4E and RPG Theory (GNS)

[xechnao]

It is rather simple.
If you work on clearly predefined operators and sets your session is gamist. Optimal solutions can be easily achieved by a computer.
If you work on communication then your session is narrativist.
Regarding entertainment simulationism is a tool to enhance communication: you do not need it in a purely gamist environment but you do need it in a narrativist environment.
D&D 4e seems to be fundamentaly gamist. The fun factor is built upon a gamist environment and design. OTOH AD&D 2e is more simulationist and thus narrativist: for example you roll 3d6 to generate your stats and then try to explain the results narratively. Your session decisions are based on your communication with other players build on the simulationist tools and examples that the product provides.
Hope this clears things regarding GNS and rpg models and theory.

 

[S'mon]

"IMHO, D&D should facilitates a high-exploration gamist play at the challenge level and a vanilla narrativist play at the adventure/campaign level."

Why?

 

[hong]

"IMHO, D&D should facilitates a high-exploration gamist play at the challenge level and a vanilla narrativist play at the adventure/campaign level."

Why?

He's attempting to transgress the boundaries towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum RPGs.

 

[S'mon]

He's attempting to transgress the boundaries towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum RPGs.

Oh, ok then.

Personally I think the G-S incoherence in D&D makes for a more fun game. So Ron Edwards can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

Edit: What somebody above said about D&D being Immersionist, not Meta. In a Gamist game you want to win through optimal tactics. In a Simulation you want the simulation to be accurate, or to experience what it would be like to be your PC. In D&D type games you are experiencing what it would be like to be the PC, AND your PC wants to win through employing optimal tactics. Which in fact allows for more immersion than does Simming and eg playing a Samurai who commits seppuku whenever he feels dishonoured.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I find the big "Game Theories" discussions interesting.

But I am still not sure that any of them really helps much.

Maybe this is a gamist, or just natural, but the ultimate question is:
Do you enjoy the game as it is? Do you have fun?

Any Game Theory model should help me define this.

From the whole "Gamist - Simulationist - Narrativist" concepts I learned that I want something from everything. I am not sure if that means I understood the system, the system is incomplete, or that people use or explain it badly.

Way too often I read stuff like "If you want that, you could as well play monopoly/board game/<insert something else not a role-playing game>."
And I always get the feeling that
- hyperbole is way overused
- people don't have an all-encompassing understanding what constitutes an RPG.
- there are games that are not role-playing games, and these are not the games I am talking about if I describe my perfect D&D (thank you very much, anonymous "it's not a RPG"-"might as well be playing a video game"-"I am not sure if it's a role-playing game"-sayer)

 

[Psion]

Personally I think the G-S incoherence in D&D makes for a more fun game. So Ron Edwards can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

I think the one major "crack" in "big model" theory is the idea of the absolutism of incoherence. It's certainly something you need to look out for, but just because 2 parts of a game cater to different agendas doesn't necessarily mean that the game is flawed.

Oy. I'm defending 4e. What next?

 

[marune]

Whose key idea? Yours?

I don't think that has been the expected mode of play as found in D&D rules for, like, forever.

The main problem is that a good part of the book says that decision should be tactical and the rest says the opposite (do what your character would do).

In my OP, I said that I think D&D should be tactical at the encounter level.

 

[marune]

It is rather simple.
If you work on clearly predefined operators and sets your session is gamist. Optimal solutions can be easily achieved by a computer.
If you work on communication then your session is narrativist.
Regarding entertainment simulationism is a tool to enhance communication: you do not need it in a purely gamist environment but you do need it in a narrativist environment.
D&D 4e seems to be fundamentaly gamist. The fun factor is built upon a gamist environment and design. OTOH AD&D 2e is more simulationist and thus narrativist: for example you roll 3d6 to generate your stats and then try to explain the results narratively. Your session decisions are based on your communication with other players build on the simulationist tools and examples that the product provides.
Hope this clears things regarding GNS and rpg models and theory.

You are sure to have understand something about the Big Model(GNS) ?

 

[marune]

Personally I think the G-S incoherence in D&D makes for a more fun game. So Ron Edwards can put that in his pipe and smoke it.

IME, incoherence in D&D is the main reason for much of the problems at the table and the endless debates on these boards.

 

[marune]

"IMHO, D&D should facilitates a high-exploration gamist play at the challenge level and a vanilla narrativist play at the adventure/campaign level."

Why?

Which one bother you ?