Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7939709" data-attributes="member: 42582">I wanted to post a separate reply to this so as to hive off the Forge-related discussion:I think the 5e text is flexible enough to cover both process-sim-ish (in Forge terms, &quot;purist for system&quot;) simulationism, and what the Forge calls &quot;high concept&quot; simulationism (which I tend to call 2nd ed AD&amp;D style, or DL style, or White Wolf/storyteller style). That is, the back-and-forth of the exploration-oriented discussion can encompass both finding out how the world works as determined by the system (this is also the default ethos of Classic Traveller, I think, though not how I myself play it) and finding out what adventure/story the GM has in store for us this afternoon.The 4e encounter breaks away from this (to use the Forge terminology) simulationism. Encounters have a point, and the system has to let that point be realised. It can be a gamist point (in 4e that's mostly showing off to your friends how deft you are in your mechanical and tactical play) or a narrativist point (which is how some of us on these boards have approached 4e). But the point isn't just to find out what the system tells us happens The system (and the conversation that is part of the system) is a means, not an end.What my two-paragraph analysis leaves out is can 5e, despite its exploration-oriented play loop, deliver play that has a point? I can't answer this from play experience. I look at the mechanics, especially the out-of-combat mechanics, and feel that it may struggle a bit. That's one reason I don't play it. For those who do use it for non-exploratory, point-serving play, I think they must do something to the loop to give it a degree of finality/closure that's not there in the explanatory text that I've quoted.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7939709, member: 42582"] I wanted to post a separate reply to this so as to hive off the Forge-related discussion: I think the 5e text is flexible enough to cover both process-sim-ish (in Forge terms, "purist for system") simulationism, [I]and [/I]what the Forge calls "high concept" simulationism (which I tend to call 2nd ed AD&D style, or DL style, or White Wolf/storyteller style). That is, the back-and-forth of the exploration-oriented discussion can encompass both [I]finding out how the world works as determined by the system [/I](this is also the default ethos of Classic Traveller, I think, though not how I myself play it) and [I]finding out what adventure/story the GM has in store for us this afternoon.[/I] The 4e [I]encounter[/I] breaks away from this (to use the Forge terminology) simulationism. Encounters have a [I]point[/I], and the system has to let that point be realised. It can be a gamist point (in 4e that's mostly showing off to your friends how deft you are in your mechanical and tactical play) or a narrativist point (which is how some of us on these boards have approached 4e). But the point isn't just to find out what the system tells us happens The system (and the conversation that is part of the system) is a means, not an end. What my two-paragraph analysis leaves out is [I]can 5e, despite its exploration-oriented play loop, deliver play that has a point? [/I]I can't answer this from play experience. I look at the mechanics, especially the out-of-combat mechanics, and feel that it may struggle a bit. That's one reason I don't play it. For those who do use it for non-exploratory, [I]point-serving[/I] play, I think they must do something to the loop to give it a degree of finality/closure that's not there in the explanatory text that I've quoted. [/QUOTE]

Verification