Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The roots of 4e exposed?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7463878" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Just as a point of intellectual history: you do realise, don't you, that The Forge is quite hostile to White Wolf/Storyteller, and largely indifferent to D&D but with a mild sympathy for its classic/OSR version.</p><p></p><p>For someone who gets worked up about what you see as falsehoods by critics of 4e, though, you don't hold back in posting nonsense about The Forge and the "threefold model".</p><p></p><p>From <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">"Simulationism: the Right to Dream"</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">However, contrary to some accusations, [simulationism is] not autistic or schizophrenic, being just as social and group-Premise as any other role-playing. The key issues are shared love of the source material and sincerity. Simulationism is sort of like Virtual Reality, but with the emphasis on the "V," because it clearly covers so many subjects. Perhaps it could be called V-Whatever rather than V-Reality. If the Whatever is a fine, cool thing, then it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you are imagining, and vice versa. (By "you" in that sentence, I am referring to anyone at the table, GM or player.) To the dedicated practitioner, such play is sincere to a degree that's lacking in heavy-metagame play, and that sincerity is the quality that I'm focusing on throughout this essay. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising Simulationist design.</p><p></p><p>From <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">"Gamism: Step on Up"</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">References to Gamism tend to be dismissive, superficial, and often backhanded ("except for the Gamists," "my inner Gamist," etc). . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[T]he first step is to renounce a judgmental and dismissive approach about "those awful Gamists." The second is to renounce the less-judgmental but equally-dismissive "those Gamists" attitude, which might be called the NIMBY view. And then, finally, to renounce the sort of guilty-liberal, halting, apologetic defensive line as well. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Gamist play, socially speaking, demands <em>performance with risk</em>, conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key . . . This is the whole core of the essay, that such a commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing, just as it's viable for nearly any other sphere of human activity.</p><p></p><p>From <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">Narrativism: Story Now</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">There cannot be any "<em>the </em>story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than toward strategy and guts. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "<em>the </em>guy who thinks THIS, and does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the conflict, and a conviction that is proved to <em>us </em> . . . constitutes theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have been moved to do so at an emotional level. . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates Narrativist play in a number of ways.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience of the action.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens in tandem with the real-people statements.</p><p></p><p>I agree re 4e and gamism - though [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] on these boards articluated a coherent gamist version of 4e which is nothing like Gygaxian "skilled play" but rather is quite "light", and is about showing off your schtick in a given encounter.</p><p></p><p> [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] used to argue that 4e is a type of high concept simulationism as you suggest - I tend to agree with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], that it is best suited to "story now" instead. Not that it couldn't be done in a high concept fashion, but I think that would tend to make for more tedious play because the "heaviness" of the mechanics would still be there, but they wouldn't be giving as much payoff (with the outcomes pre-settled) as they do with a more "story now" focus. And I think it's pretty obvious how many 4e mechanics exhibit the features of FitM resolution that Edwards calls out in the passage I just quoted.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: Just saw this follow-up post:</p><p></p><p>Absolutely! There is a very frequent assumption, in posting on these boards, that the only reliable way to get "story" in RPGing is through GM-railroading.