Search results

You probably wouldn't, but again, we are talking about simulating fiction. There are lots of stories in Eastern and Eastern-inspired fiction about mystic martial artists who master control of their bodies to the point of never suffering illness. But that's not what we think of when we think of a...

It's not an issue of simulating medieval Europe, but medieval European myth (and the Tolkien-esque fantasy which it inspired). Elves and dragons (and wizards and druids and paladins) fit in that milieu in a way that kung-fu masters don't. Maybe you don't want a strictly European (or East Asian)...

There's certainly room for a Western-style unarmed brawler class in 3e/PF, but the Monk isn't it. It's got too many supernatural powers and Eastern-themed mojo to convincingly occupy that niche. Fezzik the Giant doesn't know Quivering Palm!

How so?, he asked with genuine, guileless curiousity.

Because it doesn't stop there. Once you've identified how a game handles discrete sorts of task, you can build a picture of what the entire game is like, "the sum of the experience created by the rules constraints," as you put it. Put it this way: If GNS applies only to full games, and not game...

Pride and Prejudice (Dover thrift edition) is currenty #1253 in Amazon's book rankings. The Hobbit is #1719.

That may well have happened. At least, it's impossible to contradict. But if he did backpedal, I find his "backpedaled" thesis more interesting that his original idea. That is, I find GNS theory more interesting and insightful when applied to individual gaming decisions, rather than entire...

We're talking Vancian in the sense of fire-and-forget, right? Is it not fair to say that AEDU has fire-and-forget components?

I have problems with evil PCs, but with the Assassin the evil alignment requirement is easily houseruled away. I also have problems with Far-East character concepts in classic fantasy, and it's harder to houserule or reskin the kung-fu flavor of the monk than it is to handwave an alignment...

I was outposted! I see you agree with me that "Vancian" is a term that is confusingly-defined. I get the sense that I'm a minority, but I'm more of the second. My preferences would be for something more test-based, like how skills and attacks work.

You were responding to NeonChameolon and quoted him as saying: You responded: "I agree," and continued as I quoted you above. I can't see this as anything but an affirmation that "Vancian" casting "doesn't even resemble the works of Jack Vance." That's not what NeonChameleon said, and I...

What Edwards says is "a good system is one which knows its outlook and doesn't waste any mechanics on the other two outlooks." Note that he doesn't say "game," and that at the beginning of the essay, he says, "by 'system' I mean a method to resolve what happens during play." So by "system," he...

Here you admit that "Vancian" spellcasting is ill-suited to simulating magic in the writings of Jack Vance. Here you deride the claim that "Vancian" spellcasting is ill-suited to simulating magic in the writings of Jack Vance (compared to other systems).

Umbran's reading is accurate if you are only looking at the one particular essay. The essay that Umbran cites and the one I cite do not really contradict each other (just because Edwards discusses games that are exclusively Gamist, that does not exclude games that have all three GNS facets), but...

Fair enough, but then that is not a problem with GNS theory as originally presented, but with how it is often erroneously interpreted. As I indicated in my previous post, that's an incomplete understanding of Edwards' thinking. From another Forge essay (emphasis added): The big point is that...

If I'm remembering correctly how GNS works, then not really. As I recall, GNS isn't about full games, or players; it's about choices in a game. In a way it's improper to ask if DnD, or Paranoia, or Fate, are Gamist, Narrativist, Simulationist; without first asking how the game handles individual...

That may be true, but I don't see how that prevents us from judging that Leiber or "Product X" are obscure. If Hussar says "Jack Vance is obscure," and you respond, "that's because Barnes and Noble doesn't carry him," that's not an actual argument against Hussar's proposition.

As I recall, Gamism isn't about the player winning; it's about the character winning. A subtle but crucial distinction!

Excellent! I am both proud and humbled to have been the inspiration.

If it makes you feel any better, there's a selection bias at play here. Loudmouth ignoramuses are going to be overrepresented on any open comments thread because well-mannered, soft-spoken types aren't going to be as inclined to post.