, randomly rolled stats introduce an inherent imbalance between characters. While I’ll readily agree that game balance is far from easy (and is probably the hardest aspect of game design), that doesn’t eliminate the need. As a social game, the players of D&D will frequently notice any gross imbalance between their characters. As the Ultimatum Game suggests, all humans are “hard-wired” for fairness, and thus are unlikely to continue playing a game which they perceive as unfair. Some players may be willing to forgo fairness in pursuit of a story goal, but I don’t believe there are many players that will always choose the Sidekick, without at least some balancing factor. Without at least some attempt by the game designers to equalize the capabilities of the various character choices, then one or more players may find themselves consigned to the Sidekick role, watching the more capable and powerful heroes do all (or at least most) of the work. In D&D, it then becomes the task of the GM to find some way to compensate and rebalance the PCs, lest the group slowly tear itself apart.
In reading John’s article and his strong focus on story - I can’t help but conclude that his RPG preference in GNS Theory is strongly Narrativist. Based on his anecdotal thief story, from my perspective as a GM, I would have disallowed his character for anything other than one-shot adventure. Focus on character and story should never rise to the point where they become detrimental to the fun of the other players. D&D throughout its history has been most strongly Gamist, but has often drawn excessive criticism for being “muddled” - striving to be everything to everyone and failing miserably. I believe that D&D 4E is making a concerted effort to step further into the Gamist realm, while eliminating complicated or inelegant rules and paradigms that were introduced for the sake of Simulationism. From most GNS proponents, Gamism is often the whipping boy, derided as an infantile and unsophisticated style of play, but based on my twenty years of play experience, I’d wager that it also harbors the largest percentage of active or potential players.
The fact that D&D doesn’t conform to one person’s ideal gaming system doesn’t warrant the removal of the RPG descriptor.