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: 7630314" data-attributes="member: 42582">The reason for the parenthetical is that most posters on ENworld who use the terms GNS don't use them as The Forge does. (Similarly they don't use the term "fail forward" in the way those who coined it did. In both cases its because discussion on ENworld doesn't typically incorporate an appreciation of the approaches to RPGing that underpinned the coinage of these various terms.)In typical ENworld usage, "S" means something like what The Forge calls "Purist for system simulationism", "N" means something like what The Forge calls "High concept simulationism" but can also be used to describe a game with player-side metagame mechanics, and "G" means something like "has resolution processes with high search-and-handling time" or "has lots of metagame resolution" or "doesn't straightforwardly allow the GM to decide outcomes by narrative fiat".Maybe you find the usage in the previous paragraph helpful. Personally I don't, but that's because I want an analytic vocabulary that can do more then tell me that 5e is mechanically crunchier and has more player-side metagame than does CoC (notice how I can make that point without needing to use any GNS terminology at all). For my part I have learned a lot from The Forge. It explained more to me about Rolemaster, a game that I played for nearly 20 years, then anything on the official ICE forums. And as I already posted, it anticipated of all the criticisms that 4e faced from its critics - anyone who'd read the relevant material on The Forge, and saw what was being announced in the lead up to 4e and the response on these boards, could see what was going exactly what was going on and write the script for the next 4 years.Why does 5e not receive the same criticisms as 4e? In my view, primarily because it is packaged as a high concept simulationist game, which remains the most popular approach among RPGers.I get that you are very opposed to analysis of RPGing. That doesn't make analysis wicked or wrong.</blockquote>

Verification