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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5500220" data-attributes="member: 177">Perhaps better to say that I am looking at them, and seeing what I can make of them.  In the end, I'm running a game, right?  So, what I can use them for in my game is more important to me than theoretical classification*.  Are Skill Challenges gamist?  Kinda, yeah, I can see they have some length in the G direction, so to speak.But then again, they only lie weakly that way.  The rules for them are not particularly rich - as an outright game, they're kinda boring, really.  Also, the GM takes the description of player actions, uses that to determine modifiers himself, and has the players make rolls.  That intervention step makes it hard for the players to strategize, because they don't know the rules.  Between those two, I don't think SCs really do well in serving gamist agendas**.  If I turn my head a little, and recognize that GM intervention step - the part the GM has personal control of even if he's playing 100% by the book - I realize that this can clearly be made to play the narrativist line too, if I so choose.*I have to admit that I find GNS theory's complete lack of empirical support to be a major flaw.  If I really want to think about what my players want, I'd rather use something grounded, like WotC's breakdown of players, from the 1999 market research.  **I've always taken GNS to be a description of what players want, not of system elements - a thing is gamist only if it serves a player's gamist agenda.  But then the classification is not exclusive - if you can serve more than one agenda, the system element lies on more than one axis.</blockquote>

Verification