I'm not seeing how tangential quotes trump on topic quotes.
<snip>
There was a whole separate long thread about this. And you and I were both active in it. At that time you seemed to clearly understand my point about narrative play. Now youu have completely changed the defintion. So fine. I declare you the winner with regard to your defintion. I think that is a pretty hollow victory though because the reasons for significant discontent with 4E are not associated with your defintion. I certainly don't view poast 491 of this thread as "from the get go".
BryonD, there seems to have been needless disagreement/semantic confusion here. (Not on your part, or not on your part solely. Mutual confusion as between the two of us.)
Unless I've radically misread them, BotE and Imaro have for many posts on this thread since post 491 been disputing the claim I made in that post, and have been defending in relatation to their responses since that post. That post made the same claim about 4e's support for my gaming style that I made in other posts on other threads (I'm not sure which one you have in mind - probably either my Actual Play thread about bears and water weirds, or Mercurius's other Road thread, or Mercurius's Reason Why 4e is Less Popular thread.) I can't rememeber in which threads I was using Forge terminology and in which not - depending on context and what other terminology has been in use in a thread, I sometimes use it and sometimes other terminology.
And the claim I made in 491, and take myself to have been defending since, is not a claim about what you call narrativism and also (if I remember properly) "fiction first" (in the style of LostSoul).
I also reject your replacement of "simulaton" with "exploration-oriented". 4E does "exploration" just fine, but it is lacking in simulation.
I think 4e has limits in what it can do with exploration. Or rather, I don't think it handles exploration on its own very well, as the sole goal of RPGing divorced from other purposes. To give an example: in the coures of playing a 4e combat, playes will discover whether or not a given "game piece" is a minion. From the mechanical point of view, indeed, this often an interesting discovery. But because minion is primarily a metagame status, the discovery is not generally revelatory of the gameworld. So if exploration was all that was going on, the exploration would primarily be of a system heavily divorced from the fiction. (I think this is what is sometimes meant by criticisms of 4e as "dissociated" or as "merely gamist" - where "gamist" here is not being used in the Forge's sense.)
Once exploration of the gameworld is coupled with some other purpose for play, however, then the discovery of the metagame fact that a monster is a minion can play a purpose, for example of sharpening the connection that the players are drawing between gameplay, fiction and that other purpose. In the example I gave upthread of rindering an NPC a minion via a skill check before then killing said NPC with magic missile, the other purpose in question is something like an aesthetic/thematic statement about the permissibility - or even manditoriness - of ruthless treatment of devil worshippers.
I'm not going to speak for them. But disputing your evidence does not mean they agree with your definitions.
Well, I
think that they know what I am claiming via my use of my terms, and disputing it. Which, obviously, on an open message board is their prerogative.
But it's also why I'm still interested to see someone's actual play account of running a game with 3E that is narrativist (in the Forgist sense).
