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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5811481" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>I haven't played it yet, but I do have Spirit of the Century, and I remember FUDGE. FATE seems to be very much into modeling story (or 'narrativist') over modeling world (or 'simulationist') which is nice, though I see merit in both aproaches - from the exercise of creating inter-connected 'novels' for the PCs as part of character creation, to the Aspects, to the sort of 'plot coupon' mechanics.</p><p></p><p>lol</p><p></p><p>D&D wasn't too firmly in either the 'story' or 'world' camp until 3e, when it got more consistent in it's world-modeling tendencies, with PCs, NPC and monsters using very nearly the same rules for character creation, for instance. 4e got more narrativist, with things like surges, dailies, and action points (all useable like 'plot coupons' to a small, specialized degree). Neither to as great a degree as games that really spcialize one way or the other, but each got some good (and not so good) results out of the subtle shift in emphasis.</p><p></p><p>An important asside about 'simulation.' Simulation, realism, and verisimilitude get thrown around a lot. 3.5 wasn't, I think, exactly any of those things, but it had qualities of them. What it really seemed like to me was a game in a simulationist mode that wasn't trying to simulate anything, it just had the internal consistency of a simulationist system, but rather than trying to simulate a world, it implied a world. There was never a world/system diconnect, because the world /was/ the system. For instance, in 3.5, craft let you make an item at 1/3rd cost, and you could sell items for half cost - so it was 'realistically' possible to live as a crafter. The existance of the expert class and the craft skill - not the need of a world to have people who make stuff as a backdrop for the heroes' story - fills the world with crafters. It's a subtle but profound characteristic of some games.</p><p></p><p>Some games, like Battletech, describe a world in rich detail, and model it with mechanics that often fail to model the world described. 3e vaguely described a world, and let the mechanics of the system imply the rich detail of that world as a consequence of how they worked. Of the two, I certainly prefer 3e. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> Battletech was just a jarring waste of column inches. 3e gave you one sort of fantasy world/genre that it did very faithfully - itself. But, to run a different world than the one implied by the rules, you needed to change the rules - great fun, actually, if you're up to the challenge.</p><p></p><p>4e is not often considered realistic or simulationist, but it does try to simulate something: an heroic fantasy story. The 4e system does not imply a world, but a genre. Within that genre, you can concieve of a variety of charaters, worlds and stories and run them with little need to mod the system. If, OTOH, you wanted to run a different genre - specifically, not an heroic one, you could take just martial classes and run a magickless game - you'd have to overhaul them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As a DM, I do have a certain weakness for the system-implying-world aproach. It's perfect for tinkering and customizing to create a campaign where rule- and power- consicous players will create the kinds of characters you're going for, seek the kinds of challenges you're going for, and overcome them with the kind of solutions you're going for. They're very channelizing, rather than rail-roading. You don't need a plot with rails, because there's one best path through the decicision tree, and skillful players will find it. It's a lot of fun to tinker with such a system, or to build characters for it (especially optimizaton exercises). It can, at times, be a little less fun to actually play, though, because the most important decisions and the actual victories often happen before you sit down and roll dice.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The implication certainly seemed to be that CaW = realy hard challenges for real gamers, and CaS = non-challenges for pansies. There's been a lot of arrogance and talking-down going on in this thread - and not <em>all</em> by me, either. :hmph: </p><p></p><p>That's true of some games that 'capstoned' the style they were working in, I'm sure. The ultimate test of a game's quality is not apples<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" />ranges comparisons with very different games, but internal. It the game consistent? Can you play it as-is without problems? Over it's full scope? (and how wide is it's scope?) Does it present myriad viable choices, or lack choice? or do 'obvious best' choices crowd out most others, or 'trap' choices make it treacherous for the uninitiatied?</p><p></p><p>As you reach back to the earliest days of the hobby, no game met all, or even many, of those criteria. The best might have hit one or two.