Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5636222" data-attributes="member: 27160">I'm not sure I understand what you mean by (b), but I am mainly talking about (a) as expressed in the game play itself, rather than as a character building activity.  When I say a game is "gamist" (or "simulationist", or whatever) I am referring to the focus of attention of the players while actually playing the game - i.e. when sat at the table, not when designing characters.  This fits the definitions of the game "focus" terms developed on The Forge, and actual play is, to me, where the "rubber meets the road".To support this style of play well, you need to have rules for game event resolution that are not GM dependant; players other than the GM should have a solid understanding of what their character can do without recourse to GM fiat and not generally subject to GM "modification".  In other words, as you say, the rules must be agreed and understood in advance.  They should also be balanced in the senses Mike Mearls describes, so that challenges can be designed that are fair and achievable without "tweaking" part way through.  They also need to offer real opportunities for meaningful player action; if there are no real advantages to be gained from character actions during a challenge, then there is no "hook" to hang the "good play/bad play" judgement on.A modular system that manages all of this, and is amenable to clear understanding such that the rules are well understood in common by GM and players alike, I just don't see as a practical possibility.I think I have been unclear in what I mean by "exploration" or "explorative play".  I'll try to be clearer.To begin with, I don't mean dungeon delving (outside the combat parts) or 'travel play'.  For me, combat can be played "exploratively".  It's all down to what the players are mentally focussed on at the precise moment of play.  If they are focussed on "experiencing" the in-game setting and situation, exploring their character as a character, or grokking just how swordsmanship/magical spells/applications of divine power work in the game world - that is explorative, or "simulationist", not gamist, play.If, on the other hand, they are concentrating on the situation as described by the GM, the play mat and figures, and the game rules and considering how best their character can make a decisive play - a 'coup d'oeil' - then that is gamist play, whether the game action is combat or some other challenge, task or obstacle.What I desire of this specific game system, therefore, is a game that supports the focus on the 'coup d'oeil', not a game that focusses on combat, or on non-combat, or any other (from my perspective) ephemeral aspect of style or genre.</blockquote>

Verification