Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5619058" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, what did you mean by &quot;4e's step towards gamist play&quot;?I offered two readings - &quot;gamism&quot; in the Forge sense, which D&amp;D - except for 2nd ed - has always been oriented towards - and &quot;gamism&quot; in the sense of &quot;ignoring the fiction&quot;. Apparently you didn't mean either of those things.It's none of my business what anyone else's preferences are. But on a messageboard about roleplaying, if someone posts and tells me that the game I happen to prefer playing at present isn't an RPG, I think it's within the legitimate bounds of discussion to explain why I disagree.I believe that you don't like 4e. I don't like 3E. And I loathe 2nd ed AD&amp;D. I have a soft spot for Runequest, but could never play it seriously, because it doesn't support the sort of play I enjoy. Classic Traveller likewise.These are all statements of feeling. But describing 4e as taking a step towards gamist play looks to me like something else. It looks like a description of the sort of play that 4e supports, and presumably, then, that 4e players engage in. And I'm curious as to what you had in mind.Maybe you meant &quot;not tending to support immersion, in the sense of the player and the PC having their decision-making experience mereged&quot;? If so, that is true (I think obviously true) of 4e. But there are clearer ways to express that than by saying &quot;it's a boardgame&quot; or &quot;it's not an RPG&quot;. Those are obviously inflammatory.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5619058, member: 42582"] Well, what [I]did[/I] you mean by "4e's step towards gamist play"? I offered two readings - "gamism" in the Forge sense, which D&D - except for 2nd ed - has always been oriented towards - and "gamism" in the sense of "ignoring the fiction". Apparently you didn't mean either of those things. It's none of my business what anyone else's preferences are. But on a messageboard about roleplaying, if someone posts and tells me that the game I happen to prefer playing at present [I]isn't an RPG[/I], I think it's within the legitimate bounds of discussion to explain why I disagree. I believe that you don't like 4e. I don't like 3E. And I loathe 2nd ed AD&D. I have a soft spot for Runequest, but could never play it seriously, because it doesn't support the sort of play I enjoy. Classic Traveller likewise. These are all statements of feeling. But describing 4e as taking a step towards gamist play looks to me like something else. It [I]looks[/I] like a description of the sort of play that 4e supports, and presumably, then, that 4e players engage in. And I'm curious as to what you had in mind. Maybe you meant "not tending to support immersion, in the sense of the player and the PC having their decision-making experience mereged"? If so, that is true (I think obviously true) of 4e. But there are clearer ways to express that than by saying "it's a boardgame" or "it's not an RPG". Those are obviously inflammatory. [/QUOTE]

Verification