Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4193196" data-attributes="member: 42582">I can't speak for D&amp;D, but for various reasons I primiarily play (GM) Rolemaster despite it not being my preferred system. I would probably rather play RQ (mechanically much more straightforward, but has its own problems in deprotagonising players) or HARP (uses RM-style simulationism to support a more narrativist agenda, although perhaps a little incoherently), or even something like TRoS or HeroWars. Or perhaps, once it comes out, 4e.At least from my experience, it is quite easy to end up committed to playing a system that doesn't really deliver the desired gaming experience. In my case, RM is the group's preferred system, and we are playing a multi-year high level campaign using it is coming towards its climax. So a combination of a collective action problem and path-dependency leaves me in a sub-optimal (but still satisfactory) situation.When I think of what distinguishes an RPG, it is the capacity of the player to contribute to a narrative. This can be done by acting out a role, or by more 3rd-person/impersonal description. Either way, I think that 4e will support it better than any earlier version of D&amp;D, because its mechanics (deliberately? I assume so) produce many more points at which player narration is invited and applicable: use of powers, interpreting hit points, skill challenges, etc. Having recently re-read the mechanical chapter of HeroWars, it is surprising how close 4e is to that system (and there is a lot of good advice in that chapter applicable to 4e GMing, like how to describe the effects of combat without committing to results such as death or maiming which the mechanics have not yet locked down).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4193196, member: 42582"] I can't speak for D&D, but for various reasons I primiarily play (GM) Rolemaster despite it not being my preferred system. I would probably rather play RQ (mechanically much more straightforward, but has its own problems in deprotagonising players) or HARP (uses RM-style simulationism to support a more narrativist agenda, although perhaps a little incoherently), or even something like TRoS or HeroWars. Or perhaps, once it comes out, 4e. At least from my experience, it is quite easy to end up committed to playing a system that doesn't really deliver the desired gaming experience. In my case, RM is the group's preferred system, and we are playing a multi-year high level campaign using it is coming towards its climax. So a combination of a collective action problem and path-dependency leaves me in a sub-optimal (but still satisfactory) situation. When I think of what distinguishes an RPG, it is the capacity of the player to contribute to a narrative. This can be done by acting out a role, or by more 3rd-person/impersonal description. Either way, I think that 4e will support it better than any earlier version of D&D, because its mechanics (deliberately? I assume so) produce many more points at which player narration is invited and applicable: use of powers, interpreting hit points, skill challenges, etc. Having recently re-read the mechanical chapter of HeroWars, it is surprising how close 4e is to that system (and there is a lot of good advice in that chapter applicable to 4e GMing, like how to describe the effects of combat without committing to results such as death or maiming which the mechanics have not yet locked down). [/QUOTE]

Verification