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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5655144" data-attributes="member: 27160">I have necer experienced 4E played in that mode.  I can quite believe that there are some people who do play it that way, but I'm not at all convinced that either of us know whether or not they constitute 'most' of the players of 4E.I do, however, think that, compared to other systems I have played, D&D is quite poor at supporting Simulationist play.  The reasons why I explained above, but basically are around experience points, 'levelling up' and hit points.  And not because they are "unrealistic".OK, but what I was asking was what is your belief based on?Pigeonholing means nothing to me, either - but that is not what GNS as I understand it tries to do.  Maybe you have reached a different understanding of it; I'm interested in why and how you have done that.So the way some internet posters have misused the terms has soured you to them?  I can understand that.Sorry, that was not my intent.  Let me rephrase the point:- GNS is an attempt to understand the motivations of people while roleplaying- You say you abhor the 'GNS stuff'- But you not only don't say why it's a poor way to understand roleplaying, you say things that imply you misunderstand it yourself.So I asked what your reason for disliking GNS was.  It appeared not to be that GNS is a flawed system of understanding roleplaying - what's left as a reason?  I thought of (i) being opposed to the very idea of seeking understanding, (ii) thinking that "theorising" is just a waste of time and (iii) having bad experiences with those espousing the theories that set you against them.  From your responses so far I am inclined to think it's the last one, but I am still very unsure.This comment, specifically, seems to point to the last explanation.But my explanations are probably not even a complete list, and hence the reason for me asking, rather than just trying to divine the answer from your posts.Well, they inform me.  I realise that this might hold no value for you, but your virulence against GNS makes me think that there must be something beyond them "not having value for you" to make you feel the way you do.I have explained above why I didn't think that was the case, but if it sounded that way I apologise for that misstep.Actually, I don't think GNS is either of those things.  It specifically does not talk about systems, it really only addresses a part of what might be called 'playstyle' and it hardly really applies to campaigns.  It's really just about what the players have as the focus of their attention in the moment of actual play.  All the other stuff - the systems and the routines and habits formed by the group - simply may support one or other of the available focuses of attention.  Or may support none of them, specifically.Absolutely true.  Knowledge of theory has never guaranteed facility with the practical art.  Theory does, however, give a perspective and a clarity of vision that can help a reasonably competent practitioner of the practical art.  Practical art is useful on its own, theory is not, but the two combined will always be superior to either alone.Yes, indeed - and that analogy would be a good explanation of why someone does not wish to bother understanding GNS theories.  But seldom do I hear anyone going around saying that cinematography is "crap" or that it's "useless navel-gazing".  I am interested in what causes that, rather extreme, reaction - not in what causes disinterest.</blockquote>

Verification