Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5306348" data-attributes="member: 42582">When I say "simulationism" I mean what Ron Edwards calls "purist for system" simulationism. Paradigms are Rolemaster, Runequest and Classic Traveller. The idea is that the game mechanics are a model of the causal processes of the gameworld. This is the logic that gives us the 3E grapple rules. It is also the logic that can't cope with powers like "Come and Get It".When I say "playability" I mean reasonably low search-and-handling time. A notorious difficulty with purist-for-system simulation is that it increases search-and-handling time ("rules bloat", "Chartmaster" and similar pejoratives are often used).My personal view is that 4e is a gamist/narrativist hybrid (not the first - Ron Edwards points to Marvel Super Heroes and Tunnels and Trolls as early examples of the genre). It therefore has some lurking incoherence - for example, the idea of treasure as a reward for overcoming encounters is gamist, but the idea of guaranteed treasure based on wish lists as a de facto component of the character build mechanics is more narrativist. My suspicion is that each table drifts to one or the other approaches in actual play.An example of a lurking incoherence that is perhaps less easily drifted in either direction is skill challenges. Approached in a more-or-less narrativist fashion, my experience is they work well (I draw on the Hero Wars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel and Dying Earth rulebooks to help me design and adjudicate them). From what people post on these forums, they work less well for gamists, as there is often not enough constraint on skill selection to pose a genuine challenge for the players (this is often parodied as "you just use your best skill").My own feeling is that this sort of response to the game is a result of approaching it with (purist for system) simulationist priorities. From the narrativist point of view, the case-by-case descriptions are a strength - they let the players take control of a fairly abstract toolset and tell the stories with their PCs that they want to tell. And from the gamist point of view, as you go on to say in your post, this isn't an issue that undermines the practicalities of play.I want to add that the above paragraph is not a criticism at all, just an attempt at diagnosis. If I had simulationist priorities - that is, if I wanted the play of the game to directly and without need for active effort on my part to lead me into an exploration and imaginary experience of the gameworld - then I wouldn't play 4e. Because, as you say, the need for the players to be active in their descriptions undermines this possibility.But I don't agree that this devalues the story. There are other, non-simulationist ways of valuing story -for example, by actively creating it (rather than discovering it simply by applying the rules). And this is what the 4e mechanics tend to facilitate.</blockquote>

Verification