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: 5747272" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think that CrazyJerome and I agree that 3E/PF, and D&D more generally, is not really purist-for-sytem simulation (because non-sim elements like hit points, and in classic D&D saving throws, are so integral to the game).Now CJ didn't say that simulationist Lore won't attract RQ/RM players (at least I don't think he did). He said:And I agree with this. I think that making "Lore" truly purist-for-system sim won't attract the 3E/PF crowd. And I think it won't attract the RM/RQ/GURPS/HERO crowd either - they've already got the games that they like.Which suggests that "Lore" has to be 3E/PF-ish, which is to say simulationist only in some respects, perhaps more than merely superficial or peripheral (cf 3E grappling rules) but with big non-simulationist chunks remaining (especiallly in core combat resolution).I have been imagining a situation-based "Legend" and a sandboxy "Lore"  - with "Legend" tweaking the dials in a fashion that makes the non-simulationism clear, while "Lore" adds in a few bells and whistles to generate the minimum appearance of simulation that is 3E/PF (with the sandboxy scenario design being one of those bells and whistles).This is probably a bit of a departure from CJ's initial idea - because it is locating the sandboxiness in "Lore" rather than in Core. Core, on my version of CJ's idea, is neutral as between sandbox or situation as the basis of scenario design.What I liked about CJ's idea, and am keeping in my version of it, is that it gives "Legend" something to do that might attract 3E/PF players back - because Paizo on the whole does not focus on sandboxing but on adventure paths.On my model, then there would be four versions of D&D:*"Core", published by WotC, with a stripped-back PC build and action resolution chassis, with the focus on the GM preparing a scenario or reading a simple module and the players being able to jump right in - because so much of the context and the subtlety of scenario design and action resolution would be contibuted by the participants (and especially the GM), the play of Core could easily be drifted in a variety of directions, but wouldn't particularly support any of them - the expectation would be that players would migrate to one of the other three versions that suited their preferences better; *"Legend", published by WotC and offering a non-simulationist mechanical experience with the focus of play being on the situation as a site for either light narrativism or light gamism, the rules being written so that minimal drifting is required to go one way or the other (think 4e as an example); *"Lore", published by WotC and offering a pseudo-purist-for-system experience with Gygaxian naturalist and gamist (as in "playing to win") elements, and the focus of the fiction being on sandbox setting exploration (this would be classic D&D but realised via 3E-ish mechanics) - depending on how the GM sets up the sandbox and how the players tackle it, the gamism might drop out and we drift to a type of "merchants and explorers" simulationism where most of the focus of play happens outside the context of the action resolution mechanics, at least until some of the more obscure and specialised supplements are put onto the market; *Pathfinder, published by Paizo and offering a pseudo-purist-for-system experience with strong high concept and gamist elements, with the focus of the fiction being on the players' experience of preplotted adventure paths - if the GM starts fudging, then the gamism drops out and we've drifted to pure 2nd-ed style high concept simulationism (with or without an illusionist cloak, depending how blatant the fudging is).I personally doubt that this model is commercially viable, because (i) Core will leak to Pathfinder, and (ii) maintaing both Legend and Lore will be a lot of work for WotC. But that's just a gut feel from someone with no business or publishing experience whatsoever!</blockquote>

Verification