</p><p></p><p></p><p>But, certainly you can make any game 'best in class' if you just define it into a class by itself. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sounds like not all our experiences are that different...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5811481, member: 996"] I haven't played it yet, but I do have Spirit of the Century, and I remember FUDGE. FATE seems to be very much into modeling story (or 'narrativist') over modeling world (or 'simulationist') which is nice, though I see merit in both aproaches - from the exercise of creating inter-connected 'novels' for the PCs as part of character creation, to the Aspects, to the sort of 'plot coupon' mechanics. lol D&D wasn't too firmly in either the 'story' or 'world' camp until 3e, when it got more consistent in it's world-modeling tendencies, with PCs, NPC and monsters using very nearly the same rules for character creation, for instance. 4e got more narrativist, with things like surges, dailies, and action points (all useable like 'plot coupons' to a small, specialized degree). Neither to as great a degree as games that really spcialize one way or the other, but each got some good (and not so good) results out of the subtle shift in emphasis. An important asside about 'simulation.' Simulation, realism, and verisimilitude get thrown around a lot. 3.5 wasn't, I think, exactly any of those things, but it had qualities of them. What it really seemed like to me was a game in a simulationist mode that wasn't trying to simulate anything, it just had the internal consistency of a simulationist system, but rather than trying to simulate a world, it implied a world. There was never a world/system diconnect, because the world /was/ the system. For instance, in 3.5, craft let you make an item at 1/3rd cost, and you could sell items for half cost - so it was 'realistically' possible to live as a crafter. The existance of the expert class and the craft skill - not the need of a world to have people who make stuff as a backdrop for the heroes' story - fills the world with crafters. It's a subtle but profound characteristic of some games. Some games, like Battletech, describe a world in rich detail, and model it with mechanics that often fail to model the world described. 3e vaguely described a world, and let the mechanics of the system imply the rich detail of that world as a consequence of how they worked. Of the two, I certainly prefer 3e. ;) Battletech was just a jarring waste of column inches. 3e gave you one sort of fantasy world/genre that it did very faithfully - itself. But, to run a different world than the one implied by the rules, you needed to change the rules - great fun, actually, if you're up to the challenge. 4e is not often considered realistic or simulationist, but it does try to simulate something: an heroic fantasy story. The 4e system does not imply a world, but a genre. Within that genre, you can concieve of a variety of charaters, worlds and stories and run them with little need to mod the system. If, OTOH, you wanted to run a different genre - specifically, not an heroic one, you could take just martial classes and run a magickless game - you'd have to overhaul them. As a DM, I do have a certain weakness for the system-implying-world aproach. It's perfect for tinkering and customizing to create a campaign where rule- and power- consicous players will create the kinds of characters you're going for, seek the kinds of challenges you're going for, and overcome them with the kind of solutions you're going for. They're very channelizing, rather than rail-roading. You don't need a plot with rails, because there's one best path through the decicision tree, and skillful players will find it. It's a lot of fun to tinker with such a system, or to build characters for it (especially optimizaton exercises). It can, at times, be a little less fun to actually play, though, because the most important decisions and the actual victories often happen before you sit down and roll dice. The implication certainly seemed to be that CaW = realy hard challenges for real gamers, and CaS = non-challenges for pansies. There's been a lot of arrogance and talking-down going on in this thread - and not [i]all[/i] by me, either. :hmph: That's true of some games that 'capstoned' the style they were working in, I'm sure. The ultimate test of a game's quality is not apples:oranges comparisons with very different games, but internal. It the game consistent? Can you play it as-is without problems? Over it's full scope? (and how wide is it's scope?) Does it present myriad viable choices, or lack choice? or do 'obvious best' choices crowd out most others, or 'trap' choices make it treacherous for the uninitiatied? As you reach back to the earliest days of the hobby, no game met all, or even many, of those criteria. The best might have hit one or two. But, certainly you can make any game 'best in class' if you just define it into a class by itself. ;) Sounds like not all our experiences are that different... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
Top