Can someone explain what "1st ed feel" is?

[Sanguinemetaldawn]

As you can see, everyone has a different opinion on the subject. For me, there is no such thing as First Edition Feel. If I can't possibly replicate it, then it doesn't exist. If it First Edition feel does exist, then it's just a feeling that no one can really define. Except this:

True 'first edition' feel is fun.

I beg to differ.
Not that its not fun, but that there is no such thing.

The crux of your argument is that since not everything thinks its the same thing, it doesn't exist. This isn't a science that lends itself to measurement and definitive findings.

Nonetheless...there are clear patterns of opinion/emphasis.

1) Emphasis on evocativeness and wonder, rather than crunch engineering
2) Simplicity of rules and adaptability of rule-set (not like 3E)
3) Site-based adventures, and giving players freedom (not like 2E)

Its actually quite simple.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

I beg to differ.
Not that its not fun, but that there is no such thing.

The crux of your argument is that since not everything thinks its the same thing, it doesn't exist. This isn't a science that lends itself to measurement and definitive findings.

Nonetheless...there are clear patterns of opinion/emphasis.

1) Emphasis on evocativeness and wonder, rather than crunch engineering
2) Simplicity of rules and adaptability of rule-set (not like 3E)
3) Site-based adventures, and giving players freedom (not like 2E)

Its actually quite simple.

Right on the mark.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah. I think non-Forgites should really use the term Dramatism (from rec.advocacy's Three Fold Model) rather than Narrativism, which is, as you say, very obscure.

You're right - in future i think I'll try to speak of GDS rather than GNS, the distinction between Sim-immersion & Drama-excitement is an important one, which GNS loses because it usually tries to fold them both into Sim.

 

[S'mon]

If, for example, the players tactically blow a balanced encounter with a group of NPC monsters (gamism) and the game world logic now indicates a TPK should happen (simulationism), does the GM step in and fudge things to keep the players alive (dramatism)? Is the bad guy's hideout protected by thugs that the PCs can blow through like stormtroopers (dramatism), protected by guards who will put up a challenging resistence for the PCs (gamism), or by whatever makes sense in the setting, even if the force will lead to a TPK if the PCs attack (simulationism)?

I guess with Dramatism one makes the opposition whatever is dramatically appropriate; eg a Saving Private Ryan style WW2 game will make Wehrmacht troopers highly likely to kill careless PC commandos, where a Where Eagles Dare style WW2 game will have the Wehrmacht troops fall over in droves as the hero's SMG blazes. I don't think that means the Private Ryan game is more Gamist or Simulationist necessarily.

 

[DragonLancer]

It's hard to put into words what 1st edition felt like. I guess you had to be there

I'd only got as far as this post on page 2 of this monster thread and I had to post to say that this quote is spot on. 1st edition feel is unique to everyone, and at least for me, its not something I can adequately put into words. It was the feel of the game, and the sense of classic-ness compared to 2nd and now 3.x editions.

 

[John Morrow]

I guess with Dramatism one makes the opposition whatever is dramatically appropriate; eg a Saving Private Ryan style WW2 game will make Wehrmacht troopers highly likely to kill careless PC commandos, where a Where Eagles Dare style WW2 game will have the Wehrmacht troops fall over in droves as the hero's SMG blazes. I don't think that means the Private Ryan game is more Gamist or Simulationist necessarily.

Yeah, it does. It means that the Private Ryan game is more compatible with a Gamist or Simulationist style of play because it's more natural and plausible than Where Eagles Dare.

Remember that I pointed out that the choice occurs when the two come into conflict. It's quite possible to craft a setting and situation where the overlap between all three concerns is fairly substantial. A Gamist or Simulationist would be more happy in a Private Ryan Dramatist game than an Eagles Dare Dramatist game. But there's also usually more fundamental differences.

