Yora
Legend
It isn't a good anything. That's the real problem.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist
- Thread starter Mokona
- Start date
the Jester
Legend
Where's my "I hate FORGE terminology and how often it is foisted on me as if it's accepted by everyone" option?
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I do think it is a flawed model. Some people find it is usefulmand that is fine, but for most gamers i think it has little value.
nnms
First Post
In terms of game design:
Make sure you clearly define what the game is about and then make rules that produce play that lines up with that choice. Though if you think about it, separating different goals into three categories might not be that helpful as you can simulate genre with the same techniques you can use to expound on a theme. Or you can meet challenges with the same mechanics as you use to produce plot.
In terms of fixing problematic play:
Find out what everyone wants, talk about it and see if you can't get on the same page. Although this one is more of a big model thing of which GNS is only a unnecessary component. It ends up getting in the way as people pick one of the three letters and identify with it or try to find a quiz to tell them how much of each they really are.
To bring this back on topic for D&D Next, I don't think there's anything we can do with it at all. It's not out yet. And if you use GNS jargon in any playtest or feedback reports you send to WotC, I'm guessing it'll be pretty much ignored.
When the game finally is out (even in playtest) I think it'd probably be more useful to figure out what it actually does at the table and see if you like that than to try ot disect the text and figure out which category we can argue for it to belong in.
Make sure you clearly define what the game is about and then make rules that produce play that lines up with that choice. Though if you think about it, separating different goals into three categories might not be that helpful as you can simulate genre with the same techniques you can use to expound on a theme. Or you can meet challenges with the same mechanics as you use to produce plot.
In terms of fixing problematic play:
Find out what everyone wants, talk about it and see if you can't get on the same page. Although this one is more of a big model thing of which GNS is only a unnecessary component. It ends up getting in the way as people pick one of the three letters and identify with it or try to find a quiz to tell them how much of each they really are.
To bring this back on topic for D&D Next, I don't think there's anything we can do with it at all. It's not out yet. And if you use GNS jargon in any playtest or feedback reports you send to WotC, I'm guessing it'll be pretty much ignored.
When the game finally is out (even in playtest) I think it'd probably be more useful to figure out what it actually does at the table and see if you like that than to try ot disect the text and figure out which category we can argue for it to belong in.
Last edited:
I put down gamist. But I did so with a reservation.
I'm only gamist if you're going to make me spend time playing a game.
I can play Og: Unearthed with a purely narrativist style (jokes are valid narrative if they're funny!). But this is because combat in Og takes like... 10 seconds?
If I'm going to spend an hour in combat, that combat had better be gamist. Since I feel safe in assuming that any edition of D&D is going to have a lot of emphasis on fighting monsters, and on fighting monsters in various ways depending on your character class, and spending a lot of time fighting monsters when you do it... I need fighting monsters to be gamist. Otherwise its just mind numbing. Because you can't fit all that much narrative into ten 6 second intervals played out across two hours.
I'm only gamist if you're going to make me spend time playing a game.
I can play Og: Unearthed with a purely narrativist style (jokes are valid narrative if they're funny!). But this is because combat in Og takes like... 10 seconds?
If I'm going to spend an hour in combat, that combat had better be gamist. Since I feel safe in assuming that any edition of D&D is going to have a lot of emphasis on fighting monsters, and on fighting monsters in various ways depending on your character class, and spending a lot of time fighting monsters when you do it... I need fighting monsters to be gamist. Otherwise its just mind numbing. Because you can't fit all that much narrative into ten 6 second intervals played out across two hours.
Consonant Dude
First Post
Asking me if I am Gamist or narrativist or simulationist is about as helpful as asking me if I want dungeons or dragons.
The correct answer is: all of it and more!
The correct answer is: all of it and more!
howandwhy99
Adventurer
Having theories about gaming is like having words to describe gaming; they are good things, but don't let them stop you from playing.
Having an entire vocabulary created by one person whose deeply avowed beliefs are 100% diametrically opposed to nearly every game in the hobby before he or she came along? Why don't we just force everyone to think and speak exclusively in Esperanto?
To be clear, I don't have a problem learning jargon for a Game. I do take issue with those who feel the need to rub out all other language until it fits only in their own.
EDIT: My answer is "None of the above"
Having an entire vocabulary created by one person whose deeply avowed beliefs are 100% diametrically opposed to nearly every game in the hobby before he or she came along? Why don't we just force everyone to think and speak exclusively in Esperanto?
To be clear, I don't have a problem learning jargon for a Game. I do take issue with those who feel the need to rub out all other language until it fits only in their own.
EDIT: My answer is "None of the above"
Similar Threads
