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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Keenath" data-source="post: 4109162" data-attributes="member: 59792">Of course.GNS is a tool for finding out what you and your players really want, and for finding a system that best supports that.  It's not a way to slap insulting tags on other people.In fact, I find that I use varying quantities of all three depending on the situation.I normally have the plot laid out in very general terms before anything else happens -- "The PCs are going to be sent on a mission to find out information about this bad guy, and they'll discover that the only way to defeat him is with a magic spear.  They'll go on a series of fetch quests to find the head and the haft, maybe with part being stolen in the middle there, and then they'll have to perform the ritual of binding to reforge the spear..."That plot is going to be at the highest, most abstract level.  It's narrativism -- the players can't really avoid that plot short of actively refusing to do it.  They'll always be able to find the place where the spearhead is entombed, because that's what the plot demands.  There's no question as to whether or not they will discover the location of the Tomb of the Druid.Events are more gamist for me -- a monster that they meet all alone will be a solo challenge; a group will usually be balanced; and so on.  The close in, tactical level of the game is gamist so that the challenges work and the characters are a balanced group.Simulationism fits in between those levels, for me -- If I'm laying out a dungeon or a castle, I will put a certain amount of simulationist thought into it, figuring out if every creature has access to food and water, how neighboring creatures interact, how alarms spread through the complex, etc.   If I drop a hydra over here, I won't put a tribe of orcs right next to it (Gygax style), unless the orcs are actually somehow in control of the hydra (or otherwise placating it with sacrifices, or something).But at the same time, that simulationist thought only goes so far.  I'm not going to figure out what this or that monster is doing at any given time of day, or tracking the clock while the PCs run through the complex -- the monsters are where they need to be to meet my gamist goals of balanced and fun encounters.Going back to the "solo ogre" question a while back -- the players wouldn't be ABLE to avoid the ogre-battle, for example.  It's narratively required, so he's where he needs to be to confront the PCs when he's needed.  I don't care about his overland speed or something to figure out if he could be in place in time.  He moves at the speed of plot.  Similarly, there is no Solo Ogre On Staff until I need there to be one.  Dirk Darkfist doesn't just pick a random ogre who suddenly becomes a solo monster -- he sends his most powerful enforcer to go handle the PCs, and that enforcer is a solo monster.  If the PCs find the castle, they won't be able to fight the enforcer with a group of other ogres; he'll have his own room, or just happen to be out when the PCs attack, or something -- whatever is necessary to meet the gamist requirement that the encounters be balanced.  Simulation is not required -- just enough of an explanation to satisfy the PCs.  In fact, it's MORE fun to have the ogre burst in just after they finish killing all the other ogres, and kick off the encounter that way -- I don't *care* where he was during the previous battle; he wasn't on screen, so it doesn't matter.</blockquote>

Verification