In a Dramatist games, the careless characters who get killed are generally NPCs and not PCs. The Star Trek red shirt (a throwaway "NPC" who dies to show the PCs how dangerous the situation did) is a good example of the technique. The real protagnists of movies rarely die random or meaningless throw-away deaths, nor do the PCs generally die that way in a Dramtist game. The Simulationist game doesn't distinguish between an NPC and a PC. In a Simulationist Private Ryan, Captain Miller might have died on the beach or been hit by a Wehrmacht sniper before ever running into Private Ryan.

In fact, if you are thinking in terms of "simulating a story", then I think you're missing the point of Simulationism in the Threefold sense, though it's a common mistake caused by the term, itself. If you are "simulating a story", then that's Dramatism. Simulationism is about "simulating" a world and most settings do not inherently differentiate their inhabitants into priviledged and expendable categories for story purposes. In fact, the earlier terms for each was probably more descriptive -- "story-based" and "world-based". Do the decisions derive from what would make the best story or what would just naturally happen in the game world if it were a real place.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I like the paradigm Mr Morrow's cites of "story-based" games -v- "world-based" games, but it seems to me that the Cinematic Style described by Fanboy and others above departs from both. It seems to have some of the characteristics of a world-based game (in that the characters can have a real influence on the outcome) and yet share some of the characteristics of the story-based game.

I don't think that the Cinematic Style as described earlier in this thread really fits terribly well into conventional models, and I'm blessed if I can see a trite way of characterising it that isn't flawed in some way.

I think the concept of "points" that a character can spend at critical moments to influence the outcome of events was probably first put in print by Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's "Fate Points" mechanism. I'd like to stress that you could have a "fate point" or "drama point" in a world-based game just as you could in a story-based one.

 

[The Shaman]

I think the concept of "points" that a character can spend at critical moments to influence the outcome of events was probably first put in print by Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's "Fate Points" mechanism.

TSR's Top Secret had a "hero points"-type mechanic - the actual name escapes me, but I vaguely recall that you gained points as you gained levels.

An interesting note: the TS RAW indicated that to use the point, the player had to come up with an in-game reason describing how the effect worked or lose the point and the benefit. If I remember correctly, the example was something along the lines of getting shot and taking enough damage to die, but instead spending the point and deciding that the bullet was deflected off a lucky silver dollar in the character's pocket, or something like that. It was specifically geared toward what it seems would today be called a "cinematic" style of play.

(Ahh, Top Secret - how I miss sneaking through the alleys and basements of Sprechenhaltestelle...just don't order the sausage at the butcher's... )

 

[T. Foster]

As John Morrow points out, Dramatism (which is, essentially, trying to recreate the feel of a story within an rpg) is actually a form of Simulationism -- only instead of simulating a world you're simulating a story. 'Cinematic' play, which could perhaps be defined as allowing the players to have some control over the environment/story beyond their characters, is distinct from this, and is actually (I think) closer to Narrativism as defined/discussed at The Forge (though of course they've attached a lot of additional baggage regarding 'premises' that serves to confuse and obfuscate the issue). The one Narrativist game I have actual first-hand experience with (Issaries Inc.'s HeroQuest) specifically allows players, by virtue of spending 'points' and good rolls, to influence the course of the game beyond their characters, and from what I understand Narrativist games like Donjon take this even a step further -- when the party comes to a door if a player rolls particularly well he gets to declare what is beyond the door(!). This is very far from both pre-scripted 'storytelling' type play and also traditional challenge/tactics-oriented play (i.e. rather than the players being an audience for the DM or opponents to the DM, they are essentially collaborators with the DM).

As for the origin of 'fate points' ('story point,' 'hero points,' etc.) in rpgs, I believe the first place they appeared was in Victory Games' James Bond 007 game (certainly that game predated WFRP -- 1983 vs. 1986), but of course I could be wrong.

 

[S'mon]

I agree that Gamist & Simulationist WW2 games will tend to look a lot more like Ryan than Eagles - BTW I played for years in a highly Gamist WW2 RPG, PCs got 10 hit points per level so it wasn't very Simulationist though, although that was the GM/designer's intent I think.

Cinematic games that are not Narrativist tend to pastiche - eg cinematic 'action' games tend to be more like a Steven Segal movie than Die Hard IMO.