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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4006025" data-attributes="member: 42582">Fair enough. I'll admit that my use of "thoughtful" to characterise the voices I'm listening to isn't entirely independent of what those voices say (but I do maintain it is somewhat indepenent thereof).To an extent that is true - though I think that the explanations are offered, and if W&M is anything to go by are not paper-thin. And I have to ask, if you want to play a very different sort of game (eg a political/social game) then why play D&D? The question is not rhetorical, but it does presuppose that there might be better systems and worlds out there to support a different sort of play.I guess by "contemporary roleplaying" I mean roleplaying where (i) the system has been designed with a clear intention to support a certain sort of play; (ii) the gameworld has been designed with the same intention, and the same playstyle in mind; (iii) as a special but very important case of (i) and (i), simulationist priorities are actually questioned, and jettisoned where appropriate, rather than retained unthinkingly.I agree with you that a lot of the mechanics seem apt to support gamist play, but for various reasons (many of which I hashed out on the hideous "Why is it important thread" and won't bore you with here unless you ask for them) think these mechanics can also provide a lot of support for narrativist play, if that's what a group is interested in. I'm especially thinking of the per-encounter powers and action points, which transfer narrative power from the GM (who generally gets to set the in-game timeframe) to the player, and also the possibilities opened up by a challenge and reward system that goes beyond combat to social challenges and other sorts of challenges.As for the (obviously needed) flavour text - maybe they'll give it to us, maybe they'll leave us to make it up. As long as they don't try to use flavour text to enforce simulationist priorities on the game as a whole, I'm not too fussed about which way they go. I can certainly think of adequate flavour to cover all the mechanical examples I've seen so far (Paladin smites, Elven perception auras, Leader heals, Second Winds, etc).I happen to like a good chunk of W&M, because it shows how a D&D setting can be conceived of without starting from simulationsist premises, and really (IMO) have the possibility of supporting some fun play (be it gamist or narrativist).But as for the mechanical stuff - social challenges, operational play etc - I'm just relying on the various bits and pieces of info linked to on this site, then reading it together with stuff that Monte Cook used to write in his old columns on his site, plus stuff he and Mearls did for Malhavoc, plus a bit of intuition. I came to this forum after spending a fair bit of time debating the RM rules revision on the ICE website (ultimately an unhappy experience, as not only does simulationism rule there but they don't even seem to know about other ways to play) so have become used to, and willing (perhaps too willing) to take part in, speculating/intuiting on the basis of a small amount of info.But at least to me it doesn't seem that hard to join a few of the dots. Very few people really enjoy all the minutiae of full-blown simulationism in play, so it makes sense that the designers would try to go in a different direction.I haven't read or played it, so can't comment. But yours does seem to be a minority opinion. On this forum I know that Imaro doesn't like it - and also doesn't like 4e - but a lot of others seem to.For what it's worth, my prediction is this:*If you like 1st ed-style play, in which character builds are very light, action resolution mechanics are virtually non-existent, and most play is resolved through direct negotiation between player and GM, 4e isn't for you.*If you like 1st ed-style play, in which it's all about the iron spikes and ten-foot poles, and an encounter avoided is a victory won, 4e isn't for you.*If you want all simulationism purged from you action resolution (eg no real time/space in your combats), 4e isn't for you.*If you want a historically/anthropologically realistic gameworld, 4e isn't for you.*If you like political/social play of the sort that RQ, or most published RM modules, tend to support, 4e isn't for you.*If you loved what alignment did to the game, 4e isn't for you.Otherwise, if you like fantasy RPGing, 4e might be worth checking out.</blockquote>

Verification