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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5663776" data-attributes="member: 54877">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=82106" target="_blank">AbdulAlhazred</a> ,  The gamist piece would not be an option. It would be a core part of the design, and embedded in it. You wouldn't be able to easily use this theoretical 5E to play Sorcerer or RuneQuest or any number of other games built on a different basis. So it is not "gamist or" but "gamist plus some X". The core gamist part is what allows a coherent framework for those options to attach to. And the skill piece is a necessary but not sufficient part of such a design. Elements in the core must have hooks for the options to be attached to, where they matter for any "plus" piece that the designers care to support. I can't possibly see supporting modest options for operational, storytelling, exploration, or narrativism without this impinging on the skill system. That means, the skill system has to have places to bend with these options. I don't think you can get the bend with the current skill system. Every such element would have to be handled that way--at least insomuch as options were going to work there. It might turn out that some things, like certain ways that classes worked, simply can't bend in that way. So ok, you don't get options there, even though supporting some styles could easily be embedded in the class by default. Instead, you stick to the gamist core and let the options shine elsewhere. The unbending parts define the core experience for the game that everyone shares, and the options show you where and how far you can drift from that core.</blockquote>

Verification