Search results

Yeah, that's the problem with D&D, it always tried to please to all and that's impossible. Gamist RPG can't promise a good story, because the meaningful choices of players (strategies, guts decision, etc.) can lead them to fail when a sucess would be better for the story and vice versa. If you...

When I say "gamist" design, of course it's a shortcut for a RPG that is designed in a way that playing as written will help the players pursue a gamist agenda over the course of a instance of play. When a say clear/explicit design, I mean that players/DM will find in the book something like...

Alignments and classes with built-in ethical code like Paladin "implicity" supported simulationist play from the begining of AD&D. I could find many others examples (2E non-weapon proficiency comes to mind, DMG guidelines about "statu-quo" encounters, etc.)

That would be hardcore gamism yeah. Let's hope that 4E will be a good high-Exploration gamist RPG (your second example even if I don't like the "make sense" thing).

That's probably why it was renamed "Story now" ;) I won't go in a GNS / Big model explanation here, look at my sig / TheForge.

Sorry, but you understand nothing at narrativist play. One of the most basic idea of narrativist play is that the story isn't already written by the GM.

It's in the simulationist essay of R. Edwards.

That would be high-concept simulationism :)

Level limitations = a way to support a narrativist play ??? Explain me this one ! In many opinions, VtM is more sim than nar.

Bad definitions, specialy the Narrativism one.

I agree if I can rephrase it to : "ensure everyone has a fair share of the spotlight". I could agree that "opponent" may be too simple to describe what a DM is in a gamist play. However, storyteller is far more troublesome.

Yeah, problem is that Bill Slavicsek said to the designers in the early stages (it's written in Races & Classes) : the DM is not a opponent, but a storyteller. In a clearly gamist RPG, the DM is a opponent, not a storyteller. That's why in my first post I said I was waiting for the DMG before...

In other words, Simulationism is not limited to "realism". "realism" is a kind of simulationism.

Yup, and there is a even more subtle variation called "high-concept simulationism" where the goal is to re-create a particuliar genre/theme. Dread is a good example of this kind of game (nice use of a Jenga tower btw)

D&D was always more gamist than simulationist. 4E design rightly seems to be clearly/explicitly gamist, however I won't be sure until I read the DMG. IMHO, that's a good thing because the gamist/sim mix in D&D was often incoherent. Also, I don't like gamism called Butt-kicking, because...

What I meant is that such ability sounds more like a power than a feat.

I dont think we will see something like "Improved unarmed strike" as a feat in 4E.

I don't like your usage of "game" and "rules" here, but that's not the point. Even without a proper theme, D&D (past editions included) rules (that are part of the System used to play) implicity support a playstyle. Because it is implicit, and somewhat incoherent (gamist/sim) lots of group used...

Problem is, when the goal is implicit/incoherent, people expect very different things from the same game. In the typical basement where D&D is played, not so much to worry about. On D&D forums, lots of debates are about the same basic issues (what's the goal of the game) but peoples argues...

I wasn't talking about the implied setting. When I said focused, I meant "a game with a more clearly stated goal".