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 LIVE! 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
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
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: 6349614" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Yes. Though the purist-for-system games tend to adopt inworld features designed to at least nudge things in a genre direction - eg the spells in RM, and the magic systems in RQ. At least in RM, this does tend to cause caster/non-caster balance issues of a sort that I'm pretty sure you are familiar with in (at least some versions of) D&D.</p><p></p><p>There is no disparaging of high-concept sim, nor of purist-for-system sim. There is disparaging of 2nd ed AD&D and White Wolf, but that is because their mechanics, when used as written, don't actually deliver the promised genre experience. CoC and Ars Magica, which don't have this problem, aren't disparaged at all.</p><p></p><p>Can we have quotes for this? He doesn't say any such thing in the "Right to Dream" essay, and as someone who has played a bit of RQ and Traveller, and a lot of RM, I think he nails purist-for-system perfectly.</p><p></p><p>He does say that some high concept sim games (especially AD&D 2nd ed and White Wolf/Storyteller) are incoherent, but that is for the reasons I stated in my post and reiterated just above: they ostensibly aim at genre fidelity/replication, but have no system to achieve that other than GM override of the classic D&D-style combat mechanics plus a task-resolution skill system. He doesn't suggest that CoC is incoherent, nor Ars Magica.</p><p></p><p>Rolemaster allows for both the falling outcomes, though not at the correct odds: any fall has a 1 in 50 chance of doing no damage regardless of its distance (because an 01 or 02 is always a "fumble", or auto-miss in the case of a fall); and between high open-ended attack rolls plus crit tables any fall can deal a fatal injury.</p><p></p><p>HARP is similar.</p><p></p><p>RM doesn't deal with adrenaline in the way you describe - Adrenal Moves that permit temporary ignoring of wound penalties or stun are a distinctive skill that have to be developed.</p><p></p><p>In any event, my point is not that RQ, RM, HARP etc achieve what they aspire to: my point is that they have a definite aspiration. There is a reason that all the classic sim games depart from D&D, and especially D&D's combat mechanics, in the way that I have described. They are driven by a common frustration with those mechanics, namely, that they don't model ingame causal processes but rather generate outcomes while requiring "ad hoc rationalisations" to fill in the details of the gameworld events.</p><p></p><p>This is not a criticism of D&D, but rather an observation about the motivations lying behind the design and play of those systems.</p><p></p><p>Here is a quote from the <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">Right to Dream</a> essay that explains why Pendragon is a (high concept) simulationist game (that in the same essay is described, together with CoC, as "truly outstanding"):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">A lot of internet blood has been spilled regarding how this phenomenon [of a game like Pendragon that, via its system, generates a long-term story arc] is or is not related to Narrativist play, but I think it's an easy issue. The key for these games is GM authority over the story's content and integrity at all points, including managing the input by players. Even system results are judged appropriate or not by the GM; "fudging" Fortune outcomes is overtly granted as a GM right</p><p></p><p>Conversely, central to narrativist play <em>as Edwards uses that term</em> is the absence of GM authority over the story, and indeed the absence of <em>any</em> authority over the story on the part of any participant - in Story Now play, story is to be emergent from each participant doing his/her thing, with no one actually authoring it.</p><p></p><p>As I posted upthread, I think relatively few ENworld posters interested in Story Now play. And the most common way that "narrative" or "narrativist" is used on ENworld has nothing to do with Edwards' own use: it is used to pick out the existence of rich backstory and a plot continuity to the campaign that is deeper then "Well, this week our intrepid adventurers find themselves standing at the entrance to White Plume Mountain."</p><p></p><p>In Edwards' terminology, most of this sort of play is High Concept simulation, but some of it will be gamist but built on a very rich fiction as its chassis - I imagine the best of Adventure Path play is like this. (Which doesn't mean that it is "gamist" in the way that term is normally used on ENworld - but the typical ENworld usage of "gamist", just like the typical ENworld usage of "narrativist", has basically nothing to do with Edwards' usage. As I posted upthread, the differences in play that are highly salient to Edwards are generally not that relevant on ENworld, where people are interested in different sorts of contrast of playstyle.