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: 4453679" data-attributes="member: 42582">Have you read <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/20/" target="_blank">Ron Edward's essay on Dungeons and Dragons</a>? It makes for an interesting read. He argues that there was recognisably narrativist play in D&D from the beginning, and obviously also gamist play, but that both mainstream D&D play, and also system design, gradually drifted in a recognisably simulationist direction.However, I think most people who accept and deploy the GNS framework would argue that AD&D and 3rd ed D&D were, as published rulesets, "abashed" - that is, unable to deliver a coherent play experience unless drifted in one or another direction (either gamist or simulationist) in the course of play.As a simulationist game, 3E involves a trade-off between "purist for system" (eg skill points, monster design rules, grapplilng mechanics etc - the mechanics are ingame causation) and "high concept" (eg levels, hit points, etc which deliver a cinematic experience via the mechanics without the need for metagame intervention/narration of the sort that 4e requires). I think the tension between these two design goals probably helps explain many of the love/hate feelilngs people have towards 3E.Leaving aside the fact that D&D was never an obviously simulationist game until AD&D, there was also Tunnels & Trolls, a self-consciously gamist game.Champions was played in a narrativist and a gamist fashion as well as in a simulationist fashion. Call of Cthulhu is simulationist, but not by way of verisimilitude ("purist for system"). It's goal is to deliver, via the mechanics without the need for metagaming, a certain genre experience.</blockquote>

Verification