Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5656244" data-attributes="member: 27160">Purely anecdotally, I think DMs who post online may have a jonesing for Sim play to an extent.&nbsp; What their actual sessions consist of, though, I have no idea - and the agenda will be mostly set by the players, I would guess.&nbsp; But, basically, I have no more real evidence than you, so I guess we'll just have to settle for not knowing.I have seen this quoted, sure - but that's not playing the rules as written, it's 'drifting', as I imagine you are aware.&nbsp; Drifting, far from demonstrating a system's ability to support a play agenda, really demonstrates that it fails, as written, to support that agenda (which is why it &quot;had to be changed&quot;).I don't think we can say it's necessarily Simulationist - it could as easily be Narrativist (and I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s posts around here demonstrate this).&nbsp; But, yeah, 4E can be drifted to support non-Gamist agendas; no great surprise.Agreed.&nbsp; As such, systems and campaigns are not tied to a specific agenda - but they do tend to prioritise and support one specific agenda, as written/intended.Almost as an aside, I think &quot;linear storylines&quot; can fit with Gamist play just fine.&nbsp; The &quot;story&quot; in this case just becomes a convenient context linking all the challenges together.&nbsp; The only agenda that really doesn't suit &quot;linear stories&quot; is Narrativism - but some varieties of Simulationism have issues with them, too.&nbsp; Not that linear stories are essential to Gamist play, mind you - the links and routes between &quot;encounters&quot; can be a game in itself.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5656244, member: 27160"] Purely anecdotally, I think DMs who post online may have a jonesing for Sim play to an extent. What their actual sessions consist of, though, I have no idea - and the agenda will be mostly set by the players, I would guess. But, basically, I have no more real evidence than you, so I guess we'll just have to settle for not knowing. I have seen this quoted, sure - but that's not playing the rules as written, it's 'drifting', as I imagine you are aware. Drifting, far from demonstrating a system's ability to support a play agenda, really demonstrates that it fails, as written, to support that agenda (which is why it "had to be changed"). I don't think we can say it's necessarily Simulationist - it could as easily be Narrativist (and I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s posts around here demonstrate this). But, yeah, 4E can be drifted to support non-Gamist agendas; no great surprise. Agreed. As such, systems and campaigns are not tied to a specific agenda - but they do tend to prioritise and support one specific agenda, as written/intended. Almost as an aside, I think "linear storylines" can fit with Gamist play just fine. The "story" in this case just becomes a convenient context linking all the challenges together. The only agenda that really doesn't suit "linear stories" is Narrativism - but some varieties of Simulationism have issues with them, too. Not that linear stories are essential to Gamist play, mind you - the links and routes between "encounters" can be a game in itself. [/QUOTE]

Verification