Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Idle Musings - D&D design scope
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5956885" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>Riffing off recent discussion in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=5956625#post5956528" target="_blank">My HP Fix - Page 8 - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine</a>, I'm going to assert a few things and see if they spark any interest:</p><p> </p><p>D&D has always been a mix of process-sim, result-sim, gamist, and narrative mechanics. By that, I mean something vaguely analogous to Forge versions of simultation, gamism, and narrativism in pursuit of creative agendas, but not exactly. For example, in my usage, a gamist decision is simply one that produces a decision point in manipulating the odds using the game's mechanics, while a narrative one is the corresponding decision point in manipulating the fiction. Both simulation type mechanics run the other way, where you are finding out what happened rather than deciding.</p><p> </p><p>This mix is a great strength of D&D, and accounts for a certain amount of its widespread appeal. It's also one of the things that drives people crazy. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> </p><p> </p><p>D&D has also always been a mix of incompatible and incoherent abstractions. Unlike the various mechanics, I think this has largely been a negative--or at best, a "necessary evil." People have wanted incompatible things in the game, and the designers have tried to satisfy them. You could get away with a lot, because of the abstractions. For a long time, the designers tried to satisfy them with patter and fancy footwork. As the designers got more serious about really handling the issues, instead of hiding them, the incompatible desires have become more and more apparent. The Next modular approach is the <strong>only</strong> answer that solve this problem, except for people who think the patter and fancy footwork was sufficient. (Or more fairly, the modular approach is the only suggestion I've seen thus far capable of solving the problem.)</p><p> </p><p>There's at least three strains of thought in the above. I'll wait to see if I get any bites before I bore you with elaboration. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5956885, member: 54877"] Riffing off recent discussion in [url=http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p=5956625#post5956528]My HP Fix - Page 8 - EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine[/url], I'm going to assert a few things and see if they spark any interest: D&D has always been a mix of process-sim, result-sim, gamist, and narrative mechanics. By that, I mean something vaguely analogous to Forge versions of simultation, gamism, and narrativism in pursuit of creative agendas, but not exactly. For example, in my usage, a gamist decision is simply one that produces a decision point in manipulating the odds using the game's mechanics, while a narrative one is the corresponding decision point in manipulating the fiction. Both simulation type mechanics run the other way, where you are finding out what happened rather than deciding. This mix is a great strength of D&D, and accounts for a certain amount of its widespread appeal. It's also one of the things that drives people crazy. :p D&D has also always been a mix of incompatible and incoherent abstractions. Unlike the various mechanics, I think this has largely been a negative--or at best, a "necessary evil." People have wanted incompatible things in the game, and the designers have tried to satisfy them. You could get away with a lot, because of the abstractions. For a long time, the designers tried to satisfy them with patter and fancy footwork. As the designers got more serious about really handling the issues, instead of hiding them, the incompatible desires have become more and more apparent. The Next modular approach is the [B]only[/B] answer that solve this problem, except for people who think the patter and fancy footwork was sufficient. (Or more fairly, the modular approach is the only suggestion I've seen thus far capable of solving the problem.) There's at least three strains of thought in the above. I'll wait to see if I get any bites before I bore you with elaboration. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Idle Musings - D&D design scope
Top