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6349614, member: 42582"] Yes. Though the purist-for-system games tend to adopt inworld features designed to at least nudge things in a genre direction - eg the spells in RM, and the magic systems in RQ. At least in RM, this does tend to cause caster/non-caster balance issues of a sort that I'm pretty sure you are familiar with in (at least some versions of) D&D. There is no disparaging of high-concept sim, nor of purist-for-system sim. There is disparaging of 2nd ed AD&D and White Wolf, but that is because their mechanics, when used as written, don't actually deliver the promised genre experience. CoC and Ars Magica, which don't have this problem, aren't disparaged at all. Can we have quotes for this? He doesn't say any such thing in the "Right to Dream" essay, and as someone who has played a bit of RQ and Traveller, and a lot of RM, I think he nails purist-for-system perfectly. He does say that some high concept sim games (especially AD&D 2nd ed and White Wolf/Storyteller) are incoherent, but that is for the reasons I stated in my post and reiterated just above: they ostensibly aim at genre fidelity/replication, but have no system to achieve that other than GM override of the classic D&D-style combat mechanics plus a task-resolution skill system. He doesn't suggest that CoC is incoherent, nor Ars Magica. Rolemaster allows for both the falling outcomes, though not at the correct odds: any fall has a 1 in 50 chance of doing no damage regardless of its distance (because an 01 or 02 is always a "fumble", or auto-miss in the case of a fall); and between high open-ended attack rolls plus crit tables any fall can deal a fatal injury. HARP is similar. RM doesn't deal with adrenaline in the way you describe - Adrenal Moves that permit temporary ignoring of wound penalties or stun are a distinctive skill that have to be developed. In any event, my point is not that RQ, RM, HARP etc achieve what they aspire to: my point is that they have a definite aspiration. There is a reason that all the classic sim games depart from D&D, and especially D&D's combat mechanics, in the way that I have described. They are driven by a common frustration with those mechanics, namely, that they don't model ingame causal processes but rather generate outcomes while requiring "ad hoc rationalisations" to fill in the details of the gameworld events. This is not a criticism of D&D, but rather an observation about the motivations lying behind the design and play of those systems. Here is a quote from the [url=http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/]Right to Dream[/url] essay that explains why Pendragon is a (high concept) simulationist game (that in the same essay is described, together with CoC, as "truly outstanding"): [indent]A lot of internet blood has been spilled regarding how this phenomenon [of a game like Pendragon that, via its system, generates a long-term story arc] is or is not related to Narrativist play, but I think it's an easy issue. The key for these games is GM authority over the story's content and integrity at all points, including managing the input by players. Even system results are judged appropriate or not by the GM; "fudging" Fortune outcomes is overtly granted as a GM right[/indent] Conversely, central to narrativist play [I]as Edwards uses that term[/I] is the absence of GM authority over the story, and indeed the absence of [I]any[/I] authority over the story on the part of any participant - in Story Now play, story is to be emergent from each participant doing his/her thing, with no one actually authoring it. As I posted upthread, I think relatively few ENworld posters interested in Story Now play. And the most common way that "narrative" or "narrativist" is used on ENworld has nothing to do with Edwards' own use: it is used to pick out the existence of rich backstory and a plot continuity to the campaign that is deeper then "Well, this week our intrepid adventurers find themselves standing at the entrance to White Plume Mountain." In Edwards' terminology, most of this sort of play is High Concept simulation, but some of it will be gamist but built on a very rich fiction as its chassis - I imagine the best of Adventure Path play is like this. (Which doesn't mean that it is "gamist" in the way that term is normally used on ENworld - but the typical ENworld usage of "gamist", just like the typical ENworld usage of "narrativist", has basically nothing to do with Edwards' usage. As I posted upthread, the differences in play that are highly salient to Edwards are generally not that relevant on ENworld, where people are interested in different sorts of contrast of playstyle.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Why use D&D for a Simulationist style Game?
Top