Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6680536" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't agree with this.Runequest doesn't lend itself very well to gamist play - it doesn't have the &quot;luck&quot; buffer of D&amp;D (hit points) or Tunnels &amp; Trolls, and doesn't have the world conceits (dungeon levels with layer-cakes of difficulty) that support Gygaxian &quot;skilled play&quot;. I think it has limitations for narrativist play, also, because of how austere it is from the point of view of player decision-making: so much comes down to d% rolls.HeroWars/Quest doesn't lend itself very well to gamist play - it's so transparent there's no place for the application of skill - and certainly can't be used for process sim play.At the moment I'm GMing a Burning Wheel campaign as well as a 4e one. I don't think BW is very suitable for sim play - it has process sim elements to its mechanics, but it relies upon the GM applying non-sim techniques in adjudicating failure, and also has the approach to knowledge and perception skills that has been discussed in this thread. I think there could be gamist BW play, although that might require ignoring certain aspects of the system.I don't think AD&amp;D lends itself well to narrativist play unless it is (i) stripped of some of the Gygaxian baggage (wandering monsters, dungeons, encumbrance etc) and amplified with elements that embed the PCs in the gameworld by way of player choices (eg some of the features of Oriental Adventures that I mentioned upthread).None of the above is an &quot;extreme&quot; game. HW/Q is probably the least &quot;traditional&quot; in its mechanics, and it's easily recognisable as an RPG. It's certainly not a &quot;collective storytelling exercise&quot;.At least in my experience, a player's decision on whether or not to spend metagame resources (eg fate points in BW, use a daily power in 4e, etc) is generally driven by in-character decision-making (&quot;What do I want here?&quot; or &quot;What do I need here?&quot;). It's analogous to the character trying harder because s/he cares more. That's not a departure from the in-character perspective.Many sim-oriented games lack any mechanism for trying. The amount of effort the PCs puts in is determined simply by the roll of the dice. That is the sort of thing I have in mind in saying that I don't think RQ is well-suited to narrativist play. I think narrativist play requires the player to be able to commit his/her PC, and for the mechanics to reflect that degree of commitment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6680536, member: 42582"] I don't agree with this. Runequest doesn't lend itself very well to gamist play - it doesn't have the "luck" buffer of D&D (hit points) or Tunnels & Trolls, and doesn't have the world conceits (dungeon levels with layer-cakes of difficulty) that support Gygaxian "skilled play". I think it has limitations for narrativist play, also, because of how austere it is from the point of view of player decision-making: so much comes down to d% rolls. HeroWars/Quest doesn't lend itself very well to gamist play - it's so transparent there's no place for the application of skill - and certainly can't be used for process sim play. At the moment I'm GMing a Burning Wheel campaign as well as a 4e one. I don't think BW is very suitable for sim play - it has process sim elements to its mechanics, but it relies upon the GM applying non-sim techniques in adjudicating failure, and also has the approach to knowledge and perception skills that has been discussed in this thread. I think there could be gamist BW play, although that might require ignoring certain aspects of the system. I don't think AD&D lends itself well to narrativist play unless it is (i) stripped of some of the Gygaxian baggage (wandering monsters, dungeons, encumbrance etc) and amplified with elements that embed the PCs in the gameworld by way of player choices (eg some of the features of Oriental Adventures that I mentioned upthread). None of the above is an "extreme" game. HW/Q is probably the least "traditional" in its mechanics, and it's easily recognisable as an RPG. It's certainly not a "collective storytelling exercise". At least in my experience, a player's decision on whether or not to spend metagame resources (eg fate points in BW, use a daily power in 4e, etc) is generally driven by in-character decision-making ("What do I want here?" or "What do I [I]need[/I] here?"). It's analogous to the character trying harder because s/he cares more. That's not a departure from the in-character perspective. Many sim-oriented games lack any mechanism for [I]trying[/I]. The amount of effort the PCs puts in is determined simply by the roll of the dice. That is the sort of thing I have in mind in saying that I don't think RQ is well-suited to narrativist play. I think narrativist play requires the player to be able to [I]commit[/I] his/her PC, and for the mechanics to reflect that degree of commitment. [/QUOTE]

Verification