The "simulation" angle got reversed at some point, I think. It stopped being about simulating something that was out there that you could check against for accuracy (like checking your combat rules against SCA re-enactment, or checking your magic rules against RL beliefs in the supernatural or how magic worked in myth/legend/fiction), but, rather, became a matter of treating the game /as/ a simulation of something, /defined wholly & only by how the game simulated it/.Returning to the central theme, I'll give my answer not from the "success in the market" point of view as much from the core feel of the game. D&D 3/3.5/PF stressed the simulation side of the game. Things were supposed to Work A Certain Way That Made Sense, and the rules would support that. People would argue about whether things were realistic (hit points anyone?)
That was a method more than a goal. The goals were probably varied. But, one thing 4e did was model fiction, fantasy, yes, but even the broader, cinematic 'action' genres. It was really rather pervasive. Thus, surges, 'powers' that recharged with each scene (short rest/encounter), genre bits - like all the mooks surrounding the Big Damn Hero charging him one at a time to be cut down in an entertainingly-choreographed manner - were given the force of rules, and 'off camera' stuff being hand waved and glossed over instead of meticulously accounted for.4E had a different goal; it put the game element up front
Early wargames really were simulations, they were training tools for or hypothetical alternatives to actual war. But the wargaming hobby were people playing games, so they were already a compromise between the concerns of a game - fairness, fun, playability, etc - and the concerns of a simulation - accuracy, completeness, fidelity. D&D, 'simulating' the un-real, naturally slid more towards game..."To be a fun game, all team members should be able to contribute substantially in all scenes", contrasting with previous versions where magic wins because in the world of fantasy, that is what is "realistic". Whereas previous editions were simulations first (from the wargaming roots), with rules supporting it, 4E went all-in on being a game first.
And, TT gaming, in general has been in a renaissance of sorts since oh, 2012 or 14 or so.5E's success is partly attributable to the general rise in nerd appreciation; it's cool to be into D&D, way more so than it was around 4E's time, so that, for me, is a big factor. But so is the fact that they did a bang-up job of mashing together <past editions>
It would have to be launched into the teeth of the worst recession since the Great Depression, with sales goals double the total of the entire industry, intimately linked to vaporware, and attacked with rabid, unceasing nerdrage by it's most ardent fans, even to the point of burning books on youtube and accosting customers at game stores.So, back to PF2. If PF2 was Paizo's 4E
Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age. And as best I can tell typical 3E/PF and typical 5e play is either what The Forge would call "high concept simulationionism" or what it would call "gamism".If you want a fantasy game exactly at the middle of al gamers' preferences: 5E. If you want one edging towards narrative elements: 13th Age. If you want one edging towards simulation: PF2. If you want one zooming out to the horizon of gamism -- there's 4E!
Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age. And as best I can tell typical 3E/PF and typical 5e play is either what The Forge would call "high concept simulationionism" or what it would call "gamism".If you want a fantasy game exactly at the middle of al gamers' preferences: 5E. If you want one edging towards narrative elements: 13th Age. If you want one edging towards simulation: PF2. If you want one zooming out to the horizon of gamism -- there's 4E!
No. I like the terms because they help describe play styles, but the theory is way off. If you re-read my point, you'll see that I explicitly reject classic GNS theory since I state that 5E does what classic GNS theory says is impossible.Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age
I'm not big into arguing semantics or naming conventions, which is why I alternate terms like "story", "narrative" etc. to make that clear. I've played enough PF and 5E to know that they feel very different, so I'm not compelled by an argument that says they are the same. The forge style "A game must fall into one of these three buckets" is something I reject. I just use GNS as a continuum to say things like "5E is more narrative than PF; PF is more about simulation than 5E" which few people would disagree with (except those who want to argue exact meanings of words).And as best I can tell typical 3E/PF and typical 5e play is either what The Forge would call "high concept simulationionism" or what it would call "gamism"
I think there are some systems which produce player characters which have a "concept", an easily-discernible fictional nature or schtick, independently of how the character is played. AD&D aspires to this, even with at least some of its class names - we have paladins, rangers, thieves, assassins, druids, martial arts monks, etc - although in play they can sometimes fail to deliver what they promise (qv thieves, monks).
My sense is that 5e not only aspires to this but generally achieves it. Whereas in 4e, at least as I've experienced, it's often the case that you don't really know what a character can do - what his/her "concept" is - until you see the character in play.
Maybe it's that I started playing D&D with AD&D, where if you read a stat block for one fighter, you read them for all of them -- but I have never tried to make a concept from a character based on stats, powers and the like. That feels much more like a simulationist approach -- the rules should define what my character is, based purely on what he can do -- and that's not me. 13A encourages that approach, and games such as Fate make it explicit, but for any form of classic D&D/PF, I need more that a stat block to make that happen.That's not to deny that someone with enough experience (of 4e, and of RPGs in general) to have a good mechanical imagination won't be able to imaginatively project from reading a stat block - but I don't think a newbie can easily do that.
Which, if nothing else, illustrates the value (far worse than useless) and intuitiveness (downright deceptive) of Forge labels.Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age. And as best I can tell typical 3E/PF and typical 5e play is either what The Forge would call "high concept simulationionism" or what it would call "gamism".
Interesting? Fundamental. 3.5 vs 5e, for instance, is like night and day in certain, extremely critical ways. Like the role of the DM. In 3.x, the DM is the custodian of the sacred RaW, picking & choosing from amongst it, & adding to or modifying it if he dares, and the crafter of challenges, using all the system mastery at his command. In 5e, the DM /is/ the game, the rules are mere guidelines, providing structure for the players, but no impediments to the DM (if, indeed, he ever feels the need to consult them). Both ask a lot of the DM, but in very different ways.That's not to say that there may not be interesting differences in these systems.
I'm not sure I'd call it aspirational. It's a restriction on player options. Later versions of D&D slowly softened those restrictions, both by adding customization options - Kits, NWPs, Feats, Skills, Backgrounds, Themes/PPs/EDs - and by broadening the ability of the player to define his character descriptively - initially some flexibility describing PC appearance, then more complete descriptive freedom extended to gear as well, finally virtually everything being 'skinnable.'I think there are some systems which produce player characters which have a "concept", an easily-discernible fictional nature or schtick, independently of how the character is played. AD&D aspires to this, even with at least some of its class names - we have paladins, rangers, thieves, assassins, druids, martial arts monks, etc
I suspect there are many tables where this contrast doesn't hold. I mean, even on these boards I see lots of thread asking what the rules for XYZ are in 5e. And back in the day I saw plenty of 3E-playing posters decrying obsessive adherence to "RAW" and advocating for "rules of cool" and the like.3.5 vs 5e, for instance, is like night and day in certain, extremely critical ways. Like the role of the DM. In 3.x, the DM is the custodian of the sacred RaW, picking & choosing from amongst it, & adding to or modifying it if he dares, and the crafter of challenges, using all the system mastery at his command. In 5e, the DM /is/ the game, the rules are mere guidelines, providing structure for the players, but no impediments to the DM (if, indeed, he ever feels the need to consult them). Both ask a lot of the DM, but in very different ways.
I'm not talking about customisation. I'm talking about the degree to which the PC build process yields high level, easily accessible "descriptors" that can be taken to tell us what the PC is/does.I'm not sure I'd call it aspirational. It's a restriction on player options.
<snip>
5e's only backed off from a bit from those highs, it retains skills & backgrounds, feats are optional, and, AFAIK, players are still free to describe the physical appearance of characters & their gear how they like. So, while choice of class might be more a straightjacket than in 3e or 4e, it still leaves more room for customization than in the classic game, even 2e.
By "high concept simulationism" I mean what The Forge means - as eg per this essay by Ron Edwards. Game systems that are generally oriented towards such play include DL-ish AD&D, CoC, Vampire: the Masquerade, and a fair bit of PF-ish/5e-ish Adventure Path play.I might be helpful for you to define what you understand by "high concept" and "high concept simulationism".
I don't really follow this. It's imputing things to me that I didn't say.If you believe that you need stat blocks, powers and other quantified items to define a "high concept" for a character, then clearly early D&D, and the whole OSR community are a failure
<snip>
I guess I'd be curious how you reconcile the complete inability of early D&D and most OSR games to model that concept with their popularity?
I didn't say that. I said that - and you quoted me as saying that - "Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does, then there's no interesting difference between 4e and 13th Age." You suggested that 13th Age is "narrativist" and 4e is "gamist", but in The Forge sense the two systems exhibit no such contrast. And in fact, if anything, I would say that the existence of skill challenges in 4e and their absence from 13th Age makes 4e more suited for mainstream scene-framing narrativist play, while the presence of Icon rolls in 13th Age makes it easier to push that game in the direction of high-concept simulationism (whereas, as I posted, I think that's almost hopeless for 4e because too many of the system elements, including the skill challenge mechanic, will push against it).This is kind of a weird statement paired with your position of not seeing much of a difference between 4E and 13th Age
Again, I didn't say they're the same. Just that I don't think there is any significant GNS difference in respect of them.I've played enough PF and 5E to know that they feel very different, so I'm not compelled by an argument that says they are the same.
This is another point where I have no idea what you're talking about. 4e is the only version of D&D I've payed regularly in the past 20 years and the only one I would play again (except perhaps for one or two sessions of AD&D a year for nostalgia's sake).this is hard to square with your dislike of 4E
Three radically dissimilar games.Game systems that are generally oriented towards such play include AD&D, CoC, Vampire: the Masquerade...
So, if you use it to "confuse, inveigle and obfuscate..."*I didn't say that. I said that - and you quoted me as saying that - "Assuming you're using GNS more-or-less as The Forge does,
So if you take all those various customization options, and pick one possible set of them, they yield exactly one possible concept? Still sounds restrictive vs being able to stand in for multiple concepts that accomplish the same things, but in different ways.I'm not talking about customisation. I'm talking about the degree to which the PC build process yields high level, easily accessible "descriptors" that can be taken to tell us what the PC is/does.