Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6741072" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'll post again: I have a lot of experience in playing the sort of systems that Edwards calls "purist for system simulationism" - predominantly Rolemaster, but also various BRP-type games (Runequest, Stormbringer etc).And as I posted upthread, Edwards discussion on those systems correctly identifies their aspirations and their points of vulnerability - his honing in on initiative is particularly apposite here.Here is another passage of his from the <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/15/" target="_blank">simulationism essay</a>, which is relevant to just about every alignment and paladin thread ever generated on ENworld:Consider the behavioral parameters of a samurai player-character in Sorcerer and in GURPS. On paper the sheets look pretty similar: bushido all over the place, honorable, blah blah. But what does this mean in terms of player decisions and events during play? I suggest that in Sorcerer (Narrativist), the expectation is that the character will encounter functional limits of his or her behavioral profile, and eventually, will necessarily break one or more of the formal tenets as an expression of who he or she "is," or suffer for failing to do so. No one knows how, or which one, or in relation to which other characters; that's what play is for. I suggest that in GURPS (Simulationist), the expectation is that the behavioral profile sets the parameters within which the character reliably acts, especially in the crunch - in other words, it formalizes the role the character will play in the upcoming events. Breaking that role in a Sorcerer-esque fashion would, in this case, constitute something very like a breach of contract.In a current alignment thread, I (and some other posters) have said that we prefer an approach to alignment, paladin codes etc where the player is the principal determiner of what the code requires. The response we get from some (yet other) posters is that this is broken, is allowing paladins to get away with (literal) murder, etc.They are applying the approach to alignment that Edwards identifies with GURPS. I (and the other posters) are adopting an approach to alignment with corresponds with the one that Edwards calls narrativist. I'm not too fussed about terminology, but the differences of approach are real. There is no way that I want to either run, or play in, a game of the GURPs alignment variety. But clearly some other ENworlders do not want any sort of approach to "behavioural parameters" except that.</blockquote>

Verification