NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4466714" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't really know. As I'm sure you know, Ron Edwards has expressed the view that one obstacle to the mainstreaming of RPGs is "simulationist-by-habit" rules and play. I infer from the design of 4e that the WoTC team agree with him - as this seems the best explanation for the rebuilding of D&D as a gamist/narrativist oriented system. (Such a rebuild does not come about simply as a result of inadvertance to the issues.)I don't talk to enough non-gamers about RPGs to have a sense of whether you or Edwards/WoTC is correct. I do find it plausible, however, that more people would enjoy a narration-type game with mechanics to set the parameters, than would enjoy a game in which somewhat arcane mathematical processes tell you what is happening in the game you are playing. However, this is only a necessary condition for the mainstreaming of RPGs, not a sufficient one.Once again a very good post - thanks Lost Soul.This Lancelot example also suggests another way of drawing the contrast between the simulationist and the narrativist approaches. In the simulationist approach, I (as a player) get to control the sort of wounds my PC takes only by controlling my PC's actions leading up to the combat - roughly, if I play cleverly then I might not be subjected to attack. Once I get into combat it is very much a case of all bets being off. Hence the emphasis, in 1st ed AD&D, of clever players avoiding combat. Many RM players also take this approach to play.I think that the appeal of this sort of play is limited to a rather narrow section of the potential gaming public.The narrativist approach, on the other hand, doesn't particularly penalise the player whose PC gets into combat. In fact it offers rewards, because it is at this point that the sorts of thematic/dramatic opportunities that Lost Soul is talking about emerge. And the player is able to exercise as much control over what happens to her/his PC as her imagination permits, provided that it is consistent with the parameters set by the mechanics (which ensure that everyone at the table is on the same page as far as conflict resolution is concerned).On this approach, "good play" (in the sense of play that goes with, rather than against, the grain of the system) does not mean 1st ed AD&D clever play, but rather thematically and dramatically imaginative narration which builds upon the foundation established by the action resolution mechanics. I find it easy to believe that this is an approach to play which is likely to have a wider appeal to the potential gaming public (though not necessarily to the actual gaming public, given the pre-eminence of "simulationism by habit").</blockquote>

Verification