R. Thompson : D&D still a sim/gamist RPG

marune · Mar 18, 2008

In a long blog post, Rodney Thompson confirm to us that the designers intent on D&D 4E is still to deliver a game that support a twisted gamist/simulationist playstyle.

Why? Because he says that players should be rewarded both for :

1) Using the best strategy

2) Acting in character, or "roleplaying" (I don't like this definition of roleplay, but anyway).

Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.

Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.

*In narrativist play, the players are rewarded to move the story / evolve their character in a original / interesting way.

Badkarmaboy · Mar 18, 2008

skeptic said:
In a long blog post, Rodney Thompson confirm to us that the designers intent on D&D 4E is still to deliver a game that support a twisted gamist/simulationist playstyle.

Why? Because he says that players should be rewarded both for :

1) Using the best strategy

2) Acting in character, or "roleplaying" (I don't like this definition of roleplay, but anyway).

Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.

Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.

*In narrativist play, the players are rewarded to move the story / evolve their character in a original / interesting way.

I'll have to jump in and disagree with your last point. There is absolutely nothing in this rule set that hinders a narrativist playstyle. In fact, I find that it lends itself quite well to both the DM and players developing an interesting narrative.

marune · Mar 18, 2008

Badkarmaboy said:
I'll have to jump in and disagree with your last point. There is absolutely nothing in this rule set that hinders a narrativist playstyle. In fact, I find that it lends itself quite well to both the DM and players developing an interesting narrative.

A player playing a paladin with a strict code having already to deal with the confusing gamist/sim way of taking actions cannot reasonably be asked to come with an interesting narrative on top of it (and such without rewards!).

Irda Ranger · Mar 18, 2008

skeptic said:
Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.

There's never been a pure gamist D&D, so I don't know what anyone's missing. Pure gamism is Chess, or whatever.

skeptic said:
Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.

*In narrativist play, the players are rewarded to move the story / evolve their character in a original / interesting way.

Replace "Killing monster = XP Award" with "Advance story/plot = XP Award." Done.

marune · Mar 18, 2008

Irda Ranger said:
There's never been a pure gamist D&D, so I don't know what anyone's missing. Pure gamism is Chess, or whatever.

I disagree. Gamist != No Exploration (a.k.a roleplay), that is not a gamist RPG but a boardgame.

Gamism = risk, strategies, guts decision, challenges as TOP priority.

Simulationism = Exploration ("roleplay") as TOP priority.

So, a clearly-focused gamist RPG can be made without ending up with Chess.

Irda Ranger said:
Replace "Killing monster = XP Award" with "Advance story/plot = XP Award." Done.

That's no so simple, because levels don't help you make better story, only killing bigger monsters (i.e. overcoming bigger challenges).

Kishin · Mar 18, 2008

Badkarmaboy said:
I'll have to jump in and disagree with your last point. There is absolutely nothing in this rule set that hinders a narrativist playstyle. In fact, I find that it lends itself quite well to both the DM and players developing an interesting narrative.

This.

The OP is arguing semantics.

tombowings · Mar 18, 2008

skeptic said:
Exploration ("roleplay")

Where are you pulling this from?

Dausuul · Mar 18, 2008

skeptic said:
Sorry for everyone who dreamed to have a clearly focused gamist RPG.

Even more sorry for those who were looking to add a narravist* layer on top of it.

Yay for those of us who think GNS theory is extremely dubious as a guide to making good RPGs, and would rather see WotC focus on improving D&D as it's actually played.

FourthBear · Mar 18, 2008

skeptic said:
A player playing a paladin with a strict code having already to deal with the confusing gamist/sim way of taking actions cannot reasonably be asked to come with an interesting narrative on top of it (and such without rewards!).

Wow, you certainly have low expectations of players! I can easily imagine asking my players to not only pay attention to the complicated set of rules in any edition of D&D *and* that they contribute to the overall narrative of the campaign. I've done so not only in previous editions of D&D, but a fair number of other RPGs.

VannATLC · Mar 18, 2008

tombowings said:
Where are you pulling this from?

2) Acting in character, or "roleplaying" (I don't like this definition of roleplay, but anyway).

What in blue blazes are you talking about?

What other defination of Roleplay, other thank playing a role, exists?

R. Thompson : D&D still a sim/gamist RPG

marune

First Post

Badkarmaboy

First Post

marune

First Post

Irda Ranger

First Post

marune

First Post

Kishin

First Post

tombowings

First Post

Dausuul

Legend

FourthBear

First Post

VannATLC

First Post

Similar Threads