Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8607555" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yeah, that's where I'm at here, and I actually prefer a bit more narrative in my gaming.Like I'd say I'm ~50% gamist, ~35% narrativist, ~15% simulationist.I value, very highly, a balanced and "learnable" game. Those are purely gamist considerations which do not intersect with the other two categories. But part of the value there (only part, but still part) is that I can get the opportunity to tell a satisfying story through gameplay. Some of my favorite mechanics in 4e, 13A, and DW are the ones where performing the mechanic IS the story, and doing the story IS the mechanic--the difference between an instance of a narrative/trope and an expression of a rule vanishes. E.g. the difference between 4e "Lay on Hands" and other editions; in 3e-and-before and in 5e, LoH is just "here's a pool of healing, have fun," while in 4e you must sacrifice your own healing to heal others--and can get REALLY good at healing others if you build for it (e.g. Cha/Con Dragonborn, Knight Hospitaler theme, Hospitaler PP).But once the game-ability has been satisfied...I'm there for a good story. I want mechanics that will support developing a good story, even if they don't have a clear representation in the world as objectively real entities or processes. Hence why I don't really care that 4e martial daily powers have a limit of 1/day, nor that DW's Discern Realities move can "reveal" that the situation is more dire than previously thought on a -6 (or, with my house rules, that a 13+ can reveal things are better than previously thought.) Hence, also, why I have such problems with secret behind-the-scenes rewrites of monsters or their actions (which causes issues for the aforementioned gamism) but don't have issues with similar actions that are either in the open (and thus gamist) or learnable/established-in-advance (and thus woven into the narrative).Despite that covering the vast majority of my tastes, though, there's still just a little bit of me that likes some simulationism, treating the world as though it were an extant physical entity running on consistent and (theoretically) universal rules. That's absolutely not the majority of my preference, but more like...the cherry on top, the bit that makes me smile and think "dang, they actually pulled that off." Simulation, for me, isn't the main focus, but rather the final bit of polish you put onto a game that is already (a) a very good game and (b) effective at generating interesting narratives both small and large (e.g. "using Lay on Hands" vs "a year-long arc that culminates with a cynical ally being inspired to seek goodness in the world and leading the charge against a dangerous foe.") If you can get that polish in, GREAT, that's lovely, it elevates a game immensely. But I can attend to that polish myself if necessary. I'd much rather have a very well-constructed game first, then ensure the game engenders or inspires cool stories, then polish it up afterward.</blockquote>

Verification