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?611305-What-is-*worldbuilding*-for" target="_blank">We recently had a big thread about it</a>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7463878, member: 42582"] Just as a point of intellectual history: you do realise, don't you, that The Forge is quite hostile to White Wolf/Storyteller, and largely indifferent to D&D but with a mild sympathy for its classic/OSR version. For someone who gets worked up about what you see as falsehoods by critics of 4e, though, you don't hold back in posting nonsense about The Forge and the "threefold model". From [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/]"Simulationism: the Right to Dream"[/url]: [indent]However, contrary to some accusations, [simulationism is] not autistic or schizophrenic, being just as social and group-Premise as any other role-playing. The key issues are shared love of the source material and sincerity. Simulationism is sort of like Virtual Reality, but with the emphasis on the "V," because it clearly covers so many subjects. Perhaps it could be called V-Whatever rather than V-Reality. If the Whatever is a fine, cool thing, then it's fun to see fellow players imagine what you are imagining, and vice versa. (By "you" in that sentence, I am referring to anyone at the table, GM or player.) To the dedicated practitioner, such play is sincere to a degree that's lacking in heavy-metagame play, and that sincerity is the quality that I'm focusing on throughout this essay. . . . Pound for pound, Basic Role-Playing from The Chaosium is perhaps the most important system, publishing tradition, and intellectual engine in the hobby - yes, even more than D&D. It represents the first and arguably the most lasting, influential form of uncompromising Simulationist design.[/indent] From [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/]"Gamism: Step on Up"[/url]: [indent]References to Gamism tend to be dismissive, superficial, and often backhanded ("except for the Gamists," "my inner Gamist," etc). . . . [T]he first step is to renounce a judgmental and dismissive approach about "those awful Gamists." The second is to renounce the less-judgmental but equally-dismissive "those Gamists" attitude, which might be called the NIMBY view. And then, finally, to renounce the sort of guilty-liberal, halting, apologetic defensive line as well. . . . Gamist play, socially speaking, demands [I]performance with risk[/I], conducted and perceived by the people at the table. What's actually at risk can vary - for this level, though, it must be a social, real-people thing, usually a minor amount of recognition or esteem. The commitment to, or willingness to accept this risk is the key . . . This is the whole core of the essay, that such a commitment is fun and perfectly viable for role-playing, just as it's viable for nearly any other sphere of human activity.[/indent] From [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html]Narrativism: Story Now[/url]: [indent]There cannot be any "[I]the [/I]story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). Story Now has a great deal in common with Step On Up, particularly in the social expectation to contribute, but in this case the real people's attention is directed toward one another's insights toward the issue, rather than toward strategy and guts. . . . A protagonist is not "some guy," but rather "[I]the [/I]guy who thinks THIS, and does something accordingly when he encounters adversity." Stories are not created by running some kind of linear-cause program, but rather are brutally judgmental statements upon the THIS, as an idea or a way of being. That judgment is enacted or exemplified in the resolution of the conflict, and a conviction that is proved to [I]us [/I] . . . constitutes theme. Even if we (the audience) disagree with it, we at least must have been moved to do so at an emotional level. . . Fortune-in-the-Middle as the basis for resolving conflict facilitates Narrativist play in a number of ways. * It preserves the desired image of player-characters specific to the moment. Given a failed roll, they don't have to look like incompetent goofs; conversely, if you want your guy to suffer the effects of cruel fate, or just not be good enough, you can do that too. * It permits tension to be managed from conflict to conflict and from scene to scene. So a "roll to hit" in Scene A is the same as in Scene B in terms of whether the target takes damage, but it's not the same in terms of the acting character's motions, intentions, and experience of the action. * It retains the key role of constraint on in-game events. The dice (or whatever) are collaborators, acting as a springboard for what happens in tandem with the real-people statements.[/indent] I agree re 4e and gamism - though [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] on these boards articluated a coherent gamist version of 4e which is nothing like Gygaxian "skilled play" but rather is quite "light", and is about showing off your schtick in a given encounter. [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] used to argue that 4e is a type of high concept simulationism as you suggest - I tend to agree with [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], that it is best suited to "story now" instead. Not that it couldn't be done in a high concept fashion, but I think that would tend to make for more tedious play because the "heaviness" of the mechanics would still be there, but they wouldn't be giving as much payoff (with the outcomes pre-settled) as they do with a more "story now" focus. And I think it's pretty obvious how many 4e mechanics exhibit the features of FitM resolution that Edwards calls out in the passage I just quoted. EDIT: Just saw this follow-up post: Absolutely! There is a very frequent assumption, in posting on these boards, that the only reliable way to get "story" in RPGing is through GM-railroading. [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?611305-What-is-*worldbuilding*-for]We recently had a big thread about it[/url]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
The roots of 4e exposed?
Top