Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
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="GrahamWills" data-source="post: 7629927" data-attributes="member: 75787"><p>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.</p><p></p><p> 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). </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is kind of a weird statement paired with your position of not seeing much of a difference between 4E and 13th Age, since a core strength of 13A is that it uses a slew of narrative features that jump-start the character concept immediately; One Unique Things, Icon Relationships and Aspect-style backgrounds instead of skills. My 13th Age Monk started off</p><p></p><p><em>Suiauthon ("Soo-ee") Half-Elf Monk; Unique Thing: Avoids Water, and Water avoids Him. Positive relationships with the Crusader, Priestess and The Three. Backgrounds: +2 Serene Student of Priestly Lore; +3 Viper Assassin of the Black; +1 Legendary Carousing.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p>Even given you just mis-spoke about 13A and 4E being similar GNS-wise, I'm not sure that your (following) statement is a universal way of getting the concept of a character:</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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, which I find hard to believe. It also argues you need a very rich system, with tons of feats, talents, classes and optional powers, so you can choose the best concept. Again this is hard to square with your dislike of 4E (maybe you think the overabundance make sit too hard for a novice? But even then surely it is better to have too many than too few?)</p><p></p><p>I might be helpful for you to define what you understand by "high concept" and "high concept simulationism". Is an example of the former "A street-born fighter and liar for justice?" and would the simulationism by embodied by taking powers and skills to support that concept? If so then 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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GrahamWills, post: 7629927, member: 75787"] 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. 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). This is kind of a weird statement paired with your position of not seeing much of a difference between 4E and 13th Age, since a core strength of 13A is that it uses a slew of narrative features that jump-start the character concept immediately; One Unique Things, Icon Relationships and Aspect-style backgrounds instead of skills. My 13th Age Monk started off [I]Suiauthon ("Soo-ee") Half-Elf Monk; Unique Thing: Avoids Water, and Water avoids Him. Positive relationships with the Crusader, Priestess and The Three. Backgrounds: +2 Serene Student of Priestly Lore; +3 Viper Assassin of the Black; +1 Legendary Carousing. [/I] Even given you just mis-spoke about 13A and 4E being similar GNS-wise, I'm not sure that your (following) statement is a universal way of getting the concept of a character: 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. 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, which I find hard to believe. It also argues you need a very rich system, with tons of feats, talents, classes and optional powers, so you can choose the best concept. Again this is hard to square with your dislike of 4E (maybe you think the overabundance make sit too hard for a novice? But even then surely it is better to have too many than too few?) I might be helpful for you to define what you understand by "high concept" and "high concept simulationism". Is an example of the former "A street-born fighter and liar for justice?" and would the simulationism by embodied by taking powers and skills to support that concept? If so then 